Talk:North Shore Mountains
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale for WikiProject Mountains. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. | ||
.gif/75px-Rotating_earth_(large).gif) |
This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
Skookum1:
Have you ever visited these summits? I have actually been up to the summit of most of the ones mentioned. Personally, I'd call my descriptions less "hyperbolic" and more "colourful", but I can see your point I suppose. However, the use of the word "unremarkable" is less of a "denigration" and more of an objective assessment. Most of these mountains *are* in fact "forested bumps", and generations of local mountaineers would doubtlessly agree (see Bruce Fairley's Climbing and Hiking in Southwestern BC). It really depends on your perspective, and I was shooting for a sense of character.
But... so be it. All I will change are a couple of stylistic elements.
Oh and one other thing. "The Lions" refers to the *single* mountain. True, it is an odd use of language. But "The Lions" is technically a "massif" which is comprised by a huge bulk, a plateau area, and two knob-like sub-summits. The sub-summits are officially named the "East Lion" (1606m) and the "West Lion" (1654m). They are so close together, it would be incorrect to consider them as separate mountains since their prominences can only be measured in the range of hundreds, not thousands, of metres. Furthermore, many sources simply quote the single maximum altitude 1654m as the elevation of "The Lions", they do not list the individual elevations of both the sub-summits. Nevertheless I will leave your edits in the Lions department intact.
Psi4ce 02:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
"forested bumps" I'd thought was a Tivy-ism; do I know you from Bivouac, perhaps?Skookum1 07:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the "North Shore Mountains" refer to those visible from Vancouver (which is how most people use the term in common parlance), and the Howe Sound Group refer to the range which is how the
- Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia refers to it,
- A guide to Climbing and Hiking in Southwestern British Columbia by Bruce Fairley also refers to this area as North Shore/Howe Sound
- Exploring the Coast Mountains on Skis by John Baldwin also refers to this area as Howe Sound
- 103 Hikes in Southwestern British Columbia by Mary and David Macaree differentiates between North Shore and Howe Sound
I think most locals would recognize the North Shore Mountains as those they can see from Vancouver, between Indian Arm and Howe Sound, and would accept that they are in a larger grouping called the "Howe Sound/North Shore" group
Tsylos 07:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Elevation limits on development
- The steep southern slopes of the North Shore Mountains limit the extent to which the municipalities of Greater Vancouver's North Shore (West Vancouver, the District of North Vancouver, and the City of North Vancouver) can grow.
I'll research the why and wherefore and what before amending that; fact is there's an elevation/zoning limit in both municipalities (City of North Van not involved, of course) as to how high on the mountainsides you can build. West Van recently raised their limit, AIRC, and of course they're not too particularly on aesthetic-looking development anymore, as was the case with the British Properties and North Van's Delbrook areas but you can see the difference with all that mass-housing ugliness (and overpriced, too) above the Upper Levels, esp. in West Van. Anyway, there's an elevation limit, which was lower, and will no doubt be raised again and again until there are condos to the top of Hollyburn/Cypress etc. Nice view if you can afford the digs, but damn it must rain up there a lot, huh?Skookum1 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Development is limited for a number of reasons, including the steepness. Other reasons would include park boundaries (provincial and regional), watershed concerns, and private resort properties (i.e: Grouse). I suspect the bylaws, as skookum1 pointed out, will be prone to gradual and continual extension upwards, until it runs into these other factors, which may also include great unrest from the recreational community.Keefer4 14:32, 1 October 2006 (PST)
- It hasn't changed in the DNV for quite some time... the 1200 foot level is the cutoff, if I recall correctly. --Ckatzchatspy 03:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
