Talk:List of Oregon state parks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:List of Oregon State Parks/Archive

Infobox that can be used for parks[edit]

{{Infobox park
|park=Saddle Mountain State Natural Area
|image=ODPR logo.png
|image size=150px
|caption=Oregon State Parks
|type=Public, state
|location=[[Clatsop County, Oregon]], [[United States]]
|coordinates= {{coor dms|45|57|54|N|123|40|48|W|type:mountain_region:US}}
|operator=[[Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department]]
|annual visitors=

Obviously change for your park and fill in only info available. Aboutmovies 05:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

View at Saddle Mountain State Natural Area.
Cool. I've thought I'd like something like this for OSP. And the protected areas infobox didn't seem quite right - too grand, I guess.
For people less familiar with the coordinates templates, there's more info at Template:Main coordinates templates. See also a new template that's in testing at Template:Coord. However, relying on the coordinates templates like that is not too user-friendly. Can this parks infobox be modified to accept coordinates the way Template:Infobox nrhp does?
-Ipoellet 16:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it could be modified, but its a standard infobox that someone else made. The coordiantes could be left out and added under external links, or use the version that EncMstr used below. Though if you ever want the other coordinates, just enter either into Google maps in the search box and it will give you both. Aboutmovies 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Check out my usage of {{coor d}} at Whale Watching Center. Also, for the image, I'm especially happy that the image size parameter can be consistent with WP:IMAGE by specifying thumb. —EncMstr 18:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Complete list of parks[edit]

There was some discussion somewhere about where to find a complete list of parks. Well, I figured out the other day that I happen to work across the street from Parks and Rec, so today I picked up the 2006-2007 Oregon Parks & Heritage Guide. Thus I can double check the entries if need be. Also, there's a new park opening in June: L.L. "Stub" Stewart State Park. I have the brochure about it. A DYK might be in order--it's "the first full-service park in more than 30 years to join Oregon's state park system." Mr. Stewart needs an article too--something for you politicos to do... Katr67 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


For the WikiProject Oregon collaboration of the week, I'll be going by some of the gorge parks. I'll be sure to stop at a few of them and take photos for an article. Don't know which ones, though since there are 21 entries, I doubt I'll do too many. :-) —EncMstr 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take Bald Peak. Aboutmovies 20:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll do a short piece on Holman, not sure about images--Polk County closed the place down for Senator Craig-style behavior...[1] I may be able to do a couple others in the Salem area, I need to talk to my hikey and bikey comrades. Katr67 22:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Several state park articles (Ecola, Fort Stevens and Sunset Beach) redirect to Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks where there is very little on the actual state parks. I've always thought the state parks should be broken out from this article, if anybody feels like tackling that and/or is heading for Astoria this weekend. I asked about it on the talk page and no one has stepped up to explain why the articles needed to be redirected. Katr67 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thompson's Mills State Heritage Site[edit]

This needs to be added to the list but I'm too lazy to deal with the formatting today. See Shedd, Oregon for more info. Katr67 (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

More parks?[edit]

There are some listed on [2] that do not appear on this list:

--NE2 23:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single source that comprehensively lists all Oregon State Parks sites - it's kind of maddening. The best I've come across is a printed guide by OPRD, but I know it has holes. Of this list, it only has Thompson's Mills. OAR is a good source, but bear in mind that it's not ideal under Wikipedia guidelines because it's a primary source rather than secondary. This state parks list begs for good footnoting, because of number of different sources that must be relied on. Ipoellet (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Is the list in [3], copied to /full list?, a full one (possibly with incorrect names)? --NE2 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
On User:NE2/OR parks I split them by what's on the state parks site and what's not. There are a few missing ones from the .doc, including a few recent additions, a few that may be parts of others, and the Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail. There's also the State Capitol State Park which isn't on our list. --NE2 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the grounds of the Oregon State Capitol are now managed as a state park, per I've created a redir. Katr67 (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, here's the law creating it: [4] --NE2 23:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[5] appears to have every state park except for the most recently-created ones. I've listed and sorted them all at User:NE2/OR parks. --NE2 03:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is the explanation:

"What it boils down to is a big dose of bureaucracy from Salem. State Parks doesn't like something being called a state park if it doesn't meet certain standards. And that makes sense. I wouldn't want someone showing up at Fishing Rock looking for a place to plug in their RV."

--NE2 21:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Protected Areas of Oregon now includes all parks I can confirm. --NE2 21:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I chatted with a park ranger at Oregon Gardens yesterday and she said that the waysides and such don't really count as state parks. The reason they're under OPRD jurisdiction is that they took over management of the parks from ODOT at some point (late 1980s?), which is why there are so many road-related things on the list... Katr67 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, some of them (like Alderwood State Wayside) have separate pages on the parks department site, so they may be small parks but the OPRD doesn't really consider them differently. --NE2 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I work across the street from Parks and Rec and just got my hands on the latest version of the Oregon Parks and Heritage Guide. The receptionist, after I mentioned Wikipedia and the question of what counts as a park, suggested I come in and talk to one of their staff members, so I'll probably take her up on that at some point, just to get the info direct from the source. Hopefully what I find out is also published somewhere. I won't consider it time wasted, but it will be original research. Katr67 (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oooooh! I'd love to hear what you find out, OR or not. Ipoellet (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You should also ask if they have a full list of parks (or land owned/operated by OPRD, or whatever it would be). --NE2 04:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to consider the Parks and Heritage Guide, coupled with the website, as the complete list, though I will certainly ask for more information. I looked over the links NE2 provided. The billing code list (which consists of the internal numbers used by state agencies for payroll and procurement purposes) is outdated. It's from 03/06, and I can see one example, Ben & Kay Dorris Park, which has been turned over to county jurisdiction.[6] Though it's difficult to find information on jurisdiction changes and renaming, I'd say the other state documents provided are also out of date. The business of the parks department is to promote the use of its parks. I can see no reason they would want to keep any of their parks secret. The billing codes list does point out that we need an article on the Willamette River Greenway, whose landings are apparently under Parks jurisdiction.[7] Parks is also in charge of promoting the Willamette Valley Scenic Bikeway and there are probably a few other stray non-park things floating around too. Parks seems to be doing a good job these days, they got the Oregon State Fair turned over to them, so other things may get handed over to them. Katr67 (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for my updates[edit]

The list is now complete, as far as I can tell. Here is what I did to update the page:

  1. Checked every park against both the 2008 Parks & Heritage Guide (PHG) and (upping the park number in the URL one by one to make sure I didn't miss any--note that there are many gaps in the sequence)
  2. Did some minor formatting of capitalization
  3. I arbitrarily arranged the parks by the number in their URLs--since this is a sortable list, the order shouldn't matter too much, and I think it will be easier to maintain that way (that the new ones will always go on the bottom), and it was easier for me to cross-reference
  4. Changed the location of some according to the arrangement in PHG--they clump the Portland area and the Gorge together, but it might be better to separate them, if it is clear to which region each park should belong
  5. Made the intro dry and boring and made the region descriptions fit what is in PHG
  6. I changed the type to reflect the actual title of the park, except for the handful of odd ones
  7. Renamed the articles according to PHG and the pdfs of parks brochures on the individual park's webpage and not by the title of the webpage--a spot-check of the Internet wayback machine shows that the text and titles of the pages have not been updated as far back as the wayback machine goes (about 2002, I think), the PHG has a pub. date of October 2007 and a press release announcing its publication was posted in February 2008, and a spot-check of brochures shows 2007 pub. dates, so my rationale is thus: I stepped into the P&R office and they enthusiastically pressed the newest PHG on me. This is their flagship publication, so I believe that they would want the most up-to-date information in it.

8.These sites are on the website, but not in the PHG:

  • Tokatee Kloochwan SNS
  • George W. Joseph SNA
  • Heritage Landing (Deschutes)
  • Mary S. Young SRA
  • Maples Rest Area
  • Prineville Reservoir State Park
  • Unity Forest SSC
  • Wallow River Rest Area
  • South Jetty (South Beach)

I'm not sure if this is due to budget constraints or to some sites being less equal than others, though some are closely related to other sites (which I have noted). Occasionally sites get turned over to other jurisdictions.

Also URL 240 used to link to the Officer's Inn Bed and Breakfast at Fort Stevens, which was sold to a private party in 2005

9. These state parks have been "downgraded" (note that I think its rare for them to be upgraded)

  • Harris Beach State Recreation Area
  • Valley of the Rogue State Recreation Area (note that when I worked the East Evans Creek Fire in 1992, the fire camp was located in "Valley of the Rogue State Park" and I think it unlikely they would change it to an SRA and then back to a state park)
  • Hilgard Junction State Recreation Area
  • Wallowa Lake State Recreation Area

I suspect that there is some rebranding occuring here...

  • Also, per PHG Fall Creek State Recreation Area is now a Recreation Site (the brochure says "area", but it's pub. date was 06/06). Munson Creek SNS is now Munson Creek Falls SNS, Clay Myers SNA lost its "at Whalen Island"

Oregon State Capitol State Park is not in PHG, it's too new. In PHG but not online are Silver Falls Conference Center (I've opted to leave it off the list), Ochoco SSV, Warm Springs SRS, Dyer State Wayside and Pete French Round Barn SHS.

Let me know if you need me to provide additional references. If necessary I'll see if I can secure the applicable internal memos that announce the name changes, though I'm not sure those would be admissible as evidence reliable sources.

If you hate it, revert it and I'll move on to other things. Katr67 (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to make a list at User:NE2/OR parks 2 of what's in other sources. (The ODOT maps column is not yet complete.) The name changes you note above do seem to be confirmed by other sources. While some in that table do not seem to have any good sources to write an article about (beyond the location), others do, such as Bowers Rock State Park and Sheridan State Scenic Corridor. I'm really hoping someone can get a full list from OPRD, because the PHG is not one. It's probable that in at least some cases, like Bowers Rock, they don't want the public visiting a park with no amenities. --NE2 09:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
And it's not because those are no longer state parks: an interpretive sign was just placed in Sheridan less than a year ago,[8] and Bowers Rock State Park is shown in the Willamette River Recreation Guide (pp. 10 and 21) and Luckiamute State Natural Area Master Plan (p. 15). --NE2 10:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's another good example: Luckiamute State Natural Area. --NE2 09:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for throwing me a bone, re: the renames. I do try not to be too full of crap most of the time and government agencies do pay me to do fact-checking for them, but I digress. I think PHG should be considered a reliable source. I know the state owns certain properties that aren't developed yet. What good would it do this list to add undeveloped, proposed and future sites that aren't yet open to the public or that the public isn't encouraged to visit? Luckiamute, according to the link, is referred to as "state park lands". Even if state parks owns land, I don't think that makes it a state park until they develop it. All it really is until then is a piece of land and a title. In the meantime, they could run out of money and the land will remain undeveloped, they could turn the property over to another jurisdiction, etc. Bowers Rock is refed in the Dem-Herald, which is a good source, but the article does say "The Legislature designated the area as a state park in 1972, but no development of the area has taken place." So we need to come to a consensus about whether we will include undeveloped sites in this list. If there are undeveloped sites designated as parks as early as 1972, then a search of the law of Oregon is needed. Oregon Revised Statutes is online and searchable, but it only goes back to 1995. Someone would need to be willing to do a great deal of research in hard copy of ORS and Oregon Laws if you really want this done right. I think that sounds like a pain in the ass. If parks isn't forthcoming about their undeveloped parks, I think we should just include the developed ones. Progress, not perfection... Katr67 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, would welcome undeveloped state parks. Unless there are surrounding fences, they might be ideal destinations for a backpack and tent, or maybe a hike in solitude. Each is most likely in scenic locations, and undeveloped probably means most people wouldn't think of going there and its very likely true to its nature. —EncMstr (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the Sheridan State Scenic Corridor is developed; it has a paved trail through it. On the other hand, is the George W. Joseph State Natural Area developed? --NE2 19:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Would a county column be a good addition to the list? --NE2 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Katr67 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm all in favor of a county column. But, I'd recommend deleting the region column at the same time. I've always been uneasy with the region column, because I don't regard the region divisions as supported by a reliable source - they get redrawn from one edition of the PHG to the next, suggesting to me that they're just inserted based on what OPRD's PR people think will be useful to that year's crop of tourists. The counties would fill a similar function of giving Wikipedia readers an idea of where in the state the park is, but is easily supported by reliable sources. Ipoellet (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm opposed to removing regions from the list, and slightly opposed to adding counties. I think I know where all the counties are, more or less, but I've been around for awhile—newer folks find them much murkier. Counties are mildly archaic divisions, and do not reflect how Oregonians think spatially: Ah—yeah—I live in Clackarmas County, and we sure are a damn sight better than them thar rednecks over in Warshington County....
Reliable sources are not indicated: the locations of these places are not likely to be challenged, nor are they controversial. What might be challenged (or confused) is whether Barlow Pass State Scenic Wayside (fictitious) is in Central Oregon or the Willamette Valley, or so close to the Columbia Gorge that it belongs there. Deciding which county (Clackamas or Hood—maybe even Wasco) it's in would be challenging, and useless, since it's probably in both. —EncMstr (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
<chuckle> This sounds just like a discussion we had over a year ago. At least, it's good to see that you and I are consistent in our opinions. Ipoellet (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed: no wishy-washiness between us! —EncMstr (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason we can't list it as being in both counties... and usually we can easily find the boundaries from an online mapping service or ODOT county maps. --NE2 01:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Like EncMstr, I tend to have a predilection toward including the undeveloped state parks. Everything Katr76 says about the tentativeness of the undeveloped parks may be true in a whole bunch of cases, but it's equally possible that any given undeveloped park is stable and specifically being managed that way, and therefore definitely should be included. And developed parks get closed and transferred too. And unless we can find a reliable, presumably scholarly, source that takes a look at each park and assigns it to a well-defined "developed" or "undeveloped" category, then we don't have a verifiable way to draw a line for Wikipurposes. Ipoellet (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm unwatchlisting this. I worked for hours on the revamp and I honestly don't think there are dozens of undeveloped parks lurking out there, and again, I don't consider the outdated state gov docs to be reliable sources as far as a current list. Our government sometimes moves at a glacial pace as far as updating things. If the (handful of, I suspect) undeveloped parks can be backed with sources like the newspaper one, I'm all for including them, though I'm kind of feeling all-or-nothing about it, that is, if we can't find a definitive source for all the undeveloped parks, I'd rather not include any of them. I'm also opposed to removing the the region listing while simultaneously opposing using it as a citation for regions anyplace else (where it is unconnected with the explanation that they are Parks & Rec designations only). If anybody would like me to follow up with a visit to parks and rec, I can arrange something for the week after next as I'll be on vacation. Let me know on my talk page, and we can formulate the right questions to ask. Katr67 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
By "undeveloped" I guess I mean "We (the Parks Dept.) don't want you to know about it" and/or the state owns the land but there is no indication on that land of its status. (Do they put up "coming soon" signs?) Developed can certainly mean that all that is there is a dirt path through it and a sign. Katr67 (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we know that the parks not on the site or in PHG actually don't have signs? --NE2 02:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
According to [9], Fishing Rock has a "tiny parking area that state park marks with a sign". --NE2 02:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm inclined to think that an agency which publicizes the extent of their territory would be more deserving of additional funding. I wonder why they would have properties as poorly cataloged as they do? Sign or not, trail or not, they ought to be on some public record somewhere. Maybe there's an article and/or book in that?: Hidden Oregon Treasures of OSP: An investigative mystery. —EncMstr (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Oregon State Parks Trust says there are 235 parks; several state publications ([10][11]) agree. Some other sources say 233, 231, 230; obviously the number changes when parks open or are leased. --NE2 03:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I emailed OPRD, and got in response: "Properties that do not have public facilities such as adequate parking or restrooms are not included on our web site." --NE2 20:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wrote Sheridan State Scenic Corridor and added it to the list. --NE2 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A book that might be useful[edit]

Can anyone get ahold of this book? [12][13] --NE2 10:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week[edit]

So, I just created three stubs (for the Frenchglen Hotel, Deschutes State Scenic Area, and George W. Joseph natural area.) Also created a couple redirects. If there are some kind of standards desired by those who called for this CotW, I'm not aware of them. Can somebody take a look at what I've done, and let me know if I left out anything important? Thanks! -Pete (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the Deschutes one, and once some more info is added I'll add an infobox. This book has a some history for each park that could probably be added. Note it is via WorldCat via Southern Oregon University, so I don't know if it will always download. Also, it a pretty big file so it takes a little while to download even with a cable modem. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

New park[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Oregon state parks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)