Trail Difficulty Ratings

"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

"Bob Lee" wrote in message news:rlee-


You might consider that you're the one making it more complicated than
it needs to be. Green, blue, black - easier, more difficult, most
difficult. What could be more simple?

Well, since you care to continue,

Simple yes. In many cases completely meaningless and
useless "information". Useful? no. Accurate at all? Well,
hardly.

Plus most of the runs at most of
the places I ski don't have signage that would easily support the
information you're suggesting.

Two numbers and a percent? With an "esimated" qualification?

Heck, if attorneys were smart, they'd sue *because* the
black blue green info is so meaningless. Either because the
guest got ripped off by such a lame slope, expecting more,
or because they got in over their head.

I mean, once again, an eight year old could understand
that 40 degrees is pretty steep, and 20 should be a
breeze.

Another thing you guys do. You have a tendency to
come up with ten thousand reasons why something *won't*
work.

That, instead of finding ways to *make* things work.

Ah never mind. That won't work.


I have to say that *really* knowing for sure what I was getting into
would suck all the fun out of it in a heartbeat. But having fun doesn't
seem to be one of your top priorities.

Nope, it isn't. I hate every day I'm on skis. I just like to be
mean to myself.

Oh. You? Nah. You having fun is not one of my top priorities.
To be honest with you, I'm not sure you *really* *can* have
fun. You seem sort of bitter and combative and all that. You
seem angry about something. You'll never *really* have fun
with that kind of an orientation...

But, I see what you mean nonetheless. Absolute worst that
could happen is you have to sidestep or hike back up.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:46:22 -0800, "foot2foot"
wrote:


"Bob Lee" wrote in message news:rlee-


You might consider that you're the one making it more complicated than
it needs to be. Green, blue, black - easier, more difficult, most
difficult. What could be more simple?

Well, since you care to continue,

Simple yes. In many cases completely meaningless and
useless "information". Useful? no. Accurate at all? Well,
hardly.


Accurate doesn't really matter much, so long as it is consistent
within a resort.

It is much more useful information tan anything regarding the angle of
slope could be, because it gives a view (subjective according to the
resort standards) of how hard a run will be.

Once you have skied a few runs, you will have a feel for how a
particular resort grades its runs, and *should* be OK from there on.

And angle or % doesn't really do that (see below).


Plus most of the runs at most of
the places I ski don't have signage that would easily support the
information you're suggesting.

Two numbers and a percent? With an "esimated" qualification?

Heck, if attorneys were smart, they'd sue *because* the
black blue green info is so meaningless. Either because the
guest got ripped off by such a lame slope, expecting more,
or because they got in over their head.

I mean, once again, an eight year old could understand
that 40 degrees is pretty steep, and 20 should be a
breeze.


Yes, but what angle are you going to use? Very few ski slopes "in the
wild" are a constant pitch.

So you could well have a nice beginner slope, that happens to have a
short steep dip, with a rise the other side, so that even a rank
beginner can just point the skis down it and be perfectly safe. The
steepest part of tat slope might be at 45 degrees, while the average
would be 20 degrees. and it would (rightly) be a green slope.

You could then have another slope, maybe a bit longer, that still
averaged around 20 degrees, but that had a steep section, maybe 35
degrees, but that goes on for a hundred yards, with a bend and a
narrow bit. Definitely NOT a beginner trail, but the angle data would
make it look the same (if taking average angle), or even easier (if
taking steepest angle)

And I have seen slopes with both those characteristics.

For the measure to be more useful than the subjective "hardness" of
the trail given by the current system, it would have to contain a lot
more than just a single angle. You would need to give an overall
value, plus a measure of the steepness and length of the crux of the
trail (borrowing the term from climbing). And probably the width as
well.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Shift key? this keyboard is an automatic!

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

foot2foot wrote:

You know Walt, I hate to say it, but you guys really do tend
to make things more complicated than they need be.

I think my irony alarm just blew a fuse!!!!!!!!!!

"foot2foot" wrote in message
...
I mean, once again, an eight year old could understand
that 40 degrees is pretty steep, and 20 should be a
breeze.

I don't know, there seems to be plenty of confusion around here whenever the
subject comes up.

snoig

foot2foot wrote:

"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".


Perhaps this approach would work if steepness was the sole factor in
degree of difficulty. There are black diamond traverses that are less
than 20 degrees, Laramie Traverse at JH to name one. I know of many
tree runs that are not that steep but quite technical, thus black
diamond designation.

I have an even more simple approach... I open my eyes and pay attention
to the mountain terrain, snow conditions, light conditions, aspect and
my personal comfort level to determine how hard to push it. In the
absence of experience, I think green, blue and black is an adequate
solution to describe a dynamic, subjective thing that degree of
difficulty is.

Besides, isn't what you are proposing just another bureaucratic solution
to a marginal issue? Sounds like more unneccessary BS IMHO.

RAC

"rosco" wrote in message

Perhaps this approach would work if steepness was the sole factor in
degree of difficulty. There are black diamond traverses that are less
than 20 degrees, Laramie Traverse at JH to name one. I know of many tree
runs that are not that steep but quite technical, thus black diamond
designation.

I have an even more simple approach... I open my eyes and pay attention to
the mountain terrain, snow conditions, light conditions, aspect and my
personal comfort level to determine how hard to push it. In the absence
of experience, I think green, blue and black is an adequate solution to
describe a dynamic, subjective thing that degree of difficulty is.

And a reply with real substance. Right on rosco. Better
than one word schoolyard dismissals.

I don't know, so I'm asking you. Do you know the slope
in degrees of all that really fabulous green terrain off that
beginner chair at Jackson?

The degree posted should be that of the steepest part of the
slope that the skier or boarder *must* pass through to get
down via that run.

The only thing a guest would need the designations for
anyway would be to know what's ahead of them *the first
time they go down* the thing. After that they already know.

"Can I get down it the first time?" is all that is needed. As
completely and accurately as it can be said. Black or
blue do not say enough. Green does not say enough.

If there is a mile of ten to twenty degree terrain with twenty
feet of thirty degree terrain the guest can not get around,
the run is *not* a green run.

Why is this traverse you spoke of labelled black? Because it's
narrow and there's little area to use to control your speed? So
use the colors *and* specify the steepest part of the slope in
degrees.

Besides, isn't what you are proposing just another bureaucratic solution
to a marginal issue? Sounds like more unneccessary BS IMHO.

No. Information. Short, simple, as accurate and informative
as it can possibly be.

What is "necessary"? Is the Ski Patrol "necessary"?

Now, chairlifts, those are necessary. Skis or a board, need
those..hmm. Warm clothes are necessary most of the time.

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

foot2foot wrote:

You know Walt, I hate to say it, but you guys really do tend
to make things more complicated than they need be.

I think my irony alarm just blew a fuse!!!!!!!!!!

And that figures. The mechanics of skiing are so simple a
child can fully comprehend them. Yet Armin can't. They're
too complicated.

Oh. *I* make them too complicated. Like this:

Steering is twisting the legs, either from the two lower leg
bones, or from twisting the whole leg/s in the hip socket,
in the direction you want the skis to go.

So, Armin, is or is not the above simple?

That would be one of a list of no more than ten items,
each every bit as *simple* as the above to describe,
and to do.

Way, way too much for Armin.

I just make things *way* too complicated huh?

'Course, an eight year old has little trouble...

Haven't we been through this before?

Bob Lee wrote:

foot2foot wrote:

Bob Lee wrote:


You might consider that you're the one making it more complicated than
it needs to be. Green, blue, black - easier, more difficult, most
difficult. What could be more simple?

Well, since you care to continue,

Simple yes. In many cases completely meaningless and
useless "information". Useful? no. Accurate at all? Well,
hardly.

More of your hyperbole, those designations aren't completely meaningless
or inaccurate. I trust you've skied enough, or at least followed this
thread enough. that you understand the color system represents the
relative difficulty of trails within a given ski area.

Incidentally, have you tipped to how inaccurate your suggestion for a
single degree rating for a trail would be? Woefully inaccurate.

Plus most of the runs at most of
the places I ski don't have signage that would easily support the
information you're suggesting.

Two numbers and a percent? With an "esimated" qualification?

Yes on the numbers, but that's mostly at Taos and nearby resorts where
the signs are small. But what is this "estimated" qualification that
you speak of? I recall seeing that before - would it be something like,
oh say, easiest, more difficult, most difficult?

Heck, if attorneys were smart, they'd sue *because* the
black blue green info is so meaningless. Either because the
guest got ripped off by such a lame slope, expecting more,
or because they got in over their head.

Heh, I'm going to guess that you aren't an attorney. But you are naive.

I mean, once again, an eight year old could understand
that 40 degrees is pretty steep, and 20 should be a
breeze.

Another thing you guys do.

"Us" guys?

You have a tendency to
come up with ten thousand reasons why something *won't*
work.

That, instead of finding ways to *make* things work.

Well, speaking strictly for myself, I've tried to make a case that
there's no reason to find a way to make it work. In fact, I find it to
be a bad idea, and I'm trying to show you why. I don't share your
premise that there is a reason to make it work - I'm happy with the
current system. Clear enough?

Ah never mind. That won't work.


I have to say that *really* knowing for sure what I was getting into
would suck all the fun out of it in a heartbeat. But having fun doesn't
seem to be one of your top priorities.

Nope, it isn't. I hate every day I'm on skis. I just like to be
mean to myself.

Oh. You? Nah. You having fun is not one of my top priorities.
To be honest with you, I'm not sure you *really* *can* have
fun.

Oh, trust me on that one - or any of the people here that I've skied
with - I manage to enjoy myself. I notice you get a little ****y when
called on some of your goofier idea - is that what's going on here?

You seem sort of bitter and combative and all that. You
seem angry about something. You'll never *really* have fun
with that kind of an orientation...

You think that's how I come off? Funny, I don't feel that way. What I
do feel is that you may be close to going off on one of those strange
accusatory fits that you're becoming infamous for here.

If you're concerned about how I seem, you might consider that I just
think you're wrong on this topic and I'm taking issue with that.


As pretty much a beginner, this idea initially had a lot of appeal for
me. As I approach an unknown run my main concerns are if I can get down
safely, and without endangering, inconveniencing, or ruining the snow
for other, better, skiers.

But through this thread I've seen why the idea is basically unworkable,
for a number of reasons. The legal liability in a litigious country
makes a standard rating system across resorts untenable. And with the
variability of conditions, it would be impossible to keep the signage
accurate unless it was like a display screen or something, dynamically
updated.

I wish it could work, but it doesn't seem workable.

Lisa

"Jeff" wrote in news:1109249113.873334.201550
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.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

I like this idea. Green, Blue, Black is a bit broad. Intermediate and
beginner skiers might benefit from knowing which greens are harder than
others, and which blues are harder than others. We already have this
with blacks, as most resorts have double-black trails.

This is much better than the so-called objective measures, like slope in
degrees or percent, since there are WAY too many other factors that will
influence overall difficulty - like ice or slush or crust or windpack or
powder or moguls or grooming or corn or cliffs or rocks or trees or
shrubs. To say the least.

I remember skiing a couple of times above tree line in a complete
whiteout, so that you could not tell up from down. I turned uphill and
stopped by accident a number of times - I just couldn't tell which way
the slope went. When we got to the bottom, we went inside to wait for a
change - there was no point in skiing. And we took a green run down,
when we could tell where we were.

One still has to look and pay attention, but a slightly expanded set of
ratings seems simple and worthwhile. One could, similar to golf, use the
concept of "slope", which rates how much more difficult a course is to
the average golfer compared to an expert golfer. This takes into account
all the "other" factors - in golf these would be bunkers and hazards and
narrowness, etc. instead of the simple length of the hole. In skiing, it
could be all of those "other factors" listed above.

Things still change daily with the weather, but you would know that hill
A is tougher than hill B. And if you nearly died on B, you might want to
give A a pass.

dh