I'm a big fan of having climate, location info.
I think having stuff that's internationally relevant is great: zones mean nothing to me, states neither, but "Kentucky, X rainfall, in a bog X distance up a mountain"...
I like it to be an optional thing. Some folks are keen on it and some folks are confused by it.
I think asking somebody to add it is okay. Insisting on it would make me uncomfortable.
I think the desire to have this info is a reasonable desire. After you have helped a dozen people, it sorta becomes the first tidbit of info you need to properly answer a question.
Matt Grantham wrote: Probably pretty meaningless, but i am struck how many posters here do not include any information on where they are located in the standard poster information display. Not sure if it is a sign of paranoia or laziness or perhaps there are more legitimate concerns than I realize in doing this
I have to agree, I am a member of a number of agricultural / gardening forums and these basic tidbits of info seem to relate to almost anything posted
on those boards. It sure helps not to have to retype this info endlessly.
Zones would be just as good as location I think....
I am looking to move to a zone 5 location which will allow me to grow some things that I cannot grow here in zone 8 because we do not get enough summer heat. Two summers ago, the maple leaves turned red before the tomatoes did.
USDA zones are useful only for determining which perennials will survive the winters. Nothing else.
We are not looking for an exact address, or even city/county.
Something like: "Pacific NW, west of the Cascades", or "Eastern TN, Appalachia" is often enough to give people an idea of growing conditions that somebody needs to deal with. "Heavily shaded", "steep slope", "boggy flat lands" and other descriptive phrases give us more information than "Zone 6b".
I agree Zones are not a perfect system, I wish there was an easy system to effectively label your conditions.