Trail Difficulty Ratings

"Lisa Horton" wrote in message


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.

Don't be concerned about endangering other skiers by
attempting a trail that will be a challenge for you. If they
can't get around you, they shouldn't be there. In that situation,
just take it in sections at a time, a turn at a time or a few turns
at a time, and wait till the run is clear to proceed.

That way you won't run the risk of running into someone or
being hit if you cut across their path (even though you, as the
downhill skier have the right of way, sometimes it's nearly
impossible to avoid hitting a skier or boarder who cuts *way*
across the hill, suddenly and without warning, right into your
path ).

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.

To heck with inconveniencing someone. Anyone that would
feel inconvenienced by a skier learning that terrain deserves
to be inconvenienced. Big time.

As far as ruining the snow, that doesn't matter unless it's
*deep* powder. A few inches is irrelevant.

And even then, you'll never learn it unless you try. You paid
just like everyone else. In that case I'd suggest someone that can't
really ski pow yet stay off the more difficult slopes on a powder
day. At least trying to turn is ok. Heel edging and sideslipping
aren't. Lame. Extremely lame. If it's pow, and you can't turn on
it, stay off it. That would *surely* be the limit of concern on
"ruining the snow".

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.

Nah, this is more of their sky is falling make it complicated
find a million reasons why it won't work cause we're all
basically bitter negative afraid types rhetoric. They're actually
afraid to seriously look at anything new or different. It
threatens that comfy status quo, and their group reality.

If that suing thing were true, attorneys would *already* be
suing because the trail was rated blue and should have been
rated black. It's a group creation of their minds. It's just more
crap from the "regulars". They feel their grip slipping, and it
terrifies them.

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.

You have to assess conditions yourself, and by asking about
them, of the ski patrol especially, of other guests and checking
resort info. I never suggested that conditions be on some trail
sign or trail map. Only the slope in degrees of the very steepest
part that the skier or boarder *must* pass through to get down.

All I'm saying is that the trail ratings should be a realistic, not
subjective, a representation of the actual steepness of the slope.
And that you could use the colors in addition to real information.
More info should be there than is.

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

Lisa

Sure it is. It "kind of" works now. They have green, black
blue, etc. But one place's idea of blue is another place's idea
of black, etc. If the actual steepness of the run in degrees
was represented, the skier or boarder would actually *know*
what they are about to get into, because they've been on that
slope before, or have up to that time avoided one that steep.

Even if you had never been to that resort, you'd know exactly
what to try, and what to avoid. No guesswork.

"Bob Lee" wrote in message

foot2foot wrote:

Bob Lee wrote:

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.

Which tells the skier next to nothing the first time they ski the
area, which is basically the only time they need the ratings.
There is nothing to go on or compare to.


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


I like this "my". I'm not the first to suggest this or feel this way.

Only the steepest part. That's all that is needed.


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?

I don't even know what that first sentence means.

Estimated? Not within the millionth of a degree. Maybe not
even withing two or three degrees. Just the slope of the
steepest part that you *must* pass through to get down.
Within a few degrees.

As you so neatly remembered to mention below, but didn't
mention the rest of the logic behind it, that is all the guest
needs to know, because the guest only needs the info the first
time they descend that run. One number, that's *close* to the
actual pitch, that is the same regardless of what resort you
travel to.

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?

You only care about yourself. Strictly.


Oh, trust me on that one - or any of the people here that I've skied
with -


Us guys?


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 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.

You're the one that took this thread to a personal level Bob.

Now your holier than though?

"Bob Lee" wrote in message

And one other point that I forgot to make earlier - the info on a given
slope is only unknown *one* time. After you've been down a slope once,
you have seen what it's like. The whole idea of percent slope info
being listed is irrelevant after your first run down the slope. A great
deal of effort for that one time, eh, even if the other problems didn't
exist?

That's interesting Bob, I wonder what brought that point to mind?
Perhaps reading it in my post in answer to rosco, posted yesterday?
Yup. You forgot to make it alright.

Jeff wrote:
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 don't know about all that, I just wish they were more accurate. For
example, at Northstar, there's a section of Logger's Run that is steep
enough to be a black. It's just a tad shorter than Delight, which is a
black. I do both runs with the same effort, but I think in the interest
of marketing and selling the run to intermediate skiers, they kept the
entire length of logger's run on blue.

Martha

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.

I think you misunderstand the difference between "accurate" and "precise".

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

Oh, big deja vu (what, two whole weeks?) to a confusion between
"degrees" and "percent".

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

"You people" statements are almost always bogus, and really, this is no
exception. I don't think anyone's "coming up with" reasons why this
slope-whatsis signage wouldn't work for the fun of it, but even if they
are, so what? If they can come up with a thousand reasons why it won't
work, their motivation for doing so doesn't matter; a thousand reasons
say it won't work.

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

Why force a fit?

Or, here's another question: what's the massive deficiency in the
current system? What big harm is it causing?

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

foot2foot wrote:

"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?

Children don't know they _have_ two lower leg bones.

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

foot2foot wrote:

"Bob Lee" wrote in message


foot2foot wrote:


Bob Lee wrote:


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.


Which tells the skier next to nothing the first time they ski the
area, which is basically the only time they need the ratings.
There is nothing to go on or compare to.

Whatever happened to talking to other skiers? "If you liked x, you'll
love y" is pretty much a staple of chairlift conversations in these parts.

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

Mary Malmros wrote:

foot2foot wrote:

"Bob Lee" wrote in message


foot2foot wrote:


Bob Lee wrote:


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.



Which tells the skier next to nothing the first time they ski the
area, which is basically the only time they need the ratings.
There is nothing to go on or compare to.


Whatever happened to talking to other skiers? "If you liked x, you'll
love y" is pretty much a staple of chairlift conversations in these parts.

Ah Hah! I knew there was something missing in this chat. Duh. Only
problem is there is less conversation now with so many detachables. I
even use chair time to get the skinny on what's skiing well at resorts I
know well.


RAC

"foot2foot" wrote

sometimes it's nearly
impossible to avoid hitting a skier or boarder who cuts *way*
across the hill, suddenly and without warning, right into your
path

?!!!!

ant

ant wrote:
"foot2foot" wrote

sometimes it's nearly
impossible to avoid hitting a skier or boarder who cuts *way*
across the hill, suddenly and without warning, right into your
path

?!!!!


I was wondering that as well. If you cannot move before hitting them,
you are going too fast. The person in front of you has the right of
way.

Martha