Talk:East Bay Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

Can we move this to just "East Bay"? Nothing's in that spot, and this current name sounds strange. And East Bay is pretty much the official/most common name for it. – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 02:04, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

All good reasons to move it. Done. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:33, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

So, I am going to be Docent for this region - and I notice several omissions and things that can really use an update on this page in particular - which I will attend to before diffing into the individual city listings :-) L. Challenger (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK. I actually wrote a lot of this article fairly recently, so I'm surprised it needs updating — what exactly looks out of date? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Currently we divide the East Bay into subregions along county lines, but I don't think this is the most useful division for travellers. The real divide in the East Bay, as described in the "Understand" section, is between the chain of dense cities along the bay from Richmond down to Fremont, and the quieter suburbs east of the hills. It seems to me Richmond and Oakland have more in common with each other than either has with Danville or Pleasanton, and vice versa. This reflects the geography of the area: the hills form a physical divide, whereas the county line is mostly irrelevant from a traveller's perspective. Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, and Richmond form a pretty continuous stretch of urbanization, while Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, and Pleasanton form a pretty continuous stretch of suburbs.

I propose a different region division: the Inner East Bay, consisting of everything along the bay from Richmond down to Fremont, and the Outer East Bay, with everything east of the hills. This would allow us to write more informative region articles, as there are more travel-relevant generalizations that can be made about the inner East Bay and the outer East Bay than about Alameda County and Contra Costa County.

What do others think? Pinging editors who are familiar with the East Bay: User:SelfieCity, User:Challenger l, User:Wrh2. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks much better than the current divisions; I remember not finding the county boundaries useful when I was last visiting here in 2022. Are you able to draw the exact boundaries using geojson.io? --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 02:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Here's a rough boundary line drawn using geojson – the boundary mostly goes through sparse or uninhabited hills, so it could be adjusted to one side or another here or there. I'm not sure what would be the easiest way to combine this line with the boundaries of the East Bay as a whole, in order to display the two subregions on a map. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Typically, you'd use the polygon tool to draw the boundary (e.g. see Canberra/Civic#Orientation), and then use Renek78's mapmask-geojson converter tool for the individual mapshapes for each article. It does take some time, but the result pays off. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've managed to use the county boundaries from Wikimedia Commons to fill in the gaps. The results are at User:Mx. Granger/East Bay subregions. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That looks great! SHB2000 (t | c | m) 06:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Using counties has the advantage of being very clear in terms of where to put things, whereas an Inner vs Outer split leaves more gray area. I wouldn't have strong feelings either way since the East Bay isn't a touristy area and most people will be searching by city anyhow, but I'd lean towards continuing to use counties simply because I don't think anyone visiting will find it much more difficult to find what they're looking for, someone visiting one city is mostly likely to hop over to a neighboring city (for example, if you're staying in Lafayette you'll probably visit Berkeley), and it makes organization easier. But again, no strong feelings if you want to change it around. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's true that using counties avoids any ambiguity about where things go – I suppose that's always a reason in favor of using official boundaries when making subregions. But in this case, all the other considerations that I can think of point in favor of a dividing line along the hills. I agree it won't meaningfully affect readers' ability to find a city they're looking for (as you say, most visitors to this region will be searching by city, and many probably won't look at the East Bay subregion articles at all), but I think the proposal would give us region articles that are more meaningful and informative for any readers who do browse by region. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have two users in favor, and the only one against says they don't feel strongly. I think this is enough support to proceed, and I'll plan to do that sometime in the next few weeks unless there are any other objections. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd say go ahead. This discussion has been up for half a month. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 01:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also support this proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've done the reorganization. There are still a bunch of loose ends to tie up which I'll work on later this week, and over the coming weeks I'll try to expand the new region articles with more information. If you notice anything I've missed, please change it as needed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I'm not sure how to handle the maps. Should I copy and paste the lists of coordinates from User:Mx. Granger/East Bay subregions? That seems like a lot of wikitext to add to an article. Is it possible to put the coordinates in a centralized location (maybe the Commons data namespace?) and use them from there? Or could someone use them to create static maps? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Mx. Granger: I apologize for missing this: your comments are absolutely correct and I support the proposed changes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Do we need to make a static map? If the original one is accompanied by an .svg file, I do have Inkscape and could make the necessary edits. Creating a map from scratch, however, would be a much more complicated process. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @SelfieCity: Great to see you back! I think a static map would be a good idea; the current one is not in the usual Wikivoyage style. It would be great if you can make one. Would it work to use File:Bayarea map.svg as a starting point? —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks! I may be misremembering, but was there a static map using the original county division? If not, I would use the map you've suggested, as that would be a good start. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Looking at this article's history, I don't think there ever was a static map using the county division. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Okay, I will work on making one from the .svg map. Thank you for finding it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I have added the new static map based on that SVG file. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 17:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Looks great – thank you! —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply