I think we should revisit the type parameter. These should really be the legally defined type of road, anything else is more of a value judgement on our behalf. Thoughts?
In NSW this would provide the following categories:
(publically available listings exist)
It should be noted that not all named highways in NSW are legal highways, the two I can think of off hand are Kings Highway, and Olympic Highway. While on the other hand the Newcastle Inner City Bypass is actually a legal highway.
This isnt going to be a perfectly clean move, especially with the case of some highways where they are dual classified in sections (in 2011, which is the date of the table im using for NSW - the Hume Highway included the South West Motorway as a Freeway, and
In the ACT this would provide the following categories (keeping in mind that all roads in the ACT are controlled at the territory level):
(publically available listings exist for the top two categories - which is basically all major roads)
This could look something like (in the infobox, use imagination :P)
In the case of a mixed classification:
In the case of the examples with the extra information, it would be provided in a second parameter (which would also allow a reference). Say |type=, and perhaps |classification=. Some of these changes may require an eventual partial rewrite of [{WP:AURDNAME]] to line up terminologies. To reduce confusion, it may even be required to rename the infobox parameter to "legal type"
Presumably similar legal categories exist for most other states and territories, and we could apply similar theory there. -- Nbound (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)