Subject:
|
Re: Localities groups for New York City
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 27 Mar 1999 21:20:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1893 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, edboxer@aol.com (Ed Jones) writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > > > Hmm, then what are they a part of?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are they at least a part of NYC as much as San Jose is a part of San
> > > > > Francisco, or as much as Long Beach is a part of Los Angeles?
> >
> > It appears that you are dealing with a geographic/population spoke.
>
> I guess that's a good way of putting it!
>
> The main jist of the loc groups is to help people meet one another in
> their local areas and share information about local areas. On my map,
> Yonkers is inside the white-colored section of the map that's labeled New
> York [City] so that's basically how it came to be listed as
> lugnet.loc.us.ny.ny.yon rather than lugnet.loc.us.ny.yon.
>
>
> > If that is is the case, then you could consider Yonkers as part of the
> > Metro NYC area.
>
> Say, does Yonkers consider itself part of NYC? :) But more importantly,
> if someone posts about a good LEGO sale somewhere in Kings, wouldn't
> someone from Yonkers really "jump on it" just as much as someone in the
> Bronx?
Yonkers doesn't really consider itself part of NYC. And they'd never travel
to Brooklyn to buy Lego :') The bridge tolls alone would eat up the savings
> Also, I don't want to take this grouping to an extreme which puts
> technically incorrect information in the textual descriptions of the
> groups. That is, I think I had described Yonkers as
>
> Yonkers, New York City, New York, U.S.A.
>
> and I gather that it would more correctly be described as--?
>
> Yonkers, New York, U.S.A.
>
> as Yonkers is (technically) a totally separate city from NYC, even though
> it is a satellite city of NYC.
Correctamundo!!
> I mean, it certainly wouldn't make sense to describe Cambridge, MA as
>
> Cambridge, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
>
> even if it had the newsgroup name of lugnet.loc.us.ma.bos.cam, so it
> probably doesn't make sense for Yonkers to be described as part of NYC for
> the same reason...(?)
Exactly
>
> > I'm not convinced about Long Island. Most Long Islanders have never
> > set foot in Manhattan.
>
> So if a new group were created for Long Island (there currently isn't one)
> it might not probably belong under the lugnet.loc.us.ny.ny hierarchy, but
> instead as lugnet.loc.us.ny.li or something?
>
> Oh, wait. There is a group for Suffolk. Is it correct that people would
> see Suffolk and think Long Island?
You have groups for Suffolk and Nassau counties - they could be
lugnet.loc.us.ny.li.
> > But, for a Metro NYC area, you should include Newark, NJ.
>
> Hmm.
Hey its right acoss the river, and they do consider themselves part on NYC.
>
> > And
> > if you are including all of Long Island (Montauk is over 100 miles away), • then
> > you should consider the SW corner of CT as well.
>
> Hmm. :)
>
> What about cross-reference links from the web pages? For example,
> Vancouver, British Columbia is not a satellite city of Seattle,
> Washington, but people from Seattle have been very excited to learn of
> LEGO sales in Vancouver, and people in Vancouver have at times (I think)
> come down to the States for PNLTC get-togethers. So it may make a lot of
> sense to list Vancouver on the Seattle page. Likewise, Modesto and
> Stockton should probably be listed (cross-referenced) on the San Francisco
> page.
That would be great - have a link to other cities within a 60 mile radius.
> So -- would Newark, Long Island, and the SW corner of CT be adequately
> served as cross-linkages from the NYC page, or ought they really to be
> given as sub-categories of the NYC group? (Newark is particularly
> problematic since it already has its own dedicated group
> lugnet.loc.us.nj.new.)
Cross links would be great.
>
> BTW, Yonkers is 15(?) miles away from the epicenter of NYC. Greenwich,
> Stamford, and Norwalk are 25-40 miles away. Would Rye and Port Chester
> (closer yet) more naturally belong to NYC or to Stamford? (There is
> currently no group for Stamford; maybe there should be.)
In essence, they could be cross links to NYC.
>
> > But I would still suggest two purely technical nitpicks. 1. Either
> > use all county names or all borough names for the 5 boroughs of NYC.
>
> Do you know where I can find/get a list of the county names and the
> borough names?
Manhattan - New York County
The Bronx - Bronx County (note the official name is "The Bronx")
Queens - Queens County
Brooklyn - Kings County
Staten Island - Richmond County
> > 2. Manhattan is never called Manhattan Island.
>
> Oops -- I'll fix that.
>
> --Todd
Thanks for your repsonse!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Localities groups for New York City
|
| (...) OK then, so you're reassuring me that no one is going to scream bloody murder if the Yonkers group were moved out of the NYC hierarchy and into the NY State hierarchy? :) That is, renaming it from lugnet.loc.us.ny.ny.yon -> (...) (26 years ago, 28-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Localities groups for New York City
|
| (...) I guess that's a good way of putting it! The main jist of the loc groups is to help people meet one another in their local areas and share information about local areas. On my map, Yonkers is inside the white-colored section of the map that's (...) (26 years ago, 27-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
