Trail Difficulty Ratings

Lisa Horton wrote:

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.

It has nothing to do with litigation. Slope angle is such a minor part
of overall difficulty. People, with much more experience and
knowledge, have been wrestling with this for years. The S rating
system, as Bob L. pointed out, is probably the best yet, and uses
slope angle as just one of the factors. Stand on the shoulders of
giants. Consequences of a fall is a far more impoortant and difficult
to quantify factor. I skied blue runs that scared me today, and double
blacks where I was completely at ease, not due to angle, but due to
snow quality, and consequences. Slope angle is worthless in judging
consequences once you get past about 35 degrees.

-klaus

..

"rosco" wrote in message

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.

I've made some of the best contacts I ever found on chairlifts.
It's almost a science to get interesting info out of a person in
mere minutes.

I think I met this nutty guy from Jackson Hole area on a lift
one day. Seems like he wasn't all that bad of a guy for the
most part after all. Kind of a consistency thing. In his own
world or something.

"Black Metal Martha" wrote in message

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

Not always true Martha. On a crowded, or somewhat
crowded, slope, it almost goes without saying that you'll
be skiing or boarding basically next to, slightly above or
slightly below other people. All of you moving at around
the same rate. Each person will usually be maintaining a
particular path, or "lane" on the run. At least, they should be.

The best that you can do is assume the person will
maintain the course that have been, mostly linked turns
down the hill. So you continue down the slope doing the
same thing, in a path a ways apart from theirs.

So then *they* get ahead of you, doing this linked turns
thing, and you continue, then they get this inspiration and
cut sharply across all "lanes" of traffic on the hill. This, maybe
after they have overtaken you, or have at least been going
as fast as you, after you have been careful to leave room.

That's a really good way to get pegged.

The code doesn't address it, nor does any case law that I
know of. I think it should be addressed.

If you stop, you should stop in the same path you've been
travelling. You shouldn't suddenly widen the path you've
been taking without checking above you.

"Black Metal Martha" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

And if they told you the slope in degrees of both runs, you
could make an informed decision *before* you went down
that "blue" run that you really might not be ready to handle.

See? There's a lawsuit right there.

"David Harris"

wrote in message

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

David, more polite tone and more general respect than
has been due lately to the "regulars"

(and appreciative of the response btw)

Pulleeeze. No one has suggested any kind of rating that
talks about every day *conditions* that change by the
hour, on trail signs or maps. Focus my friend. We must
have focus. This is diffusion. Indeed such an idea could
never work. The problem is, the black blue thing says
mostly nothing. More consistent info is needed that can
be taken from resort to resort and mean the same thing.

cliffs or rocks

A run intended for those that really need the ratings would
never include such things or it wouldn't be open. Besides
that, if there was no way around the cliff, the rating would be
90 degrees. It really *is* simple and much more useful. The
slope of the steepest part of the run that *can not be gotten
around*. That's all you need.

or trees or

Most people truly in need of the ratings wouldn't be hitting
the trees anyway. None the less, most people could actually
*see* the trees and decide if they will try a 20 degree treed
slope versus a 40 degree treed slope.

Slope *is* *the* major determining factor in difficulty.
If there are peculiarities to a particular run, they can
be covered by the same black blue etc system we
have now. In *addition* to actual information about
the run you're about to go down.

shrubs. To say the least.

This again, is the result of *conditions* black or blue
would tell you nothing about this either.

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.

I'm saying you should have *both* the colors and the slope angle.


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.

I dunno, David, it's just more subjectivity, no?

The slope of a run is a pure fact. Nobody "interprets" anything.

Degrees don't require anyone to rate anything. And they're
the same regardless of where on earth you go.

I mean, it's just making things more complicated when it
really *is* very simple. The slope of the run is what makes
it more difficult more than any other *permanent* factor.

A number with the degree of the slope is *simple*. And to
the point.

"Mary Malmros" wrote in message


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

Eight year olds do, after you tell them. But, it's probably
more productive in the long run to just tell them about leg
steering. But be sure they understand to face down the hill
so the legs have something to turn against. Teach them
pivot slips. That is, if they're advanced enough, as in, they
*can* ski somehow, some way, whatever that is.

"foot2foot" wrote in
:


The problem is, the black blue thing says
mostly nothing.
Not true. I always start the day at a new resort (and often at a place I
know) with a blue run, to get warmed up, and to get a feel for their idea
of "blue". There is variation between resorts (for that matter, there is
variation within any resort - no two blues are exactly the same
difficulty), but that isn't all that important to me. You get the sense
of a resort's markings pretty quickly, and if I was in doubt, I'd start
off conservative - start easier than that hardest you think you can ski.

cliffs or rocks

A run intended for those that really need the ratings would
never include such things or it wouldn't be open. Besides
that, if there was no way around the cliff, the rating would be
90 degrees. It really *is* simple and much more useful. The
slope of the steepest part of the run that *can not be gotten
around*. That's all you need.

Klaus posted later (or I read it later, whatever) about the concept of
consequences, and it is exactly what I meant to say. A black run in an
open bowl has fewer consequence than a black run with occasional rocks
and cliff bands. You may be easily able to navigate around these -
unless you're sliding on your back.

or trees or

Most people truly in need of the ratings wouldn't be hitting
the trees anyway. None the less, most people could actually
*see* the trees and decide if they will try a 20 degree treed
slope versus a 40 degree treed slope.

Slope *is* *the* major determining factor in difficulty.
If there are peculiarities to a particular run, they can
be covered by the same black blue etc system we
have now. In *addition* to actual information about
the run you're about to go down.

Too much information, not enough knowledge. A blue run with a short
steep pitch is a challenge to describe using any method. A sign that
says "Big Dipper: Blue, vertical 1000' at 15 degrees average; 45'
vertical @ 28 degrees" seems too detailed for me to understand. And it
doesn't tell me if there are 4 more steep short pitches that are twice as
long, but a half degree less steep. This is where I think it becomes
unworkable, in addition to the effect that daily conditions have (what
time of day is it, what's the temperature, where is the sun, is the sun
out now?, how long has it been out, and how strong on those particular
pitches....).

shrubs. To say the least.

This again, is the result of *conditions* black or blue
would tell you nothing about this either.
I had just been on Craig's Fernie site reading the daily report when I
wrote this. They're having a bad snow year, and some of their runs still
have a lot of alders showing. But others of very similar pitch don't.
That's why I might be tempted to rate the bushy ones differently -
because these shrubs are a regular condition of those slopes, at least
until well into the season, even in a good year.
http://far.redtree.com/cgi-bin/far/index.py

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.

I'm saying you should have *both* the colors and the slope angle.


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.

I dunno, David, it's just more subjectivity, no?

The slope of a run is a pure fact. Nobody "interprets" anything.

Degrees don't require anyone to rate anything. And they're
the same regardless of where on earth you go.

I mean, it's just making things more complicated when it
really *is* very simple. The slope of the run is what makes
it more difficult more than any other *permanent* factor.

A number with the degree of the slope is *simple*. And to
the point.

Here's where we have a philosophical disagreement. I've described above
why I think the objective measure is inadequate. I'll also state that I
firmly believe in the value of subjective ratings. We do it all the time
in the arts - we can't describe how good a song is by the number of
notes, number and complexity of chords, beats per minute (at the fastest
section). We can't even really rate it's complexity for playing or
learning that way. But any teacher can subjectively tell a piece that is
appropriate for students at a certain level to be learning. And in
skiing, one mountain may have more vertical, more snow and more uphill
capacity, but it doesn't necessarily make it better than another.

The golf system has (I think) some objective rules for determining the
difficulty, but the final assessment is made by a group that actually
plays the course and comes up with a final number. That group goes
through some sort of training so that they will come up with similar
ratings to other groups who are doing the same thing. And in the end, I
find the system imperfect, in that I disagree with some of the ratings,
but overall very useful. It is an important system for golf, in that it
is a factor in determining one's handicap, and is a way to make players
from different areas and of different abilities able to compete fairly
against each other. I'm not sure the ski industry sees this as worth
spending money on though.

dh

foot2foot wrote:
"Black Metal Martha" wrote in message

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

Not always true Martha. On a crowded, or somewhat
crowded, slope, it almost goes without saying that you'll
be skiing or boarding basically next to, slightly above or
slightly below other people. All of you moving at around
the same rate. Each person will usually be maintaining a
particular path, or "lane" on the run. At least, they should be.

The best that you can do is assume the person will
maintain the course that have been, mostly linked turns
down the hill. So you continue down the slope doing the
same thing, in a path a ways apart from theirs.

So then *they* get ahead of you, doing this linked turns
thing, and you continue, then they get this inspiration and
cut sharply across all "lanes" of traffic on the hill. This, maybe
after they have overtaken you, or have at least been going
as fast as you, after you have been careful to leave room.

That's a really good way to get pegged.

The code doesn't address it, nor does any case law that I
know of. I think it should be addressed.

If you stop, you should stop in the same path you've been
travelling. You shouldn't suddenly widen the path you've
been taking without checking above you.


Good points. Just for the record, I'm constantly checking above me,
especially if I'm planning to stop or changing my turn radius.

Martha

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



?!!!!

ant


I was pretty confused when I looked down the hill at Mt Snow saw nobody
and started my run. About half way down I was cut off by some small
child - teenager who came from behind me who I think was shot out of a
cannon. I was at a decent speed and going directly down the fall line,
trying to build up velocity to make the uphill crossover route to get to
NASTAR course. The more I think about it the kid did this with intent,
he thought he was playing chicken. He was a good skier moving very fast,
who was not out of control and who was not giving the right of way to
downhill skier. I managed to shift my weight and ski over his tails and
whack him with my pole and continue my run. I never saw the kid in my
forward field of vision until he was about to crash into me. Had he been
2 tenths of a second slower I would have put my shoulder down and taken
him out like a goaltender that has left the safety of the crease.
I am very conservative with my skiing in relation to other people I
time my turns as to pass them on other side of trail, I slow down if
there are groups of people standing in middle of trail.I stop and
check out people who have crashed and need help. Plus I keep my really
aggressive skiing for trails closed for race training or racing.

Black Metal Martha wrote:

foot2foot wrote:
"Black Metal Martha" wrote in message

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

Not always true Martha. On a crowded, or somewhat
crowded, slope, it almost goes without saying that you'll
be skiing or boarding basically next to, slightly above or
slightly below other people. All of you moving at around
the same rate. Each person will usually be maintaining a
particular path, or "lane" on the run. At least, they should be.

The best that you can do is assume the person will
maintain the course that have been, mostly linked turns
down the hill. So you continue down the slope doing the
same thing, in a path a ways apart from theirs.

So then *they* get ahead of you, doing this linked turns
thing, and you continue, then they get this inspiration and
cut sharply across all "lanes" of traffic on the hill. This, maybe
after they have overtaken you, or have at least been going
as fast as you, after you have been careful to leave room.

That's a really good way to get pegged.

The code doesn't address it, nor does any case law that I
know of. I think it should be addressed.

If you stop, you should stop in the same path you've been
travelling. You shouldn't suddenly widen the path you've
been taking without checking above you.

Good points. Just for the record, I'm constantly checking above me,
especially if I'm planning to stop or changing my turn radius.

Despite what the code says about who has right of way, it seems only
prudent to me, a slower skier, to maintain constant awareness of who is
above me and what they're doing. As a beginner, I figure I'm the one
more likely to do something unexpected, like some random movement that
puts me right in someone's path. I also consider it polite for me to
try to stay out of the way of people moving faster than me. But I do
expect that as time goes by, the speed differential between me and "most
skiers" on the blue runs should decrease, and hopefully disappear.

Lisa