Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:

"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's pretty much what I do when in a challenging situation.


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 ).

And that's what I'm concerned about doing, and try not to do.


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.

I've walked a bit a few times. It does feel a bit embarrassing.


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

To clarify, I mean inconveniencing someone because I did something
unexpected, random, not the typical path.


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

I skied deep powder once. For a couple of feet, before my skis
submerged and I flew through the air, landing head first. Now I know
why snow boarders have snow on the top of their hats.


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".


And here we visit a main concern of mine, now that I know that heel
edging and sideslipping and scraping degrade the quality of the snow. I
believe in being considerate to others, simply because it's the right
thing to do. I know for sure that on a couple of occasions, when I've
found myself in a too difficult stretch, I more or less sideslipped
down, most likely with a bit of scraping in the process. Now I know
better though, and don't want to get into a situation where my
convenience degrades the snow for others. They paid too.


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.

I disagree. A universal rating system, standard across resorts, would
imply a degree of accuracy that doesn't seem maintainable across
different days and conditions. As long as the difficult ratings are
only for THAT resort, they're on safe ground I think. The moment the
ratings are standardized, making an error rating a run would absolutely
provide an opening for a lawsuit. Not necessarily a valid one, or
successful. But a rich individual could potentially win simply by
spending more on lawyers than a smaller resort could afford to. And
that is the way our tort system works, although it's more common that a
corporation will use this tactic to "win" against a victim with a valid
complaint.


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.

Asking other skiers about runs and difficulty hasn't been uniformly
successful for me. Sometimes people are helpful, more often they don't
seem to want to be bothered by a newbie. And for some unknown reason,
the people who are most likely to want to talk to me on the lift are
invariably much more advanced than me. While they can tell me a lot
about the current conditions on black runs, that's not so useful to
someone who just graduated to blues. Amusing, when they invite me to
ski those blacks with them


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.


There are lots of noble ideals, like every vote counting, making them
into reality is the hard part.

Lisa

Bob Lee wrote:

Lisa Horton wrote:

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.

Of course, you're right to be concerned - and that adds to the fun. I
believe the feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction you get from
skiing/surviving that run would be unacceptably diminished, if not
eliminated, by knowing beforehand that you can nail it.

Ah, but one injury could take the fun out of skiing for a long time. An
injury that rendered me unable to do my work would probably mean no
skiing for the rest of that season because I wouldn't be able to afford
it.

My PRIMARY goal going down any ski run is to not get injured, everything
else is secondary. Not like back in the day (a few decades ago) when I
blithely roller skated in pools and skate parks and other adventurous
and dangerous activities.

I only really have fun when I'm not scared. I'm not scared when I feel
like I'm in control, can turn and stop well enough to not hit anything
or anyone.

So I think that my POV is a little different. The feelings of
accomplishment and satisfaction are still there, but not the most
important thing.

I should mention too, that skiing is a little different for me than
other interests. I'm accustomed to excelling at anything I apply myself
to. But skiing is taking me much longer to get to that point, and due
to age and the physical demands, I may never excel at skiing. So I'm
learning to make having fun be the main metric for measuring success.


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?

[...]

A good point, but then, isn't the the purpose of the idea/proposal to
make that first run safer?

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

And people in hell just want a glass of ice water. But seriously, worry
less about your concerns listed above and enjoy the adventure, which is
fleeting enough as it is.

I enjoy skiing tremendously. Just sliding across the snow is fun.
Learning about different snow types is fun. I like "chuckling" snow,
that makes little chuckling noises as you slide across. Difficult icy
snow makes a different distinctive noise, to me it's "crackling" snow.
I really love the 3rd (or 5th) trip down a new run, when I've got it
wired well enough to really enjoy it. I love that I can be outside in
20 degree weather and still be completely warm and comfortable (lifelong
Californian you know, where anything under 50 degrees is "really cold")


Lisa

"David Harris" wrote in message
...

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.

Yea, I do the same mostly, but I get bored pretty quick on the
blues anymore, unless I just want to carve or cruise. If I've never
been to a resort, I'll most likely check out every inch of their
beginner terrain first. I'll try to systematically do every run at
the place, but in some, obviously you can't do it in a day.

But how does this argue against adding pitch data to the color
system of trail markings?


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.

But how does this argue against adding pitch data to the
color system?

If the slope is 25 degrees it wouldn't matter how many rocks
there were, nor would any resort ever call a rock strewn 20
degree slope a black.

It can't *hurt* to put this data up, what you're saying is that you
want more than that. You're saying even that isn't enough. Yes?

Too much information,

Two numerals and a degree sign, plus the appx. abreviation?

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"

Then you list the 28 degrees, you only need to list the steepest
part of the slope the skier *must* negotiate to get down by
way of that run.

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.

All you need to do is list the pitch of the steepest part.

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....).

You have, and always will get *conditions* information from
other sources. No trail rating sign could ever do this.

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

These are day to day and week to week *conditions*. The color
system doesn't attempt to address these either. Nor should it.
*you get that information from lots of other sources*. We're talking
about info in regard to a run that is more or less unchanging,
permanent.

Conditions have nothing to do with a long term trail rating
system such as the colored square system.

until well into the season, even in a good year.
http://far.redtree.com/cgi-bin/far/index.py

Here's where we have a philosophical disagreement. I've described above
why I think the objective measure is inadequate.

Because it leaves out conditions. Or peculiarities of a particular
slope. You can get this info elsewhere, and always have.

Slope in degrees might be inadequate, but it's better than just
the color system alone...

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).

The subjective trail rating system of today, I think, is mostly a
failure. It needs the addition of slope pitch data.

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,

Like anything else that is socially constructed. Pitch of a slope
is a pure fact.

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.

Actually, I agree, that the more info the better, like vertical profiles
available for each run.

"Lisa Horton" wrote in message



foot2foot wrote:

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.


I've walked a bit a few times. It does feel a bit embarrassing.

Or, you can sideslip down. Are you pretty good at sideslipping
yet? If not, maybe work quite a bit on it this season, what there
is of this season that is.


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

To clarify, I mean inconveniencing someone because I did something
unexpected, random, not the typical path.

Yes, this is a dangerous thing to do. To you, mostly.

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

I skied deep powder once. For a couple of feet, before my skis
submerged and I flew through the air, landing head first. Now I know
why snow boarders have snow on the top of their hats.


You got too far forward on the skis, obviously. In those
conditions, you will need a longer, wider ski. Then it
won't matter, you could ski on the tip or tail of one ski
in the pow and still recover balance.

It's worth the purchase to buy them, and the trouble to carry
them, just in case. The heck of it is, you don't know if they're
long and wide enough until you actually try them in deep
powder. Although, there would certainly be some skis that
would just about *have* to be enough.

If you get another day like that, you might try to demo some
ridiculous fats. Then you'll start to get an idea of what sort of
ski *will* be enough to really float you on the flattest slopes
in deep light powder. That is the ski you need to *really*
learn to ski in the stuff. After you learn, you might well be
able to ski with most any ski in powder. But you'd still get
stuck on the greens and other flats in deep powder if you
didn't have *enough* ski.

I hate that.

The interesting thing is, this incident would mean that you're
mostly skiing on the front of the skis, which would be very
good at this time in your skiing life. Most still aren't out of the
back seat.

You just need to change things a bit for deep pow, but that
will come later. Later on you'll be able to get forward, back,
or in the middle of the skis, any place and time you want.


And here we visit a main concern of mine, now that I know that heel
edging and sideslipping and scraping degrade the quality of the snow.

Nope. In regular old conditions, it don't do nuthin. In fact,
in overly hard conditions, it can help to shave some snow
off and build up in the gullies, a pleasant relief to ski on.
In every other condition besides *deep* pow. Heel edge or
sideslip does no harm whatever. In fact it probably helps,
doing a mini "grooming" job on the snow.

I
believe in being considerate to others, simply because it's the right
thing to do. I know for sure that on a couple of occasions, when I've
found myself in a too difficult stretch, I more or less sideslipped
down,

COOL!!!!!

most likely with a bit of scraping in the process.

No big. Doesn't hurt nuthin or no body. Probably helps.

Now I know
better though,

Please. You're laboring under some crazy misapprehension.

and don't want to get into a situation where my
convenience degrades the snow for others.

See above. This issue simply doesn't exist. I give you
permission to scrape and slip all you want. In fact, I'll
ask you to sideslip the entire day (or moring at least) the
next time you go skiing. Just ask Lito Tejada Flores. He'll
tell you the same thing. Sideslip the whole mountain.
Sideslip all morning and all afternoon. Get *really* *really*
good at it. Better than anyone else in the world. Have sideslip
races with people.

Do you know how they used to fix a hill in the early days,
before grooming? They used to step and sideslip it.

Do you know they sometimes prepare racecourses by
sideslipping them?

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.



I disagree. A universal rating system, standard across resorts, would
imply a degree of accuracy that doesn't seem maintainable across
different days and conditions.

The idea is *not* to have trail ratings attempt to describe day to
day *conditions*. There are other ways to get this information.
A sign could never do this, although often there are signs at
the lift hut describing conditions of the day in general.

A trail rating sign could never do this. Everyone keeps coming up
with this conditions thing. It's a straw man, it's irrelevant. The
color system was never intended to describe day to day conditions
either

The idea is to give real information about how steep a slope
really is. That's what the color system really *tries* to
describe.

As long as the difficult ratings are
only for THAT resort, they're on safe ground I think.

Who cares about the resort being on safe ground? I care
about my own safety and the safety of skiers new to that
resort.

The moment the
ratings are standardized, making an error rating a run would absolutely
provide an opening for a lawsuit.

We're going over the same ground again and again here.
If that were true, there would *already* be lawsuits alleging
that a blue run should have been called a black. The present
system is *more* likely to subject resorts to lawsuits under
that theory.

If an indication of the steepness of the slope, qualified to be
accurate within say, less than five degrees, were posted, it
could not be challenged. It would be a pure fact. If the skier
didn't know what it meant, that would be their problem.
Just like it is if the skier doesn't know what double diamond
means.

I might note that many resorts post *all kinds* of extra
qualifying info on the trail sign at the top of very difficult runs .

Not necessarily a valid one, or
successful. But a rich individual could potentially win simply by
spending more on lawyers than a smaller resort could afford to. And
that is the way our tort system works, although it's more common that a
corporation will use this tactic to "win" against a victim with a valid
complaint.

The color system is *more* subjective, and as such, is *more*
likely to lend itself to the kind of thing you *speculate* might
happen. I don't know of any instance where this kind of suit has
*ever* been brought. If it could have, it would have been.

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 can't use a sign to inform about *conditions*. The idea is to
have trail rating signs that reasonably closely describe the actual
pitch of the run. This would be the same, no matter where you
were in the snowsport world.

Asking other skiers about runs and difficulty hasn't been uniformly
successful for me. Sometimes people are helpful, more often they don't
seem to want to be bothered by a newbie. And for some unknown reason,
the people who are most likely to want to talk to me on the lift are
invariably much more advanced than me. While they can tell me a lot
about the current conditions on black runs, that's not so useful to
someone who just graduated to blues. Amusing, when they invite me to
ski those blacks with them

They seem to like you.

You could take their invitation. For now at least, after
you've skied the black run with them, they won't ask you
again.

Or, you could ask the ski patrol They check every run on the
hill at the beginning of each day, before opening the lifts.

There are lots of noble ideals, like every vote counting, making them
into reality is the hard part.

I don't do politics in connection with any sort of snowsports.

It's just not about that in any way. Here, and at the resorts, I'm
doing snowsports.

Black Metal Martha wrote:

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.

Perhaps foot's point is that they really _weren't_ in front of you, they
were way over _there_. Yes, the rule is that downhill skiers have the
right of way -- but on a very wide trail, seems like you can be
technically "downhill" of someone but outside of their view,
realistically.

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

"Mary Malmros" wrote in message
...
Black Metal Martha wrote:

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.

Perhaps foot's point is that they really _weren't_ in front of you, they
were way over _there_. Yes, the rule is that downhill skiers have the
right of way -- but on a very wide trail, seems like you can be
technically "downhill" of someone but outside of their view,
realistically.

Unless you are going at 100%...which is something sensible people save for
the race course...it should be possible to have enough control to not hit
them. I guess the exception might be a snowboarder suddenly launching onto
the run in the air from the trees. I've had them do this to me a few times
over the years. Haven't hit any yet. The other examples happen to me
frequently, and basically, if I can see them, I must avoid them. And I must
retain enough control to do so.

ant

Bob Lee wrote:
foot2foot wrote:
CLIP

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


You understand that it changes throughout the year, and from year to
year? Or are you just ignoring that?

With the typical brutal grooming the slopes undergo these days, it
changes overnight.

It's amusing to watch a nice, natural terrain slope with rolls and banks
and drops and flats gradually homogenize to a buffered angled ironing
board as the season progresses and the groomers fill in every depression
and carve off every knob.

It's also deeply irritating to watch that nice, natural terrain slope
destroyed in the name of brutal grooming.

Black Metal Martha wrote:

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.

It's Flatstar. What did you expect?

Flatstar (and Vail) offer good examples of why a common rating method
can never evolve even if it were possible (which it isn't.) No resort
wants to admit they have no CRM (AKA "Common Rating Method (tm)") Black
runs.

AstroPax wrote:

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


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


You have a three mile run that is all flats, except for a short 50 ft
horizontal section that is 25% steeper than everything else. An
abnormality in the norm, so to speak.

Yah, that's the kind of run I was thinking about, too. There isn't a
number that describes this run accurately. Steepest part doesn't do it,
average doesn't do it either. Nothing but a verbal description will do
-- and the common sense to understand it.

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

"David Harris" wrote in message
...
"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

I think it would be nice if some outside group did this giving an unbiased
description of the mountain and all its trails. It would be great for the
avid skier that travels to different ski resorts or skiers that are looking
for other resorts to travel to that would fit into what they are looking
for. I don't think many of the small and less challenging resorts would
want a standardize system for the fear that they would lose business.

JQ
Dancing on the edge