Talk:New York State Route 52/Archive 1

message: This is a very scenic stretch of 52, as several overlooks on the upper portions offer sweeping views of the Catskills, and closer to it there are the brilliant cliffs of the Gunks. The Long Path hiking trail also leaves its aqua blazes on a stretch of the road it shares.
I'm hoping not to sound nitpicky, but I'm wondering if this single use of "the Gunks" is appropriate when the word "Shawangunks" is spelled out both before and after this usage. I did delete a stray period in this paragraph (after Catskills) but I'm just concerned about consistency. I don't have a problem with the full spelling "Shawangunks" for the first use, and "the Gunks" every time after that (except in a separate section, where it would be spelled out there). So for now, I'm just going to write this as to ask a question, but not to insist that a change be made (or make one on my own). Along with that, given that I have not yet perused other highways that pass near or through the  Shawangunks to compare uses there (if any), I'll just put this out as "food for thought" and let it go at that. Fwgoebel 03:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term "Gunks" 

message: This article failed the GA noms as it has a number of bulleted lists which need to be turned into prose and this article only has 1 inline citation. Tarret 22:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand the concern over the history list, but not the communities list. There's no way to turn that into prose while serving its primary purpose - a quick overview of the communities along the route. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not necessary for the communities along the route list however it is necessary for the history section. The specific guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Embedded list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarret (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "list" as outlined in that example is a far cry from the list in this article. Albeit a series of bullet items are used, they are not short "item" entries that are solely linked, but each is part of one or two sentences adding more explanation. If that needs to be a paragraph or two, then so be it. Fwgoebel 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, the history section should be real prose, researched and footnoted. I only did it that way because all I had were those random scraps of fact when I created the article. Daniel Case 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: The article currently uses three different styles - "NY 52", "Route 52", and "52". which one should we use? --NE2 02:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do that sort of thing when writing route descriptions to avoid numbing the reader's brain with repetitive use of the same term or phrase (also note use of "the road" and "the highway" towards the same goal) without being (I hope) too confusing. I would support replacing all "NY 52" in the description with "Route 52", though, because we already know it's a New York state highway. Daniel Case 04:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, we should be using State Route, since that's what NYSDOT calls it. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 04:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's probably best, since it's the what the media commonly uses. --NE2 04:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AP Stylebook actually suggests (under "highway designations") that either "route xx" or "State Route XX" is OK (I would assume the latter is intended for situations in which it is necessary to distinguish state highways from U.S. or interstate highways). The Times-Herald Record, the local daily newspaper west of the river, uses "Route 52" almost always: , , . Daniel Case 05:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style?

message: Turnpikes included:
*Jeffersonville and Monticello Turnpike, only using NY 52 from Jeffersonville to Briscoe 
*Ulster and Orange Branch Turnpike (Liberty to Montgomery), only using NY 52 from Liberty to Cross Farm Road
*Woodbourne and Ellenville Turnpike, east of Liberty to Ellenville 
*Newburgh and Ellenville Plank Road, Ellenville to Newburgh
**I don't know if that was its official name, but there's an 1853 or so Orange County map on the wall of a room at Montgomery village hall showing the present 52 as "Newburgh-Ellenville Turnpike". "South Plank Road" was used mainly in the town of Newburgh (the name still survives for the street that carries traffic from Liberty Street and the waterfront east to 9W and 32). The section of NY 32 north from the present split with 9W north of I-84 to the junction with NY 300 at Cronomer Valley (and then the stretch of 300 northwest from there to the Ulster County line) was, correspondingly, North Plank Road until the 9-1-1-mandated address renumbering. Based on that nomenclature and other historical documents I've read, I suspect the "Plank Road" names predate the 1851 establishment of the N-E turnpike. Daniel Case 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old turnpikes

message: About the routing in Newburgh: a 1946 map does not show South Street as a main road, but it is not completely clear how NY 52 went. --NE2 01:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually  shows it clearly. --NE2 02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever that map says, I find it a little hard to believe that Dupont Avenue would have been used for 52. At least based on that road now ... it's one-way westbound at that intersection, very narrow and residential ... not a route I would use. I had mentioned South Street because that a) is still signed as a reference route 980P, at least to Liberty Street two blocks uphill from the waterfront, and b) leads more directly to the ferry landing site (assuming the old ferry used the same area the current one does, or one near it). I'm not disputing it ... crazier things have happened ... just expressing surprise. I'll have to look at the old city maps in the library when I get a chance. Daniel Case 05:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see the ferry landing on the map; it was at Second Street. South Street had a gap at Downing Park; the National Bridge Inventory shows a date of 1962 for the Carpenter Avenue bridge over South Street - so it's possibly that NY 52 used it for the last year, but in any case it spent most of its life on Broadway. In addition, Dupont was the old plank road, which continued across Broadway to Washington Street, so there was historical inertia involved. --NE2 05:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny story about the Carpenter Street bridge ... I had wondered why it was such a deep cut, and my boss at the time, a longtime Newburgh resident, explained that it was built in anticipation of a possible routing of 84 through there that the city just shot down.It would be so like the city of Newburgh to just stick with Dupont, and also CTTOI combining all three turnpikes coming into Newburgh onto Broadway and the waterfront would make sense. Daniel Case 06:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Routing in Newburgh

message: Yes, closures to replace bridges or due to rockslides in an area highly prone to them (enough that it has nets to catch smaller ones) are notable if they force a closure of a whole section of road and rerouting of its traffic for a significant time. NY 206 has been closed off recently between Roscoe and Downsville due to a flash flood that nearly wiped away several stretches of roadway. Things that happen "every once in a while" are notable; things that happen every day are not.
I don't know how long the rockslide closure lasted yet, since I didn't have to go to Ellenville or west at the time; I can say that the detour route was about three times as long. As for the bridge, it was out of use completely for almost two years. Certainly some of that detail is probably better used in the bridge article. However, it was a temporary rerouting of 52 that significantly slowed down traffic along the highway and had a major impact on the village ... several businesses on Main Street had to close because they lost their drive-by traffic, it became impractical to walk downtown from where we live, people on a residential street had to get used to being on a through trunk highway, and people who didn't realize why all that other traffic was turning at Oak Street often wound up having to go to our driveway and turn around. At all hours of the day and night.Not all of that is notable enough for this article, to be sure. But some of it's certainly relevant to 52.And that wasn't even an "every once in a while" thing ... the predecessor bridge dated to the 20s. Daniel Case 13:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of temporary closures and detours

message: This information is from USGS topos. Many elevations are rounded down to the nearest contour line. River crossings are the height of the river, not the bridge.
*Delaware River: 660
*Summit near Lava: 1236
*Cochecton Center: 960 (exact)
*Fosterdale: 1294
*Kenoza Lake: 1065
*NY 52A: 984
*Summit west of White Sulphur Springs: 1407
*Summit west of Liberty: 1760
**So this is actually higher than the Gunks. Amazing how stealthily the Catskill Plateau's rise is. Daniel Case 04:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we make it smaller? And do we need it at all? To me that's getting into a bit more detail than we need. I wouldn't be surprised if FAC reviewers suggested it be taken out. It's created an awful lot of ugly whitespace that would not argue well for good or featured status. Daniel Case 15:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major elevation changes

message: Per the suggestion above I just got done transferring all the images in this article to the Commons (as well as some other pictures I've taken for other articles of places of interest visible from the road) and put  at the bottom.
I see that NE2 has decided to enforce the no-image-size rule, honored mainly in the breach IME, and while that robs the article of some visual punch I guess we have to do it that way (It leaves more room for the text, to be sure). I did, however, have to pump up the Catskill High Peaks image to de-raggedify the adjacent margin ... there are reasons why people have long ignored that stricture.
Anyway, I was thinking the article could do with two more pictures, particularly from the eastern side of the route which I've neglected for the very simple reason that I don't live there.
*Downtown Fishkill. It's a registered historic district. Fortunately, I took a picture with some of the historic buildings in it last weekend that I will be uploading soon.
*Lake Carmel. 52 runs along the shore of this very scenic body of water, and from the eastern end some nice pictures are possible. Why should all the beauty in this be on the west side of the river? I usually don't go over this way, but if someone agrees that it would be nice and scenic I would try my best.
*Something from Sullivan County. Downtown Liberty is also a historic district, though I can't remember if it looks as nice as Fishkill. Is the Kenoza Stone Arch Bridge visible from 52, or just 52A? I have some Flickr images I've been meaning to put together. Woodbourne Correctional Facility (very visible from the highway, though DOCS officially frowns on pictures) or one of Woodbourne's RHPs (Center Theater or B'nai Jerusalem Synagogue) are also possibilities.
Any thoughts? Daniel Case 06:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't the Fishkill and Liberty historic districts material be better served in the articles about the village? Seems that this honor would be more important to the villages than to the route IMHO. master sonT - C 21:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand my point. I'm merely saying that they look nice when photographed correctly and would make nice illustrations for the corresponding sections of the article. As registered historic districts, they merit articles in and of themselves (see WP:NRHP). I certainly wouldn't discuss the nature of the historic districts; that's why we have separate articles on them. A link would be all that was needed here. Daniel Case 21:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: gotcha... master sonT - C 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images, present and future 

message: ===Arbitrary section break one===
*The elevation table, as stated above, is massive and unnecessarily splits the route description. On my 1280x1024 monitor, it looks decent, but on a 1024x768 monitor, it starts overlapping with the infoboxes on the side.
**To clarify my own earlier comment as to why I do not believe it's necessary: Elevation profiling might be notable if you are describing a commonly used approach route to a mountain. But not on a state highway. Daniel Case 17:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you revert!? You don't own wikipedia, by the way. We the members of WP:NYSR and WP:USRD make decisions together on how things work and if the article has a tag it isn't following standards. Another problem, consensus was reached to get rid of image that you uploaded, so if it doesn't help the article, it can't be there. Please stop the selfishness, we're sick of it. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NYSR and USRD don't own the article either. The elevation profile helps the reader. --NE2 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it help the reader - please explain carefully master sonT - C 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It gives the reader a better understanding of how rugged each section is. --NE2 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We want what's best for the article, and if a wikiproject was set up to help it's quality, we have to follow their standards. You're a good editor, just follow rules, it isn't that hard. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... since when do the standards say anything about which images to include? --NE2 23:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (double edit conflict) It may supplement the description, but it harms the quality of the article, splitting the route description and introducing white space, and that's in the best-case scenario. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so you have problems with its positioning, not its existence. I can understand that. Would it be better as a typical side-aligned image? Or maybe in the infobox under the map? --NE2 23:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: or perhaps a thumbnail on the right side of the article (inline with the routebox) master sonT - C 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The key issue is the size. 600px is going to press the luck of anyone with a 1024x768 monitor, and creates a tiny window for text to squeeze in between the infobox and the image on any larger resolution. Also, it would help immensely if it was left-or-right aligned. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, Thanks master sonT - C 00:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NE2: Why are you part of WP:USRD? -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 00:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I edit U.S. road articles... --NE2 00:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's continue in arbitrary section break 1. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 00:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The description of the road would say "it goes east-west" better than the map does. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the map. --NE2 04:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but ... it does not follow from the fact that a description of the road saying it's east-west eliminates the need for a map, yet we should keep it anyway, that since the text describes the road as rugged we need an elevation graph. The map in the infobox is part of project guidelines; having an elevation graph is something you just decided we need. Daniel Case 03:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: *The elevation table, as stated above, is massive and unnecessarily splits the route description. On my 1280x1024 monitor, it looks decent, but on a 1024x768 monitor, it starts overlapping with the infoboxes on the side.
**To clarify my own earlier comment as to why I do not believe it's necessary: Elevation profiling might be notable if you are describing a commonly used approach route to a mountain. But not on a state highway. Daniel Case 17:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break one

message: Additional comments:
*All of the images not already in Wikimedia Commons should be moved there (I investigated to find them all having GFDL licenses - which are acceptable in the Commons. (this may not have anything to do with GA review - but I think it's valid otherwise)
**They're mostly mine, and I'll be moving them. I know it doesn't really have any bearing, but some people do like to see images moved into the commons. Daniel Case 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you revert!? You don't own wikipedia, by the way. We the members of WP:NYSR and WP:USRD make decisions together on how things work and if the article has a tag it isn't following standards. Another problem, consensus was reached to get rid of image that you uploaded, so if it doesn't help the article, it can't be there. Please stop the selfishness, we're sick of it. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NYSR and USRD don't own the article either. The elevation profile helps the reader. --NE2 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it help the reader - please explain carefully master sonT - C 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It gives the reader a better understanding of how rugged each section is. --NE2 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We want what's best for the article, and if a wikiproject was set up to help it's quality, we have to follow their standards. You're a good editor, just follow rules, it isn't that hard. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... since when do the standards say anything about which images to include? --NE2 23:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (double edit conflict) It may supplement the description, but it harms the quality of the article, splitting the route description and introducing white space, and that's in the best-case scenario. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so you have problems with its positioning, not its existence. I can understand that. Would it be better as a typical side-aligned image? Or maybe in the infobox under the map? --NE2 23:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: or perhaps a thumbnail on the right side of the article (inline with the routebox) master sonT - C 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The key issue is the size. 600px is going to press the luck of anyone with a 1024x768 monitor, and creates a tiny window for text to squeeze in between the infobox and the image on any larger resolution. Also, it would help immensely if it was left-or-right aligned. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, Thanks master sonT - C 00:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NE2: Why are you part of WP:USRD? -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 00:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I edit U.S. road articles... --NE2 00:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's continue in arbitrary section break 1. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 00:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The description of the road would say "it goes east-west" better than the map does. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the map. --NE2 04:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but ... it does not follow from the fact that a description of the road saying it's east-west eliminates the need for a map, yet we should keep it anyway, that since the text describes the road as rugged we need an elevation graph. The map in the infobox is part of project guidelines; having an elevation graph is something you just decided we need. Daniel Case 03:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break two

message: *1.73 miles from Beacon city line to I-84/NY 52 exit 12 
*0.78 miles duplexed with NY 9D from Main Street/Wolcott Avenue (BUS 52/NY 9D) to I-84/NY 52 exit 11 
*2.23 miles along Main Street/Fishkill Avenue from NY 9D to Beacon city line (calculated using trip planning software)
--TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NY 52 Business length notes