Talk:Arctomys Falls

Propose deletion of this article
This feature does not exist, despite the reference cited. I know this area, there is no tall waterfall on Arctomys Creek. Google Earth can be checked to confirm this. Ian mckenzie (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bryan Swan &#124;  World Waterfall Database (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that Arctomys Creek drops 600m in the 3km between the Lake and Moose River, and the BCGNIS has had this feature recorded since 1911, I think it can be safely assumed that the feature does indeed exist. This article probably should be rewritten, but the falls are most certainly there and unless photographs from the area can confirm otherwise, the limitations of Google Earth don't disprove the existence of the falls.  I don't at all think its anywhere near as tall as suggested, but it certainly does exist and whether it is a major feature or not shouldn't necessarily preclude the information from being here.
 * Note that there are two Arctomys Creeks in Canada, one in British Columbia (which this page is about) and one in Alberta (Banff National Park). The geonames website's info on the Alberta Creek is here. It is near Arctomys Peak, geonames page. Perhaps Ian mckenzie was thinking about the creek in Alberta? There are a couple of interesting webpages about hiking around the Arctomys Creek area in Alberta. Because it is close to 52°N 117°W, Degree Confluence Project people wanted to take a photo of the coordinate "confluence". Their second attempt trip report is here. At one point they describe hiking (far off-trail) near Arctomys Creek and, "we eventually heard a lower rumble in the constant roar of the creek. The cause of this became clear when we were able to see back up the valley. There is a major waterfall on Arctomys Creek that is not indicated on our maps." They took this picture of the falls. Still, this is definitely the Arctomys Creek in Alberta, not BC, so not the waterfall this page is about. I still found the whole thing remarkable--two Arctomys Creeks, both with large and little known waterfalls? Pfly (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, still curious, I looked at the Arctomys Valley area in BC's "Base Map" web app and cropped the map to show just the valley and surroundings. I put it online here. The text is small (helps to view it full size, not "reduced to fit window"), but you can see the label for Arctomys Falls is on Arctomys Creek, while Arctomys Cave appears to be near the western tributary streams. Pfly (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We're definitely talking BC here. I will check with Mt. Robson Provincial Park and see if they have any info on the falls.  In the meantime I've made small changes to this page - Bryan, you might want to make similar changes to your website. Ian mckenzie (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a look at Basemap directly, and the contour gradient isn't what it used to be when that service was free, so it's hard to see the size of the actual falls; but from the 1900m contour to the 1600m contour the horizontal distance is ~425m, to the 1700m contour it's ~305m; teh provincial gazette/basemap places the name on top of the 1700m contour, which could indicate either its middle or bottom; the 1900m by the look of it seems to be the lip of the hanging valley aka the Arctomys Valley it emerges from. Ratios of 300m vertical to 400m horizontal clearly aren't a free-falling waterfall, but do qualify as a cascade.  I see no reason why this waterfall shouldn't have an article since it's in the provincial gazette, i.e. if it's notable enough for government geographers, it's not for Wikipedia deletionists to decide its not notable.  Even if it's only 15m (which is ludicrous to assume, given the terrain around there), it's still larger than a lot of waterfalls in many American states and most other Canadian provinces.  Further notbabilty is the shared placename with Arctomys Cave.  This won't be the only "obscure" but large (most likely) watefall that nobody outside of BC has heard of; unless they've climbed in Mt Robson Park, that is.  Vanished waterfalls such as Cayoosh Falls and Stave Falls will also be getting articles, and they weren't as large as this one evidently is (I repeat - your assumption, ian (on Andrew's talkpage), that 15m is the scale of it, flies in teh face of both the topographic map and the type of hanging-valley terrain involved.Skookum1 (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets get this straight
To Ian: I'm sorry but you are wrong. This feature FOR SURE exists. I believe you have the wrong Arctomys Creek; the one in Alberta has a falls on it (its not mapped but its there & Bryan has an entry on it as well) but it is not nearly as significant as this one. As for asking Bryan to re-write his entry on the BC one, no, I won't since it is totally accurate & backed up by the Basemap & Google Earth.

To Bryan: Your explanation is totally correct.

To Pfly: Your right, I will say what I said to Ian again, there are two Arctomys Creeks & both have waterfalls but this article is on the waterfall on the one in BC (the smaller of the 2 creeks).

To Skookum: While Bryan's height figure may be off by a few hundred feet (which it may be), this waterfall is for sure over 1000 feet high & for sure big enough for a Wikipedia article on it. How one could think it doesn't exist is beyond me.

AndrewEnns (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments Andrew. I am guilty of not being clear in my objection; my apologies. There is no doubt at all that Arctomys Creek (in BC) drops 300m from the lip of Arctomys Valley to the bottom, but it does so as a series of cascades and small falls, not as a single drop. I know it looks steep on GoogleEarth, but Skookum1 has provided figures (425 run, 300 rise) that indicate a slope averaging only about 35 degrees, and of course some segments of that will be steeper, and others less steep. Arctomys Falls must be one of the steeper bits. Hopefully the staff at Mt Robson PP will give us a clear answer after the weekend.  Cheers.  Ian mckenzie (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright. First of all, sorry for being a bit rude.  I do want to ask another question: Are you suggesting that this feature isn't even a waterfall?  I still believe it is & that is over 1000 feet high.  Can you clarify? Cheers to you too. AndrewEnns (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's just a cascading creek with a few short steep sections that could be called waterfalls, one of which is significant enough to have been named. But I do not believe that the entire length of it is one waterfall. What I believe is not important though, because definitions can vary, so I am trying to find out what exactly has been named. Ian mckenzie (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is best if we all leave this topic until the Mount Robson Provincial Park staff reply to Ians question about the falls. AndrewEnns (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Height Estimates & Data Sources
Without actually seeing this feature in person, it will be hard to get a good idea of exactly how tall it really is, despite what Google Earth and the Basemap can show us. I'm pretty sure Google Earth's rendering in British Columbia is based off of the Basemap topography, so they should reflect the slope in about an equal way, but necessarily in a way that is accurate to the level that the human eye would interpret in person, so I would advise against anything but broad and very vague estimates of the height of the waterfall. As Ian indicated, it is more likely a series of drops than one big drop, but it is also very likely that it is a long sustained series of falls rather than a steep section of stream with a handful of waterfalls interspersed.

I would also be quite surprised if BC Parks has much information on the waterfall itself. I've been compiling data for 20 years on the subject of waterfalls and British Columbia has been a region of heavy focus of mine (because I live nearby) and I have yet to see a single photograph of this waterfall, let alone any firm information on it other than its location. That's not to say that rangers who work at Robson won't know anything about it, but given the extreme lack of popularity of the Moose River trail and that a couple of major rivers have to be forded to even get to Arctomys Creek, let alone the falls, I would be surprised to find easily available information.

Bryan Swan &#124;  World Waterfall Database (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe Google Earth's elevation data all comes from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. It is possible that Basemap also uses this data, that I don't know. But you can see from that page that the DEM (terrain/elevation) data is not perfect. There are also many cases where the overlay of imagery onto terrain in Google Earth is misaligned, sometimes dramatically. There is a further issue in cases of very steep terrain. The imagery has to be orthorectified to the terrain before it can be used like a map (see Orthophoto for more on that). The process inevitably distorts the imagery. Usually the distortion is small and acceptable, but in areas of steep terrain the distortion can be significant, depending on various things such as the angle to the camera and the aspect of the slopes, etc. So, "use with caution" :-) Pfly (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Basemap is STRIM - satellite TRIM - and as noted above, it no longer goes down to a 20m or 10m gradient as it used to. I looked this up on Atlas of Canada's copies of NTS topos, and there's more of a "dint" along the creek's course around the falls, indicative of a canyon/cut; the marking for hte falls is in the area of the 1700m contour, whatever that is in imperial (it's in feet, that map) but that could only denote the base of the falls.....I actually think I have seen a picture of this in some writeup/publication on Mt Robson Park, so let's wait on park staff, if they ever get around to replying; the shot I saw was I'm pretty sure aerial unless someone had climbed on whatever peak faces the falls....it was in a photo essay somewhere, not sure which mag/book....Skookum1 (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the falls are a long series of smaller drops that all total up. Looking at Google Earth, the falls do not appear to be as high as Bryan's entry says; I measured them to be just under 1200 feet. I will ask Bryan to change that but I do not believe the falls are as small as Ian suggested. He did bring up a good point though; the falls are for sure smaller than originally thought.

As for Skookum1 mentioning them cutting into the rock & making sort of a canyon: there is a lot of limestone in the Mount Robson Provincial Park area. Waterfalls such as Swiftcurrent & Toboggan Falls drop over it & carve grooves & even tunnels in the rock. Probably the case here too. AndrewEnns (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No response from Robson PP yet, so we can assume that the information is not readily (if at all) available. I will keep trying.  It is revealing, though, that the website http://gallery.jbedard.ca/2006/08_moose/ includes descriptions and 285 photos of the Moose River environs with no mention of Arctomys Falls, which may support the contention that it is a minor feature.  May I suggest that Andrew or maybe Bryan write to the folks at BCGNIS and ask for a transcript of the original naming application from 1973 and see what is says.  In the meantime I think the current stub is all we really know about it, tho I have taken the liberty of removing the second reference as it really contains no factual information. Ian mckenzie (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bryan Swan &#124;  World Waterfall Database (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think its telling that that trip report doesn't mention the falls given how far above the valley floor the falls are positioned (according to maps) and given the thick burnt forest in the area I don't at all doubt the falls can't be seen from the trail. Limiting the article for the time being is the right move though.  I've removed the height from the Infobox as well, because there just isn't any confirmation one way or another on exactly how big the falls are.  I honestly think it will take a dedicated visit to the waterfall to establish just how significant of a feature it is.

Oh, and I slightly altered the bit about the proximity of Arctomys Cave, as my info indicates it's more like 1000 feet from the lip of the upper valley. Ian mckenzie (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)