Is there any real reason the section on marijuana use should be almost as long as the section on getting around? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
No, but please be careful to accurately summarize eg. the laws in question, instead of just saying that "you can, but please don't". I've reverted your edits. Jpatokal 06:26, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Fine, I just went ahead and deleted the whole section. It only applies to Vancouver and maybe a tiny handful of other cities, so if we really want to include a guide on how to get high, it should go in the appropriate city articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
No, deleting the whole thing is not acceptable. For better or worse, BC is a place where many people go to get high, so the issue should be addressed as per the Wikitravel:Illegal activities policy. Jpatokal 13:07, 6 February 2008 (EST)
No, deleting it is appropriate. People don't go to Prince George, Campbell River, Revelstoke, Squamish, Prince Rupert, etc, to get high. It's restricted largely to Vancouver, maybe a few other cities on the Island/in the Fraser River Valley. It does not belong here, it belongs on more specific city articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
Since there exists a common myth that marijuana is legal in BC, there needs to be a paragraph that addresses the issue. -- Colin 19:53, 6 February 2008 (EST)
Some might argue that this article is still a stub. That may be the case, and feel free to edit if you want. However, I believe most of the actual travel information should go in either the West Coast of Canada or Canadian Rockies articles, as per what is expressed in the bits about geographical hierarchy in Talk:Canada. IMHO, this page is a geopolitical name that people might search for, so it should direct them to the relevant information, not duplicate information found elsewhere. -- Ctylemay 22:27, 7 Oct 2003 (PDT)
This is a case study of how the geopolitical versus touristical regions of a country might conflict. I'm not exactly sure how to deal with this; should British Columbia redirect to West Coast of Canada? I'm not sure. Sometimes these things seem clearcut; othertimes they are really foggy. Again, a good time for Wikiocracy... Evan 22:39, 7 Oct 2003 (PDT)
The West Coast of Canada is located entirely in the province of British Columbia. The Pacific Ocean moderates the climate here so that winters are considerably warmer and summers somewhat cooler than in the rest of the country, creating an environment suitable for the development of vegetation not found elsewhere in Canada. Numerous fjords and the Coast Mountain range come together to create a coastline known for its beauty.
Generalizing about weather in BC is quite difficult when it includes areas that are both among the most extreme in temperature (Lytton BC is often the hottest spot in Canada in the summer and sometimes the coldest spot in Canada in the winter) as well Vancouver and Victoria which have very mild weather. -- Webgeer 17:50, Jul 26, 2004 (EDT)
I went on whitewater kayaking holiday to BC with a group of friends, and we ran into a 'getting around' problem which maybe someone has some suggestions for. We needed to get to remote places, rivers, campsites, etc, which were often along bumpy logging tracks. We flew into Vancouver, and we only managed to hire smart businessmen's cars. Admittedly we didn't spend very long looking, but for future reference, can anyone recommend car hire shops in Vancouver or other cities, which would have hired out big robust trucks?
We managed to get around with our smart cars, and it was an awesome holiday, but it did get a bit tricky in places, and the car hire firm was less than impressed with the state of their cars at the end of it! Check out this funny photo of one of our unsuitable cars
Almost all the car rental companies will rent you a 4x4. Unfortunately they are generally ridiculously expensive -- often with additional mileage charges. However, the prices vary even more than regular car rentals so calling around to everybody is often worth it. Usually Vancouver is much cheaper to rent vehicles than the other small towns. However that is not as true for the 4x4's which you may be able to find for cheaper in smaller towns. If you are travelling around in the winter and you are going to leave from the lower mainland, you should make sure your rental will have snow tires. (Most rentals in Vancouver only have all-season tires)
Vancouver also has some independent car rental companies. Generally their prices are only a little bit cheaper than the national chains in the very competitive small-midsized car classes, but I think they may be more significant differences in the less competive truck/suv rental catagories.
It should be noted that most of these companies do not rent true off-road vehicles, and the rental agreement will probably have a statement about not permitted to take it off-road or on any un-maintained roads. In some cases I have even heard of them locking out the 4wd to discourage use off-road. (If they did that to me I would seriously complain)
As you discovered many of the roads to very out of the way places are quite accessible with standard sedans -- with very careful driving and you take things pretty slow. However, you really have to be careful about insurance coverage and make sure that you have some sort of coverage as you may not be complying with your rental agreement by driving on non-maintained roads and therefore insurance from the rental agency and possibly your credit card would not cover you.
I will probably try and some comments about rental cars in the main article to cover these issues as you raise some good things to consider. -- Webgeer 19:31, 2 Dec 2004 (EST)
Thanks webgeer. Some useful information. Maybe my query is a bit specific, although I guess it's not just kayakers who will face this problem, but anyone interested exploring the BC wilderness by car. So could be good info for the main article. Anyway I took the liberty of pasting your advice into a page on kayakwiki here. Hope you dont mind :-) -- Nojer2 04:17, 3 Dec 2004 (EST)
People should be aware that if they go on off road places, there is a chance that there will be logging trucks using the very same roads. It's ESPECIALLY important if you are going on a dirt road to look out for signs denoting "radio controlled" roads where you pretty much have to pull into the ditch (which will often be right beside a cliff) in order to get out of the way of these heavily loaded fast travelling behemoths. Just a warning from a local if you plan on going on some of the really out of the way areas.
Delete. Both of these pages describe huge geographical areas with many distinct regions that already have their own pages, both are titled with terms that are rarely if ever used by tourists or locals, and both have very little content which could easily by amalgamated into the main British Columbia page. bulliver 02:30, 1 March 2006 (EST)
Not sure what you want to do here. If you are suggesting we rename the articles to something with more common terms I would agree with that and would say to plunge forward. If you want to delete the pages and redirect any pages below back to British Columbia, then I would say no. Even if there is little content, as we get more content in the sub-pages, then content can be added to the higher level in the hierachy and it does group other regions and cities to keep our count down for the the 7±2 rule. If I am missing what you are trying to do, please clarify. Thanks. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 10:32, 6 March 2006 (EST)
These seem like candidates for redirects - someone who knows the area better should probably determine whether it's best to redirect to specific regions or to the British Columbia article. -- Ryan 18:28, 7 March 2006 (EST)
Keep, unless someone who knows the area can suggest a reorganization. -- Jonboy 12:29, 9 March 2006 (EST)
(This is a general response, not specific to anyone here) I am from the area and I am trying to say that both of these 'regions' seem arbitrary. Taken together they describe the entirety of British Columbia and neither are generally recognized regions in the province officially or unofficially, geographically or as tourist destinations. I have never in my 29 years of living here heard anyone mention Southwestern_British_Columbia in terms of geography or as a tourist region. You do hear Interior_(British_Columbia) on the news etc every once in a while but is generally just a catch-all for "everything that isn't the Lower Mainland". I guess the crux of my point is that neither of these pages could provide anymore insight that isn't duplicated in either British Columbia or one of the smaller regional articles (such as Okanagan) that are well known tourist destinations. I just can't realistically see any tourist searching for either of these terms. Both have very little info as it is, and I really think any info they could contain is best placed in the main British Columbia page or a smaller region rather than just duplicating it. As the main BC page stands, there are links to both these regions, and also smaller regions that are contained within, and this makes the heirarchy incongruent, and may confuse potential travellers. I think the two should be completely turfed, as they hinder the geographical heirarchy rather than helping. As an example to clarify, let's use France: The two terms above would be comparable to the equally arbitrary "Everything north of Paris" and "Everything south of Paris". Tourists don't want to visit "Everything south of Paris", they want to visit Bordeaux, the Loire Valley, or the Cote D'Azure. bulliver 12:20, 11 March 2006 (EST)
The problem is that the current Wikitravel:Deletion policy states: "Bad article titles. If the name of the article is wrong (for example, if there's a spelling error, or if it doesn't conform to our article naming conventions), try to rename the page instead of copying all its contents to a new page and then deleting it." If there is no chance of anyone ever searching for the above articles then delete them, otherwise it won't hurt anything to just redirect to avoid having the articles created again in the future by a new user. -- Ryan 13:47, 11 March 2006 (EST)
Ok, well I have no problem with a redirect back to the main BC page. Renaming is of no use however, as any other name would be just as arbitrary. My problem with these two pages is that if we keep them, all the smaller regions (which are the actual tourist destinations) will need to have their links moved from the main British Columbia page to these two pages, adding another layer of digging for what a tourist will actually be looking for. People look for the "Okanagan region of British Columbia" not the "Okanagan region of the Interior of British Columbia". If we ditch these two pages, there will be 9 regions linked from the main BC page, which cover the entire province, and are all logically congruent in the heirarchy. And they will still fit the 7+-2 guidline. - bulliver 15:06, 12 March 2006 (EST)
This creates 8 top-level regions covering the entirety of BC, and corresponds to the popular tourist destinations. As such, I think this is our best bet. Unfortunately there is a monkey wrench thrown into the works with Rocky Mountains (Canada). While I agree this is a solid destination irrespective of Provincial boundaries, it throws our heirarchy for a loop, as it overlaps with the Kootenays... ie: is Fernie Kootenay or Rocky mountain?
I would really like some input here from some locals, or people familiar with the area, as it seems like this is a one-man show right now. I will give this a few days or so to simmer, and if no one chimes in I am going to start implementing this, which will result in some drastic changes in the British Columbia page. - bulliver 18:29, 17 March 2006 (EST)
I'm not a local and have only (briefly) been through the area a couple of times, but are there any names that don't use as many slashes and dashes? Perhaps just "Peace River" , "Rocky Mountains (British Columbia)", "North Coast" etc? It just looks nicer to me and seems a bit simpler. Alternatively, combining the Peace River & North Coast Regions into just "Northern British Columbia" might make sense - as I recall there aren't a ton of roads up there, so tourist destinations are a bit limited. -- Ryan 19:01, 17 March 2006 (EST)
I agree the hyphens are awkward but it should be known that, especially with T-S, C-C, and O-S, the hyphens arepartof the offical name. Is Okanagan Sililkameen better? As for North Coast/Queen Charlottes it is entirely possible to just refer to the area as North Coast, and indicate on the artical page that the QC are included, and Peace River/North BC can be simply Peace River. As for lumping all together with Peace River, I am not sure this is a good idea. You must keep in mind that the two areas are about as far removed from each other as could be, the North Coast is mild, lush rainforest and mountains, while PR is cold, flat, and shares more in common with the Oilfields of north Alberta.
Also, I am thinking for the future, as each of these regions have enough stuff to see and do that entire books could be written, let alone articles. My point is that as more gets written, and the top and sub levels get more content, they can be split into smaller regions quick and painlessly ie: Vancouver Islandcould easily be split to North and South Island etc.
So now we get:
Is this better? I think Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands is still awkward, but if we use the more succinct Vancouver and Gulf Islands it creates confusion as people may think that's where the Vancouver artical is. The other option is to just call it Vancouver Island (and do the North/South Island split now) or Islands or somesuch.- bulliver 21:12, 17 March 2006 (EST)
Actually, if those are common names then Cariboo-Chilcotin and the like aren't all bad, I mostly just disliked the slashes. I like the change to North Coast and Peace River, and if you feel they should be separate regions then by all means make them two regions. Also, the "Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands" is awkward - if it's just called "Vancouver Island" will that suffice, or are the Gulf Islands not merely smaller islands off the coast of Vancouver Island (sorry, too lazy to Google it)? -- Ryan 21:38, 17 March 2006 (EST)
No you are absolutly right, there is no problem just using Vancouver Island and linking to the gulfs from there, I don't know what I was thinking. I edited the above list to reflect this - bulliver 21:52, 17 March 2006 (EST)
This non-British Columbian likes the list. Once you decide to start rearranging things let me know if I can help. -- Ryan 22:24, 17 March 2006 (EST)
Well, It is done. For better or worse, better I hope. As for helping, there may be some 'isIn's that I missed that may need to be updated. I also got the map up so hopefully nobody will be too upset with my changes. The most contentious may be Lower Mainland, as I have taken some liberties with the boundaries. Wikipedia says it stretches to Chilliwack in the east, and I have made it stretch 50km farther to Hope. bulliver 15:21, 19 March 2006 (EST)
Leave it to me to say "awesome job, but...". So awesome job, but (my opinion only) the map might be a bit easier to read if you got rid of the "1 2 3" labels you just put a label directly over the region on the map - it's a bit hard to read in its current sizing. Still, awesome job, thanks! -- Ryan 15:52, 19 March 2006 (EST)
Really? I didn't annotate the map directly for exactly that reason (readability). The annotations for the four southern regions would be overlapping if they were at any sort of readable font size. What size is your monitor? The annotations are clear as day on mine! In any event, I do admit the map needs work, it was just a quick-and-dirty affair to get something up there, and got a little warped when I skewed it for the earth's curvature after the fact. It really should have the major cities placed on it too. -- bulliver 19:08, 19 March 2006 (EST)
I'm a programmer and definitely not an artist, so I'll gladly defer to your judgement. My thought was that you could use a larger font and then label the smaller regions using directional lines (see Channel Islands and Muir Woods in Image:Ca-national-parks.png), but the map you've created is plenty usable as-is. -- Ryan 20:07, 19 March 2006 (EST)
Dont defer! I'm hardly an artist either. Let's call it a stalemate and wait for a 3rd, 4th, or 5th opinion :p -- bulliver 04:47, 21 March 2006 (EST)
I've lived in BC all my life (in the interior, the lower mainland, and on the island), and I've never heard of Chinook Jargon, and the only allegedly "common" slang word from that list I've heard is "skookum" -- and from someone from Manitoba, not BC. Even the referenced article only says "oldtimers may dimly remember it". Also, it seems doubtful that a "language" with only a few hundred words would ever have been seriously considered for the official language of a place -- is there any kind of documentation of that?
Well, there is a Wikipedia link there with a fairly lengthy article behind it. Question in my mind as to whether knowledge of this mostly historical language serves the traveller at all. OldPine 18:11, 3 September 2006 (EDT)
I am also born and bred in BC, and yes the chinook jargon is real (no need to be suspicious). However, I also question its value in this article, as it is little more than an amusement for those locals that do know a few words. I still bust out a 'skookum' every once in a while, but I think it's safe to say that a typical tourist will never run into it. bulliver 15:07, 4 September 2006 (EDT)
On 22:30, 2008 August 22, User:22.214.171.124replaced a brief paragraph by a long "Getting Gas" section. I reverted back to the brief paragraph. I'm baffled at why such detail would be of interest to a traveller. I live in BC, and I haven't had problems with this or heard of problems with this. Maybe I'm missing something, though, so I put the longer text here for future reference and as a source for possible improvements to the article. JimDeLaHunt 04:57, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
Old text (which I restored):
If you drive or rent a vehicle, be aware that provincial law requires fuel to be prepaid before filling up. If you use a "pay-at-pump" interface, the station may place a hold on an available amount in your account which may last for a few days. It is wise to ensure you have adequate funds or credit limit room on your payment cards before visiting.
If you drive or rent a vehicle, be aware that provincial law has required fuel to be prepaid
before filling up at gas stations since February 1, 2008. As any change in routine can be
confusing this has been a source of frustration for many travellers (and gas station cashiers).
Here is a detailed explanation for the officially sanctioned methods of pre-pay:
1) Paying at the pump:
This method is the quickest. Follow the instructions on the screen (card specifics below).
Use the card before lifting the pump nozzle. Lift the nozzle only when prompted by the machine.
Select the fuel grade. Pump the fuel. Some machines need you to press a button during or immediately
after fueling if you require a receipt. You do not need to see the cashier for change as everything is
processed electronically. Remember that at a busy gas station you would not want someone to leave their
vehicle at a pump while you need gas and they use the bathroom or browse the store.
- Using a credit card: No money is held by the gas station itself. Unless the machine
asks for you to select an amount of money to charge it is sending a default maximum charge request,
often $100, to your credit company. When you finish fueling, the machine calculates the difference
between your pumped fuel value and the maximum charge request, then sends a refund request of the
difference to your credit company. Credit card companies process charges immediately, but can take even
a few days to process the refund of the difference. Many credit cards have a 2-a-day limit on paying at
the pump--this is intended to deter theft as you do not have to show your face or sign for anything. For
more information talk to your credit card company.
- Using a debit card: With a debit card you must select a maximum dollar amount to begin.
This amount is only a maximum, the final amount charged to your account is the final value of the fuel when
you hang up the pump nozzle after fueling. For example you may select $150.00 as your fuel amount and then
pump $1.50 and the charge will be $1.50 with no delays or complications as with a credit card.
2) Paying the cashier inside: Best if you want to pay with cash. Check your pump number and head on
into the store. You can give the cashier more money than you think you will need for fuel and the cashier will
refund the difference when you have finished.
3) Leaving a payment card as collateral, then pay after: This is ideal for any fill-up over the maximum
pay-at-the-pump limit and for those who do not want to use the other methods. Gas stations are allowed to let you
fill up without paying first as long as you leave some kind of payment card (credit, debit, etc.) as collateral with
an attendant beforehand. Driver's licenses are generally not accepted. If you are not comfortable leaving a card
with the attendant then use one of the other methods.
Shaund, you've been doing great work with the Lower Mainland articles, and I trust your judgment. Here's some links for inspiration: Tourism BC's regions are "Vancouver, Coast & Mountains", "Vancouver Island", "Thompson Okanagan", "Northern British Columbia", "Cariboo Chilcotin Coast", and "Kootenay Rockies". It looks like their "Thompson Okanagan" covers both our Thompson-Shuswap and Okanagan-Similkameen. They put Lytton in the east part of "Vancouver, Coast & Mountains". They put Ashcroft and Merritt in "Thompson Okanagan". JimDeLaHunt 11:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
I was thinking the Fraser Canyon could also be placed as another region in the Lower Mainland article -- that would be consistent with the official tourism site plus, oddly enough, most of the Fraser Canyon lies in the Fraser Valley municipal regional district. On the downside, the Fraser Canyon isn't part of the Lower Mainland in people's perceptions so I think it could cause confusion. Anyway, I'm not in rush to deal with this, so I'll let it sit a bit more. Shaund 13:55, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
So.. a year has passed and I'd like to revisit the BC regions again. I still don't like the Fraser Canyon being included in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and it turns out that Prince George, to the north, also isn't part of the Cariboo-Chilcotin region. It was noted by one user here, , and Tourism BC and other travel guides also consistently place Prince George in northern BC.
Cariboo-Chilcotin is renamed Central Interior and loses the area around Prince George and the Central Coast (neither of which are part of the Cariboo). To help balance the regions out, I've combined it with the Thompson-Shuswap region. The subregions of the Central Interior would be Cariboo-Chilcotin, Fraser Canyon, Shuswap and North Thompson (although Thompson-Nicola better describes the area it covers).
North Coast picks up the Central Coast area and loses the inland chunk of northwestern BC it currently has. It could be renamed to North and Central Coast, which would be more accurate and helpful if we want to split it into North and Central Coast subregions (although there is very little there so I'm not sure if subregions are necessary).
Peace River picks up the area around Prince George and northwestern BC to make it broadly consistent with "Northern BC". Given it's expanded size, I'd rename it Northern British Columbia. Subregions could be setup, although there wouldn't be nine cities at this point. Possible subregions are Fraser-Nechako in the south and Peace Country and the North for everything else.
The new regions would look something like the map below.
Proposed BC regions
Vancouver Island (no change) Home of British Columbia's capital, and all sorts of marine adventures.
Lower Mainland (no change) Over half of British Columbia's population lives here and mostly consists of the Vancouver metropolitan region.
Northern British Columbia Large region with mountains, forests and wilderness in the east, the start of the mighty Fraser River in the south and limitless vistas and the Alaska Highway in the northeast.
Never been west of Cambridge, ON. but separating the coast does seem to make sense to me. --Stefan (sertmann)talk 16:02, 6 December 2009 (EST)
Thinking about it a bit more, I'm going to combine the Shuswap and Thompson regions with Okanagan-Similkameen to create a Thompson-Okanagan region. What's left of the proposed Central Interior region (Fraser Canyon and Cariboo-Chilcotin) will become the Canyons and the Cariboo region. I think this will work better for travellers since "Central Interior" is a bit of a nebulous concept whereas Thompson-Okanagan and Cariboo refer to specific areas and are commonly used. Shaund 16:30, 2 January 2010 (EST)
The list of cities is up to 16, well above the cap of nine - and I don't think Port Renfrew is the number one destination in the province. Some of them need to be listed only in the appropriate regional articles, so which ones should we keep?
Edited accordingly. Nelson's good for geographical diversity as well as tourism, but for the same reason I didn't want to give up Prince Rupert (it's the only North Coast city on the list) -- so I gave Tofino the boot instead. Admittedly, Penticton and Kelowna are fairly close together, but I couldn't justify omitting either. - Dguillaime 00:41, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
Are there any other suggestions? It would be good if we could spread them out a bit more -- all of these are very focused in the southern part of the province. -Shaund 13:59, 6 December 2009 (EST)
Maybe Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve? (It's not much of an article yet....) The geographic diversity seems reasonable, since most of everything in B.C. is towards the southern end -- looking around at BC Parks, there's nothing I recognize by name in the northern third. - Dguillaime 14:17, 6 December 2009 (EST)