Recategorise as itinerary article?
I spent the last few days reading this article. It's a great article and definitely an interesting place (one that I may consider hiking someday), but there doesn't seem to be anything to actually do in Cabo Froward – the hikes themselves are the main draw. Would it be more beneficial to the traveller if this article was recategorised as an itinerary article along the lines of Mt Kosciuszko summit trails? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me. Ground Zero (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. It may well be possible to write a destination article on the place, but this is written as an itinerary. We might want to move it to a name that makes that clear, as well as reclassify it. –LPfi (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
It seems it was the original author that wrote that tables for Punta Arenas should be close enough. The "should" rings a warning bell for me: how much do the tides differ? The distance is some 100 km, which could be significant. Also, there might be a shallow see area between Punta Arenas and Cabo Froward affecting the tides. Usually you have tide tables for two or more ports which you can compare to get an error margin, but here I assume there is only this one table for a place in the basin (tables for outside the straits would tell little, at least to me). I have no experience in actually calculating tides, but I would like to see somebody give at least an informed guess on how trustworthy those tables are. I suppose you should at least leave quite some leeway in your timing for the possibility of the tide turning sooner than expected (and please make notes to allow an addition to this article if you do the trek). –LPfi (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)