Talk:17-Mile Drive

17 Mile Drive is not a toll road

The 17 Mile Drive is not a toll road. First of all, the 17 Mile Drive starts (at the north end) in Pacific Grove. No toll there. One does have to pay a toll to continue on 17 Mile Drive through Pebble Beach, but that's not because the 17 Mile Drive is a toll road, it's because Pebble Beach is a private community, and there is a fee charged to drive into it. This fee applies at all entrances to Pebble Beach, not just to drive on the 17 Mile Drive. Serge 18:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Technically, it may not be a toll road, but there is a fee to enter Pebble Beach and drive along it. That a fee exists to access this road should be mentioned because most people are going there for that purpose. At present I've called the section "Toll" on the main page, but perhaps it should have another title (the content does not mention the word "Toll".) This is information that everyone who reads this page should have presented to them as it helps you to evaluate whether or want you want to visit it before you get there. Forearmed is forewarned. Whilst the houses are nice, what most people want to do is see the coastline that is photographed/written about and that involves paying a fee to drive alone the 17 Mile Drive road. It is perhaps a fee more like the fee one pays to enter a national park than a toll one pays to cross a bridge. There are six entrances to Pebble Beach, all of which require paying a toll. 2 of these are direct connections to the 17 Mile Drive road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.212.146 (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the AAA map I'm looking at, there is now a toll gate at the northern entrance (Pacific Grove) to the 17-Mile drive. The AAA map marks the gate as: "Pacific Grobe Gate (TOLL)". The entrance from US-1 is marked as "Highway One Gate (TOLL)". All of the other entrances to the Pebble Beach Community are marked "... Gate (TOLL)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.212.146 (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

All the reliable sources I have seen, including the AAA maps, refer to it as a "private toll road". I assume that is because the main attraction is actually driving this scenic road, not stopping and getting out of the car to walk around an actual park. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright/trademark on the tree?

Anyone know if that tree really trademarked/copyrighted? Ewlyahoocom 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was and Pebble Beach's lawyer did warn photographers against using any image of it for commercial purposes. I have added a 1990 New York Times citation.-84user (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Poor man's 17 Mile Drive"

The comment about the poor mans 17 mile drive was removed as no one in the local area refers to Ocean View Blvd. as such and it was obviously written by a boredom-struck teenager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.250.139 (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Images

The Lone Cypress is over used on this article. It is but a single attraction on the route and is not representative of the drive itself. That image has been replaced by an image of the actual 17 Mile drive that still shows the geography of the local area.

The exchange of the ocean scape image with the Pacific Grove gate entrance is also for contextual significance. The article is about the drive and the section does not refer to the rock seascape in any way, but does mention the Pacific Grove entrance. The images I replaced are my own work, yes. There is no conflict of interest as I am not a photographer promoting my work for gain. These are my Wikimedia Commons donations that I feel have more encyclopedic value than the ones there. There is nothing wrong with that. We are constantly replacing CC 3.0 text contributions of others for newer content. That is the nature of Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Lone Cypress is over used in this article? How can one iconic picture be an overuse? That makes no sense. The article states that the Lone Cypress is "Chief among the scenic attractions", yet you want to remove an outstanding photo and replace it with a dull and uninspired beach shot? You made a bold edit and I am invoking BRD to force you to defend your edit and achieve a consensus. Same with the picture of a toll booth. Of all the images you could choose from you are submitting your own toll booth shot as more notable than any other available shots? Please check wiki commons for more choices, at least. Smatprt (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Lone Cypress tree is already the infobox image for the related article: Pebble Beach. It is an icon of that community, but it is not an icon of the route itself as there are many such icons. Such considerations as our opinions as to what is dull and uninspired has no bearing as that is discussing artistic opinion and not any technical aspect of the image. Both images have technical quality that passes criteria for use. The issue is whether one has more direct context for use, a shot of a portion of 17 Mile Drive itself or an image of one attraction. The attraction is certainly notable enough to be mentioned in the article, as are other attractions (some not even mentioned) but the article isn't about the tree. It is about the scenic drive itself. The use of an image of the gate has encyclopedic value. This isn't a Shelly poem, its an encyclopedic summary of sources. We have battled endlessly over images in the past and I have attempted to encourage you to provide images yourself since you are in the area. Many of your images have noise and other technical issues but I can discuss those with you on those pages. What technical issues do you see wrong with the two images?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

When two editors come to an impasse, the best practice is to attempt discussion. However, if two editors cannot find common ground, they may request further community input. In Wikipedia:Dispute resolution there are several routes we could take, but the best seems to be a consensus discussion on the talk page of the subject. Some ways this can be accomplished are with informal and formal requests for comment. The informal route (most common) is to begin a new section and place the sets of images as "Set A (the original) and "Set B" (the proposed change). In these cases, a general pool of editors can be requested from the article contributors and the various projects with another, neutrally worded invitation. If this fails to find even a rough consensus, a formal RFC can be created. Either editor always has the option to request dispute resolution (but they do require substantial discussion first) or Wikipedia:Third opinion, but the latter is generally a first step, not a last while, discussion with further community input is a strong consensus that is almost always enough to end the dispute.

Please stop wiki-lawyering and let the RFC take it's course.Smatprt (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

17 Mile Drive info box and section images replacement

It is being proposed that the current set of images including the rocky seascape in the body of the article, lack enough context for the subject and that the Lone Cypress tree is already used as the main image for the Pebble Beach article.

Set A

• 
  Info box image
• 
  Section image

Set B

• 
  Info box image cropped per discussion below
• 
  Section image

• Set B - Support as proposer. The info box image has direct contextual significance, (an image of the actual drive), depicts, illustrates and represents the subject far better than a single attraction given undue weight. The image of the gate has direct significance and is mentioned in the section where the old seascape and even the new seascape have no contextual significance to the section at all and are again just images of attractions along the way. The article would need some expansion to include more images of the attractions as they are added with reliable sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The image at lower left is captioned "17 Mile Drive winds around the Pebble Beach golf course where a turn off allows visitors beach access." Can you see this beach from your car? Regardless, Set B is far superior to Set A for this particular article. I also like File:Pebble Beach Deer.jpg because it looks like something you can see from your auto. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can see this beach from your car.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think 17 Mile Drive at Pebble Beach.jpg should be cropped, removing the lower half of the picture, so the road, the beach and the ocean is more visible and prominent than the sandy cliff part in the foreground. You do not get that sort of relevance when currently viewing it on that thumbnail size a large, wide screen monitor. Cropping it would make it a better image for the infobox. I also think what is the harm of including all four images on the page? Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually like your suggestion and was just thinking about that myself from George's question, that perhaps cropping might be an improvement. I also feel there is no particular reason why all images can't be included, although I think there may be something better image we could come up with for Bird Rock, but the Lone Cypress could be used in that section.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree, crop the Pebble Beach and go ahead and use all four images. The lone cypress seems like a good lead image. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was to crop and use the first B selection for the info box and use all images with the Lone Cypress in the Lone Cypress section for context. Is that acceptable for you Dicklyon or did you think the Cypress should be in the infobox?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur that using more than 2 images is a good idea, as there's so much variety along the drive. It doesn't matter to me whether the cypress is in the infobox, but I do think that showing the drive would be a good idea in the infobox instead. I like the suggested crop on the sandy beach, but the road is still hard to make out, it still just looks like a beach shot at that scale. How about something like this existing shot, shows the road, bicyclist, sign for the drive, cypresses, and typical sort of house along the drive? (I'd have thrown in a couple of my own shots of the road in various places except I can't find 'em. ;-) )

Elf | Talk 06:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is the bike image located? I can't tell if this is inside the designated area or just ahead in the image.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know any more than what's in the description, but it looks like one of those signs that's along the 17-mile drive telling you where to turn to stay on the drive. ....hmmm, wonder whether we could confirm it in google maps? Elf | Talk 06:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried but got a tad lost. LOL! I was hoping there was something more to go by to find the sign's location and add the coordinates to strengthen the encyclopedic value.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried, too, but it was loading so slowly that I couldn't get very far in making my guesses as to its location. But I'm pretty sure it's actually on the drive.Elf | Talk 07:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I personally would put the gate image in the infobox unless there's a better image showing the road and the scenery along it. Imzadi 1979 → 06:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I like that, too. Am I helping? Elf | Talk 07:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The discussion certainly is a great help. If you like someone else's idea, you can support it. The end result is the important part...a consensus.

It took me one minute to find the location of the image with the bike on Google Maps[1]. The need to turn right for Spy Glass but go straight for all other courses really limited the number of possible locations to 2 or 3.

I think all five images (set A + set B + bike image) should be used, including the cropping of that one beach image in set B. --B2C 17:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have used that location to add coordinates to the image, linking it to both Google Earth and Google maps and also updated the description for location. I think I will also photoshop the image for some improvements to exposure, shadow, highlight, etc..--Amadscientist (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There are so many great shots to choose from that reflect the scenic beauty of Pebble Beach. I'm afraid a picture of a toll booth just does not compare, nor reflect the article itself. I also find the beach shot in gallery B, to be fairly nondescript. It could be of any number of California beaches.Smatprt (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

[[2]] I find this beach shot (at the notable Cypress Point, much more representative of the area.Smatprt (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added more choices above below, most from notable locations mentioned in the article.Smatprt (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Smatprt, but I have reverted that and made sure your actual post was saved. You shouldn't alter the original post that way as the discussion is not about all of those other choices but the ones that were reverted and then the addition thereafter with the Bird rock image. Some editors have added their input to that and suggested an image they felt was a good idea as well for specific reasons. Adding all those above just confuses the original intent of the discussion on my part. However, if you want a look at other images, there are more than those listed under just the 17 -Mile Drive category at Commons.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, but we don't need to go to commons - we can bring some of the better ones here to compare with the photos above. This discussion is not limited to the 4 photos above - we should be searching out the best photos available. So lets review the photos below and include them in the discussion. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I see...throwing the kitchen sink at the proposal is not exactly working in good faith towards this discussion. I made a bold edit and changed the two images on the page. You reverted it with the edit summary: "restoring photos deleted without discussion, as per WP:BRD. Please open discussion on talk page before exchanging existing photos with your own work. Photo of a toll booth?" That isn't BRD. It isn't discussion first, and then an agreed on edit. Its BRD Bold edit, then a revert and then a discussion. Your very revert was based on a misinterpretation of BRD as requiring a discussion to change images....then yourself change the seascape without discussion as well as continue to expand the article. See how that works...you get to edit the article in a bold fashion and if we disagree on the content we discuss it, however...I made a proposal of the exact changes I had originally made and were still proposing. There is a natural order to the discussion where uninvolved editors made further "single" suggestions to images they had also liked elsewhere. Your being involved and then attempting to distract and perhaps even in some small manner attempt to control it is not a good idea. I think it is best for your C section to be a separate section and if you feel such is appropriate as an involved party to the dispute to continue your section at the same time, we may need an administrative close to the discussion to interpret the consensus in a proper manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we have a forming consensus. So far most agree that all images can and should be used from set A and B. Most agree that the Lone cypress does not represent the route well but should be retained in the section of that subject or don't care either way. A good portion agree that the cropped, Pebble Beach image is suitable for the infobox, however a suggestion made of an image depicting a cyclist through a portion of the route near Spanish Bay Dr. with a sign has also been discussed by a number of editors as being a good contender for the info box.

The images with the most support so far for the infobox are:
File:17 Mile Drive at Pebble Beach.jpg
File:17-mile drive 1.jpg

For the article's first section the relevant image is:
File:17 mile drive at Pacific Grove entrance.JPG

For the Lone Cypress section:
File:Lone Cypress.jpg

and to include:
File:17 Mile Drive Bird Rock.jpg

There is the suggestion of the deer at the golf course with the sprinklers that was suggested as well but gained no further support, although it is a nice image and a suggestion to use the gate image in the info box that also gained no further support but, as well, isn't a bad idea, just that the beach image along the road or the bike image on the road seem to have more support so far. The opposing editor also suggested a beach image in the discussion but has not yet gained support either. The discussion has been very productive so far and is encouraged to continue if needed. New editors are encouraged to contribute to the discussion and input.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Set C

• 
  Info box image
• 
  Section image
• 
  Section image
• 
  Section image
• 
• 
• 
  Section image
• 
  Section image
• 
• 

I think what we need to ask ourselves is what is most notable about the 17-mile drive. Is it the asphalt road itself, or the scenic vistas along the way? It it notable because of its toll booths, or because of what is past them? Also - if a toll booth picture must be used (I am still against it as non-notable) then should we not use the booth at the main entrance off Highway 1?Smatprt (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you should keep this separate from my posting of a legitimate request for comment, specific to 4 individual images. As the party that reverted, you may participate as well, but please stop adding bulk images.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Slow down. As a someone who takes "wiki vacations" (where go on occasional vacations to take pictures and upload them to Wikimedia), I've run into situations like this one before myself. Amadscientist posted a note on my talk page. Thus I am here. I took that 'Bird Rock' picture in Set A. But I think posing two sets for people to choose creates a unneeded dichotomy. I see that this discussion prodded Smatprt into enhancing the text of the article. That is a good thing, and why Wikipedia works. I see that Amadscientist has rushed to replace the info image with that with a bicyclist. What's with the rush? Here are some points of consider, in the order of importance, IMHO. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

How many images are appropriate for this article? I think we should have the bicyclist, the map, the beach & road, the lone cyrpress, and a few others showing more scenic attractions. The problem, as often is the case in this type of situations, is that the text is far too short, compared to the number of available, unique images suitable for the article. We should first expand the text. Then more images can be used to illustrate the text.

Context. I do think that it is important that images illustrate text, whenever possible. If I had to choose between a lower-quality context-proper image, and a high-quality image not supporting the text, I would choose the context-proper one. Eventually, there will be someone who says to herself, "but I have a much better picture of this place... perhaps I should upload it." And the world will be a bit better.

Image Quality. All else being equal, obviously we should use the best quality picture. I have many of my past images retired by others who can provide better images. More powers to them. I am happy to see that Smatprt put my Bird Rock picture on this article. But I admit the image quality is quite poor. I wouldn't be surprise if someone, upon reading this article, soon replaces mine with a much better, newly uploaded picture.

Image Gallery. Until the text becomes longer, perhaps several images can be shown in a gallery at the end of the article. I know galleries are frown upon. But the truth is that the average Wikipedia reader will not click on the Commons hyperlink and will never see useful, relevant images not directly used on this article. I think I did add a gallery in 2007, but it's gone. That's a shame, IMHO. Lengthen the text so useful images can all be used in context, instead of removing the gallery. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Fred and welcome. Most of your points are valid and actually need to be addressed. First, I don't believe I rushed that image into the info box, only because it was clear so far, that it was between that and the cropped beach pic, but with my not minding the bike pic it was really a little over for that one. Also, I didn't do everything at once. As you say, the entire situation has prompted Smatprt to work on the article and I noted that as well, but rushing would not be an accurate description of my actions since I have been going by the discussion so far that seemed to die off again.

Thanks for this detailed post and yes, it is the reason I contacted editors from the article itself with a neutrally worded invitation. We are all welcome to continue to edit he article. Many of your points however have been covered, such as how many images to keep, which ones, (all), but not yet exactly how. An image gallery existed on the page at one time but was removed. Generally image galleries are removed, but they are not banned. I would like to see where the consensus was on that before we drop another gallery into the article unless there is a clear consensus to do so. The map will probably best be incorporated into the infobox (I mentioned that I was planning to make a 17 Mile drive infobox that could be used for attractions with a pin point).

Don't beat yourself up over the Bird Rock pic. I commented that there was probably a better one and sure, there is one other but, let's face it...its a picture of a rock covered in bird poop. I really think we could do better overall with that subject as it really isn't the rock there that is the attraction, its the pull off point with that name, giving beach access near the golf course with extraordinary vistas of the rocky shore, beach and land that juts out in the distance etc.

I take pictures and upload them all the time, not just on extended Wikibreaks (although I sometimes call it "Doing fieldwork"). I actually checked the article and saw that it didn't have what I thought was proper images and took ones I felt could be used. Same as I do all the time. Several images from the area could use updates to larger files with better technical quality and I tried to cover many of the locations I have concerns with...although I couldn't get out to Colton Hall. The only real benefit to taking the pci is that I am aware of what I have and aware of what I think needs to be done and can go out and do it. Not everyone has a digital camera and some have much better ones than I, but I am an image contributor, there is no doubt about that. I have many more images I am about to upload as well. Many will be PD and some CC 3.0. I have some images that are great to me and some I know are crap. I like to update those as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You made several good points. Why not add a subsection talking about this beach, and/or more attraction points? Being a one-time visitor to this place myself, I didn't know better. Who would have known the bird rock was not the main attraction at Bird Rock? I may have taken pictures of the beach and rocky shore you mentioned (if access was free), but I no longer remember where I took my several images. If you expand the text to cover more topics and attractions, then all these images will start to make sense. By the way, your picture did not show up on the 17-Mile Drive category on Commons. I've just fixed the category name. Fred Hsu (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I will add my voice asking that you slow down. I would also ask that you WP:AGF and stop making personal attacks such as accusing another editor of "throwing the kitchen sink" or "attempting to control" the discussion. A consensus has not been established and a rush to count votes, when no format voting has occurred, is what concerns me. Changing ALL the photos in an article IS a bold move. And changing a lead image is a particularly bold move, and after your declaration of consensus when none exists, I renew my request that you cease from doing so until a true consensus has been reached. I know you would like this discussion to be strictly about the four images in sets A and B, but in reality, it's not. It's not about your images vs. images captured by other photographers. It's about what images, of all those available, would be best for this article. Period. Your rush to change the lead image is just that - a rush. You have mentioned dispute resolution before, so if you honestly feel I am trying to control things, then we might as well go to a more formal dispute resolution right now. I, personally, am not in favor of such a move, but two editors are asking you to slow down. Please don't ignore our input.Smatprt (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I will also add that your reasoning behind what makes "Bird Rock" an attraction is WP:OR. I would counter that Bird Rock is the main attraction at Bird Rock, just as Seal Rock is the main attraction at Seal Rock. Visitors are drawn to those particular attractions precisely because of the abundance of birds and seals. Simply witness all the photographers with telephoto lens attempting to capture pictures of various wildlife and you might get what I mean. There are literally dozens of turnouts along the way, but only one "Bird Rock" and only one "Seal Rock" that attract this wildlife in such abundance.Smatprt (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed the concern of the other editor that I slow down. I am not rushing anything to begin with. At issue is the inclusion or exclusion of images on the article. The dispute is, that when I did boldly change images, you reverted with a claim that I have to discuss the images before I edit. No, I don't. I may boldly edit the page. You reverted (regardless of the reason) and a discussion ensued. That is the BRD process. A discussion was begun after your revert to discuss the specific images in question-the set I had changed to and the set you reverted back to. It is as simple as that. We cannot exclude the suggestion of others as to what they may suggest as part of their input. We look at all the suggestions, but when a discussion begins to gain input and a clear consensus is formed and the discussion seems to have come to a natural end, yes...implementation of the consensus may be boldly added to the page as long as it is within the policies and guidelines of the project. In these types of discussions a rough consensus is determined, not by votes, but the input and arguments made by all parties. I didn't create the image that the consensus suggest has the most support for the info box. It is not one of the images from my original proposal. Another editor suggested it (a normal part of image discussions and something even I have done when invited to such discussions) and it seems to have the support of editors. A clear consensus was determined by the discussion to show that editors do not feel the Lone Cypress is representative of the subject but should still be included. It is also the clear consensus of editors that all 4 of the original images and the bike image be included.

A lot of editors confuse OR in talk page discussions with OR in articles. Original research may be used in discussions on talk pages. It is simple speculation or mention of information that may be referenced. I am attempting to work in the spirit of Wikipedia to edit this page and the history shows the amount of edits I have made since you reverted the initial image alteration. I stand by what I said earlier. I am not going too fast to ask to slow down. I made a single alteration from the above discussion...not all of the consensus changes that were determined in that discussion. Asking me to slow down editing when the history clearly shows that you have a lot more edits than I do since the dispute began could lead editors to question your intention. Who is the one who should slow down? Either of us? As noted, there is no reason you cannot edit the article to improve its quality and there is no reason I cannot do so as well. The key here is to find common ground.

An accusation of personal attacks is serious and should be directed to an administrator, however, a personal attack is not accusing another editor of attempting to control the discussion by adding multiple images not a part of the original proposal in an attempt to confuse editors involved in the discussion. It is certainly something that some would see as counterproductive, but it is not an attack or personal.

Perhaps what you are expressing is, that you still object. You object to any change from what your original revert was intended as - to keep article images the way they were. Just because a consensus seems to go against what you feel is an improvement, doesn't mean that there is a lock on the article images as they are now (with my last change per consensus above). As I see it you expressly believe there is no consensus (or not yet a consensus) to change images yet. The problem is...your revert itself was indeed a change in images. When you stated a discussion should begin, one was started. If you feel uncomfortable with an involved editor making a bold edit to the article at this point from their own personal perception of consensus, then we can ask an uninvolved admin if they would like look at the discussion, begin a third opinion discussion, begin a neutrally worded RFA pertaining to the original bold edit/revert, or file at DR/N.

I can only say that I am editing with discussion and from the consensus of the editors. I didn't assume this from a straight vote, nor have I required that only the images from the edit/revert be discussed, but...I do strongly object to the injection of a whole gallery of images, preselected by the opponent/reverting editor in the discussion as undue weight to one side of the debate. While I have not made additional suggestions myself, I support suggestions, but only one suggestion, as shown by the example of others in the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Sorry, but you are just ignoring others now and recycling old arguments. And really, the above post is just off-putting and TLTR. Since we are at an impasse, and no clear consensus has been achieved, I have started (at your suggestion) an RFC. Let's give the RFC a week or two and see where we are. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Not ignoring anyone. You are ignoring a consensus. You are not happy with it but have given no reason why it should not be implemented. One person objecting with no solid reason to policy cannot filibuster a consensus achieved by discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Bird Rock...is that actually accurate?

Some original research/speculation. In my search for information on Bird Rock, I noticed that the location actually has two variations on the name. Seal Rock and Bird Rock. Some sources actually refer to the spot as seal and bird rocks (lower case and plural on rocks). The trailhead and picnic area may have separate names and that needs to be verified, but it seems to be the "Seal Rock Picnic Area" and a trailhead that may be one or the other names. One source does state that the location is known as a nursery for the local wildlife of differing species, including birds and seals and is known for it's "pebbled beaches". It is listed by another source as Beach access with wheelchair accessible parking and picnic area and a trail accessible by wheelchair as well. Seems like the information would demonstrate for arguments sake at least, that the single large rock (covered in bird poop) is not the attraction...but that, at one time (at the height of the cannery industry) the location was a spot where the local gulls would arrive and leave with the coming and going of the fishing ships. Another about the seals that used it. In other words...at one time the attraction was the wildlife that was attracted by the nearby fishing and cannery industry. Now, the attraction is a little different. After more than one hundred years, that is to be expected.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

While there is some confusion over the name, there surely is two separate rocks. From images, it seems they are either two closely related rocks or one huge rock with portions sometimes under water making it look like two? At any rate, the original comment of mine: "I really think we could do better overall with that subject as it really isn't the rock there that is the attraction, its the pull off point with that name, giving beach access near the golf course with extraordinary vistas of the rocky shore, beach and land that juts out in the distance etc." appears to be accurate. Some of the travel sources do actually come near to saying this. I do admit, that there are rocks there that are, or were an attraction when the animals themselves were present, and not really just the rock itself. To clarify, I don't think there is anything geological or topographical about the rock itself. I don't know if there is documentation that these rocks are still active. Does commons have recent images of the rocks with the particular fauna?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your original research is just that - WP:OR, which really has no place here. "Bird Rock" and "Seal Rock" are and have been regular (and oft photographed) attractions of the 17-Mile Drive. So I don't understand the point of your post. One rock or two (connected under the water)? Why is this question important to us here? BTW - you are aware that this supposed picnic area is little more than a couple old picnic tables, right? And not even a restroom! Extraordinary vistas? The 17-mile drive is full of them. I would again remind you that "travel sources" are rarely encyclopedic and are typically full of ignorant errors made by travel writers on a deadline. We can do better than that.Smatprt (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Arguing semantics doesn't move anything forward. Speculation is allowed on the talk pages. Your personal opinion is original research and you use it all the time. Jeesh. You seem to miss what you do all often in your criticism of others.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Route and locator map needed

The peninsula appears roughly to the northwest of a line from A (Carmel) to E (Monterey). The 17 Mile Drive road is shown in blue.

I came here from a posting on my talk page, and while I'm not really interested in which images get displayed, the article appears to lack a route map. So I made a crude one, see right, and used it in the Monterey Peninsula article. Without such a map I really had no idea where this road was located. Feel free to improve. -84user (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That is very cool. Thank you. Since you beat me to it, I hope you don't mind if I work on it a tad, but I think it should go on the article right now.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What I think I will do is create an info for 17 Mile Drive that includes the main image as well as the locator map. This can be added to all of the attractions sites with a pinpoint to the spot on the map.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Zzyzx11 uploaded this PNG sometime ago: File:Location map Monterey Peninsula.png. It is an image taken from OpenStreetMap [3]. The images there are licensed as Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) AND you can locate any area, zoom in and save the image as either a PNG or an SVG file. So, I have created an SVG from that prepared file and labeled it for this article. We can then add details such as gate entrances, old 17 Mile Drive etc., as well as delete things, alter the colors etc. to whatever specifications we desire.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Openstreetmap version is far superior for this article. Strangely, I'd heard of it but never looked at the website until now. -84user (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Lead Image

RfC: Should the photo in the Lead section be changed and if so, to what?

Should the "Lead" photograph be changed? If so, what image from the gallery below (or any other candidate) should be used?

Note: Please feel free to add additional candidates to the Gallery. Smatprt (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• 
  Current lead image - Lone Cypress
• 
  Alternate Lone Cypress at 17-Mile Drive
• 
  Aerial View of 17 Mile Drive
• 
  Cypress Tree at Pebble Beach
• 
  Cypress Forest & Beach at 17-Mile Drive
• 
  Cypress Forest at Pescadero Point
• 
  Cypress Point Lookout
• 
  Shoreline at 17-Mile Dr
• 
  Harbor Seals on 17-Mile Dr.
• 
  Cypress Point Lookout on the 17-Mile Dr.
• 
  Road with Bicyclist
• 
  Pacific Grove Toll Gate

Survey 1

• Oppose changing the photograph. The Lone Cypress is the most well-known scenic attraction on the 17-Mile Drive. The photo is not overused on Wikipedia, as it appears in only one other article. Smatprt (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose changing the photograph and believe it should remain as the one decided by the consensus discussion above, File:17-mile drive 1.jpg.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The current photo (the bicyclist) seems fine. If the article is about the road, the lead picture should depict the road. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey 2

If Lead image is to be changed:

• Support changing image to Alternate Lone Cypress at 17-Mile Drive, or, Aerial View of 17-Mile Drive Smatprt (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support changing the image to Aerial view of 17 mile drive. Prabash.Akmeemana 02:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support changing the image to aerial view. It shows both the road and the scenery. — Nicholas (reply) @ 12:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose changing to aerial view. I feel the bike image File:17-mile drive 1.jpg showing the road, the homes and other elements is the most encyclopedic and relevant image we have.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - The photo with the bicyclist seems OK; the aerial photo and the toll gate photo also seem good and pretty 'encyclopedic'. Other images seem not as good because they don't actually depict the road in question. I think I am having a little trouble understanding why this RfC was called and what are the main contours of disagreement between the lead editors. groupuscule (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I have concerns about the photograph of the Road with Bicyclist.

• 1) What is the subject? The cyclist? The road?
• 2) The 17-Mile Drive is not primarily for Bicyclists - it's primarily a "Drive" (in fact, the road can be downright unfriendly and dangerous to cyclists).
• 3) The photo fails to reflect the scenic beauty of the 17-Mile Drive. Smatprt (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain the reasoning behind the gallery selections, in what way do each meet content guidelines and image use policy etc. for the article. It is great that you have begun a formal RFC. however you continue to edit war out the last consensus of editors. While you may not be able to live with the last consensus, this RFC in no way explains why you feel the last consensus should be overridden so soon.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just let the RFC take its course, please. It is an RFC based on the existing article before you attempted to boldly change it and the BRD cycle was started. And please refrain from claiming consensus where none exists. You have been asked to slow down by 2 editors now. Show some respect, instead of simply ignoring them. That does not mean a consensus has been achieved. It just means you are not hearing what other editors are saying. It's obvious that you are just rushing to insert your own images at the expense of all other images. Smatprt (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't catch that last part until just now. That statement is utterly incorrect. I am an image contributor and am not rushing to insert my own images at the expense of all other images. This is a content dispute just like adding text and requires a consensus to keep or exclude. The info box image is not mine and I did not suggest it. It was derived from a natural discussion and agreed upon by editors who gave reasonable responses and suggestions with policy as a guide. You have your opinion, but that is not a strong argument in itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the RFC. You requested comment and I am commenting. As yet, all of your attempts to sidestep the above consensus discussion that you initiated by reverting a bold edit and then demanding discussion have not persuaded editors to keep the Lone cypress image. I began a discussion and compared the two versions for editors to choose from. Many editors object to versions to select from even with images and many excellent images were suggested for the article and info box suggested by multiple editors. I changed one image and you asked me to slow down and as I stated before, there was nothing to slow down. A consensus discussion took place and you attempted to alter it. I asked that you not do that but insisted that another full section be made available. It remains above. One other editor did ask me also to slow down but I addressed their concerns. There exists a rough consensus. meaning, you are the only one still objecting and are directly involved in the original revert. Just because you are not satisfied with the consensus doesn't mean you can hold it up. Just because you don't like it does not mean it is not a consensus. You now have to show why the above discussion is not a consensus with policy and guidelines backing up your claims and an strong argument why the images as decided in that discussion should be replaced.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

So, now that you have begun the RFC could you explain how you selected these particular images and why and how you are proposing they be used?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC leaves out an important option

There is a consensus discussion from above where editors suggested images and determined a consensus, this RFC does not give that as an option so...

Leave images as they were decided in last consensus discussion

Propose leaving images per the last consensus discussion above which was for the image as seen in this option (images in the history section were not involved as that section was just created).--Amadscientist (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Support as proposer.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

NOTE to editors and administrators: There is no "last consensus version" - AMadScientist declared a consensus based on a few comments and nothing approaching a real discussion or honest input. He was asked by two editors to stop rushing and to develop the article first. He is ignoring the RFC and is doing everything he can to alter it or mislead others as to its intent. He have now been reverted by an admnistrator. He has been asked to stop edit warring and let the RFC take its course. For those interested, the last stable version (prior to the edit warring that began on July 10) was here: [4]Smatprt (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, I addressed the other editor. Several statements above are just not accurate. I was not reverted by an admin. Orange Mike made a revert of your last edit Smatprt and then reverted himself. Since the truth is, there is a consensus that was formed by multiple editors, that is the last stable version. You are edit warring your version back in after a discussion formed a consensus you did not like. An RFC is open to all editors and your constant demand for me to stop posting is very telling of your lack of a strong argument for this RFC to change the current consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 17-Mile Drive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110309013453/http://www.fhwa.dot.gov:80/ohim/tollpage/t1part4.htm to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tollpage/t1part4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 17-Mile Drive. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100723090003/http://www.pebblebeach.com:80/page.asp?id=1378 to http://www.pebblebeach.com/page.asp?id=1378
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://kwartlerlaw.com/Commentaries/LoneCypressgate.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

COI tag (November 2023)

it was written like a TOUR guide and potential shill from the travel industry may have written it to encourage tourism Graywalls (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• I would lie to add the following section and text:

Art

Various artists over the years have found inspiration for their paintings of flora and fauna along this coastal drive. For example, Arthur Hill Gilbert, one of the founding members of the Carmel Art Association, was an American Impressionist noted for his canvases depicting the California area, including Seventeen Mile Drive, and Cypress trees.

References

Greg Henderson (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006: This looks like it should have been an edit request rather than a 'help me'.

Nevertheless, a section supported only by a PDF from the artist (a primary source) would not be seen as an appropriate addition to the page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)