If you've got "cabin fever" with all the snow and frigid temperatures, how about spending some time adding campsite reviews to the PCD?
Paddler's Campsite Database --Goose

This is a fantastic idea.

Great, Thanks for the link.

Just for a start, some lakes I have wished for more data on are: Sark (other than 193), YY on Camel, Ottertrack, and Burntside (other than FA). Even if you didn't stay there, making a comment about a "legacy" site that you saw (or couldn't find) -- from the water -- would be helpful. --Goose

Last year I added reviews for about two dozen sites I've stayed at. Even added a couple sites that weren't on PCD at all yet. Nothing to new add.

Hopefully I can get to QPP soon so that I DO have something new to add.

I've always been apprehensive about adding campsites to the database. It's sort of like telling people where the fishing spots are. But I also use the database before I go so maybe I'm selfish. I'll have to give it some thought. There are a lot of great Q sites that aren't on there that's for sure.

Tom

Tom: I understand that aspect of it, for sure. But you could keep the best info for yourself, and just comment about some of the MANY un-rated sites that you may have seen that may be "okay for one night," for example. Some information is better than no information. (I have reported on a number of sites, and there are some sites that I will not share info on -- for a variety of reasons.) --Goose

Excellent idea and a great use of spare time.....I wish that many would add campsite reviews to the BWCA sites/portages (maps on this website) as well.

I find these reviews, pictures, and comments a great help in planning upcoming trips. Nothing beats getting first-hand information from those who have been there.

quote OldGreyGoose: "Tom: I understand that aspect of it, for sure. But you could keep the best info for yourself, and just comment about some of the MANY un-rated sites that you may have seen that may be "okay for one night," for example. Some information is better than no information. (I have reported on a number of sites, and there are some sites that I will not share info on -- for a variety of reasons.) --Goose"

Note to self: Make sure Goose gets a Christmas card this year :-)

Hey Goose,

I decided it would be best for the data base to add some campsites. I've been on the site and am updating some data.

Thanks for the nudge.

Tom

Tom, thank YOU. --Goose

I've added quite a few over the years, and updated sites that don't exist, but there are some sites I won't add because they are very special places that need to be discovered and not advertised.

quote tumblehome: "I've always been apprehensive about adding campsites to the database. It's sort of like telling people where the fishing spots are. But I also use the database before I go so maybe I'm selfish. I'll have to give it some thought. There are a lot of great Q sites that aren't on there that's for sure.

Tom "

I have the same perspective. I also use the database but have never added to it. Yep, guilt.

On the other hand I have discovered that my criteria for what makes a good campsite is certainly not what is shared by others. My data would likely mislead many folks to campsites that they might not like.

Quote GraniteCLiffs: "My data would likely mislead many folks to campsites that they might not like." -- I guess you're "not guilty" then, since we sure wouldn't want that, would we? lol. --Goose

Just a reminder that if you are an "Inukshuk" on the Quietjourney.com forum, you can make your campsite ratings "Inukshuk-only" readable. Might be worth considering, if you haven't already. --Goose

Hey, thanks for the idea.

I just spent the last hour or so adding sites from my past 20+ years of trips.........

That is also the reason I asked about campsite rating. Out of all the sites I put into the PCD, I only have a few on hand that are 5+ rated sites. Most are 2 or 3.

Later,

Geo

quote GeoFisher: "Hey, thanks for the idea.

Out of all the sites I put into the PCD, I only have a few on hand that are 5+ rated sites. Most are 2 or 3. "

I don't like rating them either since it's so subjective. I've read about 3 star sites on the PCD that were 5 star IMO. And If I put down 5 star sites on the PCD, they would get over-used.

So I try to speak in generalities about the site instead. If I like the place enough I will comment that I would stay there again. Most importantly, it's good to know if it's a site at all. Just knowing there's a place to put a tent is good enough.

Does anyone know more about the author of the PCD?

Tom

Tom: your approach works for me! Here are a few quotes concerning the PCD, excerpted from their "description" page: "The Quetico PCD is a product of university research and is provided to all at no cost as a service to the community." . . . " The database was originally constructed from campsites listed at http://ims.legacyforest.ca/main, from information on McKenzie maps, and from the database developed by "QPassage" (which I have been told includes information from Fisher maps)." . . . "Alleged campsites listed only in LegacyForest should be viewed with great suspicion. LegacyForest has far more sites listed than other sources and many of those sites are at best lunch spots, not real campsites. That is why sites listed only in LegacyForest and not confirmed to exist by paddler information are displayed on the map using a unique color (light red)."
Geo: a big thank you!!!
--Goose

QPassage is a really good friend of mine......That man has been all over the dang park and he has some great stories.

I've been trying to get him up there, but damn he is too busy fishing with another buddy in Costa Rica a couple times a year :)

PRIORITIES.

What is really funny is I will be talking about a campsite or something or some fishing, and he will chime up and talk about the particular site, or the lake or a hidden reef, or that bitch of a portage, whatever......he has forgotten more about Quetico than I will ever know.

Later,

Geo

quote OldGreyGoose: "Just a reminder that if you are an "Inukshuk" on the Quietjourney.com forum, you can make your campsite ratings "Inukshuk-only" readable. Might be worth considering, if you haven't already. --Goose"

Hey! Goose! I disagree with your post....You are on BWCA.com not that other site, and some of us used to be over there, and left because of the mean spiritedness of some of the folks on that site.....They banned me, and I have no urge to go back. So suggesting that people post info that can't be read by members of this site is not too cool.
I am not an "Inukshuk" and am proud of it!

Fishguts: Sorry you feel that way. It's a free country. I stand by my suggestion, without condoning "mean spiritedness" or in any way promoting "the other" forum, or wishing to divide members against one another. (Sheesh!) --Goose

I just added one, to Anchor Lake.

quote OldGreyGoose: "Fishguts: Sorry you feel that way. It's a free country. I stand by my suggestion, without condoning "mean spiritedness" or in any way promoting "the other" forum, or wishing to divide members against one another. (Sheesh!) --Goose"

What Goose said. Play on...

Life is too short to get all tied up in knots over something on a canoeing board. Some good info on QJ, especially the campsite database and the portage information.

BWCA.com is the best!

Not just adding or rating campsites is useful. As mentioned, there are a lot of "campsites" from the LegacyForest data which might not be usable campsites at all. You can "rate" these as a zero or one to say it isn't really a campsite. Cleaning up the data, in my mind, is just as important as rating or adding sites.

Bstrege, thanks for this reminder. I have eaten lunch at several "sites" that were no more than a rocky ledge or beach. I need to look and see if I entered "not a campsite" for those. --Goose

quote bstrege: "Not just adding or rating campsites is useful. As mentioned, there are a lot of "campsites" from the LegacyForest data which might not be usable campsites at all. You can "rate" these as a zero or one to say it isn't really a campsite. Cleaning up the data, in my mind, is just as important as rating or adding sites."

+1 This is very true, as there are a LOT of non-campsites on that site.

It would be nice if the non-sites could be removed. It would make the database more credible.

Tom

quote tumblehome: "It would be nice if the non-sites could be removed. It would make the database more credible.

Tom"

They can be removed if you rate it as a zero (not a campsite). It's up to us to make it credible.

quote bstrege: "

quote tumblehome: "It would be nice if the non-sites could be removed. It would make the database more credible.


Tom"

They can be removed if you rate it as a zero (not a campsite). It's up to us to make it credible."

Who does the removing? There are lots of sites listed as non-existent, but still on the map.

I sort of like all the non-sites listed. I don't take them serious if there is no rating though.
A lot of times if you really search the non-sites you can find some old camps---they aren't usable---maybe not used in 50 years but pretty cool to see---ya gotta really look.

T

quote arctic: "

quote bstrege: "

quote tumblehome: "It would be nice if the non-sites could be removed. It would make the database more credible.

Tom"

They can be removed if you rate it as a zero (not a campsite). It's up to us to make it credible."

Who does the removing? There are lots of sites listed as non-existent, but still on the map."

Arch Harris goes through all of the submissions. For the ones marked not a campsite, they are turned black on the map. I don't think you would want to completely remove it in case someone made a mistake (of course, that never happens). If you download the data, though, you could filter it to remove the non-campsites.

Can you share a current link to the PCD, or give more info about how to access it? Thanks.

quote evistone: "Can you share a current link to the PCD, or give more info about how to access it? Thanks."

Google Paddlers Campsite Database and it will come up.