Talk:North Shore Mountains

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the North Shore Mountains article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: British Columbia / Geography Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada. Mountains C‑class Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Geography C‑class Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs Cycling: Mountain Biking This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Mountain Biking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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)[reply]

"forested bumps" I'd thought was a Tivy-ism; do I know you from Bivouac, perhaps?Skookum1 07:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]