Talk:Ridge Route/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] older entries

Good day, all. I notice the commentary on Beale's Cut vs. Swede's Cut and agree wholeheartedly. I've driven thru Swede's, and there's no way to drive thru Beale's. I'd like to add a mention that Beale's Cut was also known as Fremont's Pass. I offer for documentation, this article http://www.e-adventure.net/land/treasure/bealescut.html , in addition to finding postcards of Beale's, under the name of Fremont's Pass on eBay.

Thank you, Gary Alexander Hwy99Museum 17:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Should the originial sentence...

  • "Originally opened with an oiled gravel roadbed and paved with four-inch thick, steel-reinforced concrete by 1919, the highway got its name because it followed the ridgeline of the San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountains."

be converted to...

  • Originally opened with an oiled gravel roadbed, by 1919 the highway was paved with four-inch thick steel-reinforced concrete. The highway got its name because it followed the ridgeline of the San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountains.

Jaberwocky6669 04:31, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, well it has been a few days and I have had no objections so far. So, I will take the liberty upon myself to enact this change to the article... Jaberwocky6669 17:39, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • I like it. Thanks! In fact, I only just discovered this discussion page! It prompted me to add a few more tweaks and details, but I still can't find any fair use maps or photos. Help! - Lucky 6.9 03:22, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Help is on the way, Lucky. Please see your user discussion page. --avnative 01:30, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Got it, AV. Thanks! Much obliged. - Lucky 6.9 06:50, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Three lanes

The image caption reads "notice the three lanes". Why was there such a configuration, or is this an inaccuracy in the postcard? Zoney 18:27, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • The three lane configuration was fairly common to the US highway system, and California's as well in the 1930's to around the mid 1950's (pre - Interstate highway system construction). The middle lane was used to keep headlight glare away from drivers coming from opposing directions, as well as being used as a passing lane by drivers of *either* direction! Uh. . . this is why today in the United States there are Interstates designed specifically as divided roadways to eliminate the possibility of head-on collisions as used to happen on the US highway system (such as US 99, US 66, etc.). Divided roadways - dedicated to only one traveling direction - are much safer (smile). Oh, the travails my parents and grandparents endured in the "good old days" when they traveled. . . dangerous conditions back then, eh? --avnative 17:20, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Sounds better than the Irish situation - if there is not a dual-carriageway, we build big wide two-lane roads (one either direction). Usually cars pull in towards the hard shoulder to allow others to pass. However, on narrower older roads, as long as there is a dashed dividing line (there's a continuous line at bends and danger spots), one can overtake by crossing into the contra-flow lane!
    • Is the three-lane thing discussed at highway or expressway or anywhere? I'd never heard of it before! Zoney 19:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • If you read the Highway article, Zoney, you'll find it says in its first paragraph ". . . generally it is a road that will have multiple lanes of traffic in each direction, often with a physical division between the directions of flow. . .". So the situation I described earlier isn't directly discussed, correct.
As for if the US highway situation (pre-Interstates) at the time was better than the Irish situation - trust me, Zoney. . . the US situation where you could pass in the middle lane and find someone else in your lane coming at you head on at high speed was not good. At slower speeds this was less of a problem. Looks like in Ireland where you are things were done better, though with some of the same risks. (smile) --avnative 02:50, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

There were/are a few roads in Britain like that - I believe it was a popular system in the fifties, but most such roads have since been reorganised. I don't know what the official term is, but they were generally referred to as "suicide lanes".

Indeed. Upon further research, and in a personal conversation with author Harrison Scott, "suicide lanes" was the colloquial US term as well. --avnative 13:14, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gone and hopefully forgotten

  • Gentlemen, I have withdrawn for good from this community and have also withdrawn my nomination for this article. I am so utterly disgusted and shocked over a discussion to keep an article on a little-known branch of child pornography that I have simply snapped. I didn't even want to sign in for this, so pardon the red link on the edit history. The proxy will trace back to the main office of the company I work for, FWIW. Sincerely yours, the one-time "Lucky 6.9."
  • Staying after all after blowing off a great deal of Wikistress. - Lucky 6.9 06:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • You can't resist the WIKI!! Jaberwocky6669 16:18, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC) =D
  • Lucky, glad to see you back. Take it easy, and have some more of those virtual cookies. I'd be delighted to make up a batch, but I don't know how as yet! FWIW, I also try to stay away from getting into too deep on certain things Wiki around here and try to contribute in constructive ways around the project. Happy Trails to you, my friend! --avnative 18:38, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks much, all. It's nice to know that one's efforts and presence are appreciated. - Lucky 6.9 18:43, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Another question from someone outside US

What's a "turnout"? I can figure out guard rails - usually termed crash barriers here. Zoney 10:30, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • A "turnout", dear Zoney, is a place on the side of a highway or road where a vehicle may stop or pull out of the way of vehicles driving at a faster speed, or tailgating, or simply to stop and take a break for a moment. It is a wider spot usually created for this purpose. Glad you enjoy the Q & A - I certainly am glad to add to your (and others') knowledge. --avnative 18:43, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah, a "lay-by". Perhaps a "road terminology" page (or is there a better title) is in order, similar to rail terminology. On my to-do list I think... Zoney 20:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm...I wonder if it wouldn't be worthwhile to add a glossary of what are apparently American terms? Thanks, Zoney. Great food for thought! Please feel free to add one, or drop me a line telling me which terms need clearing up. - Lucky 6.9 01:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • They are American terms, but like most are either familiar to non-Americans or can be glorked from context. The little "translation" section seemed incongruous to me, and also faintly patronising. I really don't think we need to be told what guard-rails are.

[edit] Peer review

I've put this article up on the peer review page since it's no longer on the featured page. This might be a good way to give this article some real scrutiny. - Lucky 6.9 01:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Beale's Cut/Swede's Cut

Hey Lucky - great pictures from those fair use sources! Mine are now developed. I'm working on getting them into the article (on top of what I have to do in my nonWiki life), so not to worry. . .

Wondering how you came up with the statement that Beale's Cut is the same thing as Swede's Cut. If you look at the External links you added previously, you'll see that's not the case. Look at the picture of Beale's again, and then Swede's. They aren't the same cut, nor the same place! Beale's cut is in the Newhall Pass (Beale's Cut, then Newhall Tunnel previously) and, BTW, is worthy of its own Wiki article under Newhall Pass - my considered name for it due to how people refer to it today, IMHO. (Newhall Pass is the location of the Antelope Valley Freeway (CA SR 14) and the Golden State Freeway (Interstate 5) junction. I'm doing this on the top of my head. . . so if I'm wrong, please let me know. It does bear checking out before RR gets to featured article status. Also, FWIW, when I traveled the RR Saturday, the historical marker Harrison Scott and folks put up said Swede's cut, not Beale's cut. Your kind thoughts? --avnative 13:34, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

OK Lucky. I see where you recognized your goofarooni. I made one too above. The name for the same passage was first called Beale's Cut (after Gen. Beale of California history fame and lore), then Newhall Tunnel, and then finally Newhall Pass (like the TV news folks such as Jennifer York of KTLA Channel 5 refer to it as). They aren't separate places or things. Whew! My bad, too.
You'll notice I edited the history section of Ridge Route to reflect that, as well as add a neat detail my Dad always has talked about - the 1928 St. Francis Dam disaster that few seem to remember anymore. Believe me, it was a very big deal back then. The Castaic bridge for the RR was totally destroyed in that maelstrom - just check out http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/nl2812.htm and see the pix there! If you need to revise the text for continuity, I understand - go ahead and do what you think best. But I think you'll have to agree, these little tidbits are not only worthwhile, but enjoyable to discover.
Great additions to the history section of text. I was going to say the thing about the tourism, but I've had too many distractions lately. One thing though: if I had to do it over again, I would have brought a whisk broom (to clean off the TUMBLE INN step so a better photo could be made of it - stupid people kicked tons of dirt on the step apparently out of spite) and perhaps a shovel for any road obstructions. Should a list of what to bring be added - and maybe include the soft drinks and picnic lunch items as well? Let me know what you think! --avnative 22:59, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Coolness! I found nothing on the dam disaster and my eyes about popped out of my head when I saw that latest detail. Too bad the Tumble Inn step was full of crud. Is it still legible? - Lucky 6.9 03:28, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, man! You never heard about St. Francis Dam and Wm. Mulholland and all that? Read up and enjoy! (wide grin) TUMBLE INN in still legible, the "Tumble" moreso than the "Inn." I swept the step with my bare hands before taking the pix of it. It shows pretty good in the pix despite absurd actions by an inane few. . . IMHO, there needs to be a small museum or some building where artifacts like that step can be showcased, respected and preserved. --avnative 04:49, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of Today's RR

Lucky, I've now looked at all the RR photos I've taken Saturday. They are marvelous! I can't believe I did that good on a disposable camera!

Now I've got to get them moved from my CD disk to the article. Need to find the Wiki procedure - step by step (considering my learning disability: I take words literally) on how to move CD images to Wiki article. I also notice that the Wiki servers are very busy right now, so I can't create a place to show the photos just yet.

Here's my idea for showcasing the whole tour I did - all 27 photos: Create a new page similar to images of sheep. Could thumbnail them or frame them - either way. In either case they would be able to be captioned. Have it linked to the Ridge Route article and have one pix featured in a thumbnail similar to how the Sheep article is done. Waddya say? --avnative 16:18, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • Ooh. . . ooh! We're both oohing! I like too! You like too too! Ooh ooh ooh!
  • (On a more serious note, though) Lucky, could you send me the step by step Wiki pix procedure on getting the CD pixs into the coming complementary Wiki article - while I head over to LAX? I'd be much obliged if you could! Thanks, my palmfronded friend!--avnative 23:20, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • LOL! You so nuts. Uploading the files is really easy. First, sign in to Wikipedia. Transfer them either from the CD-ROM or your hard drive via the "Upload file" link in the toolbox on the left side of your page. Then, just fill in the blanks regarding the file names and such, and you're done! The page even tells you how to link the photos to the articles. Ooh! Ooh!  :^P - Lucky 6.9 03:23, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Shows you how occupied I've been. It's in the doggone toolbox under the "Go" button we all use so much. . . (wink) I'll see if I can get things going on pixs man~ana! Muchas Gracias, Sen~or Fortuna! Y buenos noches tambien! --avnative 04:58, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting State

I would quibble with the statement about dividing the state. I've read Roberta Blakely McDow's thesis, "A study of the proposals to divide the state of California from 1860 to 1952," and, one, I don't recall roads being a consideration, and, two, the impetus for dividing the state was in the 1850's, long before highways were a major issue. Every so often the subject would be brought up subsequently, but proposals never were serious or gathered any support after the Civil War. PedanticallySpeaking 19:54, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Interesting point. Personally, I was unaware of a movement to divide the state prior to the construction of the road. All my online sources point to an active discussion of splitting the state at the Tehachapis simply because it was so difficult to go around them and nearly impossible to go through them. - Lucky 6.9 21:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Please check out http://www.ridgeroute.com/story1.htm and read what Kevin Starr, California state historian says. I think Starr infers that roads - transportation - was an issue at the time just prior to constructing the Ridge Route. You might also want to check out http://www.ridgeroute.com/story3-c.htm and see what Harrison Scott said in written form in a publication of the Conference of California Historical Societies. At paragraph 6 it reads "Before the Tehachapi barrier succumbed to the Ridge Route, there was a strong political movement afoot to carve California into two states." Do you still quibble? --avnative 16:01, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, I still quibble. These are cursory references, whereas McDow made a thorough survey of the subject in her thesis, which notes that the plans floated after the Civil War were merely trial balloons in the newspapers with little popular support or publicity stunts. PedanticallySpeaking 20:57, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • All I have to go on from this point is family oral history - which is along the lines I gave you in my last communication. California did at the time have political discussion about splitting the state in two - especially among the Bakersfield and southern San Joaquin Valley (SJV) farmers and oil well operators, as well as the residents of the Los Angeles area (who both supplied the SJV with manufactured goods such as metal pipe and consumed the SJV's agricultural output).
    The period after the Civil War (1865 to around 1950) is a long time period - you mean to tell me that Californians held the same view on the matter for all that time? Haven't you ever heard about the political dynamism and change that occured here when Hiram Johnson was our Governor? Things change in the Golden State, even back then - and they can happen very quickly (please see a current example in 2003 California recall).
    It might be worthwhile to note that LA and SoCal folks are different - and were different - from SF Bay and NoCal folks. Different perceptions, different interests - and political interests as well, separated by 300 to 500 miles of geography. Even today there are Internet sites which talk about the differences (in a top dog/bottom dog fashion, I might add).
    When I was in K-12 school here in Southern California, this point we are discussing today was consistently taught by the teachers concerned. But these folks have now retired or are now dead, and I have no other written sources at hand at this time to produce. I see you are a native Ohioan, and I'm a native Californian with family living here several generations back to around 1876 - you are in a more detached observation of the matter. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree. --avnative 00:39, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • I will defer to your personal knowledge of California and apologize for not being as precise as I should have been. I in no way meant to deny the existence of sectional tensions in the state. It merely seemed to me that by the time the Good Roads movement came about, California was well-girded by the Southern Pacific and other railroads and that the availability of transport was not as pressing a concern it once was; thus it sounded odd that a road would be cause for dividing the state. I do not by any means claim to be an expert on the subject. As I had read it only a few weeks ago, Miss McDow's thesis was fresh in my mind when I began this thread--beware of the man of only one book, I suppose. (I should also note that while Miss McDow covered the periodical press well, she surprisingly did not cite anything in the journals of the legislature or Congress or rely on many primary sources. Who knows what she missed?)
    To the larger issue, I think the author has done a thorough job with this article, on something I was utterly unfamiliar with, and support its featured status.
    My being a Buckeye has been mentioned here; I'd be glad to help anyone with queries about my home state of Ohio and other subjects listed on my page. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 16:29, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well said, PendanticallySpeaking! Apology accepted. Your take on Miss McDow is more full bodied and seems well reviewed - the primary sources (state capital records of the Assembly and Senate, and other primary sources such as correspondence, and leading newspapers of the time) are worthwhile sources that are worth pursuing to find out the whole story here. Thanks so much for your kind words on Lucky and me being thorough. . . the article presently is only 10,000 bytes less than California. It's our distinct pleasure in assisting users' awareness and knowledge of this long forgotten highway. Happy Trails, --avnative 15:28, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Use-versus-mention and some accompanying issues

The style manual says that when writing about a word or phrase rather than using the word or phrase to write about what it refers to, one italicizes it. This is of course a case of the use-mention distinction. If one writes "The Ridge Route is a road in California", one is writing about the road, but if one writes "The Ridge Route is the popular name for ..." etc., then one is writing about the name rather than about the road itself. In that case, the word "The" is part of the phrase about which one is writing and so should be included in the italics. Michael Hardy 19:16, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Good point. In the opening, Lucky and I are referring to the road itself, and so the current revision is good from my standpoint.
Having had a post-baccalaureate course in English Syntax and Grammar, I am very aware of these kind of distinctions. Let me just say no one I know in my home state of California says "I can't believe this old The Ridge Route is so disheveled." Instead, we Californians say "I can't believe this old Ridge Route is so disheveled." (speaking about the road itself) --avnative 13:56, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Not being from CA, I'll defer to the many contributors to this article. But, it looks to me that 1) the word "The" is not a part of the name and and should not have any special emphasis and 2) the term "Ridge Route" should only be bolded and not bold italics, since it is not the title of a book or movie or other such thing which are typically italicized. The same applies to the alternate name "Castaic-Tejon Route", which should only be bolded. older≠wiser 19:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Good points, all! (And, yes, I am a Californian, and so I can speak with some authority here.) --avnative 13:56, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I'm relatively new at this community, about 2 months maybe. But 12.40.163.4 vandalized this page. I've reverted it back and warned him/her on his/her talk page. If there's anything else to be done, please tell me what I should do.--Che y Marijuana 22:09, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Che, you've done exactly the right thing! Thank you so much for caring about this article, and for reverting it back to good form so quickly. By the way, Welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here and continue to make good contributions. --avnative 14:04, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/i/d/Talk%7ERidge_Route_Archive_1_a254.html"