In looking at the new breakdown for the regional road topics, I noticed Nevada is listed both under "Southwest" and "Pacific Southwest". However, all the Nevada-related topics are located under "Pacific Southwest"...
Since the forum revamp, it appears there are a lot more regional subdivisions. Before, it seemed topics were divided based on which AAroads server (RockyMountainRoads, NorthEastRoads, etc.) covered that state...now there's a bunch more sub-divisions. Why the change?
A lot more input went into this restructuring. The structuring of the regional AARoads web sites is somewhat arbitrary. For instance Arizona and Nevada got lopped into RockyMountainroads.com, because they didn't really go anywhere else. This will be changing in the coming months, as all material will migrate back to AARoads with the regional domains deemphasized.
Plus we decided having "Midwest" with 22 states was a bit unwieldy. :P We like hearing from our users on what they like and don't like, though, so feel free to let us know if you think we were drinking too much when we came up with the divisions!
It seems now that the western US states are a bit more divided than before. "Pacific Southwest" is a good example, with only California, Hawaii and Nevada covered in that section (granted, California probably generates enough topics to make that viable, but you get the point).
I guess, regionally speaking, western states are bigger and fewer would go in a region than in the eastern U.S. I'm not complaining, just commenting on the differences, I guess. I don't really have any suggestions for improvement, since I'm sure everyone here could define the regions in a different way.
Having splits in states (Minnesota, Texas, Idaho, Pennsylvania, amongst others) could be confusing. Have all of a state within a given category.
Fewer categories may be warranted too. The 5 categories of the previous forum weren't too bad...didn't require as much scrolling on the main page. The 11 you have now are, IMO, too many.
Here's the changes I'd suggest, based on what you currently have listed:
- Combine Pacific Southwest and Northwest into a single "West Coast" category, taking Idaho and Nevada out of course.
- Combine Rocky Mountains and Southwest into a single "Rocky Mountains" category, including Idaho and Nevada but not including Texas.
- Move Texas and Arkansas to Central States.
- Eliminate the Mid-South category.
- Move all of Louisiana and Tennessee into the Southeast category.
- Move all of West Virginia into the Mid-Atlantic category.
- Move all of Pennsylvania and New York into the Northeast category.
- Combine the Midwest/Great Lakes and Ohio Valley categories into a single "Midwest" category, and move Iowa into the new Midwest category.
- Kentucky could go either Midwest or Southeast. I've seen it defined both ways.
- It could be argued that North Carolina is part of the Mid-Atlantic...but leaving it in Southeast is also acceptable.
- It could also be argued that Pennsylvania and New Jersey belong in Mid-Atlantic instead of the Northeast...but those two could go either way.
If you do nothing else, at least combine up those states you have split amongst separate categories.
Quote from: froggie on May 23, 2009, 07:51:45 AM
Having splits in states (Minnesota, Texas, Idaho, Pennsylvania, amongst others) could be confusing. Have all of a state within a given category.
Fewer categories may be warranted too. The 5 categories of the previous forum weren't too bad...didn't require as much scrolling on the main page. The 11 you have now are, IMO, too many.
If you do nothing else, at least combine up those states you have split amongst separate categories.
We had a lot of discussion on how to split. One of the ideas is that a state like Pennsylvania can be Great Lakes (Erie area) or Northeast. Even New York can be Great Lakes. The purpose of splitting states emphasizes the regional definition. Fewer regions and not splitting states emphasizes the state definitions but may be less intuitive from a regional perspective. It's always worthy of re-evaluation, so how do other people feel about the number/distribution of topics?
Quote from: AlpsROADS on May 23, 2009, 10:16:24 AM
It's always worthy of re-evaluation, so how do other people feel about the number/distribution of topics?
I think it might be easier not to split states into seperate regions, although I can understand it, for instance, Chicago feels like a Great Lakes city, while the rest of Illinois is more like the Midwest.
Thanks for the input, one issue with combining states occurs with Texas. Clearly there is a division between the eastern and western portion of the state, where one is southwest, and the other is not. Lumping all of Texas into one section puts Amarillo and Galveston in the category. We tried to take into account local input on some of these divides, and Texas was one of the suggested changes.
California could be in a category all by itself, because it generates a lot of posts, and its large enough and a diverse enough state. Adding Hawaii and Nevada to it was done because Hawaii is clearly by itself otherwise, and Nevada is Great Basin, not Rockymountains or wholly within the Southwest.
Having more regional divides is a bit cumbersome, but it will allow an easier segregation of topics so that one with say an interest only in Great Lakes roads can ignore posts about the Great Plains or Ohio Valley.
Besides, the Federal Reserve has 12 districts, and we only have 11, so we managed to save one in there somewhere :P
This was a challenge we faced. I don't favor state splits - yet I agonized putting whole states where they shouldn't be. Pennsylvania and New York were good examples: Northeast? or Great Lakes? Well, while Erie and Buffalo we're definitely Great Lakes, New York City and Philadelphia were not (Pittsburgh would fit either, but it falls better under Ohio Valley). They're tough calls - and it's a grey area.
IMHO A state should only be in one region. Now, as we can see here, a state's region can be highly debatable. I consider Pennsylvania to be either Northeast or Mid-Atlantic. But, if you've ever been to Pittsubrgh, it has a definite midwestern feel.
Anyway, my main problem with splitting a state is that the boundaries between regions may not be clear.
For example, would Meadville, PA go in great lakes (geographically close) or Ohio valley as it is in the Ohio valley basin?
State boundaries may not be the best, but they're well defined.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Well there is no set rule that a post about Pittsburgh has to be posted under Ohio Valley. It can be posted in northeast just the same. The partitions are suggestive in nature, not mandatory.
When I saw Pennsylvania was divided up, my first thought was "Ugh." Mainly because I would have to determine where my respective post would fall, which is easy if it pertains to an area well inside one of the sections but would cause problems near a boundary. Then do I post one copy under "Northeast" board and another under the sub-category.
I would get rid of the watershed areas like "Great Lakes" and "Ohio Valley" and keep it the way it was: Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, etc.
My suggestion would be to include Louisiana in Central States since most of the state is west of the Mississippi River.
Just adding my $0.02 worth.
Quote from: mightyace on May 23, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
IMHO A state should only be in one region. Now, as we can see here, a state's region can be highly debatable. I consider Pennsylvania to be either Northeast or Mid-Atlantic. But, if you've ever been to Pittsubrgh, it has a definite midwestern feel.
Anyway, my main problem with splitting a state is that the boundaries between regions may not be clear.
For example, would Meadville, PA go in great lakes (geographically close) or Ohio valley as it is in the Ohio valley basin?
State boundaries may not be the best, but they're well defined.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Buffalo, Rochester, and to a small extent, Syracuse, have some Midwestern feel to it. It's definitely different from the rest of New York State.
Nevertheless, my suggestion would be to break things up more by state, since I think it would be easier for people to find what they need for topic discussion. Unless, of course, it is possible to allow for cross-posting on this forum.
Well the only other option I can think of, is to create 8 numbered regions, where states are grouped in clusters.
Region 1: ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ
Region 2: PA, DE, MD, VA, WV, DC
Region 3: NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA
etc. etc.
I see no problem in that- it makes more sense then having states split up.
The problem is that it seems like a conversation about roads in West Texas are more likely to evolve into a conversation about roads in East Texas than roads in New Mexico- or at least it leaves the door open for statewide conversations in split states, which to me seems totally necessary.
If I want to talk about something more broadly related to the entire state of Texas, where am I supposed to put it?