Talk:El Camino Real (California)

Inclusion of Baja California
Considering that the camino real was a thoroughfare created during the Spanish and Mexican period in a context in which the Californias were a single entity, shouldn't the portion of the camino real de California which falls in the current states of Baja California and Baja California Sur in Mexico be included in this article? While the portion in the U.S. state of California is itself a designated California Historical Landmark, that designated portion is still only one half of the subject of this article. Including the Mexican California portion in this article would also help to contextualize this historic road in a wider mission system that spanned a much wider territory.

It could be considered that the portion of the camino real in Baja was much better engineered (and as such better preserved) in the territories where the Jesuit missions were established (before their expulsion) than the Dominican and Franciscan areas; however, the now less preserved parts of the camino real were still part of the same network and had the same basic purpose of connecting the missions; and besides, adding the rest of the camino real de California to this article would allow this page to address the history and current conditions of what remains of the California camino real in Mexico.

A quick, though not academic, source of info which could help to start adding information about this southern portion of the camino can be found in the article El Camino Real in Baja California in BajaBound. The San Diego History Center also provides an article which is another good introduction to this portion of the camino. The Santa Clara University's Anthropology Department also provides information on the camino and provides an argument for what it calls a Binational View of the camino real as well as the mission system of the Californias. Christopher Arturo Aragón Vides (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Modern highway and street routes
We need a better source for the modern routing than merely citing sources that just list the definition by the California State Legislature. California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 3, Section 635 just gives a generic routing:
 * "State highway routes embracing portions of Routes 280, 82, 238, 101, 5, 72, 12, 37, 121, 87, 162, 185, 92, and 123 and connecting city streets and county roads thereto..."

This definition does NOT list the specific segments of those highways, nor does the law list the specific "connecting city streets and county roads". Furthermore, I assume the legislature's specific addition of California State Route 162 in the law was a mistake, as that highway is nowhere near the original historic route. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)