I plan on creating a region map for Georgia. This way seems pretty similar to what it is now, but I think this map may be better since it gives the Atlanta area its own region and the coast its own region. Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions? -- Fastestdogever 14:09, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
- I totally disagree with putting the Atlanta Metro in the "Central Georgia" region. Most people that think such a thing are Atlantans who have never bothered to travel out of the Metro area or look at a state map, or are simply uneducated outsiders. Atlanta is clearly in north-central Georgia. Macon, over an hour drive south, literally contains the geographic center-point of the state, Tatnall Square Park (at Coleman Ave. and College St.). That puts Atlanta right between the center of the state and the Tennessee border. There is also a significant geographic difference between Atlanta and true "central" Georgia. Atlanta lies in an area that begins the rolling foothills and red-clay dirt of the Appilachians, and shares a climate with most of North Georgia. Whereas, Central Georgia is characterized by nearly-flat lands with primarily sandy soil, and more beach-like climate except with little surface wind, making the humidity more noticable. Central Georiga weather is also significantly effected by Tropical events in the Gulf of Mexico.
- I was born and rised in Northwest Georgia, have lived in Macon for the past 10 years, and often travel the state, so I hope all of you can take my word on it. --Stuston 09:27, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
The Metro Atlanta Region pretty much takes up the central west part of the state, and should be classified in it's own region due to its population and vastness. South of that region around Columbus, to Macon and Augusta is the Fall Line and that region could be its own classifacation (including Athens). I named it Piedmont Plateau, but we could change that to Central Georgia and change what is currently Central Georgia to "Metro Atlanta" or "Greater Atlanta". --joggingman08 01:19, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
- All the regions of Georgia right now are undefined, and most recently, new ones are being created. Could we please document here exactly what the regions of Georgia will be, and ideally delineate them geographically. The easiest, although perhaps not the best way, would be to do it by county boundaries. If we could settle on the regions & their borders, I would like to draw up a Wikitravel-style map of the state. --Peter Talk 01:34, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
- I propose organizing the regions by county this way.
- I think these 5 regions are comprehensive enough, but not excessively detailed to hinder usefulness. Names (from top to bottom) could be: Historic High Country , Metro Atlanta, Classic Heartland, Plantation Midlands, and Coastal Georgia.
- Thoughts? Jtesla16 19:56, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
- Certainly look nice to me! But having been to the Atlanta area once hardly qualifies me to give an educated opinion on the matter ;) --Peter Talk 21:58, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
- I'm thinking we can include Greater Atlanta in the Piedmont Region, which includes counties from Floyd to Heard County on the west, and Hart to Lincoln on the East. Geographically, the Piedmont Plateau runs through Georgia around all those counties, including Greater Atlanta. The only other points of interest outside Greater Atlanta in this region are Athens and Lake Lanier Islands. --joggingman08 22:16, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
- I don't think such a large Piedmont region is a useful organization strategy for this area. Although those counties may share a geographical feature (the plateau), I think they are rarely ever associated for tourism or travel. Furthermore, those outlying counties you mention above are all similar in their traditional southern rural-ness for a traveler; the unique area is the Metro Atlanta region, and I think that should be reflected in our organizational hierarchy. I think the driving factor here should be what is the most useful organization for a traveler, i.e. which grouping best emphasizes the cultural variety that exists within the state. --Jtesla16 20:24, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
- The thing about the Metro Atlanta region is that it transitions from the urban-ness of Atlanta and Fulton County to the traditional southern rural-ness, and suburban areas in between. Since the Metro Atlanta is made up of 28 counties in the Central West portion of the state, that leaves a few counties left in the Piedmont Region. That is why I figured I could include it all in one page, and have the Metro Atlanta counties and the "Other" counties in sections.--joggingman08 03:04, 05 July 2009 (EDT)
- That's the heart of the issue. There is no justification for including those 28 counties in the Metro Atlanta area. You admit yourself that they include rural areas which are distinct from urban Atlanta. Do you think for a traveler it's more useful to emphasize this distinction, or to have a larger Piedmont region which includes a culturally unique urban area with many rural towns? --Jtesla16 10:42, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
- I think having a separate Metro Atlanta article for just the metropolitan area makes sense, and is what we usually do for regions breakdowns. Joggingman, would you mind putting up a color coded map like Jesse's to demonstrate what the regions breakdown that you are proposing would look like. That would be most helpful in trying to resolve outstanding questions. --Peter Talk 15:07, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
- Sure. Do you know where I can download one those maps?--joggingman08 06:45, 07 July 2009 (EDT)
- Follow this link. Right click the map, Save Image As. --Jtesla16 06:49, 7 July 2009 (EDT)
Renewed Regions Proposal
I'm hoping to start a fresh discussion since the last one stagnated.
I think its important that we get the Georgia Regions organized in a way that best emphasizes cultural distinctness while maximizing usefulness.
My proposal for region definition is to the right, with regions names from Top to Bottom: Historic High Country , Metro Atlanta, Classic Heartland, Plantation Midlands, and Coastal Georgia. (These names are more informative/interesting than NSEW titles.)
This differs from the current organization primarily in that the large Piedmont region (which is based on a geographical feature) is replaced with a tighter Metro Atlanta region, with the remaining counties dispersed among adjacent regions.
This change is important because it highlights the Metro Atlanta area at the top of the region hierarchy, and does not bury it as a sub-region. Its relative importance to the other regions warrants this change.
Lastly, I think these 5 regions are comprehensive enough, but not excessively detailed to hinder usefulness. Breaking the regions down further at this level would add little value to a traveler and just add to confusion. --Jtesla16 19:14, 8 November 2009 (EST)
- I'm inclined to support this proposal, as it would move us away from a geographical/directional division (which was originally pushed through without a solid consensus) to a more travel-centric division. I also agree, as I said above, that a Metro Atlanta region should be included in any top-level regions scheme. This is a nice, well-defined proposal, so I'd be happy to start on a Wikitravel-style regions map once we've established a firm enough consensus here. --Peter Talk 04:07, 9 November 2009 (EST)
- I don't know the first thing about Georgia, but it looks fairly solid to me, and I generally trust you guys judgement on divisions. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 05:46, 9 November 2009 (EST)
- Here's a new Georgia regions map. If there aren't any objections within the next week, why don't we just go ahead and implement the new scheme! --Peter Talk 07:38, 10 November 2009 (EST)
- I've moved in the new map, but this site is too unstable/uneditable to sort out all the region pages into the new scheme. So please feel free to go ahead and do it yourself. Otherwise I'll do it once I can load pages with any degree of regularity. --Peter Talk 10:19, 18 November 2009 (EST)
- And it's done (whew)! --Peter Talk 22:29, 18 November 2009 (EST)