Talk:Lake Ontario State Parkway

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Locations	New York
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Piece vs. section, impression of plagerism

A more detailed explanation of the term "section". As noted, section was used as the term was mentioned in the press release and seems to better convey the closure of that portion of the roadway, versus a "piece" of the parkway being closed.

Just a note on plagerism. The press release is properly cited and the use of one word ("section") is made to denote the portion of the parkway to be closed. Reading the newly added section on the seasonal closure as a whole and referring back to the press release, it reads as an appropriate paraphrasing of the press release. It is unclear how that could give the impression of plagerism.Integre (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The note on plagiarism refers to the idea of choosing words based solely on the word choice used by a source. You're more than welcome to discuss whether "piece" conveys the same meaning as "section" in this context, but please do so based on editorial judgment and not by the word choice of whoever wrote the press release. In any event, I fail to see how that sentence affects anything in the paragraph; the closed section is explicitly stated later on as the section "between Lakeside Beach State Park and NY 98". The sole purpose of the sentence containing "piece" is to provide some background as to why the DOT would elect to close the road during the winter.

Finally, the rewrite was necessitated by this revision of the paragraph, the wording of which was very similar to the press release. Whether or not the release was properly cited is irrelevant; if anything more than a brief quote is copied and pasted verbatim in an article, it is considered to be plagiarism, even if the source material is linked. – TMF (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term "piece" of roadway would seem to convey a less precise description of the parkway to be closed (or any section of roadway). Terms like "portion", "section" and the like would seem to convey a more accurate description. Additionally, that the NYSDOT used "section" in the press release was not the sole reason given to use that word (see "and seems to better convey the closure of that portion of the roadway, versus a "piece" of the parkway being closed").

Regarding plagiarism, a review of the quotes used from the press release vs. the initial notation of the closure was made, and additional attention will be paid to ensuring modifications adhere to Wikipedia's high standards.Integre (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the word choice here has no impact on the reader's understanding of the closure since said closure is described in the article as "between Lakeside Beach State Park and NY 98". – TMF (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parkway ownership

I went through the recently added source asserting that the state OPR has sole ownership of the entire parkway, and I found nothing that backs up that claim. It also contradicts the route log, which indicates that the DOT owns part of the road. – TMF (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My question towards that is do we have a 2nd source of ownership just to backup the TRL?Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 15:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we would need one, as I have no reason to doubt the contents of the route log (p. 68 of the 2012 edition). The source that was added to the article has merely a passing mention of the LOSP, and it certainly doesn't cover whether or not the whole road is owned by the OPR. – TMF (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OP&R rules and regulations make no claim of ownership of the parkway, but do note that OP&R has jurisdiction, custody and control.

Regarding the owner of the LOSP, New York State is listed as the owner. See the Orleans County Real Property Tax Database.

9 NYCRR Part 384 lists the "State Parks, Parkways, Recreation Facilities, State Land and Historic Sites (Facilities)". Section 384.3 (Genesee Region) lists the Lake Ontario State Parkway as a parkway. Section 378.1 discusses the "Use and operation of motor vehicles on property under the jurisdiction, custody and control of the office." In this section, parkways are mentioned in several locations.

Finally, Appendix B (New York Parkways by Jurisdiction) of the 2011 NYSDOT Traffic Data Report at p. 1 lists Route # 947A and 948A as State Non-DOT Parkways.Integre (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Integre (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed the full extract for the Region 4 road inventory and it lists 947A under the jurisdiction of "State Park, Forest, or Reservation agency" Integre (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything that convinces me either way.

The route log has the OPR and the DOT as having jurisdiction over different parts of the road.
The OPR rules and regulations list the parkway among the items in its jurisdiction. This doesn't mean that the entire parkway is within the OPR's jurisdiction; only that some part is.
Re the Orleans County tax link, no one's disputing that the state owns the road.
Appendix B of the TDR is a poor source: it contradicts the route log table even for obvious listings, and for non-DOT roads it doesn't mention the agency that owns it.
The linked version of the highway inventory has the LOSP as you described, but the most recent version lists the DOT under "Jurisdiction".

The only solid conclusion that I can take away from this is that the OPR has jurisdiction over at least part of the road. The agency might have jurisdiction over the entire highway or it might share it with the DOT, but given all of the contradicting sources either claim really can't be made at this time. – TMF (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The route log indicates that OPR and DOT have jurisdiction over 947A, and that OPR has sole jurisdiction over 948A.

The link to Orleans County was provided as a Talk comment claimed source material stated OPR "owns" the parkway, which is not accurate.

Appendix B of the TDR is not a poor source because it contradicts the route log; the route log and the TDR are conflicting sources. That Appendix B does not mention the agency which has jurisdiction over non-DOT parkways does not make the information in that table any less accurate or reliable. What Appendix B does note is that DOT does not have jurisdiction over the parkway mainline, which agrees with the 2009 Region 4 road inventory. That's two sources which state that OPR has sole jurisdiction over 947A.

Regarding the full extract for the Region 4 road inventory, please provide a link to the more current version.Integre (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inventory listings by county. The DOT discontinued the inventory listings by region years ago. – TMF (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]