Talk:North Shore Mountains

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Elevation limits on development

message: I just looked up bivouac's page for this, it's been changed since I wrote it to include Brunswick and Hollyburn, it doesn't start until just north of there; from the BC Names description if Capilano Mountain is included (west of Loch Lomond, which is in the Seymour Headwaters or the upper Lynn, not sure which. - Bivouac's internal definition, which is not true to sources (since I left), says west of the Capilano River; but still includes Capilano Mountain even though it's east of the Capilano River.  The official designation/description in BC Names goes "S of Stawamus River; W of Loch Lomond, Seymour River; N of Sheba Creek, Andrews Creek, Hanover Creek, Deeks Lake & Creek", which calls into question the use of Cathedral/Lynn "range" as for some of that.....everything south of the Stawamus River to Deeks Creek and Loch Lomond is in the Britannia Range.Skookum1 (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  note about the [[Britannia Range (Canada)|Britannia Range]]