Talk:Bannered routes of Virginia State Route 234

Is Old SR 234 actually signed? If not, why is what's really a couple secondary routes given such prominence here? --NE2 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No Old SR 234 is not signed. But, the documentation is in VDOT's AADT documents. In one place in the document, the route is referred to as OSR 234. The fact that, as Bristow Road approaches Joplin Road, all three roads are labelled SR 619, is indicative that VDOT is not completely straight within itself as to what to call these roads. It is, IMO, a reason to document SR 234 Old. I agree that, should future documentation prove that VDOT has changed designations, then the subpage on Route 234 Old should be removed, and the page on SR 619 should be updated. --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it merits a sentence or two on the SR 234 article's history section - something like "SR 234 was realigned at Independent Hill, and VDOT traffic counts show the old alignment as a primary route, OSR 234". I'm not convinced it's even worth any mention, however; VDOT's GIS data shows the old route as SR 3245, SR 619, and SR 3246. There's certainly no evidence that it's a "bannered" route, either in the GIS data or in the traffic counts. --NE2 20:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with NE2 here, there should not be a special section for SR 234 Old as it appears it is not officially signed and it should simply be mentioned in the History section that OSR 234 is in the traffic counts. By the way, the "OLD" banner is way off. ---Dough4872 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If SR 234 was a historically notable highway (by that I mean in the same category as US-66, Penn Turnpike or National Road) dedicating a level 2 heading to a former alignment may be appropriate. From what I can tell, that is not the case here. From what I can tell, this former alignment merits a paragraph or two in the history section of SR 234. At a minimum it is misleading to include the "OLD SR234" sign in the infobox, if no such route is actually signed as such.Dave (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)