First off, just to say I really like the stackexchange platform in general. I think it nailed a lot of the keys to get right to make community-based knowledge platform work well. Like many here (I think?), I first started using SO (and to a lesser extend other IT-related ones for linux etc...).
I think we are getting to an interesting point where the platform is branching off in many different directions & topic - this is great. However, I am thinking that there may be adaptations needed for different topics, especially for outdoors. The strong influence of IT-related exchanges is good in a lot of ways, but there is also a risk to overdo it.
My reflection was kicked off with a topic here. I wrote a question which was put on hold as being too broad/containing more than 1 question. While writing it, I actually was somewhat thinking it might be the case. You can find the topic in question at the end of this topic.
I would never have asked an "equivalent" question on SO. I completely understand the culture behind SO and I strongly believe that in IT & coding it is completely justified. However, you can isolate bits & piece of codes and narrow it down to whatever doesn't work. You can measure & compare performance of difference approaches. It is not necessarily as easy to isolate bits & pieces of a topic on outdoors (and other matters). For example, is a question like How to stay warm in sub-zero temperatures, not too broad? If we "translate" that into a SO question, what would that look like? "How to structure a backend for online webform?" Well that would be closed as too broad on SO, would it not? And even if you break it down into different chunks/aspect for that topic, would it not be closed as containing more than 1 question? Therefore I would argue that there is already some level of aknowledgment that the nature of the discussion is different. But I feel that this may not be conscious to all and hence there is some level of arbitrariness that could be lessened. (I don't think that question is too broad - I am arguing for more flexibility on this).
Similarly, I am not sure that "primarly opinion-based" has quite the same meaning in a discussion about how to most efficiently pack for a month-long autonomous trip than it does for "Performance of arrays vs collections in Excel-VBA". I would argue that MOST discussions about outdoors are opinion-based. It's more difficult to get hard facts about many of these topics and choices are generally more based on personnal preferences than they are in programming.
I think on SO, initially, the reason for this to be was partly that's there's already a lot of forums that ask questions like "How do I do X or Y" and provide no attempts at anything. The web doesn't need more of that. But I think for outdoors, we can avoid falling into that, while at the same time aknowledging a different nature for our topics which in some cases require a different approach, favor exchange of valuable knowledge and abilities that goes beyond comparing the rated number of strikes of X flint & steel or caloric values or quinoa vs couscous.
So, what do we do from here? Well for a start, I think it initiating the discussion on this here is a good start. I think that out Help abut questiont to asks or not to ask & how to answer are way too broad. That's basically the default settings but, default settings which were drafted for coding-related exchanges. We're far from that and I think our guidelines needs to be adapted to show this. I think our on-topic page is less than helpful, for a start. What do we consider broad or not also isn't very specific. What is considered opinion-based for outdoors also isn't very well elaborated.
Link - but please note the point of this intervention isn't this topic precisely but the wider question presented above. I present the link in an effort to provide concrete example on which basis we can discuss and hopefully set boundaries.
EDIT: I think this topic related to that original question illustrate a certain need for us as a community for push our thinking and approach to this meta issue. The discussion related to that closure/edit were contentious, which shows a variety of opinions and lack of clarity, which is my point.