| Author |
Topic |
Vancouver, BC
Canada
606 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2012 : 7:59 PM
|
Whatever ends up getting done (or not done), the worst thing is this provincial based division that only leads to unnecessary bickering. Rockies, Cascades, Monashees etc don't belong to anyone, they are for all of us to enjoy (and be nice to each other in the process)
I like David and Karen Mountain Chain based approach. It still keeps it small enough, with perhaps park-based secondary key. (I guess Karen won't really care as long as there are nice photos to be taken  ) |
|
|
Edmonton, AB
Canada
468 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2012 : 9:23 PM
|
Big thumb for this idea.
I treat Alberta forum as Rocky Mountains forum though. When I threw Paget Peak (in Yoho) into BC forum in July, it only got 60-70 clicks before being burried into a sea of Coast Mountain threads.
Okay, so if I put my trip report of Mount Carnarvon into BC forum, how many of you will know this mountain? and how many of you will care about this peak? It's a major scramble in Yoho and I think everyone who has Alan Kane Scramble Book knows this peak. I don't think the Vancouverians will buy this book.
Anyway I'll write every future trips that's in the Rockies into Alberta forum. I think ALberta scramblers don't check BC forum regularly as those mountains are so far away. |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2012 : 10:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by zeljkok
Whatever ends up getting done (or not done), the worst thing is this provincial based division that only leads to unnecessary bickering. Rockies, Cascades, Monashees etc don't belong to anyone, they are for all of us to enjoy (and be nice to each other in the process)
I've always thought that in good fun. I've never seen anyone talking about 'my mountains' or such defensively...
I think you can safely read any such statements and imagine a joking grin.
I mean, really, they ALL belong to me. :D |
Edited by - Rachelo on 08/28/2012 10:31 PM |
|
|
|
Outward Bound author of the Seinfeld Thread, who builds his own snowshoes
Troy, MT
USA
3125 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2012 : 10:47 PM
|
But what about the Rockies that extend into MontanAmerica? Do I get left out of this new subforum?
I agree with Dru on the whole matter. |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
606 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2012 : 11:21 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Farmer
But what about the Rockies that extend into MontanAmerica? Do I get left out of this new subforum?
Excellent point. Rockies are Rockies; man made fences (Montana / Colorado / BC / Alberta) only cause problems. This is why I like division on Mountain Chain or Park level. So if you hike Logan Pass you post in "Rockies" forum, subdivision "Glacier/Montana". Like this, even if Alberta becomes Rockies (which it won't because it was not presented the proper way and too many people are now pissed off) -- BC folks out of spite won't post there when they go to O'Hara or Takkakaw or whatever, same as now Albertans don't post in B.C forum when they hike Iceline.
It is also not enough to simply rename Alberta Rockies. What about Drumheller or Elk Island or ... . This needs more careful thought than just rush and wave the flag "Unite the Rockies". Winter is coming and there will be less trips. Together we should be able to come with model that is optimal for everyone, all in good spirit. I also love Rockies, possibly more than anyone on this board, but personal sentiments should be left aside in stuff like this. |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2012 : 08:00 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by zeljkok
quote:
Originally posted by Farmer
But what about the Rockies that extend into MontanAmerica? Do I get left out of this new subforum?
Excellent point. Rockies are Rockies; man made fences (Montana / Colorado / BC / Alberta) only cause problems. This is why I like division on Mountain Chain or Park level. So if you hike Logan Pass you post in "Rockies" forum, subdivision "Glacier/Montana". Like this, even if Alberta becomes Rockies (which it won't because it was not presented the proper way and too many people are now pissed off) -- BC folks out of spite won't post there when they go to O'Hara or Takkakaw or whatever, same as now Albertans don't post in B.C forum when they hike Iceline.
It is also not enough to simply rename Alberta Rockies. What about Drumheller or Elk Island or ... . This needs more careful thought than just rush and wave the flag "Unite the Rockies". Winter is coming and there will be less trips. Together we should be able to come with model that is optimal for everyone, all in good spirit. I also love Rockies, possibly more than anyone on this board, but personal sentiments should be left aside in stuff like this.
Logically, Glacier National Park would go with the Rockies, but if it were simply an Alberta/Canadian Rockies forum, it really wouldn't be a big downside. The reason I'm bringing it up and pressing hard is that it comes up *constantly*. It's been raised over and over again this summer, derailing multiple TRs. No-one posts about Glacier National Park regularly, so it's really not much of an issue. The 'TR - other areas' forum is also not so highly populated that people don't lose TS quickly in there.
Yes, there are piles of other questions that could be asked about how other parts of the forum could more logically be divided. But until this is raised, no-one seems to have much of a problem with them. The BC Rockies question is a constant one, and one that could quickly and easily be settled by renaming the Alberta forum into "Alberta/Canadian Rockies".
The rest of Alberta isn't hiked much, and thus isn't a big concern, but also doesn't need its own area. Hence the Alberta/Rockies, rather than just renaming to Rockies.
It really doesn't need more careful thought. There has been plenty of thought. The last time I created a thread, it was more neutral with a 'can we reconsider how the forums are arranged?', and it didn't get anywhere, because it was bogged down with questions as to what to do about BC.
Thus, my suggestion here to let all that happen in a separate debate (with largely different players having a stake), and my push to have it no longer brought up and never getting anywhere. We can make the Rockies one forum which works much more logically for those who use that forum without having to reorganize everything else at the same time.
Okay, seriously, what is with the emotional hangup? Current Albertan posters don't not use the BC forum because of spite or because we have some sort of bias against the province. We don't use it because it seems more logical to post BC Rockies with the rest of the Rockies, or because we have noticed that it is quickly buried in the BC forum and not seen by the others most likely to be interested, or because the trip started in Alberta (even if just by vehicle) or the number of other reasons you see listed in this thread and the linked TRs.
None of us have a problem with BC. It just doesn't seem like the best place to put BC Rockies reports.
If you or other British Columbians really wouldn't post Yoho TRs in a new Alberta/Rockies forum out of spite, that would be ridiculously childish. I don't believe that is remotely likely though, as you're the only one I've seen personally offended by the conversation, and I don't understand why. You're the only one who seems to see genuine bickering or possessiveness or any of that, and I again suggest you turn on your tongue-in-cheek sensor.
This isn't a personal sentiment. This is a suggestion for a more logical reorganisation of one small area that would be a quick-fix to adjust to how the majority of the users use it and prefer it.
|
Edited by - Rachelo on 08/29/2012 08:04 AM |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2012 : 08:19 AM
|
So far in this thread:
In favour of a single Rockies forum:
-5 regular Rockies users
-2 occasional Rockies users living elsewhere
Opposed to a single Rockies forum:
-1 sometimes Rockies user
-1 tongue-in-cheek "don't take our Rockies!' comment
-0 regular Rockies users
-0 people with a genuine concern about that method of organisation
Opposed to any forum divisions (which is not really relevant to a discussion of how to arrange the forums as long as we have multiple):
-2 non-Rockies users
As I suggested in the beginning, people who use the Rockies are generally in favour of a single forum. A number of posters treat the Alberta forum as a Rockies forum already, and those who do post BC Rockies TRs in BC do so because that is how the forum says it should be organized - they have never spoken against a Rockies forum.
Even if 'people who regularly hike the Rockies, and post/read/comment on Rockies TRs' are a small subset of this forum, it seems easy enough to organize that smaller subset forum in a manner logical to those who use it.
Even those who don't use it haven't expressed any concerns with that method of organisation except for one person who fears other British Columbians will develop large amounts of spite for it (unsubstantiated by any other BC folks).
The disagreement that does appear are questions about the organisation of other areas or the forums in general
It would be very nice if we could deal with this question on its own (good bit of support, no serious opposition), instead of getting bogged down again into big questions as to how the whole forum should be organized. |
Edited by - Rachelo on 08/29/2012 9:05 PM |
|
|
|
Kootenay Bud
2695 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2012 : 09:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rachelo
Logically, Glacier National Park would go with the Rockies, but if it were simply an Alberta/Canadian Rockies forum, it really wouldn't be a big downside.
If you are talking Canada's Glacier National Park (not the US one), it most definitely would not logically fit with the Rockies - it's in the Selkirks.
It all seems fairly irrelevant to me. If you are interested in the TR why does it matter if it's in one forum or another?
The only method that would make any sense to me would be by mountain range - Rockies, Columbias, Coast. The Cascades would get lumped in with the Coast. The Purcells and Selkirks with the Columbias. You guys are totally welcome to your Crumblie Mountains  |
Edited by - sandy on 08/29/2012 09:43 AM |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2012 : 10:31 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sandy
quote:
Originally posted by Rachelo
Logically, Glacier National Park would go with the Rockies, but if it were simply an Alberta/Canadian Rockies forum, it really wouldn't be a big downside.
If you are talking Canada's Glacier National Park (not the US one), it most definitely would not logically fit with the Rockies - it's in the Selkirks.
It all seems fairly irrelevant to me. If you are interested in the TR why does it matter if it's in one forum or another?
The only method that would make any sense to me would be by mountain range - Rockies, Columbias, Coast. The Cascades would get lumped in with the Coast. The Purcells and Selkirks with the Columbias. You guys are totally welcome to your Crumblie Mountains
I meant American Glacier National Park which is geologically part of the Canadian Rockies.
Canadian Glacier National Park I would put in a category I'd call 'Interior BC' which would include everything between the Coast/Cascade and the Rocky Mountain Trench. |
|
|
|
Satirical photoshop junkie who frolics in the mountains of the Chilliwack River Valley
Chilliwack, BC
Canada
6908 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2012 : 7:43 PM
|
| And Elk Mtn can get it's own forum because there are so freaking many TR's from there |
|
|
1067 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2012 : 8:10 PM
|
I don't see an issue with the current system. Complaining that BC Rockies TR's get lost or buried to those who would be most interested is not valid, as the search function will return desired beta regardless of where it's stored. The idea that because the trip started by vehicle in Alberta makes no sense. Do all Alberta Rockies trip reports with participants originating in BC thus belong in the BC forum?
Having family in Airdrie and Edmonton, and living some time in the vicinity of the North Rockies, I feel I've spent enough time in the Rockies to have a valid opinion unqualified by your designations meant to diminish opinion validity (by the way, it would be ludicrous to have the North Rockies outside of the BC forum). Please do not try to dismiss my opinion by designating me as a non-Rockies user. If you want to treat this like a survey and tally replies, you should probably give some clearly defined options to choose instead of categorizing and qualifying after the fact with such an obvious bias.
|
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1607 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2012 : 9:05 PM
|
As a way to keep everyone equally dissatisfied I propose that we create a separate forum for each NTS map number. e.g 92J/3. This system would remove all possible ambiguity and would also filter out people who don't know how to read maps.
I'd also like to kindly point out that there is more to ClubTread than mountain ranges. Where will someone post a kayak trip to the Broken Group Islands?
In all seriousness.... if a majority of the people reading and writing Rockies TRs find the BC/Alberta division to be a major problem then it sounds like a reasonable modification. However, don't underestimate the number of people who understand the difference between BC and Alberta but don't understand the difference between the various mountain ranges.
P.S. I was disappointed that this wasn't a thread about uniting all the parks in the Rocky Mountains.
|
Edited by - Steventy on 08/29/2012 9:06 PM |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2012 : 9:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kid Charlemagne
I don't see an issue with the current system. Complaining that BC Rockies TR's get lost or buried to those who would be most interested is not valid, as the search function will return desired beta regardless of where it's stored. The idea that because the trip started by vehicle in Alberta makes no sense. Do all Alberta Rockies trip reports with participants originating in BC thus belong in the BC forum?
Having family in Airdrie and Edmonton, and living some time in the vicinity of the North Rockies, I feel I've spent enough time in the Rockies to have a valid opinion unqualified by your designations meant to diminish opinion validity (by the way, it would be ludicrous to have the North Rockies outside of the BC forum). Please do not try to dismiss my opinion by designating me as a non-Rockies user. If you want to treat this like a survey and tally replies, you should probably give some clearly defined options to choose instead of categorizing and qualifying after the fact with such an obvious bias.
What do you consider North Rockies?
I am not suggesting that your opinion is worthless. What I'm really looking for is whether people who use the area are in favour, and whether anyone else would actually have a problem with the change, whether or not they would favour it themselves.
While I did summarize what had been said, you notice that you are the first person on the summary who is actually opposed to the idea. There were two oppositions posted that were really opposed to a classification system at all, not with this particular suggested classification. Others might have said they don't see a point, but no-one seemed to have a real issue with it.
I didn't make it a survey. I just summarized what had been posted to date.
As for my summarizing according to usage, I think it makes plenty of sense. If a majority of users affected by a change are in favour of it, and the only opposition is a few voices who would rarely or never be affected, it seems logical to pass. Sure, if the forum as a whole was opposed, then a change would be a bad idea, but mostly I see the people who use the BC Rockies saying 'yes, that would be way better' (for whatever collection of reasons), and people who very rarely use the BC Rockies saying 'I don't see the point in that'.
I might not have necessarily seen any point in separating the Vancouver Island forum, but I don't use that area much, so I would naturally expect my opinion to matter less than people who use it regularly or occasionally. |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2012 : 9:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steventy
As a way to keep everyone equally dissatisfied I propose that we create a separate forum for each NTS map number. e.g 92J/3. This system would remove all possible ambiguity and would also filter out people who don't know how to read maps.
I'd also like to kindly point out that there is more to ClubTread than mountain ranges. Where will someone post a kayak trip to the Broken Group Islands?
In all seriousness.... if a majority of the people reading and writing Rockies TRs find the BC/Alberta division to be a major problem then it sounds like a reasonable modification. However, don't underestimate the number of people who understand the difference between BC and Alberta but don't understand the difference between the various mountain ranges.
P.S. I was disappointed that this wasn't a thread about uniting all the parks in the Rocky Mountains.
That sounds like an AWESOME plan. We could have HUNDREDS of forums!!!
I have found the combination of area-specific and activity-specific forums a little confusing, but generally assume that TRs go in the TR areas, and activity-specific are for conversation points about a particular activity that may not be of interest/understanding to people who don't do the activity. But I'm not entirely sure. I figure the answer is whatever the people who regularly kayak the coast have found to work well. Having never kayaked the Broken Group, I wouldn't have an opinion on that placement.
I could certainly see confusion if we tried to separate out the smaller ranges across BC, but the Rocky Mountain Trench is a pretty clear division (even for those who don't know what the trench is), and based on what I see reported, I think it would be unlikely to cause any confusion. We might see the odd Canadian Glacier NP out of place in the Rockies forum or such, but it'd be a lot less than the scattered BC Rockies TRs we have now.
Now that you mention it, that's a good point. Why is one UNESCO site a conglomeration of so many individually-administered bits? Is there still value to the historical division? but heck, at least the parks are pretty clear. Kananaskis is a glob of a whole pile of different types of different parks and its a horrid mess. I'd look to unite that before I'd start worrying about Banff and Jasper (I mean that as a person 'I would' not in the 'one should' sense). |
|
|
1067 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2012 : 9:26 PM
|
| The North Rockies stretch from the Tumbler Ridge area some 1000km north to the Liard River. Some consider anything north of the Jasper area to be North Rockies. That's 1000km+ of solely BC Rocky Mountains. Are you proposing that this would be included in an Alberta/Rockies forum? |
|
|
Powell River, bc
Canada
2537 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2012 : 10:43 PM
|
First of all,I know I'm one of the people who brought it up this summer,so here's my two cents................
I post my Yoho tr's in BC,under BC rockies and Koots,for one simple reason....it's IN BC!
I didn't draw the maps or make the boarders,but they exist,and Yoho is on this side. If I was hiking in Jasper or Banff,I did it the Alberta section ,for the same reason. It seems REALLY simple.
Any reference I made like "it's on OUR side" was a joke. I'm funny,ask anyone who knows me :)
Also,I was in the lower mainland for a long time,though for 8 years I lived all over the province,and I read and comment on "your" trip reports all the time,you guys live in paradise. Now I live in another paradise,and long for yours,the grass is always greener...
Can't we just all get along LOL!!!
quote:
I treat Alberta forum as Rocky Mountains forum though. When I threw Paget Peak (in Yoho) into BC forum in July, it only got 60-70 clicks before being burried into a sea of Coast Mountain threads.
Need a tissue for your issue??? Rolls eyes... |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3796 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2012 : 11:01 PM
|
no quitting,
I think most of us understand that jostles are all in fun. No worries there.
Yes, the provincial borders are clear as to what is in BC and what is in Alberta.
We are simply suggesting that the geographic barrier makes a better dividing point for the forum than the political barrier.
As for Steven's reasons for posting in the Alberta forum, I don't see a whine about issues. I see an explanation as to why he thinks it makes more sense to post his TRs where interested people more often see them.
quote:
Originally posted by Kid Charlemagne
The North Rockies stretch from the Tumbler Ridge area some 1000km north to the Liard River. Some consider anything north of the Jasper area to be North Rockies. That's 1000km+ of solely BC Rocky Mountains. Are you proposing that this would be included in an Alberta/Rockies forum?
I thought I had replied to this, but apparently haven't. I didn't mean to ignore your question, sorry.
I had not considered the north end of the Rockies, largely because I don't see it posted often enough to be in my mind. But since you asked..
I would leave those far northern areas in the BC forum if we were to simply create an Alberta/Rockies forum. I would only suggest adding that to the Rockies if the whole forum system were to be replaced by a range system.
It could certainly be contentious, but I think the extreme rarity with which TRs from that area are posted make it not really a big deal, and I don't have a strong opinion. |
|
|
Calgary
165 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2012 : 10:31 AM
|
I support the idea of a Rockies forum. I think that people will continue to post BC Rockies TR's and discussion to the Alberta forum because that is where the relevant and up to date information and discussion about the rockies will come from.
Current conditions and answers to questions come from current users and many rockies users never have the time to sort through the endless BC forum on a weekly basis.
Just post where you think the information will be most useful and where you will get the best answers.
|
|
|
Edmonton, Ab.
13 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2012 : 04:58 AM
|
I have to agree that uniting the Rockies is the way to go and I haven`t even been here long enough to be biased. The simple fact is that the BC parks are very close to the Alberta parks and all are in the Rockies. No secret there but for simplicity and trying to find info on these western areas of the rockies (that I'm not very familiar with, unlike Alberta) would only make sense if it was in the same sub-forum. In my short time here I`ve already noticed that wading through the countless threads from the west coast in the BC forums that are simply too far for me is a pain in the arse to navigate. With the BC forums having 1000% of the activity of the Alberta forums why not throw us the western Rockies?
|
|
|
|
Trail running, bike hucking, fast packing, beer drinking collector of pine cones on a day pass
AKA
Dances with Trees
Forest Gnome Cabin
Canada
13057 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2012 : 07:18 AM
|
| I do know that once I get into Yoho or Kootenay I'm in the Rockies mindset, and it often never occurs to me whether I'm in BC or Alberta. Functionally, it is a nation unto itself so I'd not have any major objection to it being united in an online forum, per se. I think, regionally, we'd have to limit the zone to as far north as Grande Cache and as far south as Waterton. Whether it changes or not, btw, I'll still read all the trip reports. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Unite the Rockies!
