Trail Difficulty Ratings

We all know about single black and double black difficulty ratings.
Occasionally rumors surface as to the existence of some nefarious
triple blacks. Rarely, if ever, do I see beginner and intermediate
trails with intercolor distinctions.

My local ski area contains single and double greens, single and double
blues and single and double blacks. I always thought this was quite
useful. The double difficulty hills offer a nice introduction to the
next level. A double green might have some intermediate levels of steep
at short intervals. A double blue might be a cruiser with a short but
steep drop at the top of the hill.

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message
oups.com...
We all know about single black and double black difficulty ratings.
Occasionally rumors surface as to the existence of some nefarious
triple blacks. Rarely, if ever, do I see beginner and intermediate
trails with intercolor distinctions.

My local ski area contains single and double greens, single and double
blues and single and double blacks. I always thought this was quite
useful. The double difficulty hills offer a nice introduction to the
next level. A double green might have some intermediate levels of steep
at short intervals. A double blue might be a cruiser with a short but
steep drop at the top of the hill.

Jeff

It is a good idea, yes?

I've sometimes thought that they should post the actual
degree of the slope at the steepest part, maybe even a vertical
profile. It wouldn't take much, and it wouldn't leave any doubt
as to what the difficulty of the slope really is.

Then as opposed to saying, "I can do blues and easy blacks",
a skier might say, "I'm good up to about twenty five to thirty
degrees, on steeper than that I'm not comfortable yet".

"foot2foot" wrote in message

It is a good idea, yes?

I've sometimes thought that they should post the actual
degree of the slope at the steepest part, maybe even a vertical
profile. It wouldn't take much, and it wouldn't leave any doubt
as to what the difficulty of the slope really is.

Then as opposed to saying, "I can do blues and easy blacks",
a skier might say, "I'm good up to about twenty five to thirty
degrees, on steeper than that I'm not comfortable yet".

Too much information I think. It's an activity, fun, sport. If
someone is so timid that they have to analyze down to the nth degree
maybe it's not for them.

I get sick of everything being reduced to having to appeal to
everyone, made risk, and thought free.

I think the way it is works fine.

pigo

pigo wrote:

Too much information I think [...]

Unless bodily fluids are involved, I don't think there is such a thing
as "too much information." I'm not sure how additional statistics will
spoil the fun. It would be nice if the information foot2foot mentioned
was included on the trail map. I'm often curious as to how steep the
steepest section was...

Cheers,
Jeff

Jeff wrote:

pigo wrote:

Too much information I think [...]


Unless bodily fluids are involved, I don't think there is such a thing
as "too much information." I'm not sure how additional statistics will
spoil the fun. It would be nice if the information foot2foot mentioned
was included on the trail map. I'm often curious as to how steep the
steepest section was...

....except that for anything but a tiny area, you would need a truly
enormous map to include all that.


--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

"Mary Malmros" wrote in message
...
Jeff wrote:

pigo wrote:

Too much information I think [...]


Unless bodily fluids are involved, I don't think there is such a thing
as "too much information." I'm not sure how additional statistics will
spoil the fun. It would be nice if the information foot2foot mentioned
was included on the trail map. I'm often curious as to how steep the
steepest section was...

...except that for anything but a tiny area, you would need a truly
enormous map to include all that.


You could put it all (not much really) on a sign above the run,
with just the number for the steepest part of the run on the
maps. Or you could list the details in paragraphs on another
part of the brochure.

I see no complication at all between putting two black
squares on a picture of a run, or a number, like 38 degrees.
There simplly is no difference logistically. In fact, the number
would be easier to print.

"Jeff" wrote
pigo wrote:

Too much information I think [...]

Unless bodily fluids are involved, I don't think there is such a
thing
as "too much information."

If bodily fluids are involved, we need streaming video.

I'm not sure how additional statistics will
spoil the fun. It would be nice if the information foot2foot
mentioned
was included on the trail map. I'm often curious as to how steep
the
steepest section was...

So just go out and buy the USGS Topo maps for the area...

Actually, it occurs to me that what really needs to be
rated is how fun the trail is, relative to sex. You
standard gren circle would be like holding hands or
maybe a kiss. Blue squares would be like heavy petting.
Black diamonds would be actual nookie, which is
appropriate since nookie can be as awkward and unpleasant
as iced over moguls, even if some people like it that way.
Vail's back bowls could be compared to an easy pickup that
just went on and on all night. Corbet's Coulior would be
Rhino sex. (I, uhh, think I might have had fun back there,
but I haven't gotten over the trauma yet.)

J. Urrrk

"pigo" wrote in message
...
Too much information I think. It's an activity, fun, sport. If
someone is so timid that they have to analyze down to the nth degree
maybe it's not for them.

Why is that too much information, they do it for climbing routes all the
time and the system works just fine. When you tell someone you are
comfortable with 5.9's and can lead 5.7's, everybody has a good idea of what
your skills are.

snoig

pigo wrote:

Too much information I think. It's an activity, fun, sport. If
someone is so timid that they have to analyze down to the nth degree
maybe it's not for them.

I get sick of everything being reduced to having to appeal to
everyone, made risk, and thought free.

I think the way it is works fine.

Well, it feels good to finally agree with you on something. ;-)

I think green, blue and black are totally adequate ratings since the
condition of the slope (groomed, packed, powder, moguls, crud, ice,
etc.) affect the difficulty of the slope as much, if not more, then
the steepness. And the conditions can changed drastically from top to
bottom... especially on larger mountains such as Whistler/Blackcomb.

Hell, next they'll want weather conditions, slope angle profiles and
snow conditions in 100 ft increments posted at the top of every run.

Armin

"Armin" wrote in message
oups.com...

pigo wrote:

Too much information I think. It's an activity, fun, sport. If
someone is so timid that they have to analyze down to the nth
degree
maybe it's not for them.

I get sick of everything being reduced to having to appeal to
everyone, made risk, and thought free.

I think the way it is works fine.

Well, it feels good to finally agree with you on something. ;-)

I think green, blue and black are totally adequate ratings since
the
condition of the slope (groomed, packed, powder, moguls, crud, ice,
etc.) affect the difficulty of the slope as much, if not more,
then
the steepness. And the conditions can changed drastically from top
to
bottom... especially on larger mountains such as
Whistler/Blackcomb.

Hell, the difference between skiing slightly slushy snow and
skiing frozen tank tracks is about an hour.

Hell, next they'll want weather conditions, slope angle profiles
and
snow conditions in 100 ft increments posted at the top of every
run.

Yeah, where's the spirit of adventure anymore? We should really
eliminate all trail markings. And perfect fog making equipment so
that people never know where they're going.

the way I live my life,

-J. Urrrk