Talk:List of New Mexico Scenic and Historic Byways

U.S. Roads: Byways / New Mexico High‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. byways
Locations	New Mexico
	This article does not have a map. Please work with the Maps department to create and add a file for this article.
	This article does not require a junction list.

Scope

The scope of this list should be the byways recognized by the state of New Mexico in a state-run program. Yes, some may also be recognized in federal government programs, but we have lists already for those topics. Imzadi 1979 → 02:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. According to the New Mexico Department of Transportation, there are only 25 state-designated scenic byways: [1], but there are 26 entries on the list in the article. For an example of a list article of this type with well-defined scope, see Michigan Heritage Route. In that case, Michigan has three NSBs (two of which are HRs and one is not), and three NFSBs (none of which are HRs). That article covers the state-designated byways oly and relegates the related, but ineligible, NFSBs to the See also section.

2. It doesn't appear that NMDOT actually classifies their byways into different types, but Michigan's program specifically has Historic, Recreational and Scenic types, so I don't think a type column is really appropriate in the table. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. I made the change to the article based upon the 25/26 comment.

2. Since the NM Scenic Byways scenarios better fit a write-up of another state, I followed that format and am categorizing the type as that state was formatted. It actually makes more sense to me to break down types by a very well-defined type that also is used within the infoboxes of other state articles and are categories in the templates placed at the bottom of the state articles.

In reading the Michigan article, for instance, I would be very interested to known if some of the scenic byways / heritage roads were also BLM, NFS, NSB roads (similar to the distinctions clarified in National Register of Historic Places and state historic designations. But that's my personal preference.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Michigan case, only two HRs are NSBs, and they're noted in the description of the HR. We have no BLM roads here, and our NFSBs are ineligible by statute to be HRs; they aren't state-maintained highways so MDOT can't designated them as Heritage Routes since that classification is limited to state highways only. Imzadi 1979 → 03:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah!!! That must be part of the reason why there is so much disparity among the approaches for the state articles for Template:Scenic Byways - because the manner in which they became scenic byways varies dramatically by state. New Mexico, on the other hand, has many that are nationally designated byways (of one sort or another). That helps!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Oh, I forgot to mention, but part of the reason the Michigan table looks different is that it is based on WP:USRD/STDS/L, our project's new attempt to standardize the formatting for tables in list articles. For non-byway lists, things like List of Interstate Highways in Michigan, we have {{routelist row}} and its header and footer templates to generate the tables, but for byway lists, we're just doing them by hand for now with columns to match. Imzadi 1979 → 03:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]

Further comment, just for clarification. In the west - or the states of Utah, Colorado and New Mexico in particular - many residents are keenly aware of the differences of services between BLM, NFS, NPS types of programs. BLM, which are the "backcountry" scenic byways, have the least services available - and in this case are often rough dirt roads... big difference to the High Road to Taos or Enchanted Circle, for instance.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Actually, to be a National Scenic Byway now, normally a road has to be part of the state's system. National Forest Scenic Byways are administered by the US Forest Service, and they don't have that requirement. BLM Back Country Byways are a third separate program through the Bureau of Land Management, and there's also the National Parkways through the National Park Service.

Also, USRD hasn't really dealt with harmonizing the list articles much until recently. We have our first nomination at FLC, List of Interstate Highways in Michigan, as a guinea pig to see how those new standards fare before we apply them more widely across the project. I put the Heritage Route list into the same basic format (adding the "type" column because our system does have discrete types assigned) to match the other three lists on the highway system in the state. Eventually other states' lists will get similar treatment once we polish and solidify the standards. Imzadi 1979 → 04:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and I totally get the standards that you stated above for "route lists" and the campaign to standardize "state highways" - and the standards make sense for those situations. Scenic byways, though, are a different animal, though - right? For instance, the Enchanted Circle Scenic Byway is made up of several highways and roads - almost always where they are mid portions of each of the highways / roads. The concept of beginning (I forgot the word used) and terminus don't really apply... and the nature of the information that someone would want to read about a highway would differ from a scenic highway, wouldn't it?

Again, this may be a personal preference because I am particularly interested in and travel on scenic byways because they often lead me to the interesting historical sites I'm looking for. I do see a distinct difference though between "routes" and "byways" where the byway serves a particular scenic, historic, etc. purpose. I almost posted a question on the talk page for the link that you provided to clarify byways vs. routes for a wider discussion.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to BLM, NPS, NFS - I think we're making very different points.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but no. M-185 (Michigan highway) is a full loop, so it doesn't have a single terminus, yet our standards handle that case in List of state trunklines in Michigan. As for byways that follow a number of roads, Michigan's Heritage Routes do not always follow a single state highway designation, like the UP Hidden Coast Recreational Heritage Trail or the Leelanau Scenic Heritage Route, each of which has a set-index page for now but could be expanded into full articles later. Each is handled in the list like the others. The proposed heritage route in Ontonagon County uses the loop variation in the list table, just like M-185 does in its list.

Each byway designation still has a specific path that it follows, like a highway's numerical designation. They may fork and loop, but so do numerical designations. The purpose of the highway designation is to channel traffic along a defined corridor from Point A to Point B, and a byway guides traffic along a defined corridor for the historic, recreational or scenic properties along that corridor. But that byway corridor can still be described (a "route description"), it can still have its history cataloged, and it will still have a junction list to guide the traffic along the route the byway takes. Different purposes, but the same basic method; it's the details of what is emphasized that will vary.

One thing to be cautious of is the fine line between giving an encyclopedic description and writing a travel guide.

In dealing with this article, by its title and its position in the navbox, it should be a listing of the byways recognized by the state of New Mexico. All NSBs, NFSBs and BLM BCBs are in their own lists which should be noting their state locations, so this article doesn't need to duplicate those lists. We also have Category:Scenic roads in New Mexico to pull together the articles on any type of scenic roads in the state. Imzadi 1979 → 04:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Must of what you say above I would agree with - the basic information that you mention makes sense to include in the route descriptions of the biways. In some cases the descriptions mention multiple routes, but not necessarily how they come together, but where it's clear, it can surely be included in the description.

I reformatted the table for the national designations, see what you think. I'm not sure what the harm is to have the information - and if you didn't have the information it could take some backtracking to figure out if there was a national designation, and if so which one. Anyway, see what you think.

I didn't find the category that you mentioned earlier - thanks for that!

Regarding encyclopedic vs. travel guide tones - I wouldn't say that this article has this issue at all. There are some places where the Enchanted Circle Scenic Byway article gets a bit travel guide-y, but I had tried to keep that to a miniumum - only including information that I had also seen in historic and other non-travel gude documents. If you have specific suggestions to trim the info, though, sure I'd be happy to edit a bit.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

The only place that I see the full New Mexico Scenic and Historic Byways was from the initial legislation in 1998. It is now consistently called New Mexico Scenic Byways.

I'll see if I can find something that shows an official name change... or perhaps the shortened version is for marketing.

Before naming it the shortened name I had searched around quite a bit to find prevalence of the name. Is there something specific that states that this is currently the official name?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going off the official name from the legislation. It could be like the National Scenic Byways that are marketed under the "America's Byways" name. (Note, our MOS says to drop the ®, and we're supposed to use the singular name.) Imzadi 1979 → 04:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By 2004 the Federal Highway Administration called it New Mexico Scenic Byways on this page. On a google search there are about 700 hits for the "and Historic" version and about 8,600 for the shortened version.

I'm still looking to see if I can find an official name change and date.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found something from 2010 from the state DOT that calls it the Scenic and Historic Byways Program in chapter headings (it also uses the shortened Scenic Byways Program too). ~~So it seems that this IS the right current name.~~ Thanks--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, there is [http://dot.state.nm.us/content/dam/nmdot/planning/MPO_Handbook.pdf this document that doesn't use "Historic" once. So confused.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The state calls it the New Mexico Scenic Byways Program in 2012 here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]