Post #2 -- Recommendation for new regions

The most appealing to me is Alternative #5. Below is how the wording might be changed following the NY-NJ Trails Overview link to NEW JERSEY TRAILS [I think it should read "NEW JERSEY PARKS"].  I have added content to the first two proposed regions and uploaded them to the Regions DB to illustrate how we might put the new scheme into practice.


What do you think of the idea of dividing the Coastal Plain into several regions?  That would give us seven regions vs. ten currently used.




This list is organized by areas with a similar terrain that have been shaped by a common geological history.  The locations of parks within these "physiographic provinces" suggest the types of trails a hiker might experience.  An overview map with more detailed descriptions is available from the New Jersey Geological Survey:


Valley and Ridge Region [Note: the "teaser" field of two lines runs into the beginning of the content]

Highlands Region

Piedmont Region

Coastal Plain

  • Jersey Shore Region
  • [Lower] Delaware River Region
  • Pinelands Region
  • Southern Shore Region [Note: I don't think the NJ Walkbook covers this part of the state]



Comment: Please be relevant, civil, non-commercial.

Region types

I have added a new field to the region database called type. I have marked all the existing regions with their type. This allows us to add many types of regions and select all the regions of a given type.

Regions can be of multiple type, e.g. Morris County is both a Walk Book region and a County region.

/view/regions now allows you to select the region type


What about combining the walk book and phisiographic region appr

Phill has done an excellent job of laying our our choices and it is not an easy one.

The physiographic approach appeals to the natural scientist in me but it is really its utility to recreationists that matter.  I think the physiographic regions give a good mind map of places and types of hiking in NJ but not so well in NY. 

Also, I think we need a really good reason to deviate from our WB approach which has been honed over the years.  Though I still don't like the way it "maps."

I wonder how the WB regions map onto the physiographic regions and whether it would be useful to add the latter as layer on top.  Then the WB regions could possibly be included as subregions the way Phill suggested arranging the coastal plain region of NJ.

In NY, I would suggest something entirely different than the physiography:

  • Metro (5 Boroughs)
  • Long Island 
  • Hudson Valley East
  • Hudson Valley West
  • Catskills
  • Adirondacks (someday)
  • Delaware Valley (someday?)

If we have WB regions within these areas (as I know we do in the two Hudson Valleys, at least) they could be included as subsets.

 Again, if we don't settle on something we really like, I would suggest sticking with the WB scheme because it allows us to repurpose existing material with the least amount of effort.