This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
A fact from 40-Mile Loop appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 6 June 2008, and was viewed approximately 4600 times (disclaimer)(check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
... that although Portland, Oregon's 140-mile (225 km) long greenway system, the 40 Mile Loop, is far from complete, it has been described as "one of the most creative and resourceful greenway projects" in the U.S.?"
I have some uploaded at Flickr, and I might have some better-quality ones that I haven't uploaded yet. (I've walked/hiked all the way from Gresham to Council Crest to St Johns, though mostly before I had a camera.) I think it would be good to have one with one of the signs with the logo and destinations. Jason McHuff (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I added an old photo I had of the logo. But you're suggesting a big information sign showing the route? I don't recall seeing such a thing on the trail. —EncMstr (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of one of these posts. I've seen them on many different parts of the loop so I think it would be a good representative of it. Jason McHuff (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I just now linked Wildwood Trail from this article to the Forest Park article. I added a reasonably complete description of Wildwood Trail to the Forest Park entry months ago but didn't think about linking to it from elsewhere. I plan to work on the Forest Park article some more eventually. It could use more images and at least two maps, one of the whole park in the context of its surrounds and another of at least some of the major trails. Maps take a lot of time, though, and my to-do pile gets deeper by the day. Finetooth (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I've got a few photos laying around, including many from doing trail maintenance a few months ago. (Rerouted part of the trail for more gradual grade and built a bridge.) When I produced the 40 Mile Loop map, it captured the trails in Forest Park at high resolution. It would be easy to extract that portion, unless someone else is going to do something better. —EncMstr (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
That sounds excellent, both the photos and the map. The three photo images in the article were there before I worked on the article, and they all have licensing issues. One possible fix would be to replace them with new photos with no license doubts, and it sounds like you have interesting stuff. I'd like to add a section to the article about water (rainfall, streams) at some point. I've got some data about Balch Creek but nothing much about the others further out and no photos. Finetooth (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here are the photos: I'm curious where you'll place them. I'm too tired to do anything about the map now, but will get to it soon. —EncMstr (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Super. These improve the page. I removed the old images and used three of your new ones, including the stronger of the two trail-work photos. We have plenty of space for the map, and things can always be moved around again. I see that you are adding camera-location coordinates to your photos, which is something I've been thinking I might try. I suppose I need a GPS receiver. Any recommendations would be appreciated. Finetooth (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The map is coming along nicely. I'm also correcting many of my mistakes I made on the 40 Mile Loop map.
My camera is a low end, simple, non-GPS unit. To add the coordinate, I just look at a map and copy/paste it, but this tool is pretty helpful for getting all the details right. If you're frequently lost, you probably ought to have a GPS anyway, but I usually know exactly where I am. ACME Mapper is very handy with the main Google maps views (sat, street, terrain) plus topographic maps and aerial photography. Its feature search is particularly good for locating natural features but of little use for roads, street addresses, etc. In Forest Park, it's particularly challenging finding the location with satellite images of trees, so I used this, Photoshop, and related the result to Google maps. —EncMstr (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>The geolocator tool looks handy, and I don't think I'd run across that particular digitized version of the Forest Park maps. I found Erik Goetze's here useful when I was working on Balch Creek, and I bought the boxed set of paper maps that match the digitized ones you've linked to. Goetze's maps raised RS questions during the Balch Creek FAC, so I took the path of least resistance and used the paper maps as my RS. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)