Unite the Rockies! - Page 4 - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #46 of (permalink) Old 09-07-2012, 02:49 AM
Hittin' the Trails
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Edmonton, Ab., .
Posts: 22
Default

Too bad it's like pulling teeth around here to get a half assed response from an admin.
Kitlope is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #47 of (permalink) Old 09-10-2012, 04:02 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,036
Default

The Trench: Cranbrook to Golden to Kinbasket Lake to Valemount, separates Rockies from the others.

Okanagan Valley: Osoyoos to Kelowna separates the Coasts with Columbias. Columbia Mountains has: Purcell range, Selkirk Range, Monashee Range, and Cariboo Range.

Lower Fraser Valley separates Coasts with Cascades, and Cascades goes deep into US, with only a small portion in BC. Things like Chilliwack Lake area, Cathedral Park, Cheam Peak, goes in Cascades.

I think Eric's site has a better division line by mountain ranges. summitsearch.org
StevenSong is offline  
post #48 of (permalink) Old 09-11-2012, 09:12 AM
tu
High on the Mountain Top
 
tu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,753
Default

There's already regional tags you can apply when you enter TRs, the list of regions found here:

https://www.clubtread.com/Routes/

Unfortunately, it's not much used or used incorrectly and mostly useless since you can't key search within the defined Regions.

Those tags don't define regions by mountain ranges because hiking necessarily isn't always focussed on mountains. Lots of good hikes fall 'in between'.

I'm all for any proposal that encourages TRs and the viewing of TRs by a wider audience.

So I personally like Dru's suggestions of getting rid of TR categories entirely.

A lot of times, people just focus on their local neck of the woods, and that's unfortunate. There's lots of good hiking out there - I mean look at Rented Mule - just awesome TRs, even though I haven't lived in that region in years, every time I see his TRs it gives me a hankering to get back there.

And sometimes, there's this BC vs Alberta thing on CT, that I also think is unfortunate. Maybe some Albertans want their own forum, and that's understandable, but I think unfortunate.

Fighting over which side owns the Canadian Rockies is unseemly.

Maybe making the Regional tags that are already there more useful would be a good thing. Allow people to search the TRs for the regions they want. Rather than split the forum and fight over who owns which region.
tu is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #49 of (permalink) Old 09-11-2012, 01:04 PM Thread Starter
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Andorra.
Interest: hiking, backpacking, scrambling, climbing
Posts: 4,439
Default

The region tags make sense for specifying a more detailed location within a region, but are a separate thing from how to arrange the forums themselves.

As for encouraging people to view other TRs, I'm on the other side. I favour the forum set-up being appropriate to how people actually use the forum - not how we might imagine it would be nice for people to use them.
Thus, my proposal for the Rockies to join the Alberta forum. Realistically, Vancouverites don't often post, read, or comment on TRs to the BC Rockies. Albertans regularly do. So it makes a lot more sense to me to set it up according to actual use.

As for BC vs. Alberta, I see fun jesting rivalry comments, but I have not seen any serious issues. I see people poking fun at each other's hockey teams, or penchant for BFKs, or apparent claim to a mountain range. It's a good idea to assume comments are all in fun until you see strong evidence otherwise.
No-one in Alberta wants a whole different forum, or we would simply move to one. Many of us simply believe that it makes a lot more sense to put the BC Rockies with the other areas people tend to visit together, rather than in the BC forum where many people find the TRs get lost with little interest.
Rachelo is offline  
post #50 of (permalink) Old 09-11-2012, 01:17 PM Thread Starter
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Andorra.
Interest: hiking, backpacking, scrambling, climbing
Posts: 4,439
Default

Updated thread summary (as of this edit):

In favour of a single Rockies forum:
-8 regular Rockies users (Rachel, Eric, Arcturus, Taras, Steven, Bill, Kitlope, Dieter)
-5 occasional Rockies users living elsewhere (David, zeljkok, Sandy, mick range, Kootenay Kid)

Opposed to a single Rockies forum:
-2 sometimes Rockies users (Kid Charlemagne, no quitting)
-1 tongue-in-cheek "don't take our Rockies!' comment (another jeff)
-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):
-3 forum users (Dru, Farmer, tu)

(I have included moderate support or moderate opposition in each side)



Still, there is solid support from those who use the Rockies in favour of a single Rockies forum, with some support from visitors as well.
No-one who regularly posts or comments on Rockies TRs is opposed, though some are presumed neutral due to a lack of response.
There is only one serious opposition, with a second opposed to the way Albertas currently post BC Rockies TRs in Alberta, but which didn't seem to include a strong opposition against a reorganization.
There are a few 'I don't really see a need, but it doesn't bother me' as well.

Meanwhile, a few people oppose all forum division, which could certainly be taken up in another thread.
But in the meantime, while we do have separate forums, it would be awesome to re-assign the BC Rockies in accordance with popular support and common usage, especially with such very little opposition.
Rachelo is offline  
post #51 of (permalink) Old 09-13-2012, 08:27 PM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Langley, BC, Canada.
Interest: Hiking, backpacking, snowshoeing, photography, computers, yoga and traveling.
Posts: 7,689
Default

Going back and trying to reclassify stuff will take a long time. I've been down that painful path before with some of the other forums. Lemme give it some thought.



LongShadow is offline  
post #52 of (permalink) Old 09-13-2012, 08:53 PM
Dru
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Climbing, a mountain, Canada.
Interest: climbing and spraying
Posts: 16,175
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Rachelo

-3 non-Rockies users (Dru,

Ahem. I have several TRs in the Alberta forum.
Dru is offline  
post #53 of (permalink) Old 09-13-2012, 09:26 PM Thread Starter
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Andorra.
Interest: hiking, backpacking, scrambling, climbing
Posts: 4,439
Default

I would suggest that the concern of going back to reclassify old TRs shouldn't need to stop this from happening. Half the Albertans seem to be posting their BC Rockies TRs in the Alberta forum already anyways, so it's not actually all that many that are in the BC forum. I think that if you'd be up for the change but for that aspect, it would be better to change it and have some old things in the 'wrong' spot, but one clear direction from here on. I mean, right now we have a continuing set of things in the 'wrong' spot. So wouldn't really be any worse.

If it would be a necessary condition to get the BC Rockies TRs moved over, and if it is possible to grant temporary forum powers, I'd be happy to volunteer some time to trek through and reclassify. I wouldn't be surprised if there were another person or two from the crowd who'd strongly favour the change who'd be willing. I'm not sure whether that is possible from a technical side, but if so, that would be one way to effect the change with minimal pain to current administration, which I definitely understand as a concern.
Rachelo is offline  
post #54 of (permalink) Old 09-13-2012, 09:33 PM Thread Starter
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Andorra.
Interest: hiking, backpacking, scrambling, climbing
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Dru

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Rachelo
-3 non-Rockies users (Dru,
Ahem. I have several TRs in the Alberta forum.
I apologize for the mistake. I shouldn't have included the incorrect information in the first place, as it's irrelevant. No particular interest groups are relevant to the question of whether the trip report forums should be split in the first place.
(my intention is not to delete that I made a mistake, but to admit and correct the bigger error while I'm at it)
Rachelo is offline  
post #55 of (permalink) Old 09-13-2012, 10:24 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,586
Default

I guess I would not be opposed to such a change. That is as long as the "Rockies" section is not called "Alberta/Rockies" or some variation. Keep the Rockies neutral, as it were. After all, inadvertantly suggesting to readers that a BC Rockies trip took place in Alberta would be more of a problem than your original grievance.

I would agree with others who suggested that TR's being divided by broad ranges would be the way to go. But whatever....
Candy Sack is offline  
post #56 of (permalink) Old 09-14-2012, 09:52 AM Thread Starter
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Andorra.
Interest: hiking, backpacking, scrambling, climbing
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Candy Sack

I guess I would not be opposed to such a change. That is as long as the "Rockies" section is not called "Alberta/Rockies" or some variation. Keep the Rockies neutral, as it were. After all, inadvertantly suggesting to readers that a BC Rockies trip took place in Alberta would be more of a problem than your original grievance.
I think 'Rocky Mountains and Alberta' would be the most logical based on current use.
If we had more divisions, Alberta east of the foothills could go in a 'Prairies' forum with the occasional badlands, or Manitoba TR. But given the extreme rarity of those, it doesn't make any sense. So the non-mountainous regions of Alberta could be dumped into 'Other Regions' with the other places that only get sporadic TRs, but I wouldn't be surprised if the CT Albertans who do occasional Edmonton-area or badlands trips keep posting them in the Rockies forum.
Rachelo is offline  
post #57 of (permalink) Old 09-14-2012, 11:20 AM
tu
High on the Mountain Top
 
tu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,753
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Rachelo


I think 'Rocky Mountains and Alberta' would be the most logical based on current use.
If we had more divisions, Alberta east of the foothills could go in a 'Prairies' forum with the occasional badlands, or Manitoba TR. But given the extreme rarity of those, it doesn't make any sense. So the non-mountainous regions of Alberta could be dumped into 'Other Regions' with the other places that only get sporadic TRs, but I wouldn't be surprised if the CT Albertans who do occasional Edmonton-area or badlands trips keep posting them in the Rockies forum.
If you're going to divide the region up that way, why not just call it "Canadian Rockies"? That would be more accurate, if you're not going to keep the integrity of the Alberta region.

No division is perfect, and there's always going to be people displeased with it. Don't know if people in Alberta would be offended in posting flatland hikes to 'Other Regions', or BC people moving Robson hikes out of "British Columbia", since Robson is such an iconic BC landmark.

tu is offline  
post #58 of (permalink) Old 09-14-2012, 03:38 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Okotoks, Alberta, Canada.
Posts: 1,891
Default

Remember Grant's epic long Alberta thread? Much of that beta is 'lost' as it is too hard to search - but the reason for it was to try and stand out against the much larger percentage of BC reports. I'm glad AB is busted out separately as it makes it easier to read the trips relevant to me and there are many more posters from the high and dry side of the Rockies these days.

Day to day I read the Alberta section as that has the most relevance to me and then scan the BC side for familiar names (places and posters). If a poster I don't recognize posts a 'Rockies' trip in the BC forum with a cryptic topic name I'll likely miss it but I'll always catch "Yoho" "O'Hara" "Rockwall" "Kootenay" etc

Names can be divisive and changing the forum time very consuming for our already time strapped mods and hosts.

What about just renaming "Alberta" to "Alberta & Divide" with trips clearly in BC to remain in BC? And by clearly in BC I'm talking about "Yoho" "O'Hara" "Rockwall" "Kootenay" etc and by Divide I would mean Assiniboine area, Sunshine area, Trips that begin in Kananaskis and drift over the border, Akamina from Waterton etc.
Sodbuster is offline  
post #59 of (permalink) Old 09-14-2012, 04:48 PM Thread Starter
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Andorra.
Interest: hiking, backpacking, scrambling, climbing
Posts: 4,439
Default

Given the use, as well as the tendency for the BC forum to focus on SW BC, I think it makes sense to put the Rockies all as one, right up to the trench. It's a pretty obvious division.
I would have no problem with flat Alberta going into 'Other Regions', but I don't hike there. So I was just suggesting that it might be that those who do would keep posting in the new Rockies forum.
I see a lot more TRs from the BC Rockies than from flat Alberta, so I would leave the confusion on the side of flat Alberta (~5 TRs/year?) rather than that of the BC Rockies.
Rachelo 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