If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:45:43 GMT, uglymoney
wrote: On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:39:38 -0500, Walt wrote: What's an HOA? Hooters of America? I went to a Hooters last week in Midvale. Terrible as usual. God I love that place! Horvath sighting? http://cameltoe.bolt.com/images/HooterKen.jpg (Don't click that link. Seriously. Don't do it.) bw |
Ads |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
bdubya wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:45:43 GMT, uglymoney wrote: On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:39:38 -0500, Walt wrote: What's an HOA? Hooters of America? I went to a Hooters last week in Midvale. Terrible as usual. God I love that place! Horvath sighting? http://cameltoe.bolt.com/images/HooterKen.jpg (Don't click that link. Seriously. Don't do it.) bw Well I went ahead and clicked it... BAAAARRRRRRRFFFFFFFF, how could you post anything so FUGLY? |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen B. wrote:
Ok I finally got around to making examples of a fictitious mountain. I drew these up on AutoCAD. Remember I am not an artist, so I have ignored the trees and other details that do give help in depicting slopes. First check out my version of a traditional trail map with all trails in blue. http://www.users.cloud9.net/~romania/traditional.jpg Then look at that mountain as drawn with what I proposed for new trail maps http://www.users.cloud9.net/~romania/redesigned.jpg See the arcs of the contour lines in green? or is this the mountain http://www.users.cloud9.net/~romania/redesigned2.jpg All three sets of trails should be identical on your screen, but don't the contour lines tell you a different story between about the slopes of the two redesigned maps? Ah, yeah, okay. I like it. The only problem I see is that, while it gives good and clear information in its current form, if you add in all the stuff that people argue are necessary or desirable on a trail map -- particularly the "artist's rendering" style that shows fuzzy li'l trees and white slopes and whatnot -- that'll change in a hurry. -- Mary Malmros Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug. |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
"Mary Malmros" wrote Ah, yeah, okay. I like it. The only problem I see is that, while it gives good and clear information in its current form, if you add in all the stuff that people argue are necessary or desirable on a trail map -- particularly the "artist's rendering" style that shows fuzzy li'l trees and white slopes and whatnot -- that'll change in a hurry. That is why I didn't argue with Walt about it cluttering, but as a light "highlight" I *think* it would work. -- Stephen B. |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen B. wrote:
"Mary Malmros" wrote Ah, yeah, okay. I like it. The only problem I see is that, while it gives good and clear information in its current form, if you add in all the stuff that people argue are necessary or desirable on a trail map -- particularly the "artist's rendering" style that shows fuzzy li'l trees and white slopes and whatnot -- that'll change in a hurry. That is why I didn't argue with Walt about it cluttering, but as a light "highlight" I *think* it would work. Yeah, or maybe we could get away from the painting-of-the-mountain style of trail map, something a little more minimalist, like the way a topo represents open areas and wooded areas or some such. But when you throw in the lifts and all the cute logos for the eateries and such, well...I dunno. But I like what you've done with it. -- Mary Malmros Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug. |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Tue, 08 Mar 2005
20:53:53 -0500, Mary Malmros wrote: Bill Griffiths wrote: Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Tue, 08 Mar 2005 Stated in the text you snipped: "A rating system has to say things like: areas A and B are roughly equal in difficulty, while area C is a step down, and area D ... etc." I think the question is, how useful is a simple rating of the overall difficulty of an area? It's like the value of a mean: the average of anything may not tell you much about what's being averaged, depending on how much deviation from the mean there is. If I tell you that the average height of a group of ten people is five feet six, what do you really know? All ten could be five feet six...or half of them could be four feet tall and half of them seven feet tall. The average doesn't tell you what's typical. So I guess I'm looking for more of an idea of how you'd express an area's rating, since obviously you wouldn't be using anything so simple. Your height analogy is good, but let me change it to ages. Take two groups of people of varying ages, dressed in green, blue, or black depending on whether they are young, in between, or old. For a single-number rating, I would use the average age of the people in black (though a good case could be made for the age of the oldest). With two numbers, I would add the age of the oldest person. The age/height analogies fail on one point: while ages and heights can be arbitrarily concentrated (everyone 5'6"), just about every ski area has a range of trails starting with the bunny slope. Since we know that the range of difficulties (ages) starts with the bunny slope (newborn), a single number rating conveys more information than an average normally does. Allow me to take your second example and make it germane. Assume that LL and Local Molehill had approximately the same rating. That would mean that the consensus of the skiers submitting ratings was that the blacks at LL were roughly as difficult as those at LM. Thus someone who enjoyed the blacks at LM would enjoy them at LL, and vice versa. (An unlikely assessment, but it's not my example.) What do you do in the case where the blacks are equivalent, but the blues aren't? Is this common? If so, you would need an additional number for blues. If the relative difficulty of blues and blacks were correlated, you would only need one number. As for being unworkable, the system is a pretty straightforward extension of asking people's opinions. Whether it is worthwhile to replace individual assessments with a system is another matter -- but my point was only that it would not be hard to develop a system. I think it would be a bit harder than you think, with some possibly Escher-esque contradictions -- Person 1 says area A is harder than area B, person 2 says area B is harder than area C, person 3 says area C is harder than area A, etc. I'm not sure how you would resolve these, how much data would be enough to judge that you have a consensus rating, or what you'd do about discarding outliers. Escher-esque contradictions or cycles could be either small-scale or large-scale. Small-scale cycles reflect small variations in the assessment of areas that are roughly comparable; these cycles are no problem. Large-scale cycles among greatly disparate areas would mean that the whole concept of difficulty was nonsense (just as there is no "best choice" in rock/paper/scissors) -- but if this were the case, it would surely show up in ordinary conversation. Another pitfall is that rankings may not be comparable across regions. As for the specifics of how much data, outliers, etc. -- these are important but routine questions. While you would have to answer them in order to actually construct a ranking, there is no reason to assume that you couldn't. This isn't an actual answer to your question, but a real answer would involve a fair amount of boring grunt work. Oh, and by consensus I mean something along the lines of mean +/- confidence interval. -- Bill Griffiths "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as justice." Hobbes |
#237
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Malmros wrote:
I don't think you need to do an exhaustive analysis to say that there are more ski trails than whitewater rivers. The whole state of Vermont doesn't have 200 rivers that have been rated, or river sections. [killington examples snipped] This is an unfair comparison. One river can stretch for a considerable distance. Lets compare miles of ski trails with miles of river. Arizona is considered a desert state yet has quite a few rivers that people run, the colorado, salt and black being the most popular. I wouldn't try to say theres only 3 rivers in Arizona but 4 ski areas with dozens of ski trails. Those rivers combined are well over 100 miles long of runable water. |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
miles wrote:
Mary Malmros wrote: I don't think you need to do an exhaustive analysis to say that there are more ski trails than whitewater rivers. The whole state of Vermont doesn't have 200 rivers that have been rated, or river sections. [killington examples snipped] This is an unfair comparison. "Unfair"? I don't see what fairness has to do with anything; this isn't a matter of social justice, it's about rating rivers vs. rating trails. One river can stretch for a considerable distance. Lets compare miles of ski trails with miles of river. Arizona is considered a desert state yet has quite a few rivers that people run, the colorado, salt and black being the most popular. I wouldn't try to say theres only 3 rivers in Arizona but 4 ski areas with dozens of ski trails. Those rivers combined are well over 100 miles long of runable water. That's all true, but the point under discussion was the river rating system and why something similar could/couldn't be done for ski trails. You don't rate every mile of runnable water; you rate rivers or river sections, or note rapids as they're an exception to the general class of the river. You might have a hundred miles of runnable river in AZ, but I doubt you have a hundred different class ratings. -- Mary Malmros Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
prettiest view in the world? | Ken Roberts | Nordic Skiing | 20 | April 26th 04 09:40 AM |
Near fatal ski incident | Me | Nordic Skiing | 22 | February 27th 04 01:47 PM |
Updated Stowe trail maps | Lew Lasher | Nordic Skiing | 0 | February 16th 04 03:10 PM |
Pre BIrkie/Birkie trail conditions | Bruce Fiedler | Nordic Skiing | 0 | February 7th 04 09:59 PM |
Has anyone ever skied the WB trail in Underhill, Vermont? | Lew Lasher | Nordic Skiing | 8 | September 22nd 03 01:38 AM |