SummitPost.org

Bob Sihler wrote:I think the advantage of having more specific boards is to help people find information more easily, not to group populations. Although I live in the East, I rarely look at that board, but I check the Northern Rockies frequently.

To me, the driving reason to split should be traffic. So while I see the sense in splitting the Midwest and the East, I don't see that the traffic justifies the additional sorting. It's not to say that it won't happen; this thread is about finding out if there's much interest in these ideas at all. No, it doesn't cost anything to add a board, but there can be a fine line between variety and clutter, and I want to avoid going overboard, ha ha.

Bob - My original post on separating the East had more to do with finding information than on traffic. From an eastern standpoint it seems that a good many posts are either about northern New England or the southern Appalachians - not a lot in between. Again, two geographically totally separate areas. When I go to the eastern forum it is usually for info on the latter, not the former.

If it is going to be a lot of work to separate them then I would agree to just leave well enough alone. Most of us know where to go searching for info, or (more imporatantly sometimes) who to PM .

I say leave California whole but create a separate forum for "Baldy Conditions".

Not that this is relevant to splitting any of the forums up or not, but I really, really think that Arkansas does not belong in the Midwest forum. It has more to do with southeast than it does the Midwest. I know it share the Ozarks with a nominally Midwestern state (Missouri), but still, it is totally out of place in that forum.

Since I haven't seen anyone suggest it and there's usually a lot of questions or curiosity regarding this time of year,
how about a seperate forum regarding winter climbing and all that it includes?
Between all 4 seasons, winter really is its own thing; seperate clothing, seperate hiking/climbing rules,
seperate food/gear issues, seperate safety concerns etc.

Bob Sihler wrote:

Fletch wrote:So no real suprises here, but it does look like places like the midwest are heavy in people and light in mountains and vice versa for places like the Rockies. Either way though it looks like you can make a case to divide up the CA forum.

Thanks for doing that legwork; it's both helpful and interesting.

Right now, if I do anything, I'll separate Utah.

I really, really, really don't want to split California, but if there were a big demand for it, I would consider it. It would be a ton of work sorting existing threads, especially the Sierra ones. It would almost make more sense to split the Sierra Nevada from the rest of CA, but even that could be problematic or at least tedious.

I doubt I'm the only one, but I go to the Southwest Board from time to time mostly to look at stuff about southern Utah. I also look at stuff about AZ when I'm there. To me splitting out Utah doesn't make sense - what would make sense (but not really) would be to split off northern Utah and add it to the Rockies. As Fletch points out, you can't really go by where people live - the vast majority of those who post on the South America board don't live there.

My vote would be to split out Utah. I live in Utah and almost never travel anyplace else, so being lumped in with Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and especially Texas, does nothing for me. But, I can see how non Utahns might like southern Utah lumped with Arizona and New Mexico, but I for one would not.

I'd love to see a gear selling section for Europe. I'm always looking for stuff, but every single time I click on gear I need, it's in the US. An extra column in the title displaying the sellers location would do too!

WouterB wrote:I'd love to see a gear selling section for Europe. I'm always looking for stuff, but every single time I click on gear I need, it's in the US. An extra column in the title displaying the sellers location would do too!

Sounds like your asking for a forum with nothing in it.

Could you add a "totally confused" board for those SPers like me?

ZeeJay wrote:My vote would be to split out Utah. I live in Utah and almost never travel anyplace else, so being lumped in with Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and especially Texas, does nothing for me. But, I can see how non Utahns might like southern Utah lumped with Arizona and New Mexico, but I for one would not.

I travel to Utah and Nevada quite frequently. My vote would be to split Utah into a Northwest part and a Southeast part.

The southeast portion could remain with the Southwest, while the northwest portion should belong
with the Rocky Mountain states.

In my opinion, it wouldn't be GOOD to divide up the Colorado Plateau, except for the Colorado piece that belongs to Colorado anyway. The rest should belong to the Southwest forum.

Fletch wrote:Based on the current set up North America has the following "subdivisions:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9Ycq64Gy4[/youtube]

I appreciate the feedback here.

To repeat-- this idea is not about segregating people. It is about making it easier for people to focus on areas of high interest and get information more easily. As I pointed out from my own experience, the regional forum I have posted in the most is the Northern Rockies even though I live in Virginia. I am glad I do not have to sift through all the Colorado threads to find threads about Montana and Wyoming; it's with that in mind that I asked about splitting Utah out from the Southwest.

When I have the time for it, I will make a Utah forum and start moving threads there. Time and user feedback will tell if it's necessary to split up the East and/or the Midwest.

The ideas about splitting according to physical rather than political geography are good ones, but since that's not how the forums were set up here in the first place, I think adding that now might be messy or confusing, with the lines often difficult to draw.

Yeah, Utah's an extremely "tight-knit" group.

I lived there for 13 years, and I was immediately looked upon as an outcast when I crossed the
border into Arizona.

Mr Leghorn wrote:I agree with breaking Utah out of the SW Forum. I think it could either have it's own forum, or be regrouped with Colorado since the two states are very similar. I support this for practical reasons, and not just my personal belief that Utah is not really "south western". I frequently see new posts in the SW forum, but when I go look it is always the same few people posting on the same Utah related Ice, avalanche and mountaineering threads. That is good for them, but I feel when that happens, it is time for them to get their own forum. Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are hardly ever posted on these days, in the SW forum. I don't agree about the negatives of splitting the plateau. Most people posting in the SW forum never mention it anyway. The Utah topics look like they are about mountains and conditions which are close to the urban areas near Salt Lake City.

Daria could probably get her own sub-forum in drivel, since a similar situation has emerged down there, but that is a different matter.

I disagree. It really depends on what time of year you look at it. There are generally no threads about southern Utah during the winter, but during the spring fall when the weather is suitable for hiking the canyon country they do appear; splitting them off from the threads about the Grand Canyon and such isn't a great idea.

It would make more sense to me to have the region split up based on on geographic provinces rather than political boundaries. Utah itself is split pretty evenly into thirds; the Rockies, the Colorado plateaus, and the basin and range. It would definitely make sense for the Colorado plateaus region to stay in the southwest forum, but the other two regions (2/3 of the state) don't really belong, certainly not the Rockies portion, which seems to get the most traffic from Utah visitors.