I appreciate the discussion. My two cents is that I am glad I was skiing the I-90 and Hwy 2 corridors in a time when there was scant information out there. Mostly the Burgdorpher guidebook. We found such an awesome sense of discovery by remembering how potential openings and spaced trees looked on summer hikes and translating them into very fun winter adventures. Then furthering our understanding by passing through and standing on top of high places looking out at future lines. Then came Google Earth and initially it helped to find even more terrain.
I feel a sense of sadness that nearly everything is advertised in great detail now, whatever season, whatever terrain. I don't own a GPS, I have many many tattered prints of Nat Geo Topo that bring fond memories. I partially regret having posted those maps and photos on TRs back then. many were lost in the transfer to the new TAY portal, so I have some peace in that. I call it the "bread crumb" mentality. Navigation by cell phone GPS track. Something is seriously lost in that. Yet, if it is always how someone has travelled they may not even be aware of what is lost, or what they missed, in the discovery.
Even with all the detailed beta out there, many folks still don't make a bit of extra lateral effort to reach some unfamiliar (to them) terrain. I am repeatedly stunned by this. Think of "Glades of Glory". There are so many daytrippable (not all north facing, though) open tree lines like that out there. I've never been a great teleier. The tour's always been as important to me as the turns. Is that the case with the majority of today's BC Skiers?
Two winters ago we set out on a mission to ski exclusively new terrain in and around all the old haunts. Okay, was struck out a bunch in the process! Doghair trees that aerial photos made appear like open trees. Slopes punctuated by cliff bands too short to appear on a 7.5 min scale topo. Not being able to time SE through SW slopes when necessary to not be curd. But they were still days out in quiet solitude with a good friend or two.