Talk:Vancouver

Car theft warning

Doesn't every big city have an issue with car theft? Having lived on the west coast (Victoria) all my life, and visited Vancouver several time, I don't really see it as an issue serious enough to merit mention. --(WT-en) Dawnview 20:22, 31 Jan 2004 (EST)

Maybe saying something like "As with all big cities..." It may not be a particular Vancouver issue, but travellers should know it's an issue, since not everyone is coming from a big city so they might not know that this is a common problem... well, it's possible ;-)! (WT-en) Majnoona 10:10, 22 Jul 2004 (EDT)

I tend to agree with Dawnview. None of the other major cities I checked (San Fransisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, Toronto, Calgary) felt it was worth mentioning. I do not believe that the problem is any worse in Vancouver than in those other cities. It may be worth mentioning it relative to specific locations where this is a particular or noteworthy problem (ie. Scott Road Skytrain Station, Surrey Centre Mall Parking Lot or more unexpectedly near Whistler on many of Parking lots at Hiking trailheads.) -- (WT-en) Webgeer 14:43, Jul 22, 2004 (EDT)

Sounds good. (WT-en) Majnoona 15:14, 22 Jul 2004 (EDT)

I might disagree. My husband and I went to Vancouver for our honeymoon a few years ago, and within a day of our arrival, someone broke into our rental car. The owners of the B&B where we were staying warned us when we arrived that car theft was a huge problem in Vancouver. We took their warning seriously and made sure to leave nothing visible in the car, but it still didn't keep our car safe, even on a busy street in the middle of downtown. I've never had this particular problem in other large cities outside of very bad neighborhoods.

I visited Vancouver on November of 2005. I was parked downtown for a couple hours (my car has California license plates) and came back to find my window broken in and my bag missing. Of course the valuable things were still there, and the bag had nothing of value in it. It was a nuisance, though. We taped the window up with a garbage bag and parked it at the University where I was staying. The next morning, someone had punched through the bag. How polite. On the way out of the country, the police informed me that car break-ins were common in Vancouver. So, I'm glad the article points it out. I definitely loved my stay, but it was somewhat of a hassle. wikipedia user: Dontbeakakke

When I was in Vancouver, with 4 friends and driving a borrowed blue minivan, the friend I was staying with (who lived in Chinatown) said, when we pulled up to his flat, "ok, everything out of the car and into the house, and leave the doors unlocked." "Huh?" we replied, incredulous. "When the thieves check it out, they'll see that there's nothing in it, and the doors are open anyway, so they'll move on." I realize that this is an ad hoc ergo propter hoc sort of case, but we weren't broken into. More to the point is that he was compelled to give us such a warning. By the way, I have an awesome border-crossing story, if you want to hear it. Peace.

I dont think that it is a unique issue to Vancouver but it might be worth mentioning becuase it is disproportionate to the otherwise safe city for tourists. Vancouver is a safe city (Not to say it has a low overall crime rate, but crime doesnt usually affect tourists) with a serious auto-theft problem. --(WT-en) Alex

Hierarchy

I currently have North Shore (Greater Vancouver) set up as a separate city. However, I think it would make more sense to include this as a district of Vancouver (Vancouver/North Shore). The other potential districts I see are:

• Vancouver/City Centre - include the West End, Stanley Park, Chinatown and Downtown Eastside here
  • Original spelling was "City Centre" by (WT-en) Webgeer 17:24, Aug 24, 2004 (EDT). Spelling actually used was US variant, Vancouver/City Center, per Project:Spelling policy. I just fixed up all links, including this one in Talk. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 16:47, 12 November 2006 (EST)
• Vancouver/Kitsilano - This would include the northern part of the West Side (except City Centre and UBC). Technically this includes the Neighbourhoods of Kitsilano, Pt. Gray, Fairview, Arbutus Ridge, Cambie, etc. Technically this is the west side of Vancouver, but I think that Kitsilano as it is more recognizable and prevent confusion with the West End, West Vancouver, etc.. (I know many locals who refer to this area as Kitsilano.)
  • What about a Vancouver/Kerrisdale? (Shown on map) - (WT-en) Huttite 08:26, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I need to fix the map up and get it online in SVG format. I had originally planned on calling the south part of Vancouver Kerrisdale which is one of the most prominent neighbourhoods in that part of Vancouver. However, on reflection I realized that most of the attractions in the south part of Vancouver are quite removed from the official neighbourhood of Kerrisdale, and therefore calling it Kerrisdale would be problematic and the designation South Vancouver is used for that general area. --(WT-en) Webgeer 11:08, Sep 30, 2004 (EDT)

• Vancouver/South - The southern part of the West Side and again include a number of other official Neighbourhoods.
• Vancouver/UBC - Includes University Endowment Lands and Pacific Spirit Park.
• Vancouver/East Van - Everything East of Main St except not including Chinatown and Downtown Eastside, (which are in City Centre)
  • Should East Van be moved to Vancouver/East Vancouver, as it says in that article, or Vancouver/East Side as is shown on the map? - (WT-en) Huttite 08:26, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I hadn't realized it was so inconsistant. All three names are used. Personally I like Vancouver/East Van best.

• • Folks, the western border of East Vancouver is not Main Street. It's Ontario Street (farther west).24.80.42.18 15:47, 6 May 2006 (EDT)
• Vancouver/Richmond
• Vancouver/Burnaby

I would propose to leave Surrey (British Columbia), New Westminster, Tri Cities and White Rock as separate 'cities'. (I know that is a little arbitrary, but I can't think of a better way of doing it...)

- (WT-en) Webgeer 17:24, Aug 24, 2004 (EDT)

Unless there's a really good reason, it's best to leave incorporated or official cities as cities rather than districts. If there's a lot of cities real close to each other, or in a "metro region", it's best to reify that metro region. For example, rather than saying that Petaluma is "in" Los Angeles, we've found a couple of higher-level organizational groups (Southern California, Los Angeles County) and used those instead.

I think the idea of having a Greater Vancouver or Lower Mainland article to cover the entire metro region is the best bet. Making real cities into districts hasn't worked out so well in the past. --(WT-en) Evan 13:21, 26 Aug 2004 (EDT)

You provide this comment after I made all of the changes... I actually like the hierarcy as it is now. I suggest we try keeping it for a while. The only areas that are actually separate municipalities are:

• Vancouver/Burnaby which I think should work fine as most people don't even realize when they have entered burnaby and it is really primarily a residential area without many attractions. I don't think people plan on going to Burnaby. When Vancouver/Burnaby was created, I planned on putting a redirect from Burnaby to Vancouver/Burnaby
• Vancouver/Richmond Similar comment as Burnaby. Also Vancouver Airport is in Richmond so it is closely tied to Vancouver for that reason.
• Vancouver/North Shore This is actually three different municipalities (West Vancouver, City of North Vancouver, and District of North Vancouver). Even residents find this confusing. Merging the three seemed like the best idea. Also this includes a lot of attractions that are usually listed as "Vancouver" Attractions (Grouse Mountain, Capilano Suspension Bridge, and others).

Making the North Shore a district of Vancouver, but not making Burnaby which is indistinguishable from Vancouver for the tourist just seems silly. With the Vancouver airport being in Richmond, it is also closely tied to Vancouver.

It makes sense to keep New Westminster a separate "City" (although it is surrounded by Burnaby on 3 sides) as it has a real city centre and has some historical significance (previous capital city of BC). Surrey (British Columbia), Delta and Tri-Cities are well deliniated and it makes sense to make them separate cities.

I have started to create a map, showing the districts and hope to have it finished and uploaded this weekend sometime. I think that would help. - (WT-en) Webgeer 14:35, Aug 26, 2004 (EDT)

That all sounds fine. I don't know Vancouver well enough to suggest differently. I will warn you, though, that if you make a personal geographical hierarchy that's too idiosyncratic or arbitrary, it may very well be rearranged in the future. --(WT-en) Evan 16:55, 26 Aug 2004 (EDT)

I've been contributing to the Vancouver article and other Lower Mainland regional articles, for over a year now. I think the articles for Vancouver and its districts suffer from trying to do the work that should be done by a regional article like Greater Vancouver or Lower Mainland. In particular, I think that Vancouver/North Shore, Vancouver/Richmond, Vancouver/Burnaby, and any other articles on areas outside the city of Vancouver should be moved out from under Vancouver, and marked as part of Greater Vancouver or Lower Mainland. I think the Vancouver hierarchy is "too idiosyncratic or arbitrary", to use Evan's phrase from three years ago, and that it should be rearranged. I don't want to take on this project right now (I have another one to finish first) but I do want to reopen the debate. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 03:32, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Evan already moved Richmond (British Columbia) and Burnaby out from under the Vancouver article in Feb 2006. I fixed those links in the Vancouver article. Vancouver/North Shore still remains. I still think the Vancouver article is doing work that should be transferred to the Greater Vancouver or Lower Mainland articles. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 03:11, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Ferries?

Regarding this edit, if "nobody takes ferries to get to Vancouver", why are there four-hour waits to get on one in summer? One of those cases where nobody goes to a restaurant because it's too crowded...? (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:29, 26 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Ferries are well covered in Victoria (British Columbia), Nanaimo and Vancouver Island. I don't think they need to be covered in Vancouver as well. People take a ferry to leave Vancouver not Get In to Vancouver. - (WT-en) Webgeer 14:04, Aug 26, 2004 (EDT)

Suppose one has an itenary to travel from Bella Coola to Port Hardy, to Vancouver. Do you expect the traveller to just know they have to look at Nanaimo or Victoria to figure out how to get to Vancouver? More realistically, I've done a trip from Port Angeles to northern Vancouver Island (via Victoria) and then back to Vancouver via Nanaimo. If I were a novice traveller, how would I know to use the more convenient Nanaimo ferry when the Vancouver page doesn't mention the connection?

I'd like to see the ferries resurrected here. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:08, 26 Aug 2004 (EDT)

I still disagree. I think that 99% of the visitors that use the ferries are travelling to a destination on Vancouver Island and would expect ferry information on the Vancouver Island page. I think by putting the the ferry information on too many pages we end up with the info spread pretty thin.

However, if others feel strongly about this I think it would be reasonable to mention that there is ferry service from Nanaimo and Victoria (British Columbia on Vancouver Island to Horseshoe Bay and Tsawwassen. Leave the commentary about the ferries for those other pages though.

I gotta tell you that Bella Coola example is pretty funny. The idea that someone could take a ferry from Bella Coola (which is very difficult to get to and you really have to know the ferry system to catch that ferry as it only runs a few times a week.) and not be very familiar with the ferry options to Vancouver is, well funny...

(WT-en) Webgeer 15:55, Aug 26, 2004 (EDT)

I'm fine with centralizing the ferry references into Vancouver Island. Just need a one-sentence pointer from the Vancouver page, I think. (Or are pages supposed to be stand-alone according to the MoS?) -- (WT-en) Colin 17:14, 26 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Vancouver Photo

I've a got a photo of Vancouver skyscrapers across the sea from my holiday there. It's quite nice, but maybe a little distant. I'm thinking of a little pic for the top right corner of this article. What do you reckon? I'd stick it on there but I thought maybe you people who live there have some other ideas. -- (WT-en) Nojer2 04:31, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)

Looks great! Project:Plunge forward! --(WT-en) Evan 08:15, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)

OK then. It's on there. I don't know where this view is from. -- (WT-en) Nojer2 10:55, 8 Feb 2005 (EST)

Looks like it is taken from Spanish Banks. I have a photograph with the same skyline, and that's where I shot it from. (WT-en) bulliver 06:26, 25 February 2006 (EST)

Introductory Sentence Accuracy

Vancouver is the largest city in Western Canada. It is the main city within the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada.

One or the other of these sentences has to go. The first is true of Greater Vancouver, not Vancouver proper, while the second implies that we are only talking about Vancouver proper. As it stands right now, the introduction to this article, and now the Destination of the Month, is just plain wrong. --(WT-en) Neil 14:51, 4 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Hmmm I see what you mean. Also the Canada link should not be repeated twice like that. Actually the main confusing point here is the reference to Lower Mainland (an article which maybe should not exist anyway).

I'm going to move that reference down to 'Districts' section. But if this article talks about Vancouver in general terms, do we actually need the 'Lower Mainland' article? Compare London article, where we dont bother having an article called 'Greater London' -- (WT-en) Nojer2 19:10, 6 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Vancouver's a little tricky that way, (which is why I didn't really want to decide which introductory sentence should go. It's a matter of where do we draw the line, which was sort of discussed earlier here. Currently the article is organized with Burnaby, Van, North Van, West Van part of the main article. Richmond is linked as a district too, but is linked elseware as Richmond (British Columbia), at least from the Richmond differentiation page...neither article exists yet. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to add Surrey, Delta, New West and White Rock, but it's a bit harder to make an argument to include Abbotsford, even though it's still in the lower mainland.

I was going to suggest using the translink transit boundaries as a guide, but when I checked their map, it turns out that they don't clearly define the outside edge of their service like I thought they did (what do I know, I lived in zone 1 and never went further out than Burnaby and North Van.) So I'm at a bit of a loss. I don't think it's all that well organized right now, as it still seems to be having an identity crisis between being a Vancouver article and a Greater Vancouver article. Looking at it, I see 2 options:

1 - Vancouver is an article about the city of Vancouver, noting that it is the central city in the Lower Mainland and provide links to the surrounding municipalities.

2 - Vancouver is a redirect to Greater Vancouver or Lower Mainland, or vice versa (actually, Greater Van already redirects to Lower Mainland) and we cover the whole region in one huge city article.

--(WT-en) Neil 02:31, 9 Jun 2005 (EDT)

My intention with the current organization was from a travellers perspective. Vancouver/North Shore/Burnaby are all pretty close together and most visitors to Vancouver go to all of these places. These are all areas you would expect to be included in a guidebook about Vancouver.

The other areas in the Greater Vancouver area includes a number of more outlying suburbs that very few visitors to Vancouver ever go to. The boundary for this is based on the Greater Vancouver Regional District. I think these should be left as separate cities.

I think it would be possible to do option 1 above (make Vancouver just the municipality). I think this would be a minor disservice to travelers in that it moves some of the commonly visited areas out from under the Vancouver heirarchy. Howevever, it may be a good idea to satisfy those who want hings to be very systematic rather than organic.

Doing option 2 above would not be a good choice. This would confuse the issue as to what are the destinations of Vancouver by including many districts that are outlying residential suburbs.

I personally think that the current heirarchy while not perfect does a good job of reflecting what is useful for the traveller. I don't really think there is any reason to use the legal boundaries for the city let Wikipedia do that. This site is about providing guidebook information, not for making people learn the arbitrary ways our municipalities are split up. -- 198.103.223.3 18:28, 14 Jun 2005 (EDT) (this was me -- (WT-en) Webgeer)

Understand section

It is a cosmopolitan city that likes to consider itself world class. The key words there are "likes to". Vancouver does have a long way to go to reach the sophistication of a Paris or Rome.

I have issues with this. First of all, I think by anyone's definition Vancouver _is_ a world-class city (witness: Expo, Olympics, world-wide travel destination, huge amounts of immigrants, extremely multicultural, Hollywood North, consistant economic growth, getting a Tiffany's, he). Even if we stipulate it is not a world class city, the comment comes across to me as a cheap shot. And the third sentence seems superfluous; Many thousands of cities 'have a long way to go to reach the sophistication of a Paris or Rome'. Why is Vancouver singled out here? Who says this sophistication is a stated goal of Vancouver and its people?

Comments? I think I would like to change this. I will leave it for a while and if there is no comment I will... (WT-en) bulliver 06:42, 25 February 2006 (EST)

Just plunge forward and change it! (WT-en) Majnoona 11:27, 25 February 2006 (EST)

Go for it!! I agree. Vancouver is very sophisticated and very world class. If it considers it's self that, it should because it is. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 12:18, 25 February 2006 (EST)

He he, OK. I'm new here, I just don't want to step on anybody's toes ;) (WT-en) bulliver 16:51, 25 February 2006 (EST)

Street walkers

Sorry, but I thought the comment comparing Downtown Eastside prostitutes to cheap parking prices was a little offensive. I didn't realize this article was a guide for sex tourists. By the way, DTES has the highest HIV infection rates in the Western World, so I wouldn't advise picking up hookers there.

Removed. But you should always feel free to plunge forward and fix it yourself! -- (WT-en) Jonboy 17:02, 23 June 2006 (EDT)

Cannabis

The current version of the article lists the New Amsterdam Cafe, Blunt Bros., and the Cambie as being owned by the Hell's Angels. I don't know if that's true or not. However, given the current legal status and reputation of the club in Canada, I would think that allegations of such ownership need to be either backed up with external citations, or removed lest someone consider it defamation of character. As it stands, in what is supposed to be a travel guide, it reads more like a "don't go here unless you want drugs" entry to me. -- KD

I was not satisfied with the prim and ungrammatical edits in the last couple of days to the Cannabis section. The section as a whole didn't seem to be in line with the illegal activity policy, especially the part which says, "the test is that information should be provided for a traveller's safety, rather than solely to promote illegal activities." So I decided to plunge forward and make some edits. The bulk of this section was added on 11:29, 2006 September 28 by anonymous editor 70.65.6.167, so that's the work I'm changing. But I'm ignorant of the cannabis scene in Vancouver, so I invite local experts to improve my changes. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 01:00, 29 November 2006 (EST)

Most of the content was just removed wholesale, somebody who knows their stuff might want to edit back in the useful (and policy-compliant) bits. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I added a bit about the BCMP and I tried to keep it policy compliant. If this stays I'll add some more in the same style. (WT-en) Alex

Yeah, it's not. We generally avoid stuff which is illegal at the location (see Project:Illegal activities policy) and since it is still illegal in Canada, it needs to be avoided. To the extent the BCMP is a political movement it is worth describing. Just avoid the fact that they sell stuff other than books. -- (WT-en) Colin 03:05, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Lies about the Homeless

I removed the lying statement that the homeless in Vancouver are from elsewhere in Canada. In fact, a recent survey published in the Vancouver Province showed that 85% of homeless in Vancouver were born in Western Canada. I am sick and tired of people in Vancouver blaming the problems in that ugly, boring and depressing shit-burg on Ontario. Vancouver sucks..nothing there but rain. Fuck Vancouver. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 149.99.247.70 (talk • contribs)

I took an extraordinary step and edited your comment to remove a racist slur. --(WT-en) evanp 14:02, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Western Canada is NOT Vancouver, so the point made by the first user is incorrect. —The preceding comment was added by JadeDragon (talk • contribs)

Climate

Victoria is the driest major city in Canada during the summer. It gets half the rain Vancouver gets in winter as well as summer. Oh yeah, Victoria is a major Canadian city. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 70.66.19.20 (talk • contribs)

Vancouver receives approximately 10 more inches of rain per year than Seattle, so the climate is not identical to the emerald city. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 71.111.75.158 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2007 July 25

Crime

I would really doubt it being as safe as it is shown to be here. It has the the 4th highest crime rate in Canada out of all cities (i believe first of major cities) and is going through an obvious increase in drug and gang related crime. To see these problems one would only need to leave their home as early as 8 sometimes. I have witnessed these problems myself from time to time, including witnessing beatings and hearing of lots of gang related violence from word of other teenagers (I also personally know about six or seven 14-15 year olds jumped by an older gang between september and now for no reason at all). This personal stuff taking place in Richmond, which im guessing is not nearly as bad as the main city itself. There is also a lack of police officers within the city.

I live in Vancouver myself and I think it's relatively safe for tourists. This article is supposed to present information that is relevant to tourists. Gang violence is often targeted and rarely affects tourists. If someone is here to travel, the sort of safety they are concerned with are things like theft, crimes associated with nightlife and so on. --207.6.191.35 04:08, 12 November 2011 (EST)

Work

Would someone have enough knowledge to add a work section?

Improving the "Eat" section

There's a lot of shortcomings to the Eat section of this article. Its entries should be short and refer to the district article's "Eat" section for detail. Some listings don't even exist in the corresponding district article', so should be migrated there. This list needs to be restricted to the truly exceptional restaurants of city-wide repute, so some entries should be cut. Some truly exceptional restaurants, like "Vij's", aren't mentioned at all. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:26, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Thus I sympathise with anonymous User:209.121.23.35, who posted this at 18:53, 2007 August 30:

Some favourites of the locals are described below: (This is a very very brief list, and leaves off many of the most noteworthy restaurants in Vancouver. Do some research, and experience some truly outstanding dining. A good list for the summer of 2007 will include restaurants like Salt, Fuel, Gastropod, Chambar, West, Bishops and many more. Here is a short and interesting history of dining in Vancouver that will give you some insights, and here is a great current list of restaurants. Enjoy your adventures!)

However, I think putting this comment in the review is the wrong way to fix the article, so I deleted it. Instead, we need to plunge forward add listings to the District article for the restaurants that are omitted, and give decent detail. And the Project:External links policy warns us against including links to external guides and histories; instead, we should match that content in the article. You can see what I mean with the Samurai Sushi House entry. We all have a good deal of work to do in this section, so let's get to it. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:26, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

• http://www.earthsave.ca/vegdirectory is a directory of vegetarian restaurants, mostly in Vancouver but some in Burnaby, Port Coquitlam, etc. A useful reference when expanding the restaurant listings -- which of course should be done in the district pages, not here. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 15:35, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Districts

The following commentary was put into the main article by User:24.80.162.241. Commentary belongs here in Talk; the results of the commentary belong as revisions in the main article. Anyone want to run with this commentary and make appropriate changes to the main article? (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 14:53, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

East Van - I thought I'd try to clear up this paragraph because the person who initially wrote it seems to have been looking at too many tourist magazines and doesn't actually live in Vancouver. They are paraphasing the paragraphs written by marketers who idealize and simplify Vancouver into catch-phrases. It seems like they have only read, and not experienced what they are writing about. The Wikivoyage formally said, "a working class area; Commercial Drive is the bohemian part of town, Main Street is an up and coming artsy part of the city." Wrong. From a 32 year old who has lived in Vancouver since 1998, the east side is too large to be simplified as an area called, "a working class area.". The east side has the same company as does the West side. The main difference between the "east" and the "west" is the density in regards to lots - lots on the west are larger and therefore more expensive, and the east, the lots are smaller. Commercial drive is the most bohemian part of the town, but was not mentioned is that it is also the Lesbian part of down (Davie Street is famous for male homosexuals). Kitsilano is NOT the YUPPIE (young urban professional) neighborhood - that's Yaletown. Kitsilano is the "new age, flakey," or "born-again" neighborhood. Main Street is not "artsy". The arts district is still South Granville and miscellaneous areas around downtown, such as the filthy, feces/urine smeared area known as Gastown. Main Street is slowly being developed and marketed as and "artsy/hip district" - translation: flakey and persons that imitate YUPPIE magazines are being captured by lucritive marketing and thus are paying ridiculous prices to move into the area.

Excess info in Get in section

I thought the Get in section was collecting more info than was really necessary so I've started by paraphrasing and reworking the "By plane" part of it. Mostly, I've tried to get rid of stuff that I thought was covered elsewhere in the article (Translink info), too much detail (listing all the cities that connect with Vancouver), projects that are either planned or still a ways from completion (new runway, Canada Line) or interesting but not really necessary (the Airbus A380). For reference, the deleted points are below:

• YVR is one of the world's largest airports with terminals and runways designed to accommodate the new Airbus A380, which had several test landings at YVR, the first on Wed. Nov 29, 2006 and then again in 2007.

• Before 2005, a $15 Airport Improvement Fee was levied as a departure tax against all travellers using the Vancouver International Airport. The aim of the fee was to offset the costs of building the airport. Just recently, collection of the Airport Improvement Fee at check-in was discontinued which resulted in shorter lines through customs and security. However, the fee is still collected, but hidden in the tax section of an airline ticket.

• There are future plans construct a separate Transborder Terminal and possibly add a new runway.

• Vancouver has scheduled non-stop, year-round air service to the following international cities: Hong Kong, Taipei, Seoul, Osaka, Tokyo, Manila, Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Honolulu, Maui, Auckland, Sydney, Anchorage, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Sacramento, Spokane, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Washington, DC, Detroit, Minneapolis, San Diego, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Mexico City, London, Glasgow, Paris, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt. Dozens of other cities are served by charter flights on a seasonal basis - Europe in the summer, and Mexico and the Caribbean in the winter.

• A variety of smaller regional airlines including but not limited to Pacific Coastal, Central Mountain Air, Hawkair, Helijet, Craig Air, and Orca Airways, fly out of YVR's South Terminal facility. There is also a floatplane dock near the South Terminal and several small airlines have scheduled flights to destinations on Vancouver Island and up the Sunshine Coast.

• Translink, the Greater Vancouver Transit Authority, serves all areas of Greater Vancouver, with bus and community shuttle services, an overhead light rapid transit system (SkyTrain), a ferry to the North Shore from Downtown (SeaBus) [1] and the West Coast Express Commuter Train [2]. They have a trip planning service to get you from point A to B at a minimal cost. In 2009, Translink will open the much anticipated new SkyTrain line, called Canada Line, which will link the airport to Downtown Vancouver and central Richmond. [3] or +1 604-953-3333.

Sorry, all those changes listed above were mine (forgot to add the name/date stamp) (WT-en) Shaund 15:15, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Also pulled out the list of parking lots in the downtown area. I don't think that level of detail is necessary (they're not hard to find if you're driving around), but for reference they are:

• Robson Street & Periphery, Yaletown $1.00 for 20 minutes or 1 hour for $3.00
• Lower Robson Steet, Denman, Davie $1.00 for 40 minutes or 1 hour for $1.50
• Hornby, Howe (around Provincial Courts), Canada Place, Georgia Street, West Hastings $1.00 for 15 minutes or 1 hour for $4.00
• Gastown & Periphery, N Cambie, W Pender, Homer, VCC, Queen E $1.00 for 30 minutes or 1 hour for $2.00
• East Hastings & Periphery, Chinatown, N Main Street $1.00 for 60 minutes
• Lower Granville, W Broadway around Granville St, Fir, Hemlock up to Oak $1.00 for 30 minutes or 1 hour for $2.00
• W Broadway around Cambie, Heather, VGH $1.00 for 24 minutes or 1 hour for $2.50
• W Broaday around Macdonald, Stephens $1.00 for 60 minutes
• E Broadway, lower Main, Ontario, Yukon, Quebec Sts. $1.00 for 60 minutes
• 4th Avenue, W Broadway around Trutch to MacDonald $1.00 for 60 minutes

• Overall, most uptown meters are around $1/hr and can go up to $2.50/hr around 500-800 blocks of W. Broadway around VGH. The downtown meters are the most expensive along Hornby and Howe Streets from Georgia north to the water, mid-upper range around Robson and adjacent streets like Alberni, mid-lower range in the Westend and the least expensive on the Downtown east side. (WT-en) Shaund 01:58, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

I've done some more culling, this time in the Learn section. This is mostly good info, but it should be in the relevant city's guide...

• As of 2005, UBC opened their Okanagan campus, in the interior city of Kelowna. The Kelowna campus currently enrolls 7500 students in various disciplines.
• SFU's main campus is located in north Burnaby (adjacent to Vancouver). The Burnaby campus is on Burnaby Mountain, and offers a beautiful vista of Vancouver. SFU was constructed in the 1960s, and while some have compared it to a "concrete jungle," most of the campus buildings were designed by renowned British Columbian architect Arthur Erickson, who also designed the Museum of Anthropology and the Walter Koerner Library at UBC.
• SFU opened their Surrey campus in 2002 in response to a surge of college-aged students from the Fraser Valley.
• There are also a number of colleges and university colleges in Vancouver or within reasonable commuting distance. There is a private, Christian university in the district of Langley, called Trinity Western University[4].
• Also in the Fraser Valley is the University College of the Fraser Valley (Now the University of the Fraser Valley, UFV)[5]. UCFV maintains several satellite campuses, including Abbotsford, Chilliwack, and Hope.
• As well, Kwantlen University College offers certificates and degrees in Langley and Surrey.

(WT-en) Shaund 16:48, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Granville Island

A separate page was created a while back for Granville Island. So far it hasn't been placed in the Vancouver hierarchy, it's just linked as an attraction. I'm not sure this is the best use of it and was wondering what people's thoughts are. Some options I see are:

1. Merge it with Vancouver/Kitsilano, which is the district it would fall into under the current hierarchy.

2. Turn it into its own District article and reference it as such in the Vancouver page.

3. Combine it with the South Granville listings in Vancouver/Kitsilano to create a new District page (South Granville, False Creek South or some such name).

4. Leave the article as it is and develop the page as an attraction.

My preferred option is 3. Given the island's unique atmosphere, the number of restaurants, shops, the theaters, hotel and Emily Carr, I think there's enough material to warrant it's own District page. Combining Granville Island and South Granville listings (say anything east of Burrard or Fir St) makes sense geographically and I think would be less confusing for a visitor than the current setup where South Granville and points east are combined with Kitsilano. What are other people's thoughts? (WT-en) Shaund 19:24, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

(WT-en) Shaund, thank you for your attention to the Vancouver articles. There aren't many of us working on them, and you are making real improvements. Regarding Granville Island, I like either 2 or 3. An argument for 3 is that the eastern boundary of Wikivoyage's present "Kitsilano" district is so far east that it surprises some contributors. I think the accepted eastern boundary for Kits is Burrard Street or so. People might accept the Granville Street corridor as part of Kits, but further east and people begin to resist. On the other hand, I think people would accept a district that went from the Granville corridor east to Ontario Street. "Granville South" or "False Creek South" work for me as district names. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:27, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. Glad to hear you think my edits are improvements - I'm not sure if sometimes I'm just being fussy about style as opposed to actually making the article better. I'll put the North Shore under the scope at some point too. As for Granville Island, I'll give it a week or so and if I don't hear otherwise, I'll turn it into a South Granville district article. (WT-en) Shaund 15:30, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

New Vancouver map

I've uploaded a new Vancouver map that shows the districts, major streets, the airport and Skytrain/Seabus. I'm hoping to accomplish two things... (1) give a better idea of how the various get in/get around items relate to each other, and (2) provide a big picture view of how a traveller might navigate Vancouver since (the still to be created) district maps are very focused. Not sure if it works or not though -- any comments are welcome! (WT-en) Shaund 01:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Maps — yay! I think the map looks great at full size. At the reduced size used on the article page, the roads and skytrain lines get a bit lost. Perhaps its better to author the map at the smaller resolution, so that you can force the transportation lines to be clear. And the text in the road names is pretty illegible even at full size, so it needs to be larger. Making a small map is hard! There is a saying that the art of a map is in leaving information out. Thank you for doing this! (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 03:11, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Great! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 21:11, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

I'll see what I can do about the road and Skytrain lines. The road names is a problem -- they're legible enough on my computer but I've definitely seen better on other maps. Time to play with road sizes and fonts a bit more. (WT-en) Shaund 16:29, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

To echo Jim's comments, the skytrain images are too small, i only now know what they are by zooming them in to largest. The streets are fin, though. Happy first day of snow in Edmonton ,(WT-en) ee ^talk 13:04, 11 November 2008 (EST).

Do you think...JUST AN IDEA

Do you think that VANCOUVER needs more info on the district articles? Also...VANCOUVERITES...get out and take some more pictures. Its nice to see pictures and its great for tourists-THEY KNOW WHAT THE 'ECK THEY'RE LOOKIN' FOR!! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 21:10, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

The Vancouver article and its districts are very skeletal, compared to the richness of the area as a tourist destination. There's a lot to do still. Plunge forward! (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:21, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

So I think I will add a longer paragraph top the District section in the main page, and see about the articles. I will also see if I have any more Wikivoyage Vancouver pictures I coulduse/uppload. Anyways ,thanks! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:42, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

done. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 18:35, 10 November 2008 (EST).

lack of photos

Hi, I see, to me, there is a lack of photos, especially pertaining to the district articles. I encourage all Vancouverites to get out and TAKE MORE PICTURES! Thanks for you're tinme!~ (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:43, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

Nominate for starr?

Do YOU, yes YOU, think it would be a good idea to nominate Vancouver for a star article? I personally think it's there, to me, it's thorough and I like the sample listings in each category, yet most are in districts. So, what do you think? We could like do a collaboration of the month and make it a star :)! We could work on it together or something, I guess if you don't think it's ready. What do the regulars think (Jim, Shaund?)

Keep smiling,

(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 16:44, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Nah, there's still a ways to go. One thing needed for Vancouver to be a star is all its districts have to be guide or better (which isn't the case right now). Other than Vancouver/City Center, they're mostly pretty thin, so additional listings would be helpful. Other stuff that I can think of off the top of my head are:

• The See and Do listings need to be cleaned up and moved to their respective district. Stuff that relates to the North Shore should be removed.
• The Eat section needs to be better... mention foods that Vancouver is noted for (sushi, fusion, etc.), similar to the way Chicago is written.
• Some of the sections could do with better writing.
• Maps in the districts would be useful, as would more photos (although I'm working on that slowly).
• A list of Consulates and a cross-section of churches for the Cope section.
• I think the Contact sections are pretty weak in general (need more internet cafe/wifi listings).
• There are probably some MoS issues too.

If you want to help out, pick one or two of the items above and jump in! (WT-en) Shaund 23:40, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

You know what, Shaund, I will. I have added some photos, but once I get further on Edmonton, I'll come back and look at this and do some of it. Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 23:42, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Photo shuffle

I uploaded some photos that I've taken over the past couple of months and shuffled some of the existing pics around Vancouver, Vancouver/City Center, North Shore (British Columbia) and the Lower Mainland. Mostly I'm trying to improve our stock of Vancouver photos and get more colour on the main page and the districts. If you don't agree, feel free to move them around or leave some comments here. I'll add some more over the next couple of weeks too. (WT-en) Shaund 00:32, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh very very nice much better than i could do (check your talk for a question-@bottom of stuff about distirict map-edm)!! keep Up the good work! keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 00:50, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Sleep stuff in vancouver

Hey, how are yeh? Anyways...in the sleep section I saw for cheaper hotels it says Richmond has a bunch of 'airport' hotels. I can assume that means cheaper hotels. But I don't necessarily know and I don't think others wooulld either, Imean, I don't mind having that in there, long as there is some description to what that is. And what are you thinking about this? Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:48, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Hi EE, it refers to hotels close to the airport. If you think it's confusing, go ahead and edit it! (WT-en) Shaund 21:50, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

But does it mean anything particular? Like high quality, cheap hotels? Happy Day of the Dead, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 00:29, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

OK, I took a quick look at it, and yeah, it wasn't entirely accurate or clear. Now fixed. (WT-en) Shaund 13:30, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Shaund! You're helpful! Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 13:34, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

New Docent?

Just wondering if there should be a new docent for Vancouver as (WT-en) Dawnview is inactive. I know who I'd nominate, but I just need to know that I can. Thoughts? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 17:53, 10 November 2008 (EST).

• I just realized this is a stupid topic. There can be more than one docent so yeah. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 00:19, 11 November 2008 (EST).

Looking through our policies, there is one that deals with it (see Project:Docents). Since (WT-en) Dawnview hasn't logged in for at least a month, the user can "unbecome" a docent (i.e., delete the name). (WT-en) Shaund 02:10, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Would you or Jim take the job, I already asked, but have you thought it over? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 18:43, 19 December 2008 (EST).

Whats the difference (East Van vs Downtown East Side)

Whats the difference between East Van and Downtown East? I always thought they were the same! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 00:24, 11 November 2008 (EST).

East Van refers to roughly the whole eastern half of the city of Vancouver. It's mostly residential with a number of commercial strips along major streets like Main St and Kingsway. It's a really hard place to categorize as each neighbourhood can be quite different -- it includes part of the Downtown East Side, the upscale Champlain Heights, ethnic areas like Little India and Commercial Drive, blocks upon blocks of wartime/post WW II housing and new fancy highrise condos clustered around the Skytrain stations.

I'm not sure of the exact boundaries of the Downtown East Side, but generally, it refers to the eastern parts of downtown and area (i.e., some of Gastown, Chinatown and Hastings St to just east of Main St). As such, it straddles the border between Vancouver/City Center and Vancouver/East Van. Compared to East Van as a whole, it makes up a small part of the district in the north-west and so it isn't representative of East Van at all. I meant to leave you a message on your talk page to explain why I deleted it, but I got called away to other duties before I had a chance to! Anyway, hope this helps explain the difference between East Van and Downtown East Side. Cheers (WT-en) Shaund 01:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

SO is the Downtown East side apart of city centre? Thanks. Happy first day of snow in Edmonton, (WT-en) ee ^talk 11:35, 11 November 2008 (EST).

Pretty much, it's the eastern edge of the city center. (WT-en) Shaund 12:27, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Kay so like Gastown and Main. Thanks for all the information! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 12:29, 11 November 2008 (EST).

Marine Dr

I remember when I was in Vancouver there was an area of Marine Drive that was home to suburban retailers - In Vancouver. What I am wondering is if we should put it in here, I mean I have no interest in it, but I know lots of people like shopping at suburban strip malls even on vacations or sometimes people need some groceries and are in the area. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 18:44, 19 December 2008 (EST).

UBC and South Van

Are there any objections if I merge these two districts? They're both pretty small and I don't think there is a whole lot more to add other than restaurants and shops. -Shaund (24.114.236.32 21:02, 7 August 2009 (EDT))

It looks as though a lot of merging was done, but someone needs to redo the map to match the 3 district division now present in the article (and match the colors). (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:30, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Canada line is done

So it's no longer needed to advise people to avoid Cambie, as true as that was for a LONG time.

Oh, and south Vancouver and UBC are very much their own place, not to mention that Kits and West Point Grey are between them.

Vancouver districts revisited

I've been thinking about the current districts and if they could work a little better. The downtown ones (West End, CBD-Yaletown, Gastown-Chinatown) are well focused and I think highlight the areas most tourists are looking for. Other areas don't fare as well though. Some, like the neighbourhoods of Commercial Drive and South Main, are lost within another district. In other cases, some districts, like Kitsilano, perhaps cover too large area. Does it make more sense to have the beach and associated attractions (which are all walkable and easily accessible from downtown) in one Kits article, while Spanish Banks/West Point Grey are placed with UBC (a better grouping, I think, from a travellers perspective)?

Anyway, my proposed revised districts are below. There is enough material to have these districts, but two or three will be on the small side until more listings are added (and there are places to add). Let me know what you think.

proposed Vancouver districts

UBC-Point Grey - covers the UBC Campus, Pacific Spirit park and West Point Grey (currently in the Kitsilano district). West Point Grey is included here, rather than Kits, because I think someone is more likely to come all this way if they're already going to UBC. If you just want to see Kits, I imagine you're going to stay close to Kits Beach where everything is very accessible to downtown.

Kitsilano and Granville Island - covers everything east of Alma St and west of Fir St, picking up Kits Beach, Granville Island and South Granville. I grouped them together since they're close (walking distance) and to keep the number of districts down, but there is enough material to leave Kits and Granville Island/South Granville as separate districts.

Mt Pleasant-South Main - this would pick up the eastern part of the existing South Granville district (the part that isn't South Granville) and combine it with the South Main neighbourhood (Main St to 33rd). It would also include Scienceworld, which is currently in the Gastown-Chinatown article, but doesn't really fit there.

Commercial Drive-Hastings Park - covers the northern part of the existing East Van district, basically Burrard Inlet south to 25th/King Edward. It will include Commercial Dr, the PNE area and Strathcona.

Vancouver South - this will be everything left over that isn't downtown or included in the above districts.

Stanley Park and the West End, CBD-Yaletown and Gastown-Chinatown will remain as they are now (other than the small area around Scienceworld moving from Chinatown to Mt Pleasant-South Main).

- (WT-en) Shaund 14:10, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

From the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the city, this new version does look more digestible, although I would make a point to use a bolder color for CBD-Yaletown, as it kind of disappears right now. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 15:39, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

That's a good point about the colours. I'll fix when I finalize the map. - (WT-en) Shaund 23:53, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I'm not all that familiar with the southern and eastern sections of Vancouver, but as someone who made a point of going to the UBC campus when I visited last year, I can absolutely say that breaking UBC off from South Van would make things much clearer. On that basis alone I will say I support this proposal. (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 18:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Cool, good to know. Although I have to admit I'm the guilty party who combined Van South and UBC (oops!). - (WT-en) Shaund 23:53, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Support. I think this improves the tourist orientation of the district boundaries. I encourage you to put a clear description of each neighbourhood's boundaries in its article. It's frustrating when a reader can't tell whether a given street is in one district or the next. I also think it makes most sense to have district boundaries run through blocks and buildings, so that both sides of a street (e.g. Alma Street) are in the same district. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 14:33, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Good point on the descriptions. Speaking of Alma Street, do you think it should be in UBC-Point Grey or Kits? Given its distance from Kits Beach, I'm leaning to putting it (both sides, or maybe another block over) in UBC-Point Grey. - (WT-en) Shaund 23:07, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

The city of Vancouver apparently thinks of Alma Street as the dividing line between the Point Grey and Kitsilano neighbourhoods. I think both sides of the street should go in one direction or the other, but it's a fine judgement call which. Overall I think Alma Street feels like the frontier of Point Grey, and is more closely attached to Point Grey up the hill than to Kits along the plain. On the other hand, there's very few businesses two blocks west of Alma Street, but Alma Street and 4th Ave is the western end of a restaurant and shops district which stretches several blocks east along 4th Ave into Kits. I think the benefit of keeping that district all in one WT neighbourhood justifies putting the boundary between Point Grey and Kitsilano just west of Highbury Street (1 street west of Alma Street). Thus all the commercial area of 4th Ave, west to one intersection beyond Alma Street, is in Kits; and Point Grey begins after than, when the avenues all turn residential. (Can you tell I know the area?) (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 01:59, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

It's good that you know the area... I'm over in North Van so I don't make it to that part of the city often. I'll make the border Highbury as you suggest, although I might run it along Alma from the water to 2nd so Hastings Mill Park is in the same district as Jericho Beach.

What about the collection of businesses at 16th and Dunbar -- should these be in UBC-Point Grey or Vancouver South? It looks like they go down Dunbar a few blocks so I'm leaning to putting them in Vancouver South. - (WT-en) Shaund 11:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm going to start implementing this in the next week or two. There are a couple of changes I'd like to make to the proposed districts above, though:

• include Queen Elizabeth Park in the Mt. Pleasant-South Main district (QE Park is the bigger green blob in the middle of the Vancouver South). Strictly speaking, it's just outside of South Main, but it's right next to it, so I think it makes sense to include it in that article.

• create a Yaletown-False Creek district that would group everything around the western end of False Creek. I've been spending some time there lately and I think this makes more sense from a tourist's perspective than including Yaletown with the CBD and SE False Creek with Mt. Pleasant. Given their proximity and with the Seawall complete, the Canada Line built and the new AquaBus at the old Athlete's Village, it's very easy to cover all the attractions in the area together.

Any comments/concerns?

- (WT-en) Shaund 10:18, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

When I was there I actually visited both of those places (I took the Canada Line to QE Park, then took it back to the Athlete's Village and walked around False Creek into Yaletown), and just based on how I wound up breaking that trip down as a tourist, I completely agree on both points. (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 09:58, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Alternative banner for this article?

Banner currently used in this article

Suggested new alternative banner

I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

hmm, for a moment I thought both banners were looking at Hong Kong. Anyway the proposed daytime landscape looks better than the original night time scene. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised you think so. I think the nighttime scene is striking and fairly distinctive among our banners. Powers ^(talk) 18:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the nighttime scene more too, although both are good banners. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

While both pictures show similar view, I am inclined to use the lighter one. Change. Danapit (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I slightly favor the nighttime scene and don't see any compelling reason to change. I'd be OK with the new banner used for some other article, if there's a relevant one that doesn't have a good banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the current banner. There's something about the colouring in the proposed banner that feels unnatural to me and makes it look more processed. -Shaundd (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Second. More inviting, shows the water. Syced (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Tinkering with the lede

I take exception to this edit, and to the edit summary, which says in part that "it is less clumsy and more compelling this way". The user in question has only a handful of edits under his belt, and I'm not sure if he has familiarized himself with Wikivoyage:Tone, but this strikes me as more a case of sucking the life out of lively prose than of clarifying clunky wording. This is not the first edit of his on this page that has been reverted, though, so rather than engage in what might be construed as newbie-biting, I thought it would be better to sound out the opinion of the rest of the community before reverting again. Thoughts, everyone? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the lede as it was was clumsy, but I do think that omitting the phrase in question makes the lede read better. It's more direct. What do you think "It's not hard to argue that" adds to the tone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the "directness" you cite is the problem: to me the new wording comes across as brusque and dry, rather than easygoing and conversational, which is more in tune with the tone we aim for here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's see what other people think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"It's not hard to argue that" sounds like something I'd write to punch up the prose. It wasn't really bad before, but I think in this case a bit of directness might be helpful. Making the first sentence short and punchy brings the reader very quickly to the enticing predicate. I think the excised clause just gets in the way of the meat of the sentence, which is excellent by itself. Powers ^(talk) 20:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Camping in public places

I've deleted the following text from the Sleep section of the article:

If you have a tent or it's not rainy season (summer), you can sleep in Vancouver for free. It is legal to camp overnight on public property in Vancouver from 21:30 until 06:30. Stanley Park is an especially large park that makes for great, free camping in the summer.

For one, I don't think it's legal and I can't verify the above statement. As far as I can tell from Vancouver's parks by-law, you're not allowed to set up tents or camp overnight in a city park without the General Manager's permission. A number of cities in BC have lost court battles about homeless people setting up tents in city parks on the grounds that it was unconstitutional to deny homeless people the right to camp in a park if no shelter beds are available -- but that's not the same thing as saying travellers can legally camp for free in city parks.

My second concern is safety. Vancouver isn't particularly dangerous, but you'd be sharing these parks with homeless people, drug users, etc. -- some of them won't mind you pitching a tent but others will. I think it's naive and misleading to say it "makes for great, free camping in summer".

Unless someone can provide evidence that camping on public property is legal in Vancouver and put it in it's proper context, I don't think it's appropriate for this to be included in the article. -Shaundd (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

There are people without homes who camp in Stanley Park during the summer months. As shown in this Vancouver Sun article, people without homes sleeping in Stanley Park have not been kicked out; however, I would highly advise against it for tourists. As it is questionable advice, I agree in not including it. Daylen (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I did provide a source to the BC Supreme court ruling which permits structures to be setup on public property, but it was removed in the previous edit -Fedcba098

Update: after asking others in the Traverler's pub it appears that my original post is valid & appropriate. It's legal to erect a shelter overnight on pubic property in all of British Colombia, per the Supreme Court ruling as linked above. I've updated my paragraph with the safety concerns. However, after spending about a month in Vancouver, sleeping in dodgy & safe places, I feel that Stanely Park is an *extremely* safe place to camp. The drug addicts mostly stay to the city around DTES.

Hi there. No, as far as I can tell, it's not legal in all of BC. Those court cases dealt with the rights of homeless people and only the by-laws in the specific municipalities (Victoria and Abbotsford). It does seem to have had the effect that by-law officers usually won't enforce the rule, but that's not the same as saying it's legal. As for safety, yeah, Stanley Park is safer than other spots, but safety is a relative thing and many people will disagree with you that they feel extremely safe in Stanley Park at night. We have to keep in mind that some people reading the article aren't street smart, inexperienced travellers or might think camping is cool but not grasp what it means to pitch a tent in Stanley Park. Anyway, I posted a longer response in the pub discussion. I think better wording would be: "Travellers pitching tents in city parks is not permitted according to Vancouver laws. However, recent Supreme Court decisions have made this a legal grey area so by-law officers generally won’t disturb you unless you are being disruptive or don’t take your tent down in the morning. If you decide to camp in a park, stay safe. Travellers find Stanley Park to be a beautiful spot, but be aware there are no facilities and some people may not feel safe, particularly in wooded or secluded areas.” -Shaundd (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Free camping update

I've done more research on this and I'm still unable to find anything that confirms camping in city parks is legal in Vancouver. The city's bylaws say tenting in a city park overnight is not allowed. There have been two instances where similar bylaws were struck down in other municipalities (to the extent those laws infringe on the rights of the homeless) by the courts based on specific fact patterns relating to the local homeless situation. How those cases would apply to Vancouver and whether it extends to a traveller is what lawyers and judges deal with. I don't think it is appropriate for us (Wikivoyage) to try to answer those questions.

If you're interested, here's a collection of links to some information I found useful (both primary and secondary sources):

• Vancouver parks bylaws #10 & 11 prohibit overnight camping and putting up a tent (or other structures) in city parks [6]

• the Supreme Court of BC decision that struck down Victoria's no camping bylaw to the extent it infringed on the rights of the homeless [7]

• the BC Court of Appeals decision that confirmed the Supreme Court's Victoria decision [8]

• the Supreme Court of BC decision that struck down Abbotsford's no camping bylaw to the extent it infringed on the rights of the homeless [9]

• Times-Colonist article that discusses the Court decision that struck down the old bylaw [10] (this is the article Fedcba098 originally linked to)

• Georgia Strait article that discusses the two decisions and provides some insight on the rationale behind those decisions [11]

• Vancouver Sun article on living in Stanley Park [12] (this is the article Daylen linked to above)
• Globe & Mail article discussing the situation in Victoria seven years after the Court struck down the old bylaw [13]

• Globe & Mail article on people living in Stanley Park [14]

After a fair bit of thought about this, I think free camping in Vancouver is best handled as an illegal activity that a small number of travellers may want to engage in. I've replaced the existing wording with what I think complies with Wikivoyage:Illegal activities policy and can be verified by the above links. This includes:

• camping overnight in city parks is not allowed according to bylaw

• acknowledge the Court cases but note they apply to other municipalities and it is unknown how the decisions would apply to Vancouver 

• bylaw officers are not likely to disturb you (in Stanley Park at least) provided you're not disruptive, don't light a fire and take your tent down in the morning 

• with respect to safety, provide standard Vancouver guidance to avoid the Downtown Eastside and provide a link to Budget travel#Sleep, which discusses some of the general risks of free/rough camping.

With these edits, I'm trying to strike a balance between our policies, useful information for free campers and context for people who see “camping” but don’t understand or know what “free camping” means. I’ve left out recommending Stanley Park as I personally feel it comes across as promoting something illegal, which is offside of our illegal activities policy. If you disagree with my edits, please raise it here to discuss rather than revert. I respect User:Fedcba098’s experience, but the current wording does not accurately describe the situation and needs to be changed. -Shaundd (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Mobi Bike Share

The article is missing information about the city operated bike share program, Mobi. More details can be found on the Wikipedia page, w:Mobi (bike share). Daylen (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add a listing, and link the official site for the program. [I thought you had programmes in Canada. :-)] Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"Learn" section

This section is supposed to be about places where a traveller could take a course in 2 weeks or so as a non-matriculated student, and moreover, specific listings would belong in district guides. I think the best thing to do in this section is provide a general overview of the learning opportunities available to the short-term visitor. Right now, this section looks like everything a "Learn" section on Wikivoyage is not envisioned to be by previous consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I've made a mental note to look into it when I have some time. -Shaundd (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Consumerist Tourists vs Vagabonds

Swept in from the pub

Why is wikivoyage so pro-consumerism? I feel like almost all of the articles are dominated by where to spend money (where to shop, where to buy a beer, where to pay for a bed (only $15/night! /s), where to pay for camping).

Long-term travelers are more likely to hitch-hike, dumpster for food, and setup their tent in the woods. But where is the information for these vagabonds? Is wikivoyage's articles specifically opposed to supplying information to us long-term travelers/vagabonds?

When I was en-route to Vancouver, I learned from a fellow traveler that the local police permitted setting up a tent on public property. I spent a lot of time researching this to confirm that the BC Supreme Court permitted setting up erecting a structure for shelter overnight. Once I was sure it was legal (and I did it for about a month), I added a section about camping in Stanley Park to the Vancouver article. I included a link showing the legality, but it was removed. The next edit, the rest of my addition was removed.

I'm relatively new (as a contributor) here, so I'm not going to undo the removal. Instead, I'm here in the pub, trying to learn the intention of this wiki. Is Wikivoyage intentionally providing information geared toward yuppie travelers looking to fly to a city, spend a week shopping, and fly back home? Or are we a wiki for serious, long-term travelers/vagabonds? Do we deamonize such behaviour as busking? spanging? dumpstering? train hopping? stealth camping? Where is this line drawn?

If wikivoyage is intentionally opposed to vagabonds, can you please point me to a wiki that is not?

—The preceding comment was added by Fedcba098 (talk • contribs)

I think vagabonding might make for a valid travel topic, but frankly any claims that "long-term travelers are more likely to hitch-hike, dumpster for food, and setup their tent in the woods", or that "yuppie travelers looking to fly to a city, spend a week shopping, and fly back home" are somehow not "serious", are ridiculous on their face, so much so that I have to somewhat doubt the seriousness of this question. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That all being said, I don't support the reversion of the OP's edit. If that information is relevant to travellers (even a certain subset thereof) and accurate (on the Talk page he provided a link to the BC Supreme Court ruling confirming his claim), then I don't see any argument against including the information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Some of what you mention may be illegal in certain jurisdictions. Hence as per our WV:illegal activities policy we do not give advice on how to best break the law, even if some might consider the laws stupid or unjust. That said, we do have an article on the right to access and there should be an article on hitchhiking. If not, plunge forward. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the specific edit he made focused on a single jurisdiction Vancouver where what he mentioned is indeed legal - in fact, his edit consisted of saying precisely that camping in tents on public land is something that the law allows. I think the edit should stand. Zooming out a bit, where other destinations are concerned I think we should handle this on a case by case basis. Where such things are legal, this is information we should include; where it's not, we should stay silent (beyond perhaps mentioning that it is illegal). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast responses! To clarify, it's legal not only in Vancouver, but in all of BC. As AndreCarrotflower recommended, I did some plunging into the Budget travel. It appears that supplying information geared towards budget/free travelers/vagabonds *is* part of the mission of wikivoyage, so long as it does not violate the law. I think this information is dwarfed by the consumerist nature of the articles, so I will continue to add useful information for fellow vagabonds to the Budget sections of cities as I go along. Looks like the opinion so far is that I should revert my post; I'll do that (thanks for the input!). Also, there's a section of "Sleep" section in Budget travel that links to a sleep rough, which is roughly equivalent to "camping for free." I did a lot of legal camping in parks in the NorthEast US while bikepacking, and it seems that I should compile these places (as well as Vancouver) in both the Sleep sections of the relevant cities/states/regions and fill-out this empty travel topic. -Fedcba098

@Fedcba098: Info on squatting, hitching, etc. is extremely valuable, especially if it keeps someone safe. I can't recommend this enough. I agree with our policy on not recommending illegal activity as such but precisely because some of this is a grey area or something that changes by jurisdiction, having accurate info is vital. For instance, hitching is federal illegal in the States but legal in Indiana, so we can (should!) advise travellers on how/where to hitch in my home state but also caution them against it on federal highways. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a "federal highway" in the US? I know it exists in México, but w:AASHTO is a group of state government officials, with no federal voting presence. K7L (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@K7L: Roads in the United States Numbered Highways are administered by the federal Department of Transportation, even though maintenance is the responsibility of individual states (there are even "interstate highways" in Hawai'i!) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There absolutely is such a thing as a Federal highway in the U.S., and Federal routes are distinct from Interstates. The Federal system predates the Interstate system. Route 66 was a Federal highway. On the Eastern Seaboard, we have Federal Route 1, which goes from Key West, Florida all the way up to Maine. Federal routes are at least fairly often multiple lanes (such as 2 each way), but only intermittently limited access, and they typically go through the centers of numerous towns. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, here. I have not seen any legal opinion or source other than the odd post in a travel forum that says it is legal to camp overnight in parks and public places across BC (including the link provided by User:Fedcba098, which was to a newspaper article and not the Supreme Court decision). This situation is far more nuanced than is being discussed. Here are some relevant links:

• 2008 decision that struck down Victoria’s bylaw
• 2015 decision that struck down Abbotsford’s bylaw
• City of Vancouver's parks by-law

First of all, neither of those Court cases made it legal to erect a shelter overnight across BC. The decisions only struck down the by-laws in the respective municipalities (Victoria and Abbotsford). As far as I know, the by-laws in other communities are still valid until they are successfully challenged in Court.

Secondly, both Court cases were argued on the basis that the by-laws infringed on the rights of homeless people under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In handing down the decisions, the judges explicitly made reference to rights of the homeless under the Charter and stated the by-laws are invalid to the extent they prohibit homeless people from sleeping in a city park overnight. It seems questionable to me that a traveller vagabonding is a homeless person of the city. It also seems questionable whether an out of country visitor can rely on the same provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were used in these Court cases.

Thirdly, the City of Vancouver’s by-laws prohibit people from camping overnight in parks and public spaces unless they get prior permission. I’m not aware of any Court case that has ruled Vancouver’s by-law is invalid. If it is, I’m happy to retreat from my position if you can provide proof.

Collectively, these Court decisions seem to have stopped by-law officers from enforcing the no camping by-laws in most circumstances. However, this is not the same thing as saying “It is legal to camp overnight on public property in Vancouver” (or anywhere in BC). The situation seems to be similar to smoking weed in BC: many people say it’s legal because enforcement turns a blind eye to it, but the rule is still there. I think a more accurate statement would be “Travellers pitching tents in city parks is not permitted according to Vancouver laws. However, recent Supreme Court decisions have made this a legal grey area so by-law officers generally won’t disturb you unless you are being disruptive or don’t take your tent down in the morning.”

My other concern with the original and reinstated comments is the tone, particularly relating to safety. I just don’t think it provides enough context to enable an audience as wide as ours to make an informed decision on whether or not this is something they want to do. Doing a quick Google search on Stanley Park, comments ranged from “Don’t walk in Stanley Park at night” to “Best to avoid the wooded areas” to “Stay close to English Bay or Third Beach” to “It’s fine to walk in Stanley Park at night”. I think a more a balanced statement would be along the lines of “If you decide to camp in a park, stay safe. Travellers find Stanley Park to be a beautiful spot, but be aware there are no facilities and some people may not feel safe, particularly in wooded or secluded areas.”

To me, this isn’t about vagabonding vs consumerism. This issue isn’t black and white and it is contentious in some areas (Victoria more than Vancouver), so I'd prefer not to list it. However, if we do think it's worthwhile, I think the words we use need to be carefully chosen to accurately portray the legal situation and the fact that it’s not the same as going to your local KOA. -Shaundd (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There are some things here that are definitely not oriented to tourists, though I'm not certain many of them would fit your definition of "vagabond". See for example Digital nomad, Hitchhiking, Teaching English, Volunteer, & Retiring abroad. Pashley (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Vancouver UBC.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Template for Metro Vancouver transit fares

Swept in from the pub

I put together a template (User:Shaundd/Translink) to help make updating transit fares across Vancouver and its suburbs easier and more consistent. It's currently being tested on Richmond (British Columbia). The rationale is the regional transit authority increased fares on July 1 and plans on annually increasing fares for the next 2-3 years. Vancouver's transit system impacts about 15 guides so it's quite a bit of work to update each fare increase and historically, previous fare increases have been hit or miss in implementation.

Our template policy asks for a discussion before rolling a template out, so... let me know if you have any objections to this template. If there isn't, I'll move it to the Template namespace and implement it across the Metro Vancouver guides.

I don't have documentation yet, but the idea behind the template is all the various fares are stored in a switch statement in the template and the Wikivoyage guide would specify whether it's a one zone fare, two zone fare, etc. (e.g., {{User:Shaundd/Translink|1}} would display the standard one zone fare). It is less transparent if someone wants to edit the fares because they're in the template, but it will make implementing future fare increases much simpler so I think it's worth it. -Shaundd (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a great idea to me. At first it seemed odd that the template only provides the prices, and not any description, but once I looked at the demo on Richmond (British Columbia) it made sense... every destination will naturally have a unique description of how to get there, and would just use this template to show the various costs. I approve. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved it to the template namespace now as Template:Translink. -Shaundd (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Seawall or seawell?

walk the seawall or seawell? anyways can i bold it? asking first. Baozon90 (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• It's been taken care of. Thanks for both the attention and politeness. Ibaman (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Rapidbus

• This article mentions the B-Line, but the Rapidbus has replaced the B-line and there is only 1 B-Line route left, and that's going to be gone in a few years. How can I help update the article, as you can, see I'm, new here. Thanks --Thegooduser (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Thegooduser: welcome to Wikivoyage! Please go ahead and update the article by clicking on "edit" at the top of the article page, and then click "publish changes" box at the bottom of the edit screen. It's that easy. Don't worry about making mistakes. I'll keep an eye on the article and make any fixes needed. Ground Zero (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ground Zero Just like Wikipedia, we need to cite an Reliable Source for the change we make when adding Information? --Thegooduser (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No, we're a travel guide, so we don't require reliable sources, and we don't include references in our edits. Ground Zero (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Good to know! --Thegooduser (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Just made the change to the article, let me know what you think --Thegooduser (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Airport information

Note this edit. I can't think of another guide to a major city in which readers are directed to a region guide for specific information about nearby airports, and per Wikivoyage:Region article template, I consider that to be at variance with Wikivoyage's style of breadcrumb navigation, in which specific information is in city (and district or park) articles and region articles have more general overviews.

I don't think the section on Vancouver International Airport comes close to being too long, but if it ever does, the solution would be to create an airport article for that airport and leave a summary here, not to move any of the specific airport information to the parent region article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree. WV:WYCSI says it belongs in "the By plane subsection of Get in section of the main City page for each city served". This is sensible as Vancouver would then have different details about the SkyTrain and buses than Richmond (British Columbia) would. If the information really is repetitive, it could be concentrated here and other articles could have a "See also: Vancouver#By plane" link, but it's usually not necessary; just mentioning "Vancouver" in the listing's details or description is enough. Yes, this does cause a little duplication of information in all of the articles for suburbs, but it makes sense for how people think of cities and airports. When someone is planning a trip to Richmond, they don't think of YVR as "the airport for the Lower Mainland"; they think of it as Vancouver's airport (it's even in the name: Vancouver International Airport) which also serves nearby Richmond.

This section as it stands is not very long, and could be shortened substantially. A list of 16 airlines (with some mentioned more than once) is unnecessary; just say it has service from "many major airlines". The list of amenities is basically useless, as it's just pointing out things that I expect every international airport to have. Ground transportation would be a lot simpler if it were in a paragraph or three, rather than a bullet list that's taking up more space. Having separate listings for the Main and South Terminals is unusual, but seems like it makes sense here, except that we don't explain very clearly how you know which one you're supposed to go to, which ought to be added. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If anyone knows about a lot of restaurants, shops and such-like at the airport, a dedicated airport article might not be out of line, but failing that, we're in agreement. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I do think Vancouver deserves its own airport article given that it is Canada's main gateway to East Asia, and the second busiest airport in Canada (after Toronto-Pearson). That said, I have never been to Vancouver, so I wouldn't have much to contribute to such as article, but it would probably be welcome to have one. In that way, we can cover things like transfers between the Main and South terminals. The dog2 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't be redirecting to the region article. Not just for the airport either, I see there were a number of edits that removed info on getting in by ferry, by bus and by train. All this info should be in Vancouver, in line with what we do elsewhere. I also think that's what people reading a travel guide would expect.

Re an article for Vancouver International Airport, I'm indifferent. On one hand, it's not complicated to navigate and I believe it's only classed as a medium-sized airport (it doesn't have anywhere near the number of shops and restaurants that a LAX, Toronto Pearson or Schiphol has), on the other, it is Canada's second busiest airport and handles a number of trans-Pacific flights so there's probably some value if done right. -Shaundd (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In this discussion, Hobbitschuster, who does a fair bit of work on airport articles, says that "there is a de facto "line" somewhere around 20-30 million pax p.a. (pre-plague, obviously) above which airports are likely to get articles and below which they are unlikely to". Vancouver airport had 26 million passengers in 2019, so it's in the range. I would think that people from Calgary and Edmonton flying across the Pacific would connect through Vancouver. Ground Zero (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

And if I'm not wrong, some Asian airlines such as Philippine Airlines and Cathay Pacific use Vancouver as a refuelling stop for their flights to New York. The dog2 (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I did a bit of an update on the By plane section. I removed the list of airlines and added some more detail about the South Terminal and the shuttle. Looking back at the history of the article, there was a better description of the South Terminal years ago but it got lost somewhere along the way. I've restored some of that and updated the shuttle info based on what is on YVR's website now. -Shaundd (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)