Trail Difficulty Ratings

lal_truckee wrote:

Walt wrote:


But every golf course has a rating and a slope so that you can compare
one course to another wrt difficulty.


They quit playing golf when it snows...

Not around here. Why do you think they sell those orange golf balls?

foot2foot wrote:

"Walt" wrote in message
...

uglymoney wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:34:23 -0700, "pigo"

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.

No ****. This isn't golf.

But every golf course has a rating and a slope so that you can compare one
course to another wrt difficulty. There's a national (international?)
standards group that goes around evaluating courses and assigning numbers
representing how tough the course is.

Why not do the same for ski slopes? I'd be happy to take the job,
assuming they can match my present salary. (c:



You know Walt, I hate to say it, but you guys really do tend
to make things more complicated than they need be. All you
need to do is put the number of degrees down on the map or
sign instead of a colored square. Or perhaps put both down.
It's ridiculously simple, and would be much more useful.

I know a green trail that can't possibly be called anything BUT a green,
that has one place where the pitch is probably 30 degrees, or even
greater.

The skier or boarder would *really* know for sure what
they are getting into, and it would hold true from resort to
resort.

Well, no, they wouldn't, not if you're showing the greatest pitch on the
trail. Nor if you're showing the _average_ pitch. It doesn't help
nearly as much as it might seem at first.

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

foot2foot wrote:
"Walt" wrote

Why not do the same for ski slopes? I'd be happy to take the job,
assuming they can match my present salary. (c:

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

Complicated? There's nothing complicated about this at all.

1) Somebody gives me money to go around and ski a bunch of resorts

2) For each trail, I assign it a number indicating it's level of
difficulty. If the trail looks too boring, or if it's too steep, or if
I'm in a hurry or whatever, I just make something up.

3) Numbers can be adjusted up or down at the request of the resort
operators (or anyone else who happens to be around) based on the quality
and quantity of beer provided at the end of the day.

4) Once established, the Walt Number becomes permanent and immutable,
much like the Grand Cru ratings for Bordeaux.

5) In decades to come, people can discuss whether the Walt Number is
really an accurate representation of the difficulty of a particular
trail, or whether Walt was just hung over the day he skied it.

What could be simpler? Now where's that grant form?



--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy

"Mary Malmros" wrote in message
...
foot2foot wrote:

"Walt" wrote in message
...

uglymoney wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:34:23 -0700, "pigo"

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.

No ****. This isn't golf.

But every golf course has a rating and a slope so that you can compare
one course to another wrt difficulty. There's a national
(international?) standards group that goes around evaluating courses and
assigning numbers representing how tough the course is.

Why not do the same for ski slopes? I'd be happy to take the job,
assuming they can match my present salary. (c:



You know Walt, I hate to say it, but you guys really do tend
to make things more complicated than they need be. All you
need to do is put the number of degrees down on the map or
sign instead of a colored square. Or perhaps put both down.
It's ridiculously simple, and would be much more useful.

I know a green trail that can't possibly be called anything BUT a green,
that has one place where the pitch is probably 30 degrees, or even
greater.

The skier or boarder would *really* know for sure what
they are getting into, and it would hold true from resort to
resort.

Well, no, they wouldn't, not if you're showing the greatest pitch on the
trail. Nor if you're showing the _average_ pitch. It doesn't help nearly
as much as it might seem at first.


Ah, yea. Maybe so.

Ah, maybe you're right.

"Walt" wrote in message
...
foot2foot wrote:
"Walt" wrote

Why not do the same for ski slopes? I'd be happy to take the job,
assuming they can match my present salary. (c:

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

Complicated? There's nothing complicated about this at all.

1) Somebody gives me money to go around and ski a bunch of resorts

2) For each trail, I assign it a number indicating it's level of
difficulty. If the trail looks too boring, or if it's too steep, or if
I'm in a hurry or whatever, I just make something up.

3) Numbers can be adjusted up or down at the request of the resort
operators (or anyone else who happens to be around) based on the quality
and quantity of beer provided at the end of the day.

4) Once established, the Walt Number becomes permanent and immutable, much
like the Grand Cru ratings for Bordeaux.

5) In decades to come, people can discuss whether the Walt Number is
really an accurate representation of the difficulty of a particular trail,
or whether Walt was just hung over the day he skied it.

What could be simpler? Now where's that grant form?



--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:00:30 -0800, lal_truckee
wrote:

Walt wrote:

But every golf course has a rating and a slope so that you can compare
one course to another wrt difficulty.

They quit playing golf when it snows; or hails; or if the greens turn
brown.

No they don't. "Ice bowls" can be the most entertaining tournaments
of all. Plus, a good hard crust can net you an extra ten yards or so
on your drive.
http://overstable.com/story.php?492

bw

Sven Golly wrote:
"foot2foot" wrote in
:

The skier or boarder would *really* know for sure what
they are getting into, and it would hold true from resort to
resort.

This stuff has been revisted sooo many times in the industry it ain't
funny. The reason trail maps are all relative to the area and NOT
absolutes (like universal markings or slope degrees or something) is that
the insurance companies tell them not to. That's cuz the lawsuits feed on
any slight inaccuracy in representation.

Also, slope angles change. There are many easily skiable lines this
year that are cliffs many years.

-klaus

klaus wrote:

Also, slope angles change. There are many easily skiable lines this
year that are cliffs many years.

Oh. You mean they'd have to measure the angle when there's snow on the
hill? Well, that does change things...


--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy

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.

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

"Jeff" wrote
pigo wrote:

Too much information I think [...]

Unless bodily fluids are involved, I don't think there is such a
thing
as "too much information."

If bodily fluids are involved, we need streaming video.

I'm not sure how additional statistics will
spoil the fun. It would be nice if the information foot2foot
mentioned
was included on the trail map. I'm often curious as to how steep
the
steepest section was...

So just go out and buy the USGS Topo maps for the area...

Actually, it occurs to me that what really needs to be
rated is how fun the trail is, relative to sex. You
standard gren circle would be like holding hands or
maybe a kiss. Blue squares would be like heavy petting.
Black diamonds would be actual nookie, which is
appropriate since nookie can be as awkward and unpleasant
as iced over moguls, even if some people like it that way.
Vail's back bowls could be compared to an easy pickup that
just went on and on all night. Corbet's Coulior would be
Rhino sex. (I, uhh, think I might have had fun back there,
but I haven't gotten over the trauma yet.)

J. Urrrk