Talk:Brockway Mountain Drive/Archive 1

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

Images

Per Imzadi1979's request, I uploaded several more images of the scenic drive, shown in a gallery below. I have addition images that aren't as good. I would upload if requested. The compositions are the following: 1) the posts and road that outlines the main viewing area, 2) a more distant shot which shows the tower at the top pretty well but you can barely see the building 3) looking from the top of the mountain to the WNW - Lake Michigan on the right and the left side is the same as File:Brockway Mtn (west) Eagle Harbor.JPG, and 4) Looking north at Lake Michigan with some early fall colors (all were taken in late August 2010). Royalbroil 04:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Looking north from peak at Lake Michigan
    Looking north from peak at Lake Michigan
  • Looking south at trees
    Looking south at trees
  • Eastern terminus across M-26
    Eastern terminus across M-26
  • Eastern terminus sign
    Eastern terminus sign
  • Looking east at the western terminus sign down the centerline of M-26 – Silver River Culvert
    Looking east at the western terminus sign down the centerline of M-26 – Silver River Culvert
Um, not to be nitpicky, but that big body of water that surrounds the Keweenaw Peninsula is Lake Superior. Brockway Mountain isn't quite high enough to see Lake Michigan from there. (Also, Keweenaw County is in Michigan, not Wisconsin.) Otherwise, great photos. I'll work on swapping some into the article later one. (I'm nose-deep in those three books on Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive at the moment as I rewrite that article.) Imzadi 1979 → 18:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be good to include the pictures of the terminals, possibly near the table describing the route. Chris857 (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course it's Lake Superior - silly me! Thank you for correcting them and their names at Commons. I live much closer to Lake Michigan and I just drove around a major portion of it as you know from my photos and research at the Pierce Stock Scenic Drive. Please let me know when you finish your updates to Pierce Stock so I can help with a peer review of the article before you nom it for GA or FA. Royalbroil 03:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources for future revisions

LaVanway, Paul, (2010), The Brockway Mountain Drive Story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.119.29 (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

LaVanway, Paul (2008). The Brockway Mountain Drive Story. Wausau, WI: Paul LaVanway. OCLC 300074634. is a self-published source, and so it's not acceptable for use as a Wikipedia article source unless someone can establish that Mr. LaVanway is an "expert in his field", in this case, a historian. Imzadi 1979 → 05:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The book has been published with assistance of the historical society, and he's had additional articles published in Michigan History, so that meets the exceptions to the policy. Imzadi 1979 → 09:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Excessive accuracy

In the lead, the length of the route is given to an accuracy of 2 yards or 1 metre ("8.883-mile (14.296 km)"). This may be OK in the infobox or elsewhere, but is clearly excessive in the lead. I changed it to "8.9-mile (14.3 km)", but it was reverted with the argument "Source says that, so we should use it". I don't know if there is a policy on this, but I don't think that argument should hold. If the source says the route is 8.883 mile, then it is also correct based on this source to say that it is 8.88, 8.9, or 9 mile (but not e.g. 8.8830 mile).--Nø (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

We should represent what the source says as accurately as possible. I really don't see the problem of having the exact figure in the lead, and think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. --Rschen7754 08:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
"We should represent what the source says as accurately as possible" - agreed, but it's also important to think about the purpose of the different parts of the article. The lead, and the infobox, and the main text have different functions, and their content should take that into account. The lead is a brief introduction to the subject, and I agree with Nø that such precision is unnecessary and distracting. One decimal place is more than enough for the introduction. 132.244.72.4 (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Rschen - I really can't agree - that's taking it to silly lengths! Why not just say about 8.9miles long. Though you may disagree, I'd assert that it does make WP look rather silly using such a precise figure - certainly those I mentioned it to just laughed!. cheers Geopersona (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I will note that there are several other road articles like Interstate 196 with the same number of digits for their mileage. Chris857 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not making a mountain out of a molehill. Unless there is some reason why the figure is that exact and there are cited sources explicitly stating it, it is not only unnecessary to give so many figures it is also inaccurate. The road almost certainly isn't that length and it looks bad in a featured article (or any other article, cone to that) to say that it is.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Following the reference it looks like these figures are generated by interrogating a GIS system which jsut happens to be set at a three decimal point reading - it's probably somewhat meaningless at that level but hey, who cares? Better things to do with my life. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly, no reputable encyclopedia would quote a road length to 1000th of a mile, have edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.66.93 (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I've always disliked the excessive accuracy... though perhaps it's because Ontario only gives distances to 1/10th of a kilometre! I think in general, its better in terms of significant digits to at least round to 1/100th of a mile. The route description can always contain a line something like "The Michigan DOT lists the length of the road as 8.883 miles", offering the full precision and who determined it in prose. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
We don't know what our readers are going to be doing with the information. Better to provide the most precise figure available and let them round it off if they don't like the precision than to keep information from them when they might, by some long shot, need it. I can see the 8.883 figure coming in handy for someone who is sanity-checking GIS data they're setting up, comparing lengths of roads, etc. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The 8.883-mile figure appears in three places: the length in the infobox, the length in the lead and the terminal milepost in the junction list. Infoboxes traditionally, and consistently, use the most precise figure to match the mileposts in the junction list table. With two out of the three to that level, it looks unprofessional to be inconsistent with the third. Now, if this were four decimal places (which would be half a foot of precision), I could see rounding, but this is to the nearest approximately five-foot increment, which isn't that precise at all. Imzadi 1979 → 21:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I must be in the minority here. I see the value of being precise, but I hold the value of not boring our readers to death with exacting measurements in the body of an article higher than being precise. I'm not talking about infoboxes and junction lists, just the prose. –Fredddie™ 22:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
If the source for the length goes out to 3 decimal places, then we should too as to provide the reader with the most precise length of the route from reliable sources. Dough4872 00:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Please could someone clarify for me what the source actually is here? When I click the inline citation I get directed to http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/prfinder/ which seems to be a generic road search page for the state of Michigan, inviting me to enter a PR number. I have no idea whta that means, and therefore no idea where the figure 8.883 miles comes from. I suggest at the very least that how to use the source is clarified, otherwise the figure is essentially unsourced. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
@Amakuru: - here's a way. At the link, click Base map. Use the map to navigate to the road. On the toolbar, click Identify>PR/CS. Click on the road near its eastern end (since the map seems to break information at township lines). The popup will give the PR, road name, MP, BMP, and EMP. I'm not sure about MP, but the other two are "begin milepost" and "end milepost". The EMP is 8.883. Chris857 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion one way or the other. However, it seems a lot of people are saying, "The source says this, therefore we should say this," and I think that's rather missing the point. It's not an argument over whether or not Wikipedia should provide three decimal places if available, it's whether or not the lead -- which is meant to provide a mere summary of the article -- is the place to do that. -- 24.22.140.146 (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My take on this is that the number to three decimal places should stay in the lead if the purpose of the lead is to summarize the topic of the article. If you're precisely summarizing the topic of the article, why would you round the data to something slightly different from what it really is? TCN7JM 20:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, why would one of three places mentioning the length use a different figure without explicitly indicating it's an approximation of more precise data in the article? That type of inconsistency makes the article look unpolished. Imzadi 1979 → 20:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Something like "Brockway Mountain Drive is scenic roadway, nearly nine miles (14 km) in length, just west of Copper Harbor in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in the United States."? I'm not advocating it, but throwing it out there for discussion. –Fredddie™ 21:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Fredddie's example seems fine to me, even one decimal place would still be nice and readable. Could also replace nearly with approximately or roughly; that way the reader knows that they aren't getting the exact measurement, which can be provided in the infobox, RJL, or even further down in the main prose if such specific details are actually useful for a description. — "Brockway Mountain Drive is scenic roadway, approximately 8.9 (14.3 km) in length...". Not suggesting there be a fixed rule on this though. -- Nbound (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with both Fredddie and Nbound in this regard. I don't think that having the lead use a rounded figure for the length of the road is sloppy writing at all; rather, I believe it makes the article more approachable to the common reader. Using this article as an example, can you imagine or identify better with something that is described as "8.883 miles (14.296 km)" or "approximately 8.9 miles (14.3 km)"? To me, 8.883 is a machine number. I can't picture 0.883 very well. 0.9, on the other hand, is a much more approachable figure because it's nine-tenths of something, something readily imaginable. For me, the purpose of the lead is not only to summarise the article, but to engage the reader's interest. Eight hundred and eighty-three thousandths is not engaging. If someone wants the exact information, it's there in the infobox and RJL. —DyluckTRocket (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I advocated for the exact length everywhere, but perhaps using a rounded version in the lead and making it clear that it is an approximation and then using the exact length everywhere else may be a way forward. --Rschen7754 03:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Rschen, I think that would be an excellent solution. 132.244.72.5 (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone answered the questions raised about the sourcing and validity of all those excessive decimals?--Nø (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source, we have to reflect what the sources say. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. --Rschen7754 08:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Rounding would be an acceptable form of data modification for readability, as you are not introducing any new data nor synthesizing information from two sources. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, can you explain exactly how to obtain the indicated distance using the homepage linked as source for the distance ([1])?--Nø (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Chris857 has the answer above. "At the link, click Base map. Use the map to navigate to the road. On the toolbar, click Identify>PR/CS. Click on the road near its eastern end (since the map seems to break information at township lines). The popup will give the PR, road name, MP, BMP, and EMP. I'm not sure about MP, but the other two are "begin milepost" and "end milepost". The EMP is 8.883." (The MP is the milepost at the location clicked on the subject roadway, but that's not needed for the length determination.) Imzadi 1979 → 17:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Right. If that is the answer, we do not have a valid source making an educated editorial choice of showing this particular distance with 2-yards accuracy. I have absolutely no doudbt the proper choice is 8.9 miles in the lead, and I think we should put 8.9 miles in the main text and info box too. But I'll leave it to others now.--Nø (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
@Nø: on what basis are you calling the Physical Reference Finder Atlas a "not valid" as a source? This resource is used for many other articles (over 200) to establish the lengths of Michigan's highways and major roadways, and it has been used for several years. Imzadi 1979 → 06:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
There's no doubt that the source is valid in my mind... but is there any discussion from the source on how the figures are obtained? Is it done in one single swoop, or are segments between major roads calculated to three decimal places, and then the sum of those parts displayed as the end mile post? In the case of the latter, the accuracy may be bad despite the precision being... er... precise. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
These are done using the "control section" method. Each roadway segment in the state of Michigan is assigned a Physical Reference (PR) number. State-maintained roads (which this isn't) also have Control Section (CS) numbers, the first two digits of which correspond to the number of the county (01 = Alcona ... 83 = Wexford). PR and CS segments end at arbitrary locations; these are usually intersecting roadways but also township or city/village boundaries. Mileposting is continuous from one end to another within a county, and it resets at county lines. For an intra-county roadway, like this, there is no reset of the mileposting.
There are two PR segments for Brockway Mountain Drive, separated by the township boundary as the road crosses from Eagle Harbor Township into Grant Township. The milepost information is continuous across that boundary, and the ending milepost for the road is 8.883, and the other end's milepost is 0.000, thus the road is 8.883 miles long. Imzadi 1979 → 21:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I never said Physical Reference Finder Atlas is not a valid source. However, we do not have a source making an educated editorial choice of showing this particular distance with 0.001 mile accuracy. I doubt very much they have data material justifying this accuracy, and if they do, I see no reason why we should go to the same excesses.--Nø (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No reply for nearly a week, so I will now edit accordingly (again).--Nø (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what we agreed to at all, so I've reverted. --Rschen7754 19:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, we did not agree at all, then. I still do not understand your view, and I still do not see a source that can support that this particular magnitude must be stated with four significant figures, or that it is even well defined and known to that degree of accuracy. Yes, obviously, this is a minor issue, but also one where the correct solution seems very clear to me. By the way, unless some of the contributors to this discussion appear under more than one name (e.g. as an IP user as well as as a named user), there are 19 contributors involved. Of these, 9 more or less agree that the present accuracy is excessive, 6 more or less agree it should be this way, and 4 do not take a clear stand. (I guess one should separate accuracy in the lead from accuracy elsewhere here, but not all contributors do so.)--Nø (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with that breakdown: the problem is that you changed the figure in the infobox too, which 9 people certainly did not support. --Rschen7754 20:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This edit changed the precision of the terminal milepost as well as the length in the lead and infobox, yet left the other mileposts untouched. That's not acceptable because that edit introduced a level of inconsistency internally to this article and externally with the body of high-quality articles on Michigan's state highways and major county roads.
To wit, changing mileposts and infobox lengths to a single decimal place is inconsistent with the other 17 Michigan highway and county road FAs. Except for examples dealing with highways that cross state lines into a state that reports this data to only two decimal places, all of the individual roadway FAs and all of the A-Class articles use three decimal places of precision for their mileposts and infobox lengths, and most of which did so at the time they were individually promoted to FA- or A-Class status in a span of nominations dating back to 2008. The articles dealing with segments in Wisconsin and Indiana use 2DPs for those states' mileposts and for the overall length, but 3DPs for the Michigan mileposts. Another exception is Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive, which uses Google Earth instead of the Physical Reference Finder Atlas because the PRFA doesn't include the roadway. So no, I will oppose Nø's attempt to change this article's infobox and junction list both in manners internally inconsistent and externally consistent with the collection of high-quality articles in this topic area.
Thus, there is no consensus here for the change, and I support its reversion as it was made earlier today. Imzadi 1979 → 20:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't follow the argument that another source is needed to prove why the length should be listed to four significant digits. –Fredddie™ 21:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Much as this hurts my engineer's eyes, I hereby remove this page from my watchlist and move on to more worthwhile matters.--Nø (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brockway Mountain 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brockway Mountain 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

lost reference

In the fifth paragraph under History there's a reference to "the raptors'", but there's no earlier mention of raptors, probably was lost in editing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.27 (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2017‎ (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brockway_Mountain_Drive/Archive_1&oldid=1140152733"