Jump to content

Talk:New York State Route 52/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Use of the term "Gunks"

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)

Failed GA

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)

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)
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).
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)
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)

Style?

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)

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)
However, we should be using State Route, since that's what NYSDOT calls it. (→zelzany - new age roads) 04:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That's probably best, since it's the what the media commonly uses. --NE2 04:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
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: [1], [2], [3]. Daniel Case 05:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

History notes

Old turnpikes

Turnpikes included:

  • Jeffersonville and Monticello Turnpike, only using NY 52 from Jeffersonville to Briscoe [4]
  • 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 [5]
  • 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)
      • Addendum: just having returned from a brief trip to the outskirts of Newburgh, I notice that there is also an "Old South Plank Road" looping off 52 in the eastern part of the Town of Montgomery. So it wasn't just in Newburgh the "Plank Road" persisted ... however, AFAICT it has never been used for the Walden-Pine Bush section. Daniel Case 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The Newburgh and Ellenville Plank Road Company was incorporated in 1850; you can read some history at [6]. --NE2 21:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

State highways

It does not appear that any portion was defined as a numbered state highway in 1909. No portion was a signed route in 1924, and the only portion that was part of a signed route in 1926 and probably 1929 was between East Fishkill and Stormville as part of Route 39. In the 1930 renumbering, Route 52 was formed from Narrowsburg[9] to Carmel (probably) via unnumbered routes and a bit of Route 39. The rest of Route 39 became Route 202 and Route 216. --NE2 08:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

1930 ALA Green Book regional map shows the route as unnumbered but with the Newburgh-Walden and modern Stormville-Carmel sergments not indicated. East Fishkill to Stormville was part of old Route 39 as NE2 indicated above.
1931 ALA Green Book route log for NY 52 (east of Newburgh) indicates a routing of Newburgh-Fishkill-Carmel-Sears Corners, which is current routing plus modern NY 312 (via short ovelrap with US 6). However, the regional map does not show the road from Carmel to Sears Corners. Other features: Ellenville to Pine Bush still shown as "unimproved connecting road" (same as 1930) while Newburgh to Walden is now shown as "under construction". The modern Stormville-Carmel route is still not indicated. Instead, NY 52 is shown along old Route 39 from East Fishkill to West Patterson (the portion of old Route 39 between West Patterson and NY 22 is shown as 311), then along a previously unnumbered route from West Patterson to Carmel.
1938 ALA Green Book shows NY 52 on modern routing, including current Stormville-Carmel segment. Stomrville-West Patterson is now NY 216 (which was later split into 216 and 292), while West Patterson-Lake Carmel is now an extension of NY 311. --Polaron | Talk 15:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Does the 1931 log show 216 and 311? --NE2 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Both are not listed on the route logs but those are not necessarily complete lists of existing routes. Plus I don't think 216 was created in the 1930 renumbering and is not shown on the 1931 map. 311 is shown on the map, as well as indicated as a signed route in the turn by turn guides. --Polaron | Talk 01:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The number suggests that it was, with other similar numbers - such as 202, 207, 210, 215 - in the area. It's possible that NY 52 was temporarily signed over what was officially 216, or that the guide assumed that it was. The next lowest number I can find from 1930 is 223, which replaced 53 east from Horseheads, and is again grouped with similar numbers (224, 226). --NE2 01:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
In fact, the following are known to be or have been in Region 8: 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 207, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218. 195 was in region 7, and 220 in region 9. --NE2 01:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That is true. It could be they just used the 1930 map and assigned the new numbers to the existing lines on the map. Based on the existence of other route numbers, it is likely that the current routing was in place by 1930. It would be good to find a second map source for confirmation. --Polaron | Talk 02:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[10] has some details about the construction of state roads in this area. One was Baldwin Place - Carmel - Patterson (NY 118, US 6, NY 52, NY 311). --NE2 10:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The following text in the highway code describes Route 52: (the state highway numbers appear on [11]; I only list the ones actually used by NY 52 here)

  • CH 24: beginning at the interstate bridge crossing the Delaware river in the hamlet of Narrowsburg, thence running generally southeasterly on or in the vicinity of county highway 24 to a point on state highway 8421
  • SH 1927: beginning at the Orange-Sullivan county line, thence running generally northwesterly along the northern bank of the Delaware river through or near the hamlets of Mongaup, Pond Eddy, Handsome Eddy, Barryville, Minisink Ford, Tusten, Narrowsburg, Cochecton, Callicoon, Hankins and Long Eddy to the Sullivan-Delaware county line
  • CH 111, CH 112, CH 113: beginning at a point on state highway 1927 at or near the hamlet of Hunts Corner, thence running generally northeasterly through or near the hamlets of Lava and Cochecton Center to state highway 986 in or near the hamlet of Fosterdale
  • SH 795: beginning at a point on state highway 8449 in or near the hamlet of Callicoon, thence running generally easterly through or near the hamlets of Hortonville, Falls Mill, Fosterdale, Bethel, White Lake, Mongaup Valley and Maplewood to state highway 5035 in or near the village of Monticello
  • SH 795, SH 700, SH 699, SH 9204?, SH 5298?, SH 5322, SH 1691, SH 1453?, SH 50010: beginning at the junction of state highway 795 and county road 117, thence running generally easterly through or near the hamlet of Kenoza Lake, the village of Jeffersonville, the hamlets of Youngsville and White Sulphur Springs, the village of Liberty and the hamlets of Loch Sheldrake and Woodbourne to the Sullivan-Ulster county line
  • SH 49006, SH 49004, SH 79005/79006, SH 81003, SH 8441, SH 8398: beginning at the Sullivan-Ulster county line in the vicinity of the hamlet of Greenfield, thence running generally easterly through or near the village of Ellenville, the hamlet of Walker Valley and the hamlet of Pine Bush to the Orange-Ulster county line east of the hamlet of Pine Bush [sic]
  • SH 8398, SH 362?, SH 1539?, unreadable near Walden, SH 8406?: beginning at the Orange-Ulster county line east of the hamlet of Walker Valley, thence running generally easterly through the hamlet of Pine Bush and the village of Walden to the western city line of Newburgh
  • SH 567, SH 895, SH 5150, SH 895, SH 567, SH 627: beginning at the northern city line of Beacon, thence running generally northeasterly through or near the village of Fishkill and the hamlets of Wiccopee, Stormville, and Greenhaven to state highway 8525 in the vicinity of the hamlet of Poughquag
  • SH 9226, SH 8366?: beginning at the Putnam-Dutchess county line north of the hamlet of Ludingtonville, thence running generally northwesterly to state highway 627 southwest of the hamlet of Stormville
  • SH 8347, SH 570: beginning at the Westchester-Putnam county line, thence running generally northeasterly and northerly through or near the hamlets of Mahopac and Carmel to the Putnam-Dutchess county line northwest of the hamlet of Ludingtonville

From the history of Patterson, it definitely looks like the state highway numbers were assigned sequentially as roads were improved by the state. SH 1 is Union Street and NY 7 from Schenectady east for a bit; SH 2 is US 62 from Blasdell south to Hamburg. --NE2 11:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Routing in Newburgh

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)

Actually [12] shows it clearly. --NE2 02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

The main road through Newburgh and Beacon, according to the 1926 Automobile Blue Book, was:

  • 0.0 Newburgh, Broadway & Liberty St. East on Broadway with trolley.
  • 0.2 End of street; left with trolley onto Colden St.
  • 0.4 2nd St.; right with branch trolley
    • A slightly more circuitous route is used by the 1931 ALA Green Book here: L on Water St, R on Third St, R on Front St, L to ferry
  • 0.5 Newburgh-Beacon Ferry. Leaving ferry, bear right, and left with trolley over RR bridge.
  • 0.6 3-cor., beyond RR bridge; left onto Beekman St., avoiding left beyond.
  • 1.1 Beacon, 5-cor., at bank. Right with trolley onto Main St.
  • 1.9 Fork; left with trolley which follow.

--Polaron | Talk 23:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of temporary closures and detours

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)

Major elevation changes

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
  • East Mongaup River: 1370 (exact)
  • Summit east of Loch Sheldrake: 1500
  • Woodbourne: 1190 (exact)
  • Greenfield Park: 882
  • Ellenville: 320
  • Summit in the Shawangunks: 1580
  • Pine Bush: 396
  • Wallkill River: 280
    • The bridge is certainly higher than that ... my front yard is about 340, and the street that slopes down to 52 at the bridge just across the road takes about 20 feet. It's probably about 315 or so.
    • For the bridge article I wrote that it's at least 50 feet above (unfortunately the new bridge is not on any of the databases yet).
  • Summit west of Orange Lake: 527
  • Hudson River: very low
  • Brinckerhoff: 226
  • NY 216: 313
  • Summit in East Fishkill: 942
    • Roughly consistent with the elevation claimed on nearby signs on I-84 (Why is 84 the only interstate in NY where those peaks are indicated ... once at the Gunks east of Port Jervis and once there in East Fishkill). Daniel Case 04:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ludingtonville: 700
  • Kent Hills: 909
  • US 6: 511

I added an elevation profile. It was very annoying and slow to make, so do not ask me to make any more for other articles, unless the article will be a featured article (as in it's going to pass, not just being taken to FAC). --NE2 05:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Citation problems

A very comprehensive article with many references but those citations need to be converted to {{cite web}}, {{cite map}}, {{cite news}}, or {{cite book}}. Follow the directions of the templates' page. I will do as many as I can but for the future, I would consider using these templates on NY 52's citations. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 02:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with using them across the whole article if there is a consensus to do so to maintain consistency, but per WP:CITE#Citation templates let's not do so because we think there's some rule that we have to:

The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline. Templates may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, arguing that they maintain a consistent style across articles, while other editors find them unnecessary and annoying, particularly when used inline in the text, because they make the text harder to read in edit mode and therefore harder to edit. Because they are optional and contentious, citation templates should not be added against consensus, and editors should not change articles from one style to another if there are objections.

I, for my part, have always tried to write out footnotes as they would be produced by the templates. Daniel Case 03:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to use them. What I meant to say was that It's a good idea if the article's citations were converted. It's better for the article's quality and helpfull for potential GA passage. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 03:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Images, present and future

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 {{commonscat}} 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)

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)
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)
gotcha... master sonT - C 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

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)
  • Not sure if I like the current composition of the communities table. I like the smaller font size, but I don't like the heading nor the extra information.
    • And, to boot, it may be confusing to readers either a) unfamiliar with the area in question or b) unfamiliar with New York's municipal hierarchy. For readers for whom both a) and b) apply (IOW, the vast majority), it will be confusing.
      • That's why I linked to town (New York). --NE2 23:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Which redirects to Administrative divisions of New York. Just what I need to know about a state highway. Is an article about a state highway really the right place to be setting up a state civics lesson (other than those aspects of municipal government in New York relevant to state highways, which is basically that cities are responsible for maintaining and improving state roads in their own borders but towns and villages are not)? Daniel Case 03:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Going back to my comments re the junction table below, here's my real issue with the current layout of the box. I'm not in love with the heading, but if we (not us two editors, but the project as a whole) decide to go to this format, then I guess it makes sense. However, I am reluctant to include anything lower than a village in the box. After all, the box is intended to be a brief, concise overview of the route. Hamlets and CDPs are best reserved for the route description. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Hamlets should be included when they're notable enough to have articles of their own. Take 52 westbound from where I live to the junction with 302 — then tell me the place you just passed through is best subsumed under "Town of Crawford", a toponym not used on DOT mileage signs and certainly not much outside of local government.
  • Both sections in the "Miscellanea" section are probably better suited to be included in the route description.
    • As I've said before, they're there only because they may be of historical interest. When I can definitely establish why we have that highly unusual dual road in the east side of town and how long it has been there, it goes in either history if it was once part of the route or the description if it is. When we can establish what the status of Canal Street is, or was, then we can make the same decision. Until then I'm not comfortable with either one ... I can't call it "history" because we have not yet found the sources to back it up, nor can it be called part of the route because it may not be and we don't have sources to show that it is or isn't yet. All I can do is demonstrate their existence. This is in accordance with how the "miscellanea" section is described in WP:USRD. Daniel Case 17:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • We can reference that both streets are NY 52 and both are state maintained (the 79005 and 79006) with [14]. --NE2 00:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
        • What in that map scan explains what those numbers mean? Yes, it's a NYSDOT map but there's no legend. How old is it? Most of those maps that I've run across in libraries date to the middle of the last century. Is the information still valid today? Those two numbers do not seem to fit in any way with NYSDOT's current route-identification schemes.

          In other words, that map alone is kind of a shaky source. To me. We need more than this. Daniel Case 03:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

          • You can download a PDF from [15] that explains the markings; the number means "state highway section number". (Interestingly, that page also says "These files are not copyright protected and have no use restrictions." So we could upload a piece of the map (the zipped TIFF is a lot better quality than the GIF).) These numbers are still used by NYSDOT; see the descriptions of the reference routes in [16] --NE2 04:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
        • First, the linked material only describes the reference routes. The numbering on the Center Street markers is not that of a reference route ... perhaps I should take a picture? Second, linked material should not require two or three other footnotes to explain how it supports the footnoted assertion. I believe just below here you said something about serving the interests of readers too lazy to load the PDF? Daniel Case 21:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
          • "Both Canal Street and Centre Street are maintained by the state and designated NY 52." Then describe the sources in the footnote. --NE2 01:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I think we can say with certainty only that at one point DOT maintained both streets as part of 52. I'd like to find out, if possible, whether they were one-way (they are not now). If they were not, this is very unusual for New York. No current DOT reference suggests that they are their responsibility. Signage and reference markers suggest the use of Canal west of 209 and Center east of it ... but we can't prove anything from them, and both streets have them. If I can, tomorrow I will call both DOT region 8 and Ellenville's village manager, a very hands-on guy who might know the answer and perhaps point me in the direction of a reliable source. Daniel Case 04:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
          • There are some interesting matches from the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations in [17]. Specifically, it refers to "eastbound Route 52 (Center Street), SH 79-6" and "Westbound Route 52 (Canal Street) (Station CE27 ± on SH 79-6)". (SH 79-6, AKA 79006, is the designation given to both streets between the splits on the map; I had misread one as 79005 but it's clearly 79006 on the full-quality TIFF.)
          • If the "NYS Reference Marker Linear Referencing System" GIS data was available to the public, we could use that.
          • So there are three parts here. We can definitely say (1) that legally Canal and Centre are a one-way pair, and (2) that they're actually two-way roads. We need to confirm (3) that they are still both state maintained.
          • The 2006 National Bridge Inventory database lists two bridges in Ellenville over Sandburg Creek (one from 1982, the other from 1998), and both are state maintained. This 2005 map produced by Ulster County shows both streets as state highways. I think this is enough, but if you can get NYSDOT confirmation that would be even better. --NE2 08:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I think we're getting somewhere now. The NYCRR cite is pretty good, and intriguing ... I'd just like to know if it's a regulation still in force. I'll see if I can check a hard-copy version. But I think we're getting to something we can actually put in the article, and perhaps move to the history section. I do also have a call into Josh Ribakove at DOT region 8 ... we'll see if he can help. Daniel Case 20:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Josh Ribakove at DOT tells me that the local DOT engineer told him that the two streets are indeed part of Route 52. I will ask him now if we can get some reliable sources. Perhaps there are news archives in Ellenville from its weekly newspaper that we could use, even if they're not online. Daniel Case 14:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


  • The table:
    • The length in each county seems unnecessary.
    • Including the town along with a location seems like overkill.
      • Is overkill. It adds unnecessary bytes to the article.
      • You could just as easily say that including the county is overkill. --NE2 23:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You're missing the point. Who cares what town a village is in? Generally, residents of a village within a town don't associate themselves with said town. I've never heard anyone from Fairport say they're from Perinton. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Who cares what county a village is in? --NE2 00:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Answer my question, and I will answer yours. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I care about both. --NE2 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Any reason other than personal preference? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • It gives a link for those places that otherwise have redlinks, and generally completes the hierarchy of place-town-county. --NE2 00:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
                    • The red-linked locations are probably bad locations to use to indicate the location, and the last comment shows a lack of familiarity with how New Yorkers (relevant as this is a New York route) view the hierarchy, especially within villages. As for hamlets, I wouldn't include them as primary locations in the first place. Maybe as a note in the notes column, but that's it. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
                      • So what would you include, if not the hamlet or town? --NE2 00:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
                        • If the intersection is in a village, I use the village. Otherwise, I use the town. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
                        • I would have to agree that the addition of the town name to a locality in the junction list is not particularly helpful. In terms of both civic identity and for being known locally, town names are generally unknown. Town names are not helpful for locating where a particular place is, while counties, on the other hand, are. If the main purpose of including town names is to help in finding where a junction is, then they are useless. Furthermore, in contrast to the New England states, towns are almost never perceived as constituting a single community. To that extent, they are more similar to civil townships in terms of how they are perceived locally, even though they are legally incorporated units. Most non-village town residents would usually just state the hamlet (and county) they reside in. For example, a resident of Chappaqua would almost never say he's from New Castle nor even say Chappaqua is in New Castle. If asked where Chappaqua is, he would most likely say "in Westchester County". The town in which a place is located would be linked from within the place article anyway, where it belongs, so it is not needed here. A state highway article is not the best place to educate readers about the municipal hierarchy of New York state. I also agree with TMF that hamlets are not always the best to use as a location. My own view is that hamlets should be used as a locality only if that hamlet is defined by the road intersection (many hamlets are actually defined this way). In the NYSR articles I have edited, I've generally listed the town as a location only if there is no other place name to use, i.e. if the junction is not within a village/city and is not at a "hamlet-defining" intersection. --Polaron | Talk 01:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
                          • OK, I guess that makes sense. All but four intersections listed are basically defined as hamlets, so you'd only list the towns for the ones that currently only list them? --NE2 01:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
                          • I second Polaron's comments absolutely. But I would add that Pine Bush (per my example above) is not defined by the 52-302 junction. However, DOT signs in both Walden and Ellenville give mileage to it. Nobody from Pine Bush refers to where they live as Crawford.

                            IME, I consider the following hamlets justified as included on the junction list: Narrowsburg (just over bridge, and despite small size a big deal locally), Woodbourne (reasons described elsewhere: despite current redlink it's short duplex with 42, crossing of the county's major river after the Delaware (the Neversink)), built-up Main Street very busy during summer season with half of Williamsburg living there and the nearby eponymous prison), Pine Bush (see above), Gardnertown (the intersection does define the area due to the proximity of Silas Gardner's house, Lake Carmel (significant eponymous body of water that road follows for some distance) and Carmel (county seat). All other hamlets aren't needed. Daniel Case 03:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break two

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)
  • Once that's done, remove some of the images - especially those that crunch the artcicle in the Misc section. and put the commons=category tag in the routebox. keep the image content to a minimum, but pictures are worth a thousand words nonetheless.
    • Any suggestions? I have those two images in misc partly to support the assertions in the neighboring text. Once we get some firmer sourcing, they may not be necessary. But in the meantime ...
      • Honestly - no clue. I would think NYSDOT would have something on it, but that's no guarantee. Google Maps maybe, but it doesn't explain the signage. I don't know how one could cite actual footage since its your (or my - if I took it) picture - which I personally would claim to be OR (but will refrain from doing so in the interests of Wikipedia). it's a judgment call though and it may be the only source too. master sonT - C 22:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Citations still may be needed in the route description section.
  • One of the Misc items was tag as possible OR - Could one say both may be OR? If not - what's the source?
    • I removed the other OR tag when I took the picture yesterday to support the claim, and then changed the wording. The other one could be considered OR because, I suppose, I have no source for the allegation that Canal is the easier route going across Ellenville westbound while Center is easier westbound. That can, as I've said elsewhere, be verified by anyone driving across Ellenville. It's not so much OR as it is unsourced. Daniel Case 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Never thought about that. master sonT - C 22:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I should also probably explain in the text that there's a stop sign on Canal at the west end, and one on Center at the east end, which is what makes each of the easier routes to use in one direction rather than the other, even though both are two-way streets. Daniel Case 03:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the point of the elevations graph. Do you think we should have one on I-70 in colorado too? Perhaps maybe a thumbnail or link would be appropriate for this.

master sonT - C 18:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It provides a quick look at how the highway rises and falls, supplementing the basic description. --NE2 23:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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)
NYSR and USRD don't own the article either. The elevation profile helps the reader. --NE2 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
How does it help the reader - please explain carefully master sonT - C 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It gives the reader a better understanding of how rugged each section is. --NE2 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
Uh... since when do the standards say anything about which images to include? --NE2 23:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(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)
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)
or perhaps a thumbnail on the right side of the article (inline with the routebox) master sonT - C 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)

I moved it to the left. Is this better? --NE2 00:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I still don't understand why we should have an elevation graph. OK, it shows the road is "rugged". But is it the only such road in New York about which that can be said? I think NY 55's would look even more impressive.

And another but ... does the average reader, even one in the area, drive the entire road on a regular basis? No. Do people using it commute around Newburgh or Fishkill think about what a rugged road they're driving? Probably not? Is there any other Wikipedia road article that has an elevation profile? I really think that might be remarkable for roads in California that drop down from the High Sierras into Death Valley, but not for a latitudindal route across the Hudson Valley.

It's enough to say the road climbs high on both sides of the river, and maybe show photos of some of those stretches. CTTOI, I could easily replace that photo of the central Catskills from near Ellenville with one looking up the road as it's climbing and curving amid rocky bluffs and crags ... that would say "rugged" better than a graph does. Daniel Case 03:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

NY 52 Business length notes

  • 1.73 miles from Beacon city line to I-84/NY 52 exit 12 [18]
  • 0.78 miles duplexed with NY 9D from Main Street/Wolcott Avenue (BUS 52/NY 9D) to I-84/NY 52 exit 11 [19]
  • 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_State_Route_52/Archive_1&oldid=1136251512"