The PCD is now about 10 years old, which in computer technology terms, is canvas-tent type ancient.  Another website has been developed,   (You need to Login or Register, which has the campsite data capability of the PCD and so much more (better map scrolling, routing, etc).  That site currently uses PCD data (with permission). The question I am currently pondering is instead of that site using the PCD data, actually moving the PCD data to   (You need to Login or Register where it would be maintained in the future and shutting down the PCD.

While the PCD was totally free with no ads or fees (falling within the scope of the research mission of a university), this new site is a commercial site.  However the campsite data can be accessed for free (the site has ads and "premium" memberships).  I have never felt the data the PCD collected was mine but "ours", the people who contributed it.

So I am asking the community that contributed the PCD data for your thoughts on moving the data to this new location.  And I shall also point out   (You need to Login or Register is only now using "public" PCD data, not the inukshuk-only data. If the data moves, should the inukshuk-only data also move (becoming public) or just disappear.

Your thoughts please.

I think you should do whatever you think is best.  Ads are a pain, but they are part of the internet.

AZ, as you know, I've always had mixed feelings. It's your baby after all IMHO.

As far as Inuk data goes, I know there are folks here due, in large part, to your efforts. Thank you for that. I also know it made being specific a whole lot easier and I think thats probably true for a bunch of us so I'm fine with whatever you decide.

Whatever you decide is okay by me, I thankful for all the hard work you did setting it up. :thumbup

What's PCD?

Here are my thoughts, fwiw. Most of the contributed info was given by members of QJ. QJ doesn't own the info. What I think might be a reasonable compromise would be to have a link on this site to the pcd on the new site that would remain free.

As for inukshuk only contributions, my suggestion is to make it disappear. If folks want to add it back in on the new site, they can. As I recall, the idea was that it would never become public. Campsite abuse and overuse is and has been a continuing problem.

That said, it's your call. I appreciate your development of this info and I would like to be able to access it. Thanks!

Old Salt wrote on Apr 18^th, 2014 at 12:44am:

As for inukshuk only contributions, my suggestion is to make it disappear. If folks want to add it back in on the new site, they can. As I recall, the idea was that it would never become public. Campsite abuse and overuse is and has been a continuing problem.

My thoughts exactly.

Ranger

From the owner of   (You need to Login or Register, ...

"I have the ability on my site to restrict campsite reviews, photos, trip reports, etc. to specific groups of people. Therefore, an option with the inukshuk data is to continue to restrict that to the people that originally contributed it. This would require them to have a membership on MN Canoeing, but then I could give them access to the data."

I'm still a little confused. Is the membership free or paid?  :-?

There is a free membership or you can get advanced features with "MapEnthusiast", "Premium", or "Outfitter" member ships.  See   (You need to Login or Register.

If you move it to new site, when would that happen?

I have not thought that far ahead.

I use PCD regularly, and am also extremely grateful for all the work that Azalea has put in over the years in making this invaluable resource available to the Quetico paddling world.

But all things eventually come to an end, so I'm even more grateful to Azalea for finding a potential new home for PCD as suitable as MNCanoeing.com. The inevitable alternative - pulling the plug on PCD when it eventually stops being viable to maintain - would have been a loss to us all.

Like all of the previous posters, I'm happy to accept whatever Azalea decides to do. All of my past PCD submissions have been "open", so I have no problem with them being publicly available through MNC. But if I had contributed any Inuk-only entries, I would feel a little betrayed if they were now to be made public. So I am also in the camp suggesting that Inuk-only submissions should be deleted before handing things over to MNC.

Thanks again!

I echo Joe's sentiments fully, including his comment about the Inuk-only entries being deleted instead of being made public.

And my heartfelt thanks, also, to AZ for his great work over the years.

I too agree with Joe and am very appreciative of Azelea's hard work.

Wonder if the new site might create and Inuk only membership......

Hat's off to Azalea. Each one of those little sharpied in dots from PCD onto the maps in the map case are very important. 

zski wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 1:58pm:

Hat's off to Azalea. Each one of those little sharpied in dots from PCD onto the maps in the map case are very important.

Now I have a question. I think one difference was the star ratings.  Is there a difference beyond what is an actual viable campsite and what isn't?

db wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 6:49pm:

Is there a difference beyond what is an actual viable campsite and what isn't?

In PCD, something which is an actual viable campsite gets one or more stars, and something which isn't (but which had been identified as a site on at least one of PCD's original sources) gets zero stars. There are a few cases where a contributor visited a site and assigned no stars (not usable), and another contributor visited the same site and assigned one star. Beauty is in the eye of  the beholder.

Well, in a pinch, most of us are capable of putting in to shore and throwing up a tent almost anywhere. But for me, to be assigned one or more stars, a site must already exist, with the basic requirements of a place to land a canoe, an open, flattish spot to put a small tent, a firepit or place to cook on a stove without burning the forest down, and enough room to move around without trampling all the vegetation (LNT). If a PCD location doesn't meet those requirements it gets zero stars. Like the old definition of pØrn, an "existing" campsite is hard to describe, but you know it when you see it.

But there are reasons other than differing opinions why a site might be 0 stars to one person and 1+ stars to another.

Sometimes I've paddled past an unrated site and couldn't see any canoe landing or any open spot in the trees or bushes where a site might be. So I've assigned zero stars and noted that I just paddled by. Some sites are well camoflaged though, and 0 stars might sometimes mistakenly be assigned in PCD for "not visible" instead of "not viable".

Conditions can change too: there are a number of sites on Quetico Lake that were destroyed by fire some years ago (0 stars), but which might eventually be rehabilitated. I gave 0 stars to a site on Jean a couple of years ago because the access was totally blocked by floating logs and the small island was covered in widowmaker pines. One day that site might be usable again. There is another site on Quetico which was once a 4-star penthouse, got destroyed by blowdown, and was then chainsawed back to life. So 0 stars in PCD often means "not viable today" rather than "not viable period".

I've just visited MNC briefly, but it looks like their system excludes all PCD sites as soon as they are given the zero-star kiss of death. For example, their database is missing 1K8 on Montgomery, to which Kingfisher gave 0 stars in 2008, but which I thought was worth the minimum 1 star last year. Maybe 0 stars in MNC means "not viable for anyone forever".

Hope this answers your question  :)

IMO:
I would hate to see the PCD go away. It's a valuable resource for me. Any info contained in the PCD was put on the maps in confidence, it should be omitted if the database is transferred to the new website.

In my own selfish world, I would rather not have the public see it at all but I know that's not fair to others who benefit from it.

Tom

Azalea,
I agree with others who have offered their thanks - your work on the PCD and the conversion of the LegacyForest Q aerials to a useful format for the BW/Quetico Maps DVD is greatly appreciated! *

I completely understand if the PCD itself needs to go away -- and I think I'm in line w/others when I say that as long as the info is preserved somewhere, that's what matters.  I'm not sure what to do with Inuk info, but if it can be walled off, that'd be nice. 

Two things that would matter to me would be:
1) Preservation of comments, not just star ratings -- I usually review planned routes & mark up my maps based on stars & comments, but comments are the best part - esp from certain trusted parties we all know from here.
2) Following #1, preservation of contributor identity.

Thanks!!!

-Tom

* I guess I just mentioned that outside the Inukshuk forum... oops - if you want to know more, you can become an Inukshuk!

I agree with the comments above.  We usually travel in groups of 6 or more so finding areas with multiple suitable sites is key to planning a trip. The PCD has been a valuable resource for doing that - thanks!  I rely on the tent pad #s and comments - and the date they were made - as much as the star ratings.

Azalea, thank you very much for maintaining the PCD over the years, it has been a huge help for me.  And thank you for your help with maps, etc.
mncanoeing.com will be a good home for the PCD.  I would like to see the Inukshuk ratings be accessible in some form.  I suggest that the ratings currently available only to Inukshuk members (5-star) be accessible at mncanoeing.com to at least one of the membership levels, if not the basic level, then a more premium level.  Also, if possible, previous PCD Inukshuk persons might be allowed access to the 5-star ratings either at the free level or the basic level.  In order to keep the 5-star ratings semi-private I think it would be ok to restrict the 5-star ratings to new members of mncanoeing.com who have a higher (more expensive) membership level.  If that does not work for people who added 5-star ratings to the PCD, maybe those who object could have their specific ratings deleted?

Anyone can save a permanent record of the average ratings for each campsite in pcd by downloading the oziexplorer file. There is one file for inuks and one for non-inuks, and you only get the average rating for each campsite, not the individual ratings or the text comments, but maybe that's good enough.

If you don't want to use Oziexplorer or Memory-Map, the Oziexplorer file data can also be read in in Excel. Go to "Data" - "From Text" - (select the Oziexplorer file) - select "delimited"and check the "comma" box, then import the data into a new worksheet, making sure the data type of column B is "text".

Azalea's help file tells you what each column refers to. The only one that's a bit of a nuisance is the one ending up in "column K" in the Excel sheet. If you want to parse that column into something a bit cleaner, you can create six new columns, with the following formulas:

Column K: Already contains a string like this:    ?:?:Namakan River    :-m---
Columns V through Z should be blank, so enter the following formulas into line 5 and copy them to the other rows in the sheet:
Column V: =TRIM(LEFT(K5,FIND(":",K5,1)-1))
Column W: =MID(K5,LEN(LEFT(K5,FIND(":",K5,1)-1))+2,100)
Column X: =LEFT(W5,FIND(":",W5,1)-1)
Column Y:=MID(W5,LEN(X5)+2,100)
Column Z: =LEFT(Y5,FIND(":",Y5,1)-1)
Column AA: =MID(Y5,LEN(Z5)+2,100)

Columns W and Y can be hidden; Columns V, X, Z and AA contain the average rating, number of tent pads, lake name, and original data source for each site respectively.

I won't promise anything, but this should work with free spreadsheet programs like Open Office if you don't have Excel.

Joe's suggestion is way over my head. If you visit mncanoeing, they are moving toward paid memberships which is fine. I choose to support qj and I cannot afford multiple memberships. So, if the pcd gets moved, I will lose access. How many will that affect? :-/

I don't mean to be critical or contentious, but is a few bucks really not affordable?  That's a serious question, no jerking around intended.

Gavia wrote on May 12^th, 2014 at 5:18am:

I don't mean to be critical or contentious, but is a few bucks really not affordable?  That's a serious question, no jerking around intended.

Agreed.

As someone who's accepted donations rather than paid subscriptions for over ten years, are you up to date?

When AZ retired, I offered server space on QJ for the existing PCD and that offer is still good.

"UPDATE - As of May 2014, the PCD has been transferred to MN Canoeing. It is no longer being maintained by Dr. J. Archer Harris. The data was originally obtained from him. Pursuant to the agreement between Dr. Harris and MN Canoeing, the PCD data is free to be used noncommercially."
  (You need to Login or Register

4/23/2014 - Went Commercial! - Up until now, the website has been not-for-profit. After a lot of emailing, calling, and coding, I was able to convert the website to commercial status. There were a lot of updates, changes, and additions that went into this process. To see a summary of it, look at this blog post."
  (You need to Login or Register

"5/4/2014 - PCD Moved to MN Canoeing - The Quetico Paddler's Campsite Database, the best source of Quetico campsite information for the past decade, has moved to MN Canoeing! Dr. J. Archer Harris asked if I would like to take over the data and management of the project. Thank you to Dr. Harris and the QuietJourney community, which was instrumental in keeping the project going.

FWIW - I don't think I added anything to the PCD besides "this is not a campsite" and it still amazes me that there are awesome campsites that have never been added so I really am fine with whatever the outcome is.

Who knew there were dots when they started anyway?

I'm the creator of MN Canoeing. I just wanted to explain the move and answer some of the questions that have come up here. I haven't been able to get a hold of AZ since he gave me the data and we made an agreement. Perhaps he will come back and chime in.

The public PCD ratings will remain free. That is part of my agreement with AZ. In any case, I don't believe in charging for access to anything that was contributed by people other than myself (unless that is their wish). What I am charging for is the parts of the website that have been very labor-intensive (hundreds of hours on my part). So, in short, no one is losing access to the PCD.

With AZ's approval, I have been using the "average" PCD ratings for awhile. With moving all of the data to MN Canoeing, I now have all of the comments and individual ratings as well. It is true that I used to remove all of the "not a campsite" locations, but now I put them back on the map, so they can also be updated now.

I tried matching up the usernames in the PCD to the usernames on MN Canoeing. If you are a member and I was able to match it up, you have the ability to add, update, and delete your ratings. If you register and then want to associate your PCD ratings with your username, just send me an email via the website.

Right now, only the public ratings are publicly available. (If I was able to match your username, you also have access to your own Inukshuk ratings, but no one else does.) AZ and I agreed to continue the discussion about the Inukshuk ratings here. I am very grateful for the contributions that the QJ community made to the PCD (I have used it myself extensively the past few years). I would also hate to see the Inukshuk ratings just disappear. I told AZ that I would be more than willing to make a deal with the QJ community.

As I understand it, the original intent was to make sure the people with access to the Inukshuk ratings also were contributors to the Quetico community. If db is willing to work with me on this, I can grant access to the Inukshuk ratings to any Inukshuks on QJ. On the MN Canoeing side, I can either grant access with a premium membership or if you have accumulated so many "points" (earned by rating campsites, posting trip reports, etc.). I would lean towards the "points" solution since I don't want to charge for access to user-contributed data, but I will leave this open for discussion.

I am very grateful for this community's contributions over the years, so I take very seriously your concerns and suggestions.

  (You need to Login or Register

It has been a busy few weeks but I am back.

One of the major considerations for me in moving the data to mncanoeing was my PCD was not just data.  There was a whole programming "engine" behind it.  The way that engine worked was very old-fashioned.  You ever notice how long it took some map pages to load?  Instead of using tools available now, there was code creating a small map file from a very big one so the website could display that small map file.  Because of that design, there was no way to scroll the map. And that is just one example.

I had pondered re-writing the whole thing, but then I became aware of the mncanoeing website.  It has everything in it (and more) that I would have put in a re-write.  It was just plain stupid to re-invent the wheel, if  Ben was willing to continue to give QJ'ers the kind of access we had enjoyed to date.

I encourage you to, try his site if you have not done so already.  It is way better than the PCD.  I think you will all find this is a vast improvement.

This was not a sell out to some money-hungry enterprise.  Ben is a canoeist just like the rest of us. Any proceeds he will get will not come close to paying for all the labor he has put in.  And even then he is donating some of the proceeds to canoeing organizations. So I gave him a big thanks for what he is providing us.

bstrege wrote on May 12^th, 2014 at 1:53pm:

If db is willing to work with me on this, I can grant access to the Inukshuk ratings to any Inukshuks on QJ.

The way AZ and I worked out Inuk access was the link from the Inuk forum granted Inuk level access. I can point it wherever but you'd have to ask him how it worked. I guess proof of Inuk status would be a PM from one.

FWIW - I tried a point system in the early days of the PDB. That was a huge mistake. Bogus entries overwhelmed the honest and thoughtful ones. It was a huge disappointment to me.

db wrote on May 21^st, 2014 at 5:24am:

The way AZ and I worked out Inuk access was the link from the Inuk forum granted Inuk level access. I can point it wherever but you'd have to ask him how it worked. I guess proof of Inuk status would be a PM from one.

I believe I know how to make this work. I'll get it set up and let you know where to point it.


db wrote on May 21^st, 2014 at 5:24am:

FWIW - I tried a point system in the early days of the PDB. That was a huge mistake. Bogus entries overwhelmed the honest and thoughtful ones. It was a huge disappointment to me.

That is too bad. So far mine is working, but I don't have very many users, either. All of the people on the site are "honest and thoughtful" - I've been semi-dreading the day when I have to watch and make sure everyone still is.

And now it's down for several days.  Sure glad the PCD is still up.

BillConner wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:31pm:

And now it's down for several days.  Sure glad the PCD is still up.

I'm really sorry about that. I was in the Quetico when it went down and fixed it when I got back today. I won't say "I hope it didn't cause any inconvenience" since I know it caused a lot of inconvenience for many people. I hope you'll forgive the lapse.

Not a big problem considering 5 or 10 years ago it was unheard of. You probably could recruit here for helpers if that would work.

It's a very friendly site so thank you.  Well organized and easy to find ratings and info.  The rates don't seem prohibitive, but appropriate.  Maybe there is a way to have a one time, limited to one year special guest status for people who were members of PCD.  Just a thought to help folks migrate to the new site.

SMSweitzer wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 3:36pm:

It's a very friendly site so thank you.  Well organized and easy to find ratings and info.  The rates don't seem prohibitive, but appropriate.  Maybe there is a way to have a one time, limited to one year special guest status for people who were members of PCD.  Just a thought to help folks migrate to the new site.

The PCD and its ratings will always be free. I am not going to charge for someone else's work :) I am still working on the inukshuk ratings and getting you access to them. Right now you can see your own inukshuk ratings, but no one else can. I will provide a link here in the future (on the inukshuk board) that will give you access to those ratings, similar to what Azalea did in the past.

bstrege wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 6:19pm:

The PCD and its ratings will always be free. I am not going to charge for someone else's work :) I am still working on the inukshuk ratings and getting you access to them. Right now you can see your own inukshuk ratings, but no one else can. I will provide a link here in the future (on the inukshuk board) that will give you access to those ratings, similar to what Azalea did in the past.

I looked on the inukshuk board and could not find any link to the advanced ratings.  And it looks like this discussion has gone quiet.  It's been a few years since I used the PCD so I frankly don't recall what is missing from the non inukshuk ratings.  Are all the campsites still there and just the 5 star ratings missing?

If that's all it is, I am OK, as long as i know what I am missing.
Thanks
David Thomas

Believe it or not, yes, I am still working on getting QJers access to the Inukshuk ratings. Whenever I start working on it, I always seem to get interrupted by something else...

I think you are correct that the 5-star ratings are missing but the campsites are still there.

Don't sweat it.

Dots are good. Stars are to be avoided sometimes. Comments are in the eye of the beholder.

In the past, I remember adding one or two this is not a campsite anymore type labels. Stars have always been paddler dependent.

Last I looked, there were still unmarked campsites (no one could miss) to be thankful for. There was one point marked a few years ago that I aimed for and it looked good to me but I wasn't up for the LNT thing since it wasn't a campsite anymore so I moved on. The next 4-5 star dot I aimed for would rank e for emergency.

I wouldn't know how many stars to give the site I eventually camped at. It was memorable.

Well, I am stupid. Do I need to join mncanoeing to access pcd?

chaga wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 12:14pm:

Do I need to join mncanoeing to access pcd?

The site was changed to   (You need to Login or Register[/url] since it doesn't cover just Minnesota anymore.

To answer your question - no, you don't need to join to access the PCD. To contribute ratings, your would need to register (free). If you contributed to the PCD previously, I can link your old PCD ratings to your account so you can manage/update/delete them.  You can also access your own Inukshuk ratings (once you register and let me know what your PCD username was), but no one else can at the moment. There are some paid features, but accessing the PCD, maps, and other data is free.

I wholeheartedly agree with db - I don't actually like the star system, but it is what everyone is used to. I much prefer detailed comments over star ratings. I have seen the same campsite marked one star and five stars by different people. It all depends on what you need out of a campsite. An example is my trip this last weekend with my 5-year-old son. The campsite we stayed at was probably only an average campsite, but it was perfect for him. To the "normal" paddler, it was only three stars, but to us it was 5 stars for that weekend.

Personally, I've never liked the idea of red dots on a public map. To me, dots are earned and/or shared on a need to know basis. That said, I'm still glad there are good dots out there and both you and AZ did impressive work that I can only assume helped a lot of folks, myself included.

Question. I commented on a "campsite" today. What do you do with comments from unregistered visitors? Just kinda curious is all (plus I'm still testing stuff out  ;) ~db).

me wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 5:16pm:

Question. I commented on a "campsite" today. What do you do with comments from unregistered visitors? Just kinda curious is all (plus I'm still testing stuff out  ;) ~db).

Depends on if it is a "rating" or if someone is just letting me know a site does/does not exist. If it is to let me know about a map correction such as changing a campsite status, I fix it as long as the source seems credible and doesn't contradict what others have said.

For ratings or other comments, traditionally I haven't done anything with them. I've considered creating an "anonymous" identity that I could use to post them. I haven't yet, though, since I have not received many and I would like the contributor to have the ultimate ability to change/delete the comments.

Thanks, Ben. I just saw nothing concerning the pcd on the homepage. Not a problem, I will register and see what happens.   

My kid says I don't do sarcasm very well and my wife agrees.

Eh, whatever.

Two stock-holding members of Congress walk into a heavy metal bar. You’d think the second one would’ve ducked.
  (You need to Login or Register

;)

db wrote on Jun 1^st, 2022 at 9:22pm:

My kid says I don't do sarcasm very well and my wife agrees. Eh, whatever. Two stock-holding members of Congress walk into a heavy metal bar. You’d think the second one would’ve ducked.   (You need to Login or Register ;)

   ;D ;D