That sounds quite reasonable. I am all in favor of a Pacific Northwest Forum, as opposed to one dedicated only to Seattle.

Personally, I have never enjoyed a movie which I didn't watch.

Does that not run the risk of confusion between the US destinations forums and the rest of the world destinations forums (which contain the Canada forums)? It would seem to make unclear where questions about BC should be posted - in the US destination forum or in the Canada destination forum. I'm not sure it would be intuitive to many non-Americans to ask about BC in the US forum.

IM(nsh)O, once you start having titles that have gray area, you have immediate confusion and mis-posting (even if there is some further description of what goes in the forum). i.e., Washington State = OK, Pacific NW = not OK (esp. if there remains a "West" forum).

It wouldn't be intuitive to this American (who used to live in Seattle).

Seattle and Vancouver are very close to each other.. Anybody who does a trip into the area will likely disregard the borders and travel to of interest..

But the way FT is organized does present it to be a problem.. Is there a logical way to format?

+1.

Cheers.

I disagree with you. Vancouver is 130 miles from Seattle and the border crossing isn't a trivial activity, IMO.

I'd be happy including the city in the forum, but I wonder how the Canadians and other non-Americans would feel about that. Is there any BC activity other than Vancouver?

If so, maybe it does make sense to lump Seattle/Vancouver/Washington/maybe even Portland together. But we'd have to have a pointer from the Canada area (a Vancouver subforum that pointed to this forum would work, I think).

Sounds like Seattle may not get the support needed for a seperate forum.. a solution with much support seems to be a Pacific Northwest Forum that may or may not include Coastal BC..

So yes, I would say it looks like consensus needs to be reached what regions would be included in the Pacific Northwest Forum..

Do you agree? Unlikely, I don't think ever called Pacific Northwest Forum and instead, I think it's called Seattle/Tacoma Forum.

It's unlikely it will be called a Seattle/Tacoma forum.

Personally, I'd be OK with just Seattle, but it may be nice to pull out Vancouver in some way. Portland, too.

(To me, if we're including Vancouver, we have to include Portland. It's a bit farther, but it's not across an international border.)

Speaking not as a Seattle resident but as a visitor to this fair city, if the proposal addressed a unique culture or language then I believe the global FT community would be served well by having a dedicated Seattle forum.

Personally, the city is a single point of interest amongst many others that exist in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. So separating Seattle out from US West may introduce issues of forum fragmentation.

If I may draw a parallel and use the UK and Ireland forum as an example. It represents my home and whilst I saw value in the former London forum, there were very sound reasons voiced by visitors to the UK which led to it being folded into UK and Ireland. The logic was sound then and still is to this day. Furthermore, I think it applies equally to Seattle and the Western United States.

I agree, Portland would be synonous for the region based on my previous visits..

Regions surrounding the cities access to, i.e. parks, ports, environmental reserves, golf courses, islands.. and all places of interest in between the major cities outlined..

I'm not sure it does. The sheer size of the United States makes it much more difficult to avoid lumping too much together into a single forum. The fact that the Pacific NW (in some shape or form) isn't already a forum separate from the West surprised me, to be honest.

How about something like

US Pacific Northwest (Seattle, Portland and other Washington / Oregon)