Talk:Infrastructure
The plan is to get a few of my pictures of these problems up there with a bit of a description and perhaps notes about any correspondence sent along with some dates. Might make a little icon or colour to indicate which problems are fixed but leave them up there for the record. I will leave the page orphaned until I get a few pics and links up there and will then link it to the main page. I have entered in a few notable problems that others have mentioned with the hope that someone will fill in the details and put up the pics.
kim 7/9/06
The Schonell bridge links
That one confused me a little as it was one of the pages I was working on when the wikiware got updated. I was going to make a link in the intro verbage to Ian's existing Schonell page showing construction, but instead I have just made my Schonell bikeway problem page under this heading, I think that looks fine and not confusing. Feel free to juggle the flow if you think it needs it. Some of the problems I envisage will be on the approaches to the actual bridge and may eventually get grouped that way if there are a lot of them. --kim 19:55, 18 December 2006 (EST)
Restructure
On Mon, 12 May 2008 Kim wrote: [1]
Agree with your comment too Ian, about the current page title for the bits I have been sticking up there. Most of that stuff is really all about safety and compliance of existing facilities or 'minutiae' as the AT folk in BCC call it, but that is rather my bag, coming from that background. I agree that it is a bit unbalanced having just that, in what should be a bigger section in the 'advocacy' section of the wiki [..]
How about we create a new "Issues" or "Advocacy issues" page linked directly from the front page (replacing the link to this page), and link to this page from there? We would also have a page for big ticket infrastructure items that are having a big impact on cycling (e.g. TransApex and Busways) and perhaps for other, non-infrastructure advocacy issues. We could possibly rename this page to "Minutiae" or even "Audits" or something. Any thoughts? Suggestions for better page names? Should the suggested pages in fact just be sections of the one page? Alternative arrangements?
Kim continued:
I think maybe the bits I have put up there would more correctly be titled 'existing infrastructure' and then we could add a section called 'proposed infrastructure' or 'current infrastructure' which would focus on the newly proposed stuff before it gets of the drawing board and then a third section titled 'needed infrastructure' or 'suggested infrastructure' or 'desired infrastructure' or 'future ideas' or simply 'wish list infrastructure' for that that has not been planned yet but is desired by cyclists.
Perhaps these would all be links from the top level advocacy issues page? Or sections of the existing infrastructure/minutiae page? Where would pages like the North Toowong corridor be linked from in here (if at all)? -- Ian Lister 08:04, 29 May 2008 (EST)
