Snow Report Reliability?

Come on guys, it doesn't really matter that much to me whether there's
a foot on the ground or 20 feet, except for the issue of the long-term
viability of the ski season (as in, will I still be skiing in
February?). Personally, I only ski on the top couple of inches of snow,
so as long as 1) the rocks are covered, and 2) the grooming is good, 10
feet vs. 1 foot doesn't affect my enjoyment of the day. I just skied a
couple of hours at Tahoe Donner, and it's still relatively thin, but
everything is covered, and you just plain couldn't ask for a better day
of skiing. It was phenomenal.

Personally, I think EVERY ski area, alpine or nordic, fudges a bit. If
you want to know the conditions, ask someone who isn't vested in having
you come there, like a retail employee in a local shop or something.

Mark


Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
On 01/23/2006 09:38 PM, in article
, "
wrote:

I think the base is measured as total snowfall.


Should be measured as "what's actually on the ground", as it is at downhill
resorts.

If
you want to know the conditions, ask someone who isn't vested in having
you come there, like a retail employee in a local shop or something.

Or your friendly regional nordic organization's administrator.

Steven L. Sheffield wrote:

Are places like snocountry.com reliable in reports of conditions?

Yebbut. Does it not make sense to have an agreed 'standard' whereby everyone doing the daily assessing and everyone doing the reporting uses the same method which can be readily verified.
Even if its just a dipstick test.
Readings done by a tracksetter can be so easily 'amended' by the media rep. at the resort, who just happens to be a local hotel owner.