Talk:List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon

Perhaps add Dry Canyon Creek Bridge and others of Historic Columbia River Highway
Nice start! Perhaps Dry Canyon Creek Bridge, currently a red-link from article on the NRHP and NHL Historic Columbia River Highway, and other bridges covered by that NRHP, can also be added to the table. I think it could be regarded as a contributing property in the historic district that is the NRHP / NHL. We have color bars and other stuff for such places, for use in NRHP infoboxes in articles about them, and for use in row colors in tables that might include them. doncram (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I listed the HCRH at the end; it might be a good idea to list the bridges and tunnels separately, but we'd need to decide which ones to include (the contributing properties include a cattle pass and some unnamed culverts). I also don't have the 1983 nomination yet, so I don't know what was listed as contributing on the part that's not a NHL. --NE2 08:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, i see you are one of main authors of Historic Columbia River Highway (HCRH) article, i hadn't checked. All i was doing was checking the List of NHLs in OR article to see if there were any bridges there that were missing or would need different coloring or other indication here.  I think you can choose to include whichever bridges from it that you want to, you're the expert. :)  But actually, for many historic districts the inventory/nomination documents provide counts of how many buildings, structures (other than buildings), objects, and sites are included in the district which are considered contributing ones, vs. how many of each type exist which are considered non-contributing.  Do the HCRH docs distinguish Dry Canyon Creek Bridge as contributing, and the culverts as merely there, non-contributing?  That would provide a very objective basis to make the decision (to include just the contributing ones as rows in this table).  If the HCRH nominators did not evaluate the elements in this way, is there any other way that they did indicate relative importance of elements in the district? doncram (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the culverts and cattle pass are contributing. I've listed the contributing properties at Talk:Historic Columbia River Highway (the ones with an alphanumeric code before are contributing). Note that this is in the 2000 NHL nomination; I don't yet have the (larger) 1983 NHRP nomination. --NE2 02:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Order for table
I think i would prefer the table's presentation order would be alphabetical by bridge name. It can be sorted by County to get to the currently presented sort order. doncram (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, now that the table is reordered into alphabetical presentation order i would also now want to number it, say like the following 2 row example. That uses NRHP color for the leading row number column for each row that is a regular NRHP.  It would use NHL color for any NHL properties instead, and NRHP district color for any districts, Contributing Property color for any bridges that are just part of a district.  I would just go ahead and add that column and try to color it correctly, but, I don't understand what is the grey background color in some of the rows?  If there is some other meaningful coloring plan intended i don't want to mess things up. doncram (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I used the gray background for bridges that have been removed from the NRHP; there may be a different accepted method of doing this. I don't see the point of the numbers - you can already sort by name, and the numbers make it harder to update. --NE2 02:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining about the gray background. In other NRHP list-articles, for example List of NHLs in MI, the practice has been to put formerly designated places into a separate table below.  The title of the article is belied too quickly if the main table is not actually NRHPs, I think.  I would lean to doing that here, too.


 * About the numbers, one reason i like them in the List of NHLs articles because they make the number of items clear, so we can say in the intro this is a list of all 110 NHLs in the state, say, and that matches up to an NPS number of 110 for the state. I personally tend to disbelieve any statement of how many items there are in a table, if the table gets more than one screen big, if it is not numbered.  They do make a table harder to update.  They also enable us to indicate the different colors for different types of items in a table, NHL vs. NHS vs. NMON etc.  I won't butt in with them here if you don't happen to like that look.  You might want to drop the NRHP color in the column titles that i added already, in anticipation of adding the colored number column, too. doncram (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with separating removed bridges - often they were simply moved elsewhere, and the location column will make that clear. --NE2 04:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that it belies the title of the article, List of bridges on the National Register, too much, to include as the very first item a bridge that is not on the National Register. I don't see how you can narrate that in the intro so that it could make sense.  It certainly would be okay to do a more general list of bridges in a state, and include all of the NRHP ones and some others.  That reminds me, i did a list of bridges once, here it is... List of New York covered bridges.  Some of the NYS covered bridges are NRHPs, some of the historic ones have been altered too much to meet the NRHP standard, others are modern copies.  Not that that is a great example, it never got developed to be a reader-oriented article like you are creating.  Perhaps you can pull it off, but you will have to pay attention to making an intro that makes it work. doncram (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How about putting all the removed ones at the end, but still in the same table (so they're still sortable)? --NE2 06:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That could work. doncram (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Would it be feasible to color the first column without adding numbers? --NE2 15:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps with a dot-point in place of a number, like in a dot-pointed list. Not sure what symbol would work.  Perhaps a lower-case "o"? doncram (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * --NE2 17:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. To see what it would look like, I used the bullet in a toy table here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

Name of article
Current article name is "List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon". Perhaps better, move it to List of bridges and tunnels in Oregon? With that title, it certainly can still include any or all of the NRHP bridges and tunnels (which are all notable). It can also include any other notable ones, including ones that formerly were listed RHPs. doncram (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See also: List of bridges in the United States. And see List of tunnels in the United States.  The Oregon section of the US bridges list could/should redirect to here, if here was expanded to allow any other wikipedia notable bridges that have articles.  I am thinking this article should be the one list of bridges in Oregon.  Not sure about keeping tunnels in it, maybe should just be a list of bridges, for compatibility to List of bridges in the United States.  Create separate article for List of tunnels in Oregon, or expand its section within List of tunnels in the US. doncram (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense to keep NRHP structures separate; there are already enough for a decent-sized list. Lists of all "notable" bridges would probably be best by county or region, or they'd be too long. --NE2 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327141256/http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/HCRH/documents.shtml to http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/HCRH/documents.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160123233752/http://www.occma.org/portals/64/Departments/Community%20Development/oregon_nr_list.pdf to http://www.occma.org/portals/64/Departments/Community%20Development/oregon_nr_list.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Development in 2022: adding bridges, tunnels, viaducts of Historic Columbia River Highway?
At Talk:Historic_Columbia_River_Highway I suggest adding a big table of HCRH structures to Historic Columbia River Highway article. Some such structures, but not including overlooks and "loops" (horseshoe curves) should be added here to this list of NRHP-listed bridges and tunnels in Oregon, IMO. I am partway developing a draft table, possibly for insertion into the table here, of individual bridges at least. Rather than just suggest there are "multiple" bridges and tunnels in what is currently just one row for Historic Columbia River Highway.

About viaducts to add or not, see discussion at Talk:Crown Point Viaduct. Hmm, here, I am not sure if Crown Point Viaduct should be considered a bridge and added to this list-article, or not. Doesn't seem like a bridge to me, but maybe it is a real viaduct and per Wikipedia a viaduct is a bridge. If it is to be included, then so also should other viaducts and "half-viaducts" that are briefly described towards end of This HABS/HAER document of "data pages", linked from HABS/HAER webpage on or0364 "Historic Columbia River Highway, Crown Point Viaduct, Encircling Vista House at Crown Point, Troutdale, Multnomah County, OR". --Doncram (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)