I have not thought that far ahead.

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.

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.

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

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 

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!