Talk:Mount Waddington

message: Just pointing out an odd phrase. Are they difficult to get to (redundant with remote), difficult to climb/traverse?
"a remote and extremely difficult set of mountains and river valleys"
:The whole region is remote, the peaks even moreso. They are also difficult to climb/traverse....but then so is the whole region, the canyons/valleys included.Skookum1 (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is so difficult about it?

message: I took out these two conflicting claims (both uncited) about precipitation levels:
::... although higher-rainfall locations exist elsewhere, such as at Mount Washington and in other locations on Vancouver Island and in the Canadian Cascades. Whoever posted this doesn't know what they are talking about. Mount Waddington precipitation is much higher than you would find in the Canadian Cascades or Vancouver Island's Mount Washington.
Can someone find a source for either claim? Or for the claim that I left in the article? -- Spireguy (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mount Washington's often-high snowfall is often cited in BC "geomythography" and it may be true; of course there's no weather station on the top of Waddington or elsewhere in the depths of the Coast Mountains to compare with; but apparently Washington gets the full brunt of open-Pacific weather and, like its countepart in the Adirondacks, has topography that captures bad weather "just so".  The stats are probably around to back this up, it's an often-mentioned claim about Mount Washington; but then again it's only data, and the data is incomplete because there are no measurement systems in situ like there is at the ski resort.  And yeah, pockets of the Canadian Cascades, particularly Coquihalla Pass and I think the Sumallo get extremely heavy precipitation (especially all at once); ditto with the southern Lillooet Ranges and the Douglas Ranges;upper Stave River valley, also the upper Pitt (where there's a pass with the charming and omionous name of Rain Door Pass.  There's data on the Coquihalla summit going way back because of it being part of the southern mainline of the CPR.Skookum1 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precipitation claim 

message: I realize that in the days of satellite surveys and TRIM measurements/data the new metric elevation is standard and the conversion comes out at what it comes out at now.  But for years upon years BC maps, including the widely-circulated BC road maps produced by the Ministry of Tourism (or was it Highways?) showed Waddington at 13,177.  Anyone have any idea when this elevation was dispensed with? - 13,181 vs 13,177 is only 2' of difference....one good snowfall.Skookum1 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Old standard elevation

message: I'm opposed anyway to the use of regional district-boundary maps as geographic locators; nobody thinks in terms of RD boundaries except RD administrations; the only relevant region here is the mountain range cat (subcat of Coast Mountains, subcat of BC Coast).  But even so, the map shows Mount Waddington as being only in the Cariboo RD, somewhere out in the middle of the Chilcotin, in fact, not on the boundary between the RDMW and the CRD as is the case.  What would be a better map is a terrain-based map like that on Chilcotin Ranges, which would actually show the mountains, not abstract RD boundaries which nobody thinks in terms of (except Wikipedians).Skookum1 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: EXACTLY  EAs and RDs have been given primacy of place ahead of Forestry Regions and Districts and Environment Regions and the conventional regions (Cariboo, Fraser Valley, Okanagan etc).  This should not have happened, and it's a case of how a mistake in Wikipedia affects real-world usage for the worse.Skookum1 (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Map can't be right

message: A spot abt 6 miles NNE of Woss, British Columbia, and across the "Island Hwy" (rte. 19) from it, is labeled "Mount Waddington D" on Google maps. About 50-60 miles from there, on the mainland, is Mount Waddington A, both at least similarly distant from the subject of the accompanying article. Perhaps the competitors are not worthy of articles, and thus not of Dab entries, but the article probably needs at least a HatNote Dab like 
: 
--Jerzy•t 02:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why, to me, RD-based subdivisions of BC are not workable, and it's a tragedy they've been adopted by Googlemaps and others because of the mistaken use of them in Wikipedia to start with.......names like that turn up on Googlemaps miles from where anyone lives; the primary use is obviously Mount Waddington and it's an important article; the EAs are municipal-level trivia and not relevant to the human geography of BC other than in relation to RD-level elections (moreso than actual governance, for sure).Skookum1 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mount Waddington D 

message: There's nothing about it on the article yet, but Waddington's prominence col, next peak up in sequence I think I remember as Robson (....or Ratz (in the Boundary Rang?) is at Rose Lake, British Columbia (the lake and community article are the same); the lowest points in the pass between the Bulkley and Nechako basins are along the north side of the lake....I know this because I plotted this during my time at bivouac.com. Some peak articles have prominence info, this one doesn't yet.Skookum1 (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  prominence col - [[Rose Lake, British Columbia]] created