Talk:Bay Area public transit

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merge? Move?[edit]

PerryPlanet and Ryan have provided valuable feedback, on my talk page, and I am continuing that conversation here. Peter Chastain (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I wrote the article, I was unaware of the mention of transportation systems in What is [not] an article. In principle, I agree that such information belongs in the "Get in" and "Get around" sections of destination articles. The problem here is that the same info needs to be duplicated in so many destination articles. I like Ryan's idea of making this part of a broader travel topic—I would suggest calling it perhaps San Francisco bay area public transit (or San Francisco Bay Area public transit)—which could include sections for each individual transit system, as well as a section about Clipper cards. Clipper cards, which perhaps were once more intended for local people, have now become more important, IMO, since on some systems (e.g., Santa Clara County VTA) they are the only way to get day-pass rates.

I share PerryPlanet's concern that the details in this article could become out of date. We could, of course, just refer people to the Clipper web site, but that is somewhat complex, and I hope that the distillation I have attempted adds some value and clarity for the traveler. Thanks! Peter Chastain (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be fine with the creation of a larger Bay Area transit article; like you say, given the number of destination articles in the Bay Area, it'd be useful to have one centralized location for all this detailed info. Should we limit it to public transit options (bus/rail/ferry) or should we expand it to cover all modes of transportation, so that we can also include driving, biking, taxi, rideshare, etc. info? PerryPlanet (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would limit the scope to public transit in the 9 Bay Area counties. Anything useful that we can say about driving would either apply to all of California or be specific to a city. (I don't think we should venture into discussions of which freeways have better traffic, as that is already covered by mobile apps that the people who care about that have.) Taxis are regulated by cities, so what little we might say about them is specific to a destination., which we should link in all our destination articles, has a Rideshare tab, though I don't think that would be of much interest to an occasional visitor.
As for bicycling, the public-transit article should at least describe rules for bringing bikes onto each agency's vehicles. But cycling is enough different from public transit that I would suggest covering it (briefly) in city destination articles and possibly in a regional Bay Area cycling article that could describe regional routes (e.g., "If you are a strong rider and don't mind motorists yelling at you, Highway 9 is a beautiful way to get from San Jose to Santa Cruz," or "Traffic on Mount Hamilton road is usually not bad, except on weekends"). Peter Chastain (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with everything written above, although I might suggest calling it "Bay Area ..." rather than "San Francisco Bay Area ..." just to match the existing Bay Area (California) article naming convention. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK... I wasn't sure whether people outside California have their own Bay Areas (with initial caps). Should we make it "Bay Area (California) public transit", or is "Bay Area public transit" sufficient? Peter Chastain (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confusingly, Bay Area is currently a redirect to Bay Area (California) (something went wrong somewhere...), so I'd go with just "Bay Area public transit" for now - it can always be renamed in the future if needed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done! But now I'm thinking that "Bay Area public transit systems" (with directs from shorter versions of that) might be more descriptive. Peter Chastain (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the current name is sufficient. I think the typical person isn't going to draw much of a distinction between the two, so you might as well go with the simpler version. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clipper card section[edit]

Hey, just wanted to say I like the Clipper Card section to this article. Vancouver's public transit is in the process of moving to the Compass Card, which seems very similar to the Clipper Card, and I've been trying to think of a way to explain it that makes sense from a traveller's perspective. This gives me some ideas. -Shaundd (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Model for other articles?[edit]

Could this article in some future state serve as a model for other articles on similar subjects of similar complexity? Maybe one of the German Verkehrsverbünde, like this one or something of the likes? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope so, though the operative term now is future state. My ideas are in flux, as you can see by comparing the "Bear Transit" and "Marguerite" sections, which I am using as small sandboxes before tackling the more complex sections like "VTA". The question is how much detail to put into each section. We shouldn't summarize every route, but we need much more than "This system exists; here's its URL," IMO. Peter Chastain (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. At the very least there should be information on when which pass / special offer makes sense and whether the system is good for a certain purpose (e.g. visiting theme parks in the area or getting around on weekends) Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marking destinations[edit]

In each section, I have been mentioning some of the more notable places where bus routes travel. I suggest using the {{Marker}} template. To get geo coordinates, you can look at the destination on Google Maps, right-click the appropriate blue bus icon, and select "What's here?". Peter Chastain (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No "understand" section?[edit]

Why is there no "understand" section? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The answer to that kind of question is nearly always "because no-one has written one so far". Do you think it needs one? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More info[edit]

Wikipedia page has a good section, but I'm not sure how to add it. Blackdiamand (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]