The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: This list has recently been updated with some generous assistance from MDOT. They are still looking for the source materials necessary to expand the last few entries into full dates, but I don't think that should hold us up from reviewing the list at this time.
Do you think we can get a map of the heritage routes for the infobox, possibly color-coding them by type?
Do you think you can add a section to the list discussing the history of the heritage routes program?
In the description section of the list, I would add some details as to what makes each heritage route either "historic", "recreational", or "scenic". For example, what makes the Chief Noonday Trail Recreational Heritage Route "recreational"?
For the three proposed heritage routes, do you know what type they will be?
Overall, the basic structure of the list is fine as it lists all the basic facts and statistics that would be associated with any road. The preceding four points are just suggestions on how this list can be further improved to provide a model for lists of scenic byways. Dough4872 00:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Replies:[reply]
The KML is up, and I've e-mailed a copy to my trusty cartographically enabled friend for a map. Hopefully one will be available soon.
I will look into this point a little later and follow up afterwards.
I'll see what I can do without breaching original research restrictions, but I think the various management plans MDOT sent me may have some details.
No, I don't. MDOT only shows two on their map without indicating what type they might be assigned. The third is based on news article, and those articles also fail to mention which type it might be assigned if approved. Imzadi 1979→ 04:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dough4872: the map was added and I've added a history section as well as some notes on on features that pertain to the historic, recreational or scenic qualities of the routes. Imzadi 1979→ 11:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - With my suggested changes made, I believe this list serves as a model for how scenic byway lists should look across the country. Dough4872 00:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Rschen7754
Preliminary stuff
Images: (not an image review) the captions need a bit of work, there are some with complete sentences with no period, and some missing words on a few.
See also: "that run along county roads that are not eligible to be Michigan Heritage Routes" - awkward
Some dead links.
Program
thereby, providing economic benefits by stimulating tourism - fragment after a semicolon.
this report details the any new additions in the previous year - extra "the"
First - need comma after
Content
Northern Monroe city limists
Otherwise should be a support. --Rschen7754 20:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: all done, although to resurrect the dead link, I had to use a screen capture generated by a third-party archiving site to which we can't directly link at this time. The screen capture is sitting on Commons. Imzadi 1979→ 05:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 13:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The three individual heritage route markers are not PD under federal law. They are creations of a department of the State of Michigan, so there is no automatic dedication into the public domain like with works of the federal government. Rather, we have an OTRS ticket that says all of Michigan's highway signs are public domain, so that's the license we have to use: the one that says they released the signs into the PD by MDOT. Imzadi 1979→ 00:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the barn photo has a license, {{attribution}}, which is located in the permission section of the information box. Imzadi 1979→ 00:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a bit of research, it is technically a valid enough license for Commons not to delete the file, though it could be at risk of being deprecated in the future. But the check is Done. --Rschen7754 17:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
