Bivouac peak names on Google Maps - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of (permalink) Old 06-07-2010, 12:11 PM Thread Starter
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: , BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,595
Default Bivouac peak names on Google Maps

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=4...22301&t=p&z=13

Looks like Google has loaded in all of Bivouac.com's mountain names for BC, *including* all of the "unofficial" ones that were "invented".

In other news, it looks like Google Maps has fixed all of their BC parks boundaries and added 50k topos.
ShadowChaser is offline  
Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of (permalink) Old 06-07-2010, 12:16 PM
Dru
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Climbing, a mountain, Canada.
Interest: climbing and spraying
Posts: 16,175
Default

wow, how retarded!

that said, it's not Google, but the third party data suppliers.
Dru is offline  
post #3 of (permalink) Old 06-07-2010, 12:17 PM Thread Starter
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: , BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,595
Default

True, but Google still approved it and loaded it in - rather than the official names. Note the "Report a Problem" link at the bottom
ShadowChaser is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of (permalink) Old 06-07-2010, 12:36 PM
Summit Master
 
mick range's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Forest Gnome Cabin, , Canada.
Interest: Outdoor stuff...especially scrambling,trailrunning,mountain biking,kayaking,and hiking, and of course photography
Posts: 13,876
Default

Here comes confusion
mick range is offline  
post #5 of (permalink) Old 06-07-2010, 12:51 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,375
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by mick range

Here comes confusion
What is the likely confusion (not that I want to reopen an old debate)? I figure the "problem" is the acceptance of non-official names and the potential for "short circuiting" the official process...
swebster is offline  
post #6 of (permalink) Old 06-07-2010, 01:26 PM Thread Starter
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: , BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,595
Default

Perhaps it's time for a mountain wiki on CT, that anyone can edit to ensure accuracy and consistency.
ShadowChaser is offline  
post #7 of (permalink) Old 06-07-2010, 04:20 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: White Rock
Posts: 203
Default

Now our once a year trip up Swan Falls will be to McCombe Peak. Should I change all past references to said peak?
craggers is offline  
post #8 of (permalink) Old 06-07-2010, 04:25 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,586
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by ShadowChaser

Perhaps it's time for a mountain wiki on CT, that anyone can edit to ensure accuracy and consistency.
I think this is a great idea.
Candy Sack is offline  
post #9 of (permalink) Old 06-07-2010, 08:04 PM
Summit Master
 
Ryan.in.yaletown's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Van, BC, Canada.
Posts: 3,231
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by ShadowChaser

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=4...22301&t=p&z=13

Looks like Google has loaded in all of Bivouac.com's mountain names for BC, *including* all of the "unofficial" ones that were "invented".

In other news, it looks like Google Maps has fixed all of their BC parks boundaries and added 50k topos.
Interesting - they haven't popped up in Google Earth yet... might just be a matter of time though.

-Ryan
Ryan.in.yaletown is offline  
post #10 of (permalink) Old 06-08-2010, 05:22 AM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Stoked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: , , .
Posts: 1,297
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by ecoulthard
Interaction with google maps would be a great replacement for Robins javamaps.
I own "Robin's javamaps", not Robin. I wrote and own the source code and allow Bivouac to use the executable code. Anyone wants to use the executables just get in touch with me. The map software can display anything: roads, trails, mountains, coastlines, river, lakes, towns. You can overlay it on top of a background such as a JPEG or GIF map, as long as the background map can be "georeferenced", i.e. you know the coordinates of the corners.

In fact, I pretty much digitized the bulk of roads and trails in Bivouac for about the first ten years so I've got intellectual property there too. Robin's thing was always the mountains. It's only recently, when there's more and better trip reports outside of Bivouac that he's focused on the road and trail information as a means of distinguishing Biv from the masses.

I think a site like Clubtread would be a better way to host a road and trail database. I was never happy with the user pay model and since then Bivouac has deteriorated on a piecemeal basis over a number of years. Just ask Dru and several other "big names" that I can think of. With the fiasco over the peak names I've become embarassed to be associated with it.

Stoked is offline  
post #11 of (permalink) Old 06-08-2010, 08:22 AM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Langley, BC, Canada.
Interest: Too many to list.
Posts: 1,094
Default

In regards to the peak names: He has to call them something. There has to be something to uniquely identify a record in the database and to the users. Should he leave the name blank all together and it would just be known by some ID number?

I agree that deviations from legal names are iffy, but a lot of the features that climbers are interested in aren't named. What else is he supposed to do in that case?
Matt is offline  
post #12 of (permalink) Old 06-08-2010, 10:48 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 719
Default

Gee, I don't know how you could specifically refer to something that is shown on a map. UTM coordinates, lats and longs, even simple map grid references uniquely identify points on map. Made up names can do that, too.
Eryne is offline  
post #13 of (permalink) Old 06-08-2010, 11:41 AM Thread Starter
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: , BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,595
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Matt
Should he leave the name blank all together and it would just be known by some ID number?
Yes!
ShadowChaser is offline  
post #14 of (permalink) Old 06-08-2010, 11:43 AM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Arguing with the Sun, YT, Canada.
Interest: Hiking, watercolour painting, chasing wildlife, backcountry cooking
Posts: 2,905
Default

I like mountains to have names - not necessarily for looking at maps, because I can relate to maps pretty easily.

In the field I have trouble identifying prominent features on the horizon (eg, I've mixed up Meslilloet and Bonny Castle repeatedly) and attaching names to the shapes helps my memory.

I'm all for using proper names, but in conversation, referring to features as “Peak 5700 which is unofficially known as XYZ on Bivouac” gets so cumbersome that it sounds like “the artist formerly known as Prince”

I don't think one or a few individuals should unilaterally choose all of the names either.

So I vote for speeding up the process for officially naming mountains.

All I ask is that one peak gets called “the mountain formerly known as Prince”
mad owl woman is offline  
post #15 of (permalink) Old 06-08-2010, 12:13 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,137
Default

There are lots of different ways to deal with unnamed peaks, and most that I can think of have appeared in Bivouac.
These are called 'generated names':

1) Windsor S2
2) Peak 31-12
3) Peak 5400
4) Peak 1645
5) De3

In principle, these names can all be generated algorithmically (they all refer to the same peak), so that the only decision to make is which scheme to use. One thing that has become clear is that there is no consensus as to which is the best. But nobody would get too upset about peaks being referenced in this way, even if it isn't their preference. In fact, in principle your choice of naming scheme could appear as a user preference, but that would make communication between people with different preferences difficult. In any event, a peak with a generated name is clearly an unnamed peak -- there is no risk of confusion there.
(The scheme (5) is a reference to a scheme that was in place before I joined Bivouac. I never learned the algorithm, so the 'De3' is arbitrary. A specific example is Cy5 -- the 5th unnamed peak in the Cayoosh Range or something like that?)

All of these schemes have problems, especially when there is a concentration of unnamed peaks. In this case, especially if scheme (1) is being used (my preference), there is an argument for assigning some (non generated) name to the most prominent peak in the area. A relatively innocuous approach is to adopt the name of a local geographic feature, such as one of the creeks that drains the peak (creeks seem to get names more than peaks). Such a name is called a 'geographic' name. Crawford Peak in the Mamquam SW summits is an example. Usually, such a name will not induce controversy, however there are notable exceptions. For example, 'Crazy Peak' in the Cadwallader Range had been referred to as such in published trip reports, but Robin decided to change its name to Cadwallader Peak, alienating the authors of the trip reports (going so far as to change the name within the trip reports that were on Bivouac). This is an indication of the core of the Bivouac peak naming problem: Robin's attitude.

Anyway, there are ways of dealing with unnamed features that would at least generate less frustration than the flood of bogus names that have appeared in Bivouac in recent years. Having said that, there should be a means of adopting names that are not official. There are lots of well established names that are not official: Chimai, and Charlie Charlie are two examples that come immediately to mind, but there are dozens or hundreds of examples of such names that are not official, but well established in guidebooks etc. Bivouac refers to such names as 'standing'.

New unofficial names are called 'provisional' in Bivouac. I think it is really good that there are these name classifications, and I don't have an objection to a gentle introduction of new provisional name. The problem is that the infusion of bogus names on Bivouac has been anything but gentle. What is more, all of Robin's new names are incorrectly classified as 'standing'. Robin is the only person who can introduce a new name or change a name in the database. He is the only person who can change the classification of a name.

The primary problem isn't so much that peaks are being named, it is the process by which this is occurring. For example, the VOC can be considered a primary stakeholder in the Mount Brew area of the Squamish Cheakamus divide; they have a cabin there. There is a slew of bogus names in the area. I have never been there, but it appears that every insignificant bump has been given a name (Hops, Keg, ...). If these features needed names, I would like to see them filter in from VOC anecdotes. I don't know, but I would be willing to bet that nobody from the VOC was consulted about these names.

The unnamed peak issue is difficult, and there is no solution that would satisfy everybody. In spite of my frustration with the bogus names, I think there is a lot that Bivouac is doing right. In fact, I think a few simple changes could ameliorate the problem considerably:

1) If a name is unofficial, it should appear in a different font, even if it is a geographic name. It should be very clear what the name status is for a peak.
2) All standing names should be made provisional, and all editors given the permissions to change them back to standing if appropriate.
3) Robin should refrain from introducing new provisional names.

There has been talk in the past about creating an alternative to Bivouac, but it has apparently just been talk. I think anybody who undertakes such a project would have to hugely underestimate how much work has gone into Bivouac. However, a truly collaborative effort can accomplish amazing things. I understand that Bivouac was a much more collaborative project in the early days. Also, much of the data that has manually been introduced to Bivouac could probably be imported algorithmically from government sources if somebody is clever enough.
No matter what, it would take years for such an effort to match the current utility of Bivouac. Initially lot of thought would have to into the copyright model that would best fit a truly open and collaborative project. Otherwise it would just be somebody else's site, rather than Robin's site. Maybe Openmaps is worth looking at.
shrubhugger is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1