I just added a bunch of park template headers to this article, since it is for a state park. But it's a weird state park! It's about the size of Vermont, has commonly understood subregions (which are not yet all in the article), and plenty of populated towns (that were there before the area received protected park status). I think this weird hybrid model is the best way to treat the Adirondacks, but perhaps some of the headers should get cut out, if we decide to do so. --PeterTalk 04:35, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
I'd drop a line at the pub to solicit some more feedback. There may be a solution used someplace else that we can apply here. LtPowers 13:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
The Adirondacks are huge, and we won't have a good guide to them unless we start to break this down into more manageable chunks. The Champlain Valley and Keene Valley regions are valid, but they only cover like 1/16 of the total territory of the park. So we need to develop a comprehensive regions hierarchy for the park. That'll be hard, and I don't have any suggestions at present, but I'll return to this. --PeterTalk 04:37, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
OK, finally got around to this complex task, and I think I've come up with some pretty good regions, as shown to the right. There are a long number of ways you could divide up the park (examples: , , ), but these are pretty well defined and I think they make a lot of sense as travel regions (that is, they should have nice thematic coherence & content spread).
The only region with potential to become crowded is "Eastern Lakes," but that would be easy to divide up if necessary into a "Lake Champlain region" and a "Lake George region." When the boundaries are not following roads or the Hudson, they might look arbitrarily drawn, but they're actually not—I tried to keep major wilderness areas, as well as trail clusters in single regions, unsplit. Thoughts? --PeterTalk 03:50, 7 June 2009 (EDT)
It looks fine to me, but I have zero familiarity with the area. =) Certainly a high-quality map, I just can't speak to the accuracy of the region division. LtPowers 10:47, 7 June 2009 (EDT)
I am in Saranac Lake, and can mostly talk about that area. It seems to me that you might want to have the high peaks in one area and the Saranac Lakes in another. This would let you include most of the 46 High Peaks in one area and lots of the canoeing in another area. It is good that you have Long Lake and the Saranacs in the same area as there is major canoe race that goes throgh all of them. Then St. Regis Canoe Area could be in the same area as the Saranac Lakes. I'll think a bit more as well. Gam3
So are you suggesting that we move the Saranacs from "High Peaks & the Saranacs" to "Northwestern Lakes & Wilderness?" If so, should the latter article be renamed? Or do you think the Saranacs + Long Lake & St. Regis Canoe Area should get their own region? If so, what do you think would be a good name? --PeterTalk 20:53, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
I have a couple of different ideas: 1) Move HP & SL to the west a bit so that Tupper Lake and St. Regis is in it and Elisabethtown is not. 2) Thinking of travel centers -- Just have 4 regions: Old forge, Great Sacandaga, Lake George and Tri-lakes/High-peaks, Tri-lake/High-peaks would be all the North. A line from Port Henry cutting just south of Long Lake, and would still have fewer people than the out three regions. Gam3 23:47, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
Hmm. One disadvantage to having such a large northern region is that we're not just worried about distributing content about the populated areas. I'd like to see some good general information about the various wilderness areas, public lands, major lakes, rivers, mountains, and hikes get covered in these subregion articles. So I worry that a Tri-Lakes/High-Peaks article might have just a bit too much territory to cover well in one article.
I think the idea of moving HP/SL to the west to exclude Elizabethtown is a good one. If we use this 4-region scheme (we could divide regions in the future if need be), I think we should keep the areas east of the Northway (along Lake Champlain) still grouped with Lake George as an Eastern Lakes region. The highway makes it a pretty coherent travel region (as does the unbroken canoe route!) That will cut down on the sheer size and scope of the territory to be described in the large Northern Area region article.
(Sorry I took so long to respond!) --PeterTalk 02:46, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
Where do we stand on this? Conceptually, I like the five-region map shown above, and I agree it seems to make sense (simply looking at the map, admittedly, and with no knowledge of the area) to move Elizabethtown to the Eastern Lakes region (to keep both sides of the Northway corridor in the same region). Can we agree to do that and then get started on implementing the region breakdown? LtPowers 10:34, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
I've been doing a lot more hiking and poring over various maps of the Adirondacks lately, and would want to devote some good time to reviewing this breakdown before going forward. I'm working on too many things right now at once, though... --PeterTalk 18:18, 25 July 2011 (EDT)