Trail Difficulty Ratings

Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Fri, 25 Feb 2005
21:13:39 +0000 (UTC), Kurt wrote:

In article , Bill Griffiths says...

Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Thu, 24 Feb 2005
20:28:26 -0500, Mary Malmros wrote:


It would also be useful to have some kind of universal standard for
skis, ski schools, and ski area chili

I though there was a near-universal standard for ski area food: bad.

Well, the food is pretty good at Bambi Ba$in. I've had a tasty BBQ Chicken
Sandwich at the top of The Plunge in T-ride and not-too-bad Navajo Tacos at
Sunrise in AZ. 'Couldn't afford to eat at Aspen Highland$.

Generally though, good stinky Lox, onion, capers and cream cheese on a Jalapeno
Bagel is a fine lunch while touring. Top it off w/ an Indian Pale Ale and
you're ready to sleep in the sun.

The Expensive Bellboy is an exception, and bringing your own is both
necessary and cheating. But when you succumb to the urge for
something hot only one question matters: how can they burn soup?

--
Bill Griffiths
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as justice." Hobbes

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

JQ wrote:

(snip)


Hey Foot, we are talking about "Trail Difficulty Ratings"... where did
"mechanics of skiing" come from all of a sudden?

Check the subject line of the thread or better yet, read the post I
replied to.



Oh. *I* make them too complicated.

Yes you certainly do. When *you* suggest replacing a simple system of
green/blue/black trail designations with one that gives all kinds of
other info (no matter that the new data has been shown to be virtually
meaningless)then *you* are making it more complicated.



The only thing that Foot thought should be added is pitch degree of the
steepest section of the run. I think this would be great for the advid

ski

traveler, but I see problems with it. For one all the teenagers (mostly
boarders) would go down every trail that had a steep pitch, which isn't

bad

in itself but as most here know these kids would side scrape down the

run

taking all the snow with them until the only thing that would be left is

ice

and rocks. The other problem would be the resorts that are pretty flat
would not want it known for all to see, bad for business.

And the third problem, or really the most important problem -- which has
already been pointed out -- is that _it doesn't tell you anything
useful_. If I put "20 degrees" next to a trail, that doesn't tell you
if the trail is 20 degrees for its entire length or for five feet. So
how useful is that "20 degrees"?

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



That's true and would be another draw back to the idea but it still would
give an outsider (someone new to the area) some idea that there would at
least some point there would be a certain degree pitch, along with the color
code one would know how difficult the run would be.

Would they really? If you had a twenty-degree pitch for five feet on a
trail that was otherwise almost flat, but all you saw on the trail map
was, "Green 20", what exactly would that tell you? And how would that
be useful?

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

I've got a new idea. People should post the percentage of quoted text
to added text as the first line so I know what I'm getting into. Like
a 90% post would be 90% quoted, 10% added. %50 would be 50% quoted,
50% added. There's nothing like getting ten screens down a post and
still not seeing anything new. Think of it as a liabiity issue. Or
marketing.

-klaus

Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Mon, 28 Feb 2005
21:06:23 -0500, "JQ" wrote:


"foot2foot" wrote in message
...

There are *tons* of these "little" resorts still going strong,
and to me (and others) it looks like they're coming back,
because people are getting tired of paying these high prices if all
they want to do is ski. You could hit several places on one trip
if you wanted.


The problem is how do you know how challenging these smaller resorts are?
You really can not go off the trail maps and color codes. With each trail
color coded and a degree of pitch listed you will get a better idea of its
trail challenge.

Would you really gain that much? Granted, when the pitch is extreme
that is all you focus on, but for lesser slopes things like trail
width are pretty important.

If you really wanted to compare ski areas, you'ld have to gather the
data from skiers, not surveyors.

--
Bill Griffiths
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as justice." Hobbes

Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Mon, 28 Feb 2005
20:01:47 -0500, Mary Malmros wrote:

JQ wrote:

The only thing that Foot thought should be added is pitch degree of the
steepest section of the run. I think this would be great for the advid ski
traveler, but I see problems with it. For one all the teenagers (mostly
boarders) would go down every trail that had a steep pitch, which isn't bad
in itself but as most here know these kids would side scrape down the run
taking all the snow with them until the only thing that would be left is ice
and rocks. The other problem would be the resorts that are pretty flat
would not want it know for all to see, bad for business.

And the third problem, or really the most important problem -- which has
already been pointed out -- is that _it doesn't tell you anything
useful_. If I put "20 degrees" next to a trail, that doesn't tell you
if the trail is 20 degrees for its entire length or for five feet. So
how useful is that "20 degrees"?

All of the technical quibbles could be solved in the fine print, if
the effort were warranted.

But it still wouldn't tell you anything useful, because -- as others
have pointed out -- the deeper problem is that real-world difficulty
varies so much from day to day with snow conditions and crowds that
fine distinctions among trail ratings become pointless, except to the
person obsessed with bagging a trail one degree higher than their
previous best. Anyone else needs to know what is good/bad/soft/icy/
easy/hard right now.


--
Bill Griffiths
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as justice." Hobbes

"Jeremy Mortimer" wrote in message
...
"foot2foot" wrote in news:1121tdd4k1r70b5
@corp.supernews.com:

If you *really* get in above your head, you could simply
walk down to where you can ski again. No shame in that
surely. You, at least had the guts to try. Ice would be
the exception. Avoid trying stuff above your head on
an icy day. Then you might *not* be able to walk down.
In fact, be darned careful in every way on an icy day.

IMHO (as always - this is Usenet) this is really terrible advice. It
doesn't need to be icy to be dangerous to walk down, particularly if
you're
not used to moving around on snow. It's almost always better to keep your
skis on.

So true. If it's too steep and you can't slip, you can even step down, but
with the skis on you always have better grip than in ski boots.

ant

"Bill Griffiths" wrote in message
...
Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Mon, 28 Feb 2005
21:06:23 -0500, "JQ" wrote:


"foot2foot" wrote in message
...

There are *tons* of these "little" resorts still going strong,
and to me (and others) it looks like they're coming back,
because people are getting tired of paying these high prices if all
they want to do is ski. You could hit several places on one trip
if you wanted.


The problem is how do you know how challenging these smaller resorts are?
You really can not go off the trail maps and color codes. With each
trail
color coded and a degree of pitch listed you will get a better idea of
its
trail challenge.

Would you really gain that much? Granted, when the pitch is extreme
that is all you focus on, but for lesser slopes things like trail
width are pretty important.

If you really wanted to compare ski areas, you'ld have to gather the
data from skiers, not surveyors.

--
Bill Griffiths
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as justice."
Hobbes

You'd gain more than you are getting now. It isn't always practical or
available to get the info that you want from other skiers. The info. you
get from one skier could be completely different than another skier to but
before this you need to know skiers that have skied the areas that you are
looking at which is no small feat. But you are correct would of mouth is
the best to get the scoop on any mountain.

JQ
Dancing on the edge

klaus wrote:
I've got a new idea. People should post the percentage of quoted text
to added text as the first line so I know what I'm getting into. Like
a 90% post would be 90% quoted, 10% added. %50 would be 50% quoted,
50% added. There's nothing like getting ten screens down a post and
still not seeing anything new. Think of it as a liabiity issue. Or
marketing.

Did you really mean "%" (percentage?) Or did you mean degree - as in the
academic degree of each succeeding poster, so we'd know how if the BS
was piled higher and deeper, or just masterfully presented?

JQ wrote:

"Bill Griffiths" wrote in message
...

Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Mon, 28 Feb 2005
21:06:23 -0500, "JQ" wrote:


"foot2foot" wrote in message
...

There are *tons* of these "little" resorts still going strong,
and to me (and others) it looks like they're coming back,
because people are getting tired of paying these high prices if all
they want to do is ski. You could hit several places on one trip
if you wanted.


The problem is how do you know how challenging these smaller resorts are?
You really can not go off the trail maps and color codes. With each

trail

color coded and a degree of pitch listed you will get a better idea of

its

trail challenge.

Would you really gain that much? Granted, when the pitch is extreme
that is all you focus on, but for lesser slopes things like trail
width are pretty important.

If you really wanted to compare ski areas, you'ld have to gather the
data from skiers, not surveyors.

--
Bill Griffiths
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as justice."

Hobbes

You'd gain more than you are getting now.

No, you'd _think_ you'd gain more than you are getting now. To
paraphrase what someone else said in this thread, more information
doesn't necessarily mean more knowledge -- and information that makes
you think you know something when you really don't is, arguably, worse
than no information at all. Information that makes you think you know
what you're getting into on a particular trail is going to cause
problems, when it turns out that your assumptions weren't valid after all.

It isn't always practical or
available to get the info that you want from other skiers.

When isn't it practical or available? When do you go skiing and find no
one else there on the whole mountain?

The info. you
get from one skier could be completely different than another skier to but
before this you need to know skiers that have skied the areas that you are
looking at which is no small feat.

It doesn't seem all that hard to come by here.

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

foot2foot wrote:
"AstroPax" wrote in message


Same thing with skiing. It depends upon the circumstances of the
collision. Period.

-Astro


Right on the money Astro.

For instance, (as mentioned), someone starts out behind you,
you maintain path and speed, the person overtakes you and
cuts directly across your path. Maybe you can turn sharply
and avoid them, maybe not.

Well, that person *was* below you.

It just isn't black and white like that.

Only reason to be all the more careful though. The last thing
on earth I'd ever want to do is to hit someone and hurt them,
even if they were the "culprit".



Check this out, tho: when you rear-end someone in a car, its your
fault, no question. Even if someone does a quick lane change in front
of you. Right?