Talk:17-Mile Drive

message: The 17 Mile Drive is not a toll road.  First of all, the 17 Mile Drive starts (at the north end) in Pacific Grove.  No toll there.  One does have to pay a toll to continue on 17 Mile Drive through Pebble Beach, but that's not because the 17 Mile Drive is a toll road, it's because Pebble Beach is a private community, and there is a fee charged to drive into it.  This fee applies at all entrances to Pebble Beach, not just to drive on the 17 Mile Drive.  Serge 18:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All the reliable sources I have seen, including the AAA maps, refer to it as a "private toll road". I assume that is because the main attraction is actually driving this scenic road, not stopping and getting out of the car to walk around an actual park. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 17 Mile Drive is not a toll road

message: Anyone know if that tree really trademarked/copyrighted? Ewlyahoocom 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it was and Pebble Beach's lawyer did warn photographers against using any image of it for commercial purposes. I have added a 1990 New York Times citation.-84user (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright/trademark on the tree? 

message: The comment about the poor mans 17 mile drive was removed as no one in the local area refers to Ocean View Blvd. as such and it was obviously written by a boredom-struck teenager.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.250.139 (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Poor man's 17 Mile Drive" 

message: Some original research/speculation. In my search for information on Bird Rock, I noticed that the location actually has two variations on the name. Seal Rock and Bird Rock. Some sources actually refer to the spot as seal and bird rocks (lower case and plural on rocks). The trailhead and picnic area may have separate names and that needs to be verified, but it seems to be the "Seal Rock Picnic Area" and a trailhead that may be one or the other names. One source does state that the location is known as a nursery for the local wildlife of differing species, including birds and seals and is known for it's "pebbled beaches". It is listed by another source as Beach access with wheelchair accessible parking and picnic area and a trail accessible by wheelchair as well. Seems like the information would demonstrate for arguments sake at least, that the single large rock (covered in bird poop) is not the attraction...but that, at one time (at the height of the cannery industry) the location was a spot where the local gulls would arrive and leave with the coming and going of the fishing ships. Another about the seals that used it. In other words...at one time the attraction was the wildlife that was attracted by the nearby fishing and cannery industry. Now, the attraction is a little different. After more than one hundred years, that is to be expected.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While there is some confusion over the name, there surely is two separate rocks. From images, it seems they are either two closely related rocks or one huge rock with portions sometimes under water making it look like two? At any rate, the original comment of mine: "I really think we could do better overall with that subject as it really isn't the rock there that is the attraction, its the pull off point with that name, giving beach access near the golf course with extraordinary vistas of the rocky shore, beach and land that juts out in the distance etc." appears to be accurate. Some of the travel sources do actually come near to saying this. I do admit, that there are rocks there that are, or were an attraction when the animals themselves were present, and not really just the rock itself. To clarify, I don't think there is anything geological or topographical about the rock itself. I don't know if there is documentation that these rocks are still active. Does commons have recent images of the rocks with the particular fauna?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your original research is just that - WP:OR, which really has no place here. "Bird Rock" and "Seal Rock" are and have been regular (and oft photographed) attractions of the 17-Mile Drive. So I don't understand the point of your post. One rock or two (connected under the water)? Why is this question important to us here? BTW -  you are aware that this supposed picnic area is little more than a couple old picnic tables, right? And not even a restroom! Extraordinary vistas? The 17-mile drive is full of them. I would again remind you that "travel sources" are rarely encyclopedic and are typically full of ignorant errors made by travel writers on a deadline. We can do better than that.Smatprt (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguing semantics doesn't move anything forward. Speculation is allowed on the talk pages. Your personal opinion is original research and you use it all the time. Jeesh. You seem to miss what you do all often in your criticism of others.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Bird Rock...is that actually accurate?

message: I came here from a posting on my talk page, and while I'm not really interested in which images get displayed, the article appears to lack a route map. So I made a crude one, see right, and used it in the Monterey Peninsula article. Without such a map I really had no idea where this road was located. Feel free to improve. -84user (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very cool. Thank you. Since you beat me to it, I hope you don't mind if I work on it a tad, but I think it should go on the article right now.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What I think I will do is create an info for 17 Mile Drive that includes the main image as well as the locator map. This can be added to all of the attractions sites with a pinpoint to the spot on the map.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Zzyzx11 uploaded this PNG sometime ago: :File:Location map Monterey Peninsula.png. It is an image taken from OpenStreetMap . The images there are licensed as Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) AND you can locate any area, zoom in and save the image as either a PNG or an SVG file. So, I have created an SVG from that prepared file and labeled it for this article. We can then add details such as gate entrances, old 17 Mile Drive etc., as well as delete things, alter the colors etc. to whatever specifications we desire.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route and locator map needed 

message: Should the "Lead" photograph be changed? If so, what image from the gallery below (or any other candidate) should be used? 
:Note: Please feel free to add additional candidates to the Gallery. Smatprt (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Should the photo in the Lead section be changed and if so, to what?

message: *Oppose changing the photograph. The Lone Cypress is the most well-known scenic attraction on the 17-Mile Drive. The photo is not overused on Wikipedia, as it appears in only one other article. Smatprt (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey 1

message: If Lead image is to be changed:
*Support changing image to Alternate Lone Cypress at 17-Mile Drive, or, Aerial View of 17-Mile Drive Smatprt (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey 2

message: *I have concerns about the photograph of the Road with Bicyclist.
:*1) What is the subject? The cyclist? The road?
:*2) The 17-Mile Drive is not primarily for Bicyclists - it's primarily a "Drive" (in fact, the road can be downright unfriendly and dangerous to cyclists).
:*3) The photo fails to reflect the scenic beauty of the 17-Mile Drive. Smatprt (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain the reasoning behind the gallery selections, in what way do each meet content guidelines and image use policy etc. for the article. It is great that you have begun a formal RFC. however you continue to edit war out the last consensus of editors. While you may not be able to live with the last consensus, this RFC in no way explains why you feel the last consensus should be overridden so soon.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just let the RFC take its course, please. It is an RFC based on the existing article before you attempted to boldly change it and the BRD cycle was started. And please refrain from claiming consensus where none exists. You have been asked to slow down by 2 editors now. Show some respect, instead of simply ignoring them.  That does not mean a consensus has been achieved. It just means you are not hearing what other editors are saying. It's obvious that you are just rushing to insert your own images at the expense of all other images. Smatprt (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't catch that last part until just now. That statement is utterly incorrect. I am an image contributor and am not rushing to insert my own images at the expense of all other images. This is a content dispute just like adding text and requires a consensus to keep or exclude. The info box image is not mine and I did not suggest it. It was derived from a natural discussion and agreed upon by editors who gave reasonable responses and suggestions with policy as a guide. You have your opinion, but that is not a strong argument in itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the RFC. You requested comment and I am commenting. As yet, all of your attempts to sidestep the above consensus discussion that you initiated by reverting a bold edit and then demanding discussion have not persuaded editors to keep the Lone cypress image. I began a discussion and compared the two versions for editors to choose from. Many editors object to versions to select from even with images and many excellent images were suggested for the article and info box suggested by multiple editors. I changed one image and you asked me to slow down and as I stated before, there was nothing to slow down. A consensus discussion took place and you attempted to alter it. I asked that you not do that but insisted that another full section be made available. It remains above. One other editor did ask me also to slow down but I addressed their concerns. There exists a rough consensus. meaning, you are the only one still objecting and are directly involved in the original revert. Just because you are not satisfied with the consensus doesn't mean you can hold it up. Just because you don't like it does not mean it is not a consensus. You now have to show why the above discussion is not a consensus with policy and guidelines backing up your claims and an strong argument why the images as decided in that discussion should be replaced.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So, now that you have begun the RFC could you explain how you selected these particular images and why and how you are proposing they be used?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: There is a consensus discussion from above where editors suggested images and determined a consensus, this RFC does not give that as an option so...
====Leave images as they were decided in last consensus discussion====
Propose leaving images per the last consensus discussion above which was for the image as seen in this option (images in the history section were not involved as that section was just created).--Amadscientist (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I addressed the other editor. Several statements above are just not accurate. I was not reverted by an admin. Orange Mike made a revert of your last edit Smatprt and then reverted himself. Since the truth is, there is a consensus that was formed by multiple editors, that is the last stable version. You are edit warring your version back in after a discussion formed a consensus you did not like. An RFC is open to all editors and your constant demand for me to stop posting is very telling of your lack of a strong argument for this RFC to change the current consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC leaves out an important option

message: Propose leaving images per the last consensus discussion above which was for the image as seen in this option (images in the history section were not involved as that section was just created).--Amadscientist (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I addressed the other editor. Several statements above are just not accurate. I was not reverted by an admin. Orange Mike made a revert of your last edit Smatprt and then reverted himself. Since the truth is, there is a consensus that was formed by multiple editors, that is the last stable version. You are edit warring your version back in after a discussion formed a consensus you did not like. An RFC is open to all editors and your constant demand for me to stop posting is very telling of your lack of a strong argument for this RFC to change the current consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Leave images as they were decided in last consensus discussion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 17-Mile Drive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110309013453/http://www.fhwa.dot.gov:80/ohim/tollpage/t1part4.htm to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tollpage/t1part4.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 17-Mile Drive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100723090003/http://www.pebblebeach.com:80/page.asp?id=1378 to http://www.pebblebeach.com/page.asp?id=1378
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://kwartlerlaw.com/Commentaries/LoneCypressgate.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: it was written like a TOUR guide and potential shill from the travel industry may have written it to encourage tourism Graywalls (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag (November 2023)