24 Feb 2005 04:45:13
Jeff
Trail Difficulty Ratings

We all know about single black and double black difficulty ratings.
Occasionally rumors surface as to the existence of some nefarious
triple blacks. Rarely, if ever, do I see beginner and intermediate
trails with intercolor distinctions.

My local ski area contains single and double greens, single and double
blues and single and double blacks. I always thought this was quite
useful. The double difficulty hills offer a nice introduction to the
next level. A double green might have some intermediate levels of steep
at short intervals. A double blue might be a cruiser with a short but
steep drop at the top of the hill.

Jeff



24 Feb 2005 05:56:36
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Jeff" <jeff@bruce.com > wrote in message
news:1109249113.873334.201550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> We all know about single black and double black difficulty ratings.
> Occasionally rumors surface as to the existence of some nefarious
> triple blacks. Rarely, if ever, do I see beginner and intermediate
> trails with intercolor distinctions.
>
> My local ski area contains single and double greens, single and double
> blues and single and double blacks. I always thought this was quite
> useful. The double difficulty hills offer a nice introduction to the
> next level. A double green might have some intermediate levels of steep
> at short intervals. A double blue might be a cruiser with a short but
> steep drop at the top of the hill.
>
> Jeff

It is a good idea, yes?

I've sometimes thought that they should post the actual
degree of the slope at the steepest part, maybe even a vertical
profile. It wouldn't take much, and it wouldn't leave any doubt
as to what the difficulty of the slope really is.

Then as opposed to saying, "I can do blues and easy blacks",
a skier might say, "I'm good up to about twenty five to thirty
degrees, on steeper than that I'm not comfortable yet".




24 Feb 2005 07:34:23
pigo
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote in message
news:111rn7ufogunufc@corp.supernews.com >
> It is a good idea, yes?
>
> I've sometimes thought that they should post the actual
> degree of the slope at the steepest part, maybe even a vertical
> profile. It wouldn't take much, and it wouldn't leave any doubt
> as to what the difficulty of the slope really is.
>
> Then as opposed to saying, "I can do blues and easy blacks",
> a skier might say, "I'm good up to about twenty five to thirty
> degrees, on steeper than that I'm not comfortable yet".

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.

I get sick of everything being reduced to having to appeal to
everyone, made risk, and thought free.

I think the way it is works fine.

pigo




24 Feb 2005 06:51:44
Jeff
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

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." 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...

Cheers,
Jeff



24 Feb 2005 08:07:08
lal_truckee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Jeff wrote:
> We all know about single black and double black difficulty ratings.

You realize "double black" is a fairly new phenomena. I suppose it's
possible the first couple of areas to post a "double black" did so as a
genuine warning to skiers, but the rest of them jumped on the
advertising bandwagon - can't be the only area with just weenie single
black runs, now, can we?

Used to be skiers learned how to work their way down a mountain - trail
maps were guides - and how to mange untamed snow. Now with the Brutal
Grooming of everything in sight, skiers want a detail map of the
sidewalk in front of the ticket window.

IMO, mountains are already too cluttered with signage, and trail maps
contain too little of the mountain and too much about the manmade and
grooming.


24 Feb 2005 09:03:03
snoig
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"pigo" <pigopowderPANTS@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:AqadnTdpqKJteIDfRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
> 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.

Why is that too much information, they do it for climbing routes all the
time and the system works just fine. When you tell someone you are
comfortable with 5.9's and can lead 5.7's, everybody has a good idea of what
your skills are.

snoig




24 Feb 2005 08:17:25
Armin
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


pigo wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> I get sick of everything being reduced to having to appeal to
> everyone, made risk, and thought free.
>
> I think the way it is works fine.

Well, it feels good to finally agree with you on something. ;-)

I think green, blue and black are totally adequate ratings since the
condition of the slope (groomed, packed, powder, moguls, crud, ice,
etc.) affect the difficulty of the slope as much, if not more, then
the steepness. And the conditions can changed drastically from top to
bottom... especially on larger mountains such as Whistler/Blackcomb.

Hell, next they'll want weather conditions, slope angle profiles and
snow conditions in 100 ft increments posted at the top of every run.

Armin



24 Feb 2005 10:23:07
bdubya
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

On 24 Feb 2005 04:45:13 -0800, "Jeff" <jeff@bruce.com > wrote:

>We all know about single black and double black difficulty ratings.
>Occasionally rumors surface as to the existence of some nefarious
>triple blacks. Rarely, if ever, do I see beginner and intermediate
>trails with intercolor distinctions.
>
>My local ski area contains single and double greens, single and double
>blues and single and double blacks. I always thought this was quite
>useful. The double difficulty hills offer a nice introduction to the
>next level. A double green might have some intermediate levels of steep
>at short intervals. A double blue might be a cruiser with a short but
>steep drop at the top of the hill.

I think that's overboard, once you consider the variability of
weather, snow conditions and crowds. A skied-out, scraped-up green
run full of newbies can be a lot more difficult (and dangerous) than a
deserted steep black with 6" of fluff over fresh corduroy,
f'rinstance. A given trail at 3PM can be much harder to ski than it
was at 9AM (or vice versa); given that kind of variability, I just
don't see the point of getting into such fine distinctions.

bw


24 Feb 2005 08:35:05
Armin
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


bdubya wrote:
> given that kind of variability, I just
> don't see the point of getting into such fine distinctions.
>

Except perhaps for litigation. I can see it now:

"But your Honour, I'm oficially certified as a level 6.3.2.1b skier.
The run was graded 6.3.1.1a, well within my certification level.
However, I caught an edge and sprained my left index finger, causing me
pain, suffering and mental anguish that has scarred me for life."

Armin



24 Feb 2005 11:43:26
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

bdubya wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2005 04:45:13 -0800, "Jeff" <jeff@bruce.com> wrote:
>
>>We all know about single black and double black difficulty ratings.
>>Occasionally rumors surface as to the existence of some nefarious
>>triple blacks. Rarely, if ever, do I see beginner and intermediate
>>trails with intercolor distinctions.
>>
>>My local ski area contains single and double greens, single and double
>>blues and single and double blacks. I always thought this was quite
>>useful. The double difficulty hills offer a nice introduction to the
>>next level. A double green might have some intermediate levels of steep
>>at short intervals. A double blue might be a cruiser with a short but
>>steep drop at the top of the hill.
>
>
> I think that's overboard, once you consider the variability of
> weather, snow conditions and crowds. A skied-out, scraped-up green
> run full of newbies can be a lot more difficult (and dangerous) than a
> deserted steep black with 6" of fluff over fresh corduroy,
> f'rinstance. A given trail at 3PM can be much harder to ski than it
> was at 9AM (or vice versa); given that kind of variability, I just
> don't see the point of getting into such fine distinctions.


Agreed that conditions change enough so that micro-categories are not
terribly useful. But it would be nice to have some way of gauging the
relative difficulty of the terrain from resort to resort. The
green/blue/black system is only useful for comparing trails within each
resort. It would be useful to have some kind of universal standard to
compare across resorts. (Note that I find such a hypothetical rating
system less useful as I get more miles under my bases, but it would have
been a help a couple of years ago when I was starting out.)

BTW, there are trails rated triple black. And BW was skiing at a place
that has them last week. Maybe he can eighteen us....

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


24 Feb 2005 08:55:55
Armin
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


Walt wrote:
>
> Agreed that conditions change enough so that micro-categories are not

> terribly useful. But it would be nice to have some way of gauging
the
> relative difficulty of the terrain from resort to resort. The
> green/blue/black system is only useful for comparing trails within
each
> resort. It would be useful to have some kind of universal standard
to
> compare across resorts. (Note that I find such a hypothetical rating

> system less useful as I get more miles under my bases, but it would
have
> been a help a couple of years ago when I was starting out.)


But that's the point... resort clearly state that the ratings are
relative to within their resort only. That is why they also advise that
if you have never skied at that particular resort, you should start out
on one of the easier trails and then progress to the harder ones.

Armin



24 Feb 2005 09:01:11
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

My hometown resort of Alyeska (Girdwood, AK) had at least two
triple-blacks; one titled "Lolo's Leap", and the other's name eludes
me. This was 20 years ago; I don't know if these trails still exist.

I think the difference between black and double-black is one of
potential hazards. A black run isn't likely to have a 30 foot cliff in
the middle of it while a double-black might. This seems to me a useful
distinction. A strong blue skier should be able to ski a black run
without worrying about death resulting from catching an edge.

Alyeska's definition of triple-black seemed to be that the cliff was a
mandatory air.

Sam



24 Feb 2005 11:33:01
bdubya
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:43:26 -0500, Walt
<walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com > wrote:

>
>BTW, there are trails rated triple black. And BW was skiing at a place
>that has them last week. Maybe he can eighteen us....

If I were ever going to eighteen someone, I most definitely would NOT
talk about it in public. As for the "triple blacks", yeah, that's
what they're marked as. A succession of pretty steep gullies (they
call them "chutes" but I don't think that's accurate), where the trees
are pretty tight; barely enough room to swing a pair of 190s around.
I can flail my way down them, but it ain't pretty.

bw


24 Feb 2005 12:12:38
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Armin wrote:

> But that's the point... resort clearly state that the ratings are
> relative to within their resort only. That is why they also advise that
> if you have never skied at that particular resort, you should start out
> on one of the easier trails and then progress to the harder ones.

Good advice. Once you actually find yourself at the hill with your skis
on.

The point of a cross-resort rating is that it would be useful for
figuring out whether to go there in the first place. "Hmmm...lots of
blues...are these boring blues, or tough blues, or what?"

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


24 Feb 2005 21:37:38
Sue White
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

In message <aWnTd.85$Ql3.77@news.itd.umich.edu >, Walt
<walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com > writes
>Armin wrote:
>
>> But that's the point... resort clearly state that the ratings are
>> relative to within their resort only. That is why they also advise that
>> if you have never skied at that particular resort, you should start out
>> on one of the easier trails and then progress to the harder ones.
>
>Good advice. Once you actually find yourself at the hill with your
>skis on.
>
>The point of a cross-resort rating is that it would be useful for
>figuring out whether to go there in the first place. "Hmmm...lots of
>blues...are these boring blues, or tough blues, or what?"
>

That's what contacts are for.
Or "Where to Ski and Snowboard" if you don't trust people.

Even with separate ratings for beginner facilities, cruiser miles, food
prices and quality, quality of (and amount of competition for)
off-piste, playpark facilities, etc etc, you still want a verbal report
on the place's good and bad points and oddities.

--
Sue ]3(:)D

At the last annual count, Britain had 544 breweries and rising.


24 Feb 2005 21:57:50
uglymoney
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:34:23 -0700, "pigo" <pigopowderPANTS@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>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 shit. This isn't golf.

nate


24 Feb 2005 15:03:39
Sam Seiber
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt wrote:
> BTW, there are trails rated triple black. And BW was skiing at a place
> that has them last week. Maybe he can eighteen us....

And now here in Colorado, there are runs to be marked double diamond
with an EX notation for extreme terrain. I am not sure when the ski
areas have to get up to code on this, but I find that interesting.

Also, as far as trail ratings go, I know at my Beloved Loveland they
have blues that are pretty damn stiff, should be blacks for *that*
area. They also have some blacks off chair 8 that I think should be
blues. I also recall a time when Loveland didn't have any double
diamonds, but they do now. I think the Marketing department made
that call.

Sam "been hitting the Ridge" Seiber


24 Feb 2005 15:09:47
Sam Seiber
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

uglymoney wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:34:23 -0700, "pigo" <pigopowderPANTS@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >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 shit. This isn't golf.
>
> nate

Asshole, you owe me a keyboard!

Sam " :-) :-) :-) " Seiber


24 Feb 2005 17:22:16
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

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 shit. This isn't golf.

Right. When you're out of control on the golf course, it's the ball
that goes flying into the trees never to be seen again.

(please ignore previous reply)

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


24 Feb 2005 17:17:59
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

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 shit. 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:

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


24 Feb 2005 16:07:42
Armin
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


Walt wrote:
> 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 shit. 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?

Well, because golf is a *game* and skiing is a *sport*! ;-)

I can see where this is leading though.... you want to be able to hurl
yourself down those really tough runs and when you do a yardsale all
over that triple-black EX rated run you just want to go back up and
take a mulligan, right?

Armin




I'd be happy to take the job,
> assuming they can match my present salary. (c:
>=20
> --=20
> //-Walt
> //
> // There is no V=F6lkl Conspiracy



24 Feb 2005 17:36:15
Bob Lee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

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." I'm not sure how additional statistics will
> spoil the fun.

Some people like statistics and numbers and info, some just like to go
do things. I tend towards the latter, though I have lapses. I'm
usually amazed at people that think to track their daily vert and so
forth, but every now and then I get sucked into that sort of thing.
I've noticed that the one type doesn't fully understand the other.

> 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...

Really, if you care, the best way is DIY:
http://www.backcountry.com/store/LIF0027/Life-Link-Slopemeter.html
http://www.backcountry.com/store/SUN0051/Suunto-S6-Watch.html
http://www.garmin.com/products/geko301/

You don't need the info printed on lift maps.

Bob


24 Feb 2005 16:44:26
frankenskier
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

How 'bout this for a trail rating system: designate each trail with a
letter and number designation. The letter tells you if it's commonly
groomed or not, and the number gives the maximum slope. Say, G-03 is a
groomed run with a max three degree slope. U-45 is an ungroomed 45
degree slope.

I'd propose using percentage slope but that doesn't address the cliff
bands that you're stuck on top of, unless you want to use the infinity
symbol.

Whaddaya think?

Frank

P.S. I remember my first time skiing on the East Coast, at Roundtop in
PA, and I kept thinking, where are the blues and the blacks? These are
all greens!

shuffman@gmail.com wrote:
> My hometown resort of Alyeska (Girdwood, AK) had at least two
> triple-blacks; one titled "Lolo's Leap", and the other's name eludes
> me. This was 20 years ago; I don't know if these trails still exist.
>
> I think the difference between black and double-black is one of
> potential hazards. A black run isn't likely to have a 30 foot cliff
in
> the middle of it while a double-black might. This seems to me a
useful
> distinction. A strong blue skier should be able to ski a black run
> without worrying about death resulting from catching an edge.
>
> Alyeska's definition of triple-black seemed to be that the cliff was
a
> mandatory air.
>
> Sam



24 Feb 2005 17:46:11
Bob Lee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

snoig wrote:

> pigo wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Why is that too much information, they do it for climbing routes all the
> time and the system works just fine. When you tell someone you are
> comfortable with 5.9's and can lead 5.7's, everybody has a good idea of what
> your skills are.

Well, The Yosemite rating system is pretty broad and doesn't give a
whole lot of info, which is why additional systems and route guides were
developed. The Yosemite system might be compared to the
green/blue/black system for skiing - pretty broad, and doesn't quantify
things like exposure, steepness, length, etc.

And there are climbers that value having less beta - that's why onsight
(no beta) and flash (no practice, completed on first try) are considered
more advanced and better style than redpoint (climbed first time with
beta and practice) or pinkpoint (as with redpoint but with pre-placed
protection) ascents.

So skiers that have less info might be considered to be more advanced
and in better style.

All that said, here's an interesting skiing rating system:
http://www.pawprince.com/pawprince/writings/tcg_page/Ratings.html

Bob


24 Feb 2005 17:49:42
Bob Lee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt wrote:

> ... it would be nice to have some way of gauging the
> relative difficulty of the terrain from resort to resort.

That's what *we're* here for - RSA, waiting to tell you what you need to
know.

Taos is harder than Angel Fire, Jackson Hole is harder than Mt. Holly,
Alta is too crowded, Vail is...

What else do you need to know? Ask here:
news:rec.skiing.alpine

Bob


25 Feb 2005 00:53:31
John Red-Horse
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

In article <1109290062.182737.218870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
meanon@telus.net wrote:
>
>you want to be able to hurl
>yourself down those really tough runs and when you do a yardsale all
>over that triple-black EX rated run you just want to go back up and
>take a mulligan, right?
>

I don't know about Walt, but I'd take that in a NewYawkMinute[tm]...

cheers,
john


24 Feb 2005 18:00:49
pigo
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Bob Lee" <rlee@swcp.com > wrote in message
news:rlee-0EA8D8.17361524022005@individual.net...

> Some people like statistics and numbers and info, some just like to
> go
> do things. I tend towards the latter, though I have lapses. I'm
> usually amazed at people that think to track their daily vert and
> so
> forth, but every now and then I get sucked into that sort of thing.
> I've noticed that the one type doesn't fully understand the other.

I tracked vert for one year. Sometimes it has it's place. But then I
go out and find out how to do it. I don't *need* someone to do it for
me.

>> 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...
>
> Really, if you care, the best way is DIY:
> http://www.backcountry.com/store/LIF0027/Life-Link-Slopemeter.html
> http://www.backcountry.com/store/SUN0051/Suunto-S6-Watch.html
> http://www.garmin.com/products/geko301/
>
> You don't need the info printed on lift maps.
>
> Bob

I concur.




24 Feb 2005 20:23:22
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

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." 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...

...except that for anything but a tiny area, you would need a truly
enormous map to include all that.


--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



24 Feb 2005 20:28:26
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt wrote:

> bdubya wrote:
>
>> On 24 Feb 2005 04:45:13 -0800, "Jeff" <jeff@bruce.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We all know about single black and double black difficulty ratings.
>>> Occasionally rumors surface as to the existence of some nefarious
>>> triple blacks. Rarely, if ever, do I see beginner and intermediate
>>> trails with intercolor distinctions.
>>>
>>> My local ski area contains single and double greens, single and double
>>> blues and single and double blacks. I always thought this was quite
>>> useful. The double difficulty hills offer a nice introduction to the
>>> next level. A double green might have some intermediate levels of steep
>>> at short intervals. A double blue might be a cruiser with a short but
>>> steep drop at the top of the hill.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that's overboard, once you consider the variability of
>> weather, snow conditions and crowds. A skied-out, scraped-up green
>> run full of newbies can be a lot more difficult (and dangerous) than a
>> deserted steep black with 6" of fluff over fresh corduroy,
>> f'rinstance. A given trail at 3PM can be much harder to ski than it
>> was at 9AM (or vice versa); given that kind of variability, I just
>> don't see the point of getting into such fine distinctions.
>
>
>
> Agreed that conditions change enough so that micro-categories are not
> terribly useful. But it would be nice to have some way of gauging the
> relative difficulty of the terrain from resort to resort. The
> green/blue/black system is only useful for comparing trails within each
> resort.

Not even that. As dubya pointed out, variability of conditions,
traffic, etc. can create a huge variance within a single category at the
same resort at the same moment in time.

> It would be useful to have some kind of universal standard to
> compare across resorts.

It would also be useful to have some kind of universal standard for
skis, ski schools, and ski area chili -- but it's not possible to create
such a standard, and god help us all if someone gets a serious yen to
try it. Don't we already have enough whistles-and-clipboards types
running around trying to turn skiing into a contest of who has the most
certifications and merit badges showing adherence to this and that
standard?

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



24 Feb 2005 19:00:30
lal_truckee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

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.


24 Feb 2005 22:11:38
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

frankenskier wrote:

> How 'bout this for a trail rating system: designate each trail with a
> letter and number designation. The letter tells you if it's commonly
> groomed or not, and the number gives the maximum slope. Say, G-03 is a
> groomed run with a max three degree slope. U-45 is an ungroomed 45
> degree slope.
>
> I'd propose using percentage slope but that doesn't address the cliff
> bands that you're stuck on top of, unless you want to use the infinity
> symbol.
>
> Whaddaya think?

Honestly? It makes my hair hurt.

Here's the problem I see with these "systems": the more elaborate they
are, the more people will expect reality, on any given day, to conform
to the fixed ratings. Although some people may take in the detailed
information about degree of slope and groomedness/ungroomedness and turn
it into something useful, what most people are looking for is simply,
"how hard is it?" And if you give them that fixed rating, they're going
to stop paying attention to day-to-day reality. Most larger areas have
a map or some other source of info that tells you whether a run is open
or not, whether it's been groomed or not, and (often) whether snowmaking
is in progress there or not. That all changes daily, and that's what
you really need to look at.

Recommendations are the way to go, both for picking an area and picking
a trail once you're at an area. Skiers learn quickly to take ratings
with a grain of salt, and to ask for recommendations for where to ski.
Students ask me all the time for trail recommendations, and I recommend
based on how they're skiing, on current snow conditions, on the level of
traffic, etc. By asking for recommendations, you can get information
that's detailed and applicable in a way that no static rating can ever be.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



24 Feb 2005 22:36:42
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote in message
news:x4SdndINyZOT44PfRVn-ig@bcn.net...
> 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." 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...
>
> ...except that for anything but a tiny area, you would need a truly
> enormous map to include all that.
>
>
You could put it all (not much really) on a sign above the run,
with just the number for the steepest part of the run on the
maps. Or you could list the details in paragraphs on another
part of the brochure.

I see no complication at all between putting two black
squares on a picture of a run, or a number, like 38 degrees.
There simplly is no difference logistically. In fact, the number
would be easier to print.




24 Feb 2005 22:37:06
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Walt" <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com > wrote in message
news:rosTd.91$Ql3.71@news.itd.umich.edu...
> 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 shit. 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.

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




25 Feb 2005 06:59:41
Sven Golly
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote in
news:111thrlm39ob35d@corp.supernews.com:

> 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.

"Members of the jury, my client is capable of skiing slopes up to 35°.
Blue Devil was marked as 34°. We had our laser surveying equipment check
the slope and, starting 100' below the top of the trail, the slope
actually measures 37° for almost 100'. Clearly this resulted in my
client's loss of control, skidding into the tree and subsequent brain
damage from his injuries. His wife and four children want $30,000,000 to
cover the expenses, pain and suffering and loss of companionship from
these horific injuries that could have been prevented if Mega Corporation
Ski Area had only shown a little more concern for the public safety."

Sorry, it ain't gonna happen in the US unless there's some kind of tort
reform.

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove "_" to reply


25 Feb 2005 07:19:24
Walt
Re: 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?



25 Feb 2005 07:35:01
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:

> "Walt" <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:rosTd.91$Ql3.71@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
>>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 shit. 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 malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



25 Feb 2005 07:50:00
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:
> "Walt" <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com> 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


25 Feb 2005 08:13:23
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote in message
news:zaadnWBu1dHkhoLfRVn-iw@bcn.net...
> foot2foot wrote:
>
>> "Walt" <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:rosTd.91$Ql3.71@news.itd.umich.edu...
>>
>>>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 shit. 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.




25 Feb 2005 08:13:32
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Ah, maybe you're right.

"Walt" <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Z9FTd.103$Ql3.20@news.itd.umich.edu...
> foot2foot wrote:
>> "Walt" <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com> 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




25 Feb 2005 10:16:27
Bob Lee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:

> "... 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.

You might consider that you're the one making it more complicated than
it needs to be. Green, blue, black - easier, more difficult, most
difficult. What could be more simple? Plus most of the runs at most of
the places I ski don't have signage that would easily support the
information you're suggesting.

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

I have to say that *really* knowing for sure what I was getting into
would suck all the fun out of it in a heartbeat. But having fun doesn't
seem to be one of your top priorities.

Bob


25 Feb 2005 11:25:02
bdubya
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:00:30 -0800, lal_truckee
<lal_truckee@yahoo.com > 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


25 Feb 2005 17:50:23
klaus
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Sven Golly <sven_golly@myrealbox.com > wrote:
> "foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> wrote in
> news:111thrlm39ob35d@corp.supernews.com:

>> 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



25 Feb 2005 13:01:25
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

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


25 Feb 2005 15:05:33
Bill Griffiths
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Thu, 24 Feb 2005
20:28:26 -0500, Mary Malmros <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > 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


25 Feb 2005 12:49:50
J. Urrrk
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"Jeff" <jeff@bruce.com > 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




25 Feb 2005 12:55:34
J. Urrrk
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"Armin" <meanon@telus.net > wrote in message
news:1109261845.697097.131080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> pigo wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > I get sick of everything being reduced to having to appeal to
> > everyone, made risk, and thought free.
> >
> > I think the way it is works fine.
>
> Well, it feels good to finally agree with you on something. ;-)
>
> I think green, blue and black are totally adequate ratings since
the
> condition of the slope (groomed, packed, powder, moguls, crud, ice,
> etc.) affect the difficulty of the slope as much, if not more,
then
> the steepness. And the conditions can changed drastically from top
to
> bottom... especially on larger mountains such as
Whistler/Blackcomb.
>
Hell, the difference between skiing slightly slushy snow and
skiing frozen tank tracks is about an hour.

> Hell, next they'll want weather conditions, slope angle profiles
and
> snow conditions in 100 ft increments posted at the top of every
run.
>
Yeah, where's the spirit of adventure anymore? We should really
eliminate all trail markings. And perfect fog making equipment so
that people never know where they're going.

the way I live my life,

-J. Urrrk




25 Feb 2005 21:13:39
Kurt Knisely
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

In article <v51v11t3idb7hchtpnifpunnp8hv6eu9ga@4ax.com >, Bill Griffiths says...
>
>Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Thu, 24 Feb 2005
>20:28:26 -0500, Mary Malmros <malmrosnospam@bcn.net> 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.

Well, the food is pretty good at Bambi Ba$in. I've had a tasty BBQ Chicken
Sandwich at the top of The Plunge in T-ride and not-too-bad Navajo Tacos at
Sunrise in AZ. 'Couldn't afford to eat at Aspen Highland$.

Generally though, good stinky Lox, onion, capers and cream cheese on a Jalapeno
Bagel is a fine lunch while touring. Top it off w/ an Indian Pale Ale and
you're ready to sleep in the sun.

-K




25 Feb 2005 13:46:22
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Bob Lee" <rlee@swcp.com > wrote in message news:rlee-

>
> You might consider that you're the one making it more complicated than
> it needs to be. Green, blue, black - easier, more difficult, most
> difficult. What could be more simple?

Well, since you care to continue,

Simple yes. In many cases completely meaningless and
useless "information". Useful? no. Accurate at all? Well,
hardly.

Plus most of the runs at most of
> the places I ski don't have signage that would easily support the
> information you're suggesting.

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

Heck, if attorneys were smart, they'd sue *because* the
black blue green info is so meaningless. Either because the
guest got ripped off by such a lame slope, expecting more,
or because they got in over their head.

I mean, once again, an eight year old could understand
that 40 degrees is pretty steep, and 20 should be a
breeze.

Another thing you guys do. You have a tendency to
come up with ten thousand reasons why something *won't*
work.

That, instead of finding ways to *make* things work.

Ah never mind. That won't work.

>
> I have to say that *really* knowing for sure what I was getting into
> would suck all the fun out of it in a heartbeat. But having fun doesn't
> seem to be one of your top priorities.

Nope, it isn't. I hate every day I'm on skis. I just like to be
mean to myself.

Oh. You? Nah. You having fun is not one of my top priorities.
To be honest with you, I'm not sure you *really* *can* have
fun. You seem sort of bitter and combative and all that. You
seem angry about something. You'll never *really* have fun
with that kind of an orientation...

But, I see what you mean nonetheless. Absolute worst that
could happen is you have to sidestep or hike back up.




25 Feb 2005 23:47:43
Alex Heney
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:46:22 -0800, "foot2foot"
<foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote:

>
>"Bob Lee" <rlee@swcp.com> wrote in message news:rlee-
>
>>
>> You might consider that you're the one making it more complicated than
>> it needs to be. Green, blue, black - easier, more difficult, most
>> difficult. What could be more simple?
>
>Well, since you care to continue,
>
>Simple yes. In many cases completely meaningless and
>useless "information". Useful? no. Accurate at all? Well,
>hardly.
>

Accurate doesn't really matter much, so long as it is consistent
within a resort.

It is much more useful information tan anything regarding the angle of
slope could be, because it gives a view (subjective according to the
resort standards) of how hard a run will be.

Once you have skied a few runs, you will have a feel for how a
particular resort grades its runs, and *should* be OK from there on.

And angle or % doesn't really do that (see below).


> Plus most of the runs at most of
>> the places I ski don't have signage that would easily support the
>> information you're suggesting.
>
>Two numbers and a percent? With an "esimated" qualification?
>
>Heck, if attorneys were smart, they'd sue *because* the
>black blue green info is so meaningless. Either because the
>guest got ripped off by such a lame slope, expecting more,
>or because they got in over their head.
>
>I mean, once again, an eight year old could understand
>that 40 degrees is pretty steep, and 20 should be a
>breeze.
>

Yes, but what angle are you going to use? Very few ski slopes "in the
wild" are a constant pitch.

So you could well have a nice beginner slope, that happens to have a
short steep dip, with a rise the other side, so that even a rank
beginner can just point the skis down it and be perfectly safe. The
steepest part of tat slope might be at 45 degrees, while the average
would be 20 degrees. and it would (rightly) be a green slope.

You could then have another slope, maybe a bit longer, that still
averaged around 20 degrees, but that had a steep section, maybe 35
degrees, but that goes on for a hundred yards, with a bend and a
narrow bit. Definitely NOT a beginner trail, but the angle data would
make it look the same (if taking average angle), or even easier (if
taking steepest angle)

And I have seen slopes with both those characteristics.

For the measure to be more useful than the subjective "hardness" of
the trail given by the current system, it would have to contain a lot
more than just a single angle. You would need to give an overall
value, plus a measure of the steepness and length of the crux of the
trail (borrowing the term from climbing). And probably the width as
well.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Shift key? this keyboard is an automatic!

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom


25 Feb 2005 16:02:09
Armin
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


foot2foot wrote:
>
> You know Walt, I hate to say it, but you guys really do tend
> to make things more complicated than they need be.

I think my irony alarm just blew a fuse!!!!!!!!!!



25 Feb 2005 17:16:24
snoig
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote in message
news:111v74cbao899e9@corp.supernews.com...
> I mean, once again, an eight year old could understand
> that 40 degrees is pretty steep, and 20 should be a
> breeze.

I don't know, there seems to be plenty of confusion around here whenever the
subject comes up.

snoig




25 Feb 2005 18:07:23
rosco
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings



foot2foot wrote:

> "Jeff" <jeff@bruce.com> wrote in message
> news:1109249113.873334.201550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>We all know about single black and double black difficulty ratings.
>>Occasionally rumors surface as to the existence of some nefarious
>>triple blacks. Rarely, if ever, do I see beginner and intermediate
>>trails with intercolor distinctions.
>>
>>My local ski area contains single and double greens, single and double
>>blues and single and double blacks. I always thought this was quite
>>useful. The double difficulty hills offer a nice introduction to the
>>next level. A double green might have some intermediate levels of steep
>>at short intervals. A double blue might be a cruiser with a short but
>>steep drop at the top of the hill.
>>
>>Jeff
>
>
> It is a good idea, yes?
>
> I've sometimes thought that they should post the actual
> degree of the slope at the steepest part, maybe even a vertical
> profile. It wouldn't take much, and it wouldn't leave any doubt
> as to what the difficulty of the slope really is.
>
> Then as opposed to saying, "I can do blues and easy blacks",
> a skier might say, "I'm good up to about twenty five to thirty
> degrees, on steeper than that I'm not comfortable yet".
>

Perhaps this approach would work if steepness was the sole factor in
degree of difficulty. There are black diamond traverses that are less
than 20 degrees, Laramie Traverse at JH to name one. I know of many
tree runs that are not that steep but quite technical, thus black
diamond designation.

I have an even more simple approach... I open my eyes and pay attention
to the mountain terrain, snow conditions, light conditions, aspect and
my personal comfort level to determine how hard to push it. In the
absence of experience, I think green, blue and black is an adequate
solution to describe a dynamic, subjective thing that degree of
difficulty is.

Besides, isn't what you are proposing just another bureaucratic solution
to a marginal issue? Sounds like more unneccessary BS IMHO.

RAC



25 Feb 2005 23:47:26
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"rosco" <sockeyeboy@tetontel.com > wrote in message

> Perhaps this approach would work if steepness was the sole factor in
> degree of difficulty. There are black diamond traverses that are less
> than 20 degrees, Laramie Traverse at JH to name one. I know of many tree
> runs that are not that steep but quite technical, thus black diamond
> designation.
>
> I have an even more simple approach... I open my eyes and pay attention to
> the mountain terrain, snow conditions, light conditions, aspect and my
> personal comfort level to determine how hard to push it. In the absence
> of experience, I think green, blue and black is an adequate solution to
> describe a dynamic, subjective thing that degree of difficulty is.

And a reply with real substance. Right on rosco. Better
than one word schoolyard dismissals.

I don't know, so I'm asking you. Do you know the slope
in degrees of all that really fabulous green terrain off that
beginner chair at Jackson?

The degree posted should be that of the steepest part of the
slope that the skier or boarder *must* pass through to get
down via that run.

The only thing a guest would need the designations for
anyway would be to know what's ahead of them *the first
time they go down* the thing. After that they already know.

"Can I get down it the first time?" is all that is needed. As
completely and accurately as it can be said. Black or
blue do not say enough. Green does not say enough.

If there is a mile of ten to twenty degree terrain with twenty
feet of thirty degree terrain the guest can not get around,
the run is *not* a green run.

Why is this traverse you spoke of labelled black? Because it's
narrow and there's little area to use to control your speed? So
use the colors *and* specify the steepest part of the slope in
degrees.

> Besides, isn't what you are proposing just another bureaucratic solution
> to a marginal issue? Sounds like more unneccessary BS IMHO.

No. Information. Short, simple, as accurate and informative
as it can possibly be.

What is "necessary"? Is the Ski Patrol "necessary"?

Now, chairlifts, those are necessary. Skis or a board, need
those..hmm. Warm clothes are necessary most of the time.






25 Feb 2005 23:47:38
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"Armin" <meanon@telus.net > wrote in message
news:1109376129.250037.274540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> foot2foot wrote:
>>
>> You know Walt, I hate to say it, but you guys really do tend
>> to make things more complicated than they need be.
>
> I think my irony alarm just blew a fuse!!!!!!!!!!

And that figures. The mechanics of skiing are so simple a
child can fully comprehend them. Yet Armin can't. They're
too complicated.

Oh. *I* make them too complicated. Like this:

Steering is twisting the legs, either from the two lower leg
bones, or from twisting the whole leg/s in the hip socket,
in the direction you want the skis to go.

So, Armin, is or is not the above simple?

That would be one of a list of no more than ten items,
each every bit as *simple* as the above to describe,
and to do.

Way, way too much for Armin.

I just make things *way* too complicated huh?

'Course, an eight year old has little trouble...

Haven't we been through this before?




26 Feb 2005 11:21:06
Bob Lee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:

> Bob Lee wrote:
>
> >
> > You might consider that you're the one making it more complicated than
> > it needs to be. Green, blue, black - easier, more difficult, most
> > difficult. What could be more simple?
>
> Well, since you care to continue,
>
> Simple yes. In many cases completely meaningless and
> useless "information". Useful? no. Accurate at all? Well,
> hardly.

More of your hyperbole, those designations aren't completely meaningless
or inaccurate. I trust you've skied enough, or at least followed this
thread enough. that you understand the color system represents the
relative difficulty of trails within a given ski area.

Incidentally, have you tipped to how inaccurate your suggestion for a
single degree rating for a trail would be? Woefully inaccurate.

> Plus most of the runs at most of
> > the places I ski don't have signage that would easily support the
> > information you're suggesting.
>
> Two numbers and a percent? With an "esimated" qualification?

Yes on the numbers, but that's mostly at Taos and nearby resorts where
the signs are small. But what is this "estimated" qualification that
you speak of? I recall seeing that before - would it be something like,
oh say, easiest, more difficult, most difficult?

> Heck, if attorneys were smart, they'd sue *because* the
> black blue green info is so meaningless. Either because the
> guest got ripped off by such a lame slope, expecting more,
> or because they got in over their head.

Heh, I'm going to guess that you aren't an attorney. But you are naive.

> I mean, once again, an eight year old could understand
> that 40 degrees is pretty steep, and 20 should be a
> breeze.
>
> Another thing you guys do.

"Us" guys?

> You have a tendency to
> come up with ten thousand reasons why something *won't*
> work.
>
> That, instead of finding ways to *make* things work.

Well, speaking strictly for myself, I've tried to make a case that
there's no reason to find a way to make it work. In fact, I find it to
be a bad idea, and I'm trying to show you why. I don't share your
premise that there is a reason to make it work - I'm happy with the
current system. Clear enough?

> Ah never mind. That won't work.
>
> >
> > I have to say that *really* knowing for sure what I was getting into
> > would suck all the fun out of it in a heartbeat. But having fun doesn't
> > seem to be one of your top priorities.
>
> Nope, it isn't. I hate every day I'm on skis. I just like to be
> mean to myself.
>
> Oh. You? Nah. You having fun is not one of my top priorities.
> To be honest with you, I'm not sure you *really* *can* have
> fun.

Oh, trust me on that one - or any of the people here that I've skied
with - I manage to enjoy myself. I notice you get a little pissy when
called on some of your goofier idea - is that what's going on here?

> You seem sort of bitter and combative and all that. You
> seem angry about something. You'll never *really* have fun
> with that kind of an orientation...

You think that's how I come off? Funny, I don't feel that way. What I
do feel is that you may be close to going off on one of those strange
accusatory fits that you're becoming infamous for here.

If you're concerned about how I seem, you might consider that I just
think you're wrong on this topic and I'm taking issue with that.

Bob


26 Feb 2005 11:09:12
Lisa Horton
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings



Bob Lee wrote:
>
> foot2foot wrote:
>
> > Bob Lee wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > You might consider that you're the one making it more complicated than
> > > it needs to be. Green, blue, black - easier, more difficult, most
> > > difficult. What could be more simple?
> >
> > Well, since you care to continue,
> >
> > Simple yes. In many cases completely meaningless and
> > useless "information". Useful? no. Accurate at all? Well,
> > hardly.
>
> More of your hyperbole, those designations aren't completely meaningless
> or inaccurate. I trust you've skied enough, or at least followed this
> thread enough. that you understand the color system represents the
> relative difficulty of trails within a given ski area.
>
> Incidentally, have you tipped to how inaccurate your suggestion for a
> single degree rating for a trail would be? Woefully inaccurate.
>
> > Plus most of the runs at most of
> > > the places I ski don't have signage that would easily support the
> > > information you're suggesting.
> >
> > Two numbers and a percent? With an "esimated" qualification?
>
> Yes on the numbers, but that's mostly at Taos and nearby resorts where
> the signs are small. But what is this "estimated" qualification that
> you speak of? I recall seeing that before - would it be something like,
> oh say, easiest, more difficult, most difficult?
>
> > Heck, if attorneys were smart, they'd sue *because* the
> > black blue green info is so meaningless. Either because the
> > guest got ripped off by such a lame slope, expecting more,
> > or because they got in over their head.
>
> Heh, I'm going to guess that you aren't an attorney. But you are naive.
>
> > I mean, once again, an eight year old could understand
> > that 40 degrees is pretty steep, and 20 should be a
> > breeze.
> >
> > Another thing you guys do.
>
> "Us" guys?
>
> > You have a tendency to
> > come up with ten thousand reasons why something *won't*
> > work.
> >
> > That, instead of finding ways to *make* things work.
>
> Well, speaking strictly for myself, I've tried to make a case that
> there's no reason to find a way to make it work. In fact, I find it to
> be a bad idea, and I'm trying to show you why. I don't share your
> premise that there is a reason to make it work - I'm happy with the
> current system. Clear enough?
>
> > Ah never mind. That won't work.
> >
> > >
> > > I have to say that *really* knowing for sure what I was getting into
> > > would suck all the fun out of it in a heartbeat. But having fun doesn't
> > > seem to be one of your top priorities.
> >
> > Nope, it isn't. I hate every day I'm on skis. I just like to be
> > mean to myself.
> >
> > Oh. You? Nah. You having fun is not one of my top priorities.
> > To be honest with you, I'm not sure you *really* *can* have
> > fun.
>
> Oh, trust me on that one - or any of the people here that I've skied
> with - I manage to enjoy myself. I notice you get a little pissy when
> called on some of your goofier idea - is that what's going on here?
>
> > You seem sort of bitter and combative and all that. You
> > seem angry about something. You'll never *really* have fun
> > with that kind of an orientation...
>
> You think that's how I come off? Funny, I don't feel that way. What I
> do feel is that you may be close to going off on one of those strange
> accusatory fits that you're becoming infamous for here.
>
> If you're concerned about how I seem, you might consider that I just
> think you're wrong on this topic and I'm taking issue with that.
>

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.

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.

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

Lisa


26 Feb 2005 12:17:30
Bob Lee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

J. Urrrk wrote:

> ... where's the spirit of adventure anymore? We should really
> eliminate all trail markings. And perfect fog making equipment so
> that people never know where they're going.
>
> the way I live my life,

I think you're ready to go backcountry skiing now.

Bob


26 Feb 2005 12:24:50
Bob Lee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

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.

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?

[...]
> 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.

Bob


26 Feb 2005 15:01:19
David Harris
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"Jeff" <jeff@bruce.com > wrote in news:1109249113.873334.201550
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> We all know about single black and double black difficulty ratings.
> Occasionally rumors surface as to the existence of some nefarious
> triple blacks. Rarely, if ever, do I see beginner and intermediate
> trails with intercolor distinctions.
>
> My local ski area contains single and double greens, single and double
> blues and single and double blacks. I always thought this was quite
> useful. The double difficulty hills offer a nice introduction to the
> next level. A double green might have some intermediate levels of steep
> at short intervals. A double blue might be a cruiser with a short but
> steep drop at the top of the hill.
>
> Jeff

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 cliffs or rocks or trees or
shrubs. To say the least.

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.

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.

Things still change daily with the weather, but you would know that hill
A is tougher than hill B. And if you nearly died on B, you might want to
give A a pass.

dh


26 Feb 2005 14:19:03
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Lisa Horton" <Lisa0205@lisahorton.net > 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 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 ).

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.

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

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

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".

> 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.

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.

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.




26 Feb 2005 14:20:23
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Bob Lee" <rlee@swcp.com > wrote in message

> foot2foot wrote:
>
>> Bob Lee wrote:
>>
> More of your hyperbole, those designations aren't completely meaningless
> or inaccurate. I trust you've skied enough, or at least followed this
> thread enough. that you understand the color system represents the
> relative difficulty of trails within a given ski area.

Which tells the skier next to nothing the first time they ski the
area, which is basically the only time they need the ratings.
There is nothing to go on or compare to.

>
> Incidentally, have you tipped to how inaccurate your suggestion for a
> single degree rating for a trail would be? Woefully inaccurate.
>

I like this "my". I'm not the first to suggest this or feel this way.

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


>> Plus most of the runs at most of
>> > the places I ski don't have signage that would easily support the
>> > information you're suggesting.
>>
>> Two numbers and a percent? With an "esimated" qualification?
>
> Yes on the numbers, but that's mostly at Taos and nearby resorts where
> the signs are small. But what is this "estimated" qualification that
> you speak of? I recall seeing that before - would it be something like,

> oh say, easiest, more difficult, most difficult?

I don't even know what that first sentence means.

Estimated? Not within the millionth of a degree. Maybe not
even withing two or three degrees. Just the slope of the
steepest part that you *must* pass through to get down.
Within a few degrees.

As you so neatly remembered to mention below, but didn't
mention the rest of the logic behind it, that is all the guest
needs to know, because the guest only needs the info the first
time they descend that run. One number, that's *close* to the
actual pitch, that is the same regardless of what resort you
travel to.

>> Another thing you guys do.
>
> "Us" guys?
>
>> You have a tendency to
>> come up with ten thousand reasons why something *won't*
>> work.
>>
>> That, instead of finding ways to *make* things work.
>
> Well, speaking strictly for myself, I've tried to make a case that
> there's no reason to find a way to make it work. In fact, I find it to
> be a bad idea, and I'm trying to show you why. I don't share your
> premise that there is a reason to make it work - I'm happy with the
> current system. Clear enough?

You only care about yourself. Strictly.

>
> Oh, trust me on that one - or any of the people here that I've skied
> with -


Us guys?


> I manage to enjoy myself. I notice you get a little pissy when
> called on some of your goofier idea - is that what's going on here?
>
>
> You think that's how I come off? Funny, I don't feel that way. What I
> do feel is that you may be close to going off on one of those strange
> accusatory fits that you're becoming infamous for here.
>
> If you're concerned about how I seem, you might consider that I just
> think you're wrong on this topic and I'm taking issue with that.

You're the one that took this thread to a personal level Bob.

Now your holier than though?






26 Feb 2005 15:31:04
Black Metal Martha
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


Jeff wrote:
> We all know about single black and double black difficulty ratings.
> Occasionally rumors surface as to the existence of some nefarious
> triple blacks. Rarely, if ever, do I see beginner and intermediate
> trails with intercolor distinctions.
>
> My local ski area contains single and double greens, single and
double
> blues and single and double blacks. I always thought this was quite
> useful. The double difficulty hills offer a nice introduction to the
> next level. A double green might have some intermediate levels of
steep
> at short intervals. A double blue might be a cruiser with a short but
> steep drop at the top of the hill.
>
> Jeff

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.

Martha



26 Feb 2005 18:56:19
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:

> "Bob Lee" <rlee@swcp.com> wrote in message news:rlee-
>
>
>>You might consider that you're the one making it more complicated than
>>it needs to be. Green, blue, black - easier, more difficult, most
>>difficult. What could be more simple?
>
>
> Well, since you care to continue,
>
> Simple yes. In many cases completely meaningless and
> useless "information". Useful? no. Accurate at all? Well,
> hardly.

I think you misunderstand the difference between "accurate" and "precise".

> I mean, once again, an eight year old could understand
> that 40 degrees is pretty steep, and 20 should be a
> breeze.

Oh, big deja vu (what, two whole weeks?) to a confusion between
"degrees" and "percent".

> Another thing you guys do. You have a tendency to
> come up with ten thousand reasons why something *won't*
> work.

"You people" statements are almost always bogus, and really, this is no
exception. I don't think anyone's "coming up with" reasons why this
slope-whatsis signage wouldn't work for the fun of it, but even if they
are, so what? If they can come up with a thousand reasons why it won't
work, their motivation for doing so doesn't matter; a thousand reasons
say it won't work.

> That, instead of finding ways to *make* things work.

Why force a fit?

Or, here's another question: what's the massive deficiency in the
current system? What big harm is it causing?

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



26 Feb 2005 19:00:37
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:

> "Armin" <meanon@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:1109376129.250037.274540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>foot2foot wrote:
>>
>>>You know Walt, I hate to say it, but you guys really do tend
>>>to make things more complicated than they need be.
>>
>>I think my irony alarm just blew a fuse!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> And that figures. The mechanics of skiing are so simple a
> child can fully comprehend them. Yet Armin can't. They're
> too complicated.
>
> Oh. *I* make them too complicated. Like this:
>
> Steering is twisting the legs, either from the two lower leg
> bones, or from twisting the whole leg/s in the hip socket,
> in the direction you want the skis to go.
>
> So, Armin, is or is not the above simple?

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

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



26 Feb 2005 19:19:39
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:

> "Bob Lee" <rlee@swcp.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>foot2foot wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bob Lee wrote:
>>>
>>
>>More of your hyperbole, those designations aren't completely meaningless
>>or inaccurate. I trust you've skied enough, or at least followed this
>>thread enough. that you understand the color system represents the
>>relative difficulty of trails within a given ski area.
>
>
> Which tells the skier next to nothing the first time they ski the
> area, which is basically the only time they need the ratings.
> There is nothing to go on or compare to.

Whatever happened to talking to other skiers? "If you liked x, you'll
love y" is pretty much a staple of chairlift conversations in these parts.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



26 Feb 2005 17:52:00
rosco
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings



Mary Malmros wrote:

> foot2foot wrote:
>
>> "Bob Lee" <rlee@swcp.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> foot2foot wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bob Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> More of your hyperbole, those designations aren't completely meaningless
>>> or inaccurate. I trust you've skied enough, or at least followed this
>>> thread enough. that you understand the color system represents the
>>> relative difficulty of trails within a given ski area.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which tells the skier next to nothing the first time they ski the
>> area, which is basically the only time they need the ratings.
>> There is nothing to go on or compare to.
>
>
> Whatever happened to talking to other skiers? "If you liked x, you'll
> love y" is pretty much a staple of chairlift conversations in these parts.

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.


RAC



27 Feb 2005 13:40:36
ant
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > 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




26 Feb 2005 18:55:13
Black Metal Martha
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


ant wrote:
> "foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> 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.

Martha



27 Feb 2005 03:40:23
klaus
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Lisa Horton <Lisa0205@lisahorton.net > 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

.


26 Feb 2005 14:20:38
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Bob Lee" <rlee@swcp.com > wrote in message
>
> 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?

That's interesting Bob, I wonder what brought that point to mind?
Perhaps reading it in my post in answer to rosco, posted yesterday?
Yup. You forgot to make it alright.




26 Feb 2005 22:14:27
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"rosco" <sockeyeboy@tetontel.com > 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.





26 Feb 2005 22:14:33
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Black Metal Martha" <bastmag666@yahoo.com > 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.





26 Feb 2005 22:14:38
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Black Metal Martha" <bastmag666@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1109460664.822027.102040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.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.




26 Feb 2005 22:14:44
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"David Harris" <david.harrisNOT@rogersNOWAY.com

> 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.






26 Feb 2005 22:14:49
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > 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.




27 Feb 2005 08:07:07
David Harris
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote in
news:1122p9514dbkif7@corp.supernews.com:

>
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


27 Feb 2005 07:26:19
Black Metal Martha
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


foot2foot wrote:
> "Black Metal Martha" <bastmag666@yahoo.com> 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



27 Feb 2005 11:43:03
downhill
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------030506080907030504060509
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

ant wrote:

>"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> 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.


--------------030506080907030504060509
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" >
<html >
<head >
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" >
<title ></title>
</head >
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff" >
ant wrote:<br >
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid38cq8nF5mbk3vU1@individual.net" >
<pre wrap="" >"foot2foot" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:foot2foot@notatjuno.com"><foot2foot@notatjuno.com></a> wrote

</pre >
<blockquote type="cite" >
<pre wrap="" > 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
</pre >
</blockquote >
<pre wrap="" ><!---->
?!!!!

ant
</pre >
</blockquote >
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.<br >
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.<br >
<br >
</body >
</html >

--------------030506080907030504060509--



27 Feb 2005 09:54:26
Lisa Horton
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings



Black Metal Martha wrote:
>
> foot2foot wrote:
> > "Black Metal Martha" <bastmag666@yahoo.com> 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


27 Feb 2005 10:05:57
Lisa Horton
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings



foot2foot wrote:
>
> "Lisa Horton" <Lisa0205@lisahorton.net> 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


27 Feb 2005 10:16:56
Lisa Horton
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings



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


27 Feb 2005 13:33:09
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"David Harris" <david.harrisNOT@rogersNOWAY.com > wrote in message
news:waadnaNnppeWSbzfRVn-jw@rogers.com...

> 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.






27 Feb 2005 13:33:14
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Lisa Horton" <Lisa0205@lisahorton.net > 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.





27 Feb 2005 20:38:04
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Black Metal Martha wrote:

> ant wrote:
>
>>"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> 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 malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



27 Feb 2005 19:58:54
Bob Lee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:

> Bob Lee:
>
> > foot2foot wrote:
> >
> >> Bob Lee wrote:
> >>
> > More of your hyperbole, those designations aren't completely meaningless
> > or inaccurate. I trust you've skied enough, or at least followed this
> > thread enough. that you understand the color system represents the
> > relative difficulty of trails within a given ski area.
>
> Which tells the skier next to nothing the first time they ski the
> area, which is basically the only time they need the ratings.

Thanks for recognizing that you're talking about a lot of trouble to
collect and display misleading (and likely incorrect) statistics only
for people's first-ever run at a resort.

> There is nothing to go on or compare to.

I know - exciting isn't it? Well, except for a warmup run or asking
someone on the lift or even looking at the runs as they ride up the lift
- that would eliminate a great deal of that unknown factor. I wonder
how skiers have managed to survive all these years without percentages
on slope signs? That's not a rhetorical question.

> > Incidentally, have you tipped to how inaccurate your suggestion for a
> > single degree rating for a trail would be? Woefully inaccurate.
> >
>
> I like this "my". I'm not the first to suggest this or feel this way.
>
> 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?

> >> Plus most of the runs at most of
> >> > the places I ski don't have signage that would easily support the
> >> > information you're suggesting.
> >>
> >> Two numbers and a percent? With an "esimated" qualification?
> >
> > Yes on the numbers, but that's mostly at Taos and nearby resorts where
> > the signs are small. But what is this "estimated" qualification that
> > you speak of? I recall seeing that before - would it be something like,
>
> > oh say, easiest, more difficult, most difficult?
>
> I don't even know what that first sentence means.

I was affirming that the signs where I ski are generally too small for
the numbers, but it's not that important.

> Estimated? Not within the millionth of a degree. Maybe not
> even withing two or three degrees. Just the slope of the
> steepest part that you *must* pass through to get down.
> Within a few degrees.

See above - too much change throughout the year, it has at best an
extremely limited usefulness, as well as there's no need for it.

> As you so neatly remembered to mention below, but didn't
> mention the rest of the logic behind it, that is all the guest
> needs to know, because the guest only needs the info the first
> time they descend that run. One number, that's *close* to the
> actual pitch, that is the same regardless of what resort you
> travel to.

Why does the guest need it? Seems to me that if it was really *needed*,
no one would have been skiing successfully for the last...70 years? Or
is it just not really necessary?

> >> You have a tendency to
> >> come up with ten thousand reasons why something *won't*
> >> work.
> >>
> >> That, instead of finding ways to *make* things work.
> >
> > Well, speaking strictly for myself, I've tried to make a case that
> > there's no reason to find a way to make it work. In fact, I find it to
> > be a bad idea, and I'm trying to show you why. I don't share your
> > premise that there is a reason to make it work - I'm happy with the
> > current system. Clear enough?
>
> You only care about yourself. Strictly.

Kinda dodged the point here, dintcha?

> > Oh, trust me on that one - or any of the people here that I've skied
> > with -
>
> Us guys?

Just ignore the black helicopter, footer, there is no conspiracy.
Honest.

> > I manage to enjoy myself. I notice you get a little pissy when
> > called on some of your goofier idea - is that what's going on here?
> >
> > You think that's how I come off? Funny, I don't feel that way. What I
> > do feel is that you may be close to going off on one of those strange
> > accusatory fits that you're becoming infamous for here.
> >
> > If you're concerned about how I seem, you might consider that I just
> > think you're wrong on this topic and I'm taking issue with that.
>
> You're the one that took this thread to a personal level Bob.
>
> Now your holier than though?

Nice snipping, foot - you should be a little more careful, unless you're
purposefully trying to leave stuff out.

So, what's this about "holier than thou"? It doesn't seem to follow
what I wrote.

Bob


27 Feb 2005 20:03:47
Bob Lee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:

> Bob Lee wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> That's interesting Bob, I wonder what brought that point to mind?
> Perhaps reading it in my post in answer to rosco, posted yesterday?
> Yup. You forgot to make it alright.

Jesus, footer, you think I read everything you write? Who has the time?

But since you bring it up, I was using it to support my case that the
whole idea is practically useless, and a lot of trouble for little
effect.

Does that mean you agree with me?

Bob


27 Feb 2005 20:06:33
Bob Lee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.

And yet, one has never been brought, AFAIK. Why would that be?

Bob


27 Feb 2005 20:13:41
Bob Lee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Lisa Horton wrote:

> 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.

Of all the ways that people injure themselves skiing, I wonder how often
skiing a slope that turned out to be too steep for their skills is
responsible?

> I only really have fun when I'm not scared.

You don't like scary movies? Or the thrill of going fast or mastering a
task that involves risk? I guess we're different.

[...]
> > 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 suppose, but if you want to be completely safe, do NOT go skiing.
Seriously.

Bob


27 Feb 2005 19:42:52
lal_truckee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

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.


28 Feb 2005 14:27:12
ant
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote in message
news:nsWdnUKggbyc67_fRVn-hw@bcn.net...
> Black Metal Martha wrote:
>
>> ant wrote:
>>
>>>"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> 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




27 Feb 2005 20:28:02
AstroPax
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:46:22 -0800, "foot2foot"
<foot2foot@notatjuno.com > 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.

Using your method, foot, you would report (post) the maximum slope
angle of the short steep section, even though the rest of the run is
three miles of flats? Now you just potentially frightened a bunch of
beginners away from an otherwise easy run.

Your system would do nothing except to create confusion, especially
among Texans, and Californians.

It's nonsense, plain and simple.

KISS = "Keep It Simple, Stupid"

-Astro

---
X Minus Two
http://ski.astropax.com/04-05/index.htm
---



27 Feb 2005 19:47:31
lal_truckee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

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.


27 Feb 2005 22:52:10
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

AstroPax wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:46:22 -0800, "foot2foot"
> <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> 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 malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



28 Feb 2005 00:50:21
JQ
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"David Harris" <david.harrisNOT@rogersNOWAY.com > wrote in message
news:waadnaNnppeWSbzfRVn-jw@rogers.com...
> "foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> wrote in
> news:1122p9514dbkif7@corp.supernews.com:
>
> >
> 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




27 Feb 2005 22:06:50
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


>No resort
> wants to admit they have no CRM (AKA "Common Rating Method (tm)") Black
> runs.

LAL, I think you've hit on the most pertinent point to this
whole thread, that keeps going on and on with the same
things over and over and not getting anyone or anything
anywhere.

Focus. No focus. Typical "the regulars" ego feeding and game
playing, intelligent and well meant discussion diffusion,
and so on and so on. No focus.

Actual pitch type trail ratings or the like won't happen,
because some resorts don't want people to know how flat
they really are, and what their own guests are missing out on
by not skiing places with a bit more pitch (which of course
the guest would be aware of by simply reading other resort's
trail maps on the web).

Good enough for me.






27 Feb 2005 22:26:28
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"downhill" <down_hill@penguinponds.com > wrote in message

> 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.


Ah, I'd probably have just picked the kid up and skied to a stop with him if
it had gotten too close. The put him down on the snow and told him off.




28 Feb 2005 08:42:25
Jeremy Mortimer
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"ant" <ant_kNOT@geocities.com > wrote in news:38cq8nF5mbk3vU1
@individual.net:

> "foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> 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

Hey, that's right, we haven't done that thread yet this year. You know, the
one about how not being able to avoid whacking into beginners from behind
*proves* you're a better skier.

Jeremy


28 Feb 2005 08:48:28
Jeremy Mortimer
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote in news:1121tdd4k1r70b5
@corp.supernews.com:

> 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.

IMHO (as always - this is Usenet) this is really terrible advice. It
doesn't need to be icy to be dangerous to walk down, particularly if you're
not used to moving around on snow. It's almost always better to keep your
skis on.

Learn how to sideslip, and don't worry about irritating the hot shots by
scraping the snow off. If they were that good they wouldn't even notice.

Jeremy


28 Feb 2005 07:33:51
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:

>>No resort
>>wants to admit they have no CRM (AKA "Common Rating Method (tm)") Black
>>runs.
>
>
> LAL, I think you've hit on the most pertinent point to this
> whole thread, that keeps going on and on with the same
> things over and over and not getting anyone or anything
> anywhere.
>
> Focus. No focus. Typical "the regulars" ego feeding and game
> playing, intelligent and well meant discussion diffusion,
> and so on and so on. No focus.

Gee, we're sorry, Dad. We'll eat all our brussels sprouts and go to our
room and do our homework now.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



28 Feb 2005 06:44:13
pigo
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"ant" <ant_kNOT@geocities.com > wrote in message
news:38fhc2F5kaflnU1@individual.net...

> Unless you are going at 100%...which is something sensible people
> save for the race course...

You're kidding aren't you?

> 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.

I look at it like they all of a sudden change us to driving on the
left. *Everything* changes. There's a totally different traffic
pattern. The skiers responsibility code might have worked (for the
most part) for skiers, but no "code" will do squat when one segment
of the people it's meant to police take every opportunity to ignore
it.




28 Feb 2005 08:33:56
Armin
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


Mary Malmros wrote:
>
> Whatever happened to talking to other skiers? "If you liked x,
you'll
> love y" is pretty much a staple of chairlift conversations in these
parts.

I highly doubt anyone riding the chair with Foot ever gets a word in
edgewise. ;-)

Armin



28 Feb 2005 11:33:38
downhill
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010201060808060800040904
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

foot2foot wrote:

>"downhill" <down_hill@penguinponds.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>>. 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.
>>
>>
>
>
>Ah, I'd probably have just picked the kid up and skied to a stop with him if
>it had gotten too close. The put him down on the snow and told him off.
>
foot

If it was a smaller kid I would have picked him up. The velocity he was
traveling at would have caused a hurt full crash if I tried to pick him
up. There was no time to debate a course of action, it happen so quick.
It was either get in impact mode or one quick maneuver. From my years of
playing hockey when ever I am going to have an impact with somebody or
object I lead with my shoulder. At this point it time it is not a
conscious effort more of a natural reaction. Frequently when I run
slalom gates I whack them out of way with shoulder.
I really think that the kid doing this did this with intent, he was a
good skier in a good body position. A inexperanced skier out of control
would never been able to pull it off. I was going straight down the fall
line on the steepest section and his line was at a right angle to my
direction of travel. I think it was more of see if we can "cut off the
old guy" !

michael


--------------010201060808060800040904
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" >
<html >
<head >
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" >
<title ></title>
</head >
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff" >
foot2foot wrote:<br >
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid1125ec6jicjpt9f@corp.supernews.com" >
<pre wrap="" >"downhill" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:down_hill@penguinponds.com"><down_hill@penguinponds.com></a> wrote in message

</pre >
<blockquote type="cite" >
<pre wrap="" >. 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.
</pre >
</blockquote >
<pre wrap="" ><!---->

Ah, I'd probably have just picked the kid up and skied to a stop with him if
it had gotten too close. The put him down on the snow and told him off.</pre >
</blockquote >
foot<br >
<br >
If it was a smaller kid I would have picked him up. The velocity he was
traveling at would have caused a hurt full crash if I tried to pick him
up. There was no time to debate a course of action, it happen so quick.
It was either get in impact mode or one quick maneuver. From my years
of playing hockey when ever I am going to have an impact with somebody
or object I lead with my shoulder. At this point it time it is not a
conscious effort more of a natural reaction. Frequently when I run
slalom gates I whack them out of way with shoulder.<br >
I really think that the kid doing this did this with intent, he was a
good skier in a good body position. A inexperanced  skier out of
control would never been able to pull it off. I was going straight down
the fall line on the steepest section and his line was at a right angle
to my direction of travel.  I think it was more of see if we can "cut
off the old guy" !<br >
<br >
michael<br >
<br >
</body >
</html >

--------------010201060808060800040904--



28 Feb 2005 11:01:23
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Jeremy Mortimer" <mortimer@ifrc.remove_this.org > wrote in message
news:Xns960B63C56E4BCmortimerifrcorg@140.99.99.130...
> "foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> wrote in news:1121tdd4k1r70b5
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>> 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.
>
> IMHO (as always - this is Usenet) this is really terrible advice. It
> doesn't need to be icy to be dangerous to walk down, particularly if
> you're
> not used to moving around on snow. It's almost always better to keep your
> skis on.
>
> Learn how to sideslip, and don't worry about irritating the hot shots by
> scraping the snow off. If they were that good they wouldn't even notice.
>

Well, I must admit, any slope that a novice skier would ever
likely be on would indeed be one that they could sideslip
down if they had to and were able to. But this isn't a thing
that's generally taught to, or suggested to a new skier.

If you can't sideslip, what option do you have?

BTW, the response to me on the skier cutting in front of you
thing in the other thread was, well, dumb.

The situation cited did not speak of beginners being run into.
It talked about an accomplished skier or boarder *overtaking*
another then cutting in front of him.

You really should follow the thread out before you make
statements like that.

The above has happened to more people than just me as
you can tell if you had read out the thread.

Not to hurt your feelings or anything, but...




28 Feb 2005 11:01:37
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"downhill" down_hill@penguinponds.com

>>>>>>>>.

If it was a smaller kid I would have picked him up. The velocity he was
traveling at would have caused a hurt full crash if I tried to pick him up.
There was no time to debate a course of action, it happen so quick. It was
either get in impact mode or one quick maneuver. From my years of playing
hockey when ever I am going to have an impact with somebody or object I lead
with my shoulder. At this point it time it is not a conscious effort more of
a natural reaction. Frequently when I run slalom gates I whack them out of
way with shoulder.
I really think that the kid doing this did this with intent, he was a good
skier in a good body position. A inexperanced skier out of control would
never been able to pull it off. I was going straight down the fall line on
the steepest section and his line was at a right angle to my direction of
travel. I think it was more of see if we can "cut off the old guy" !


<<<<<<<<<<<

He might have thought he could make it, being an impatient
kid and all. Why *wait* for anybody. I want to go now.

Up to the preteens, and even beyond that, it often
isn't a case of any intention at all, just lack of attention span,
and mis assessment of cause and effect.

The person being smaller and far lighter than me, even if
he/she had been the one that got us both into this, I would
feel a responsiblity to try to protect the kid with my own
body however I could, if the collision could not be avoided.

If it was in fact a toddler-magical thinker less than six
years, they don't even *have* the ability to plot and
plan in such a way. I always get a giggle out of parents
who feel their toddler is always "plotting". They
simply can't do it. It's all random behavior and lack
of attention span.

Maybe you are right, and it was a much older child who
for some reason wanted to buzz you. Even still, I know
I'll not end up on the sorry end of *this* collision no
matter what, so I'll still do what I can to protect the child.
I am, after all, a contact sport type. I know how to protect
the other person as well as hammer them.

The last thing I'd want is for the child to end up dead,
which might have happened in such a collision.

Even if he was an unconscionable brat.
It just isn't worth that.




28 Feb 2005 11:01:31
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"JQ" <jq@wadenet.com > wrote in message

> 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

Ah, but JQ, the smaller, *not necessarily less challenging at all*
resorts are some of the neatest places of all to ski.

They're often times the same as they've been for the longest time
save paint, polish and appliances. Great nostalgia.

They're cheap. They're usually uncrowded. They're usually not
that far from whatever action you want, though usually *not*
bestowed with ski in ski out lodging. They're sometimes
blessed with *real* old time moutain towns just down the
road. Ski town city. Like Mccall, Idaho for instance.

There are indeed such places with *seriously* challenging
terrain.

There are *tons* of these "little" resorts still going strong,
and to me (and others) it looks like they're coming back,
because people are getting tired of paying these high prices if all
they want to do is ski. You could hit several places on one trip
if you wanted.

The only real difference is the need to rent a car, but you save
oodles all the way around even so. And you can do exactly
what you want.

Some might benefit, some might not, but then, the majority
of guests seem to be looking for easier terrain.

Me, I'm like you, I look for, and need, pretty steep stuff.
Now if I could just finally learn to deal with it, each time
every time, exactly like I want to.




28 Feb 2005 20:06:59
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

On 2/27/2005 7:38 PM, Mary Malmros wrote:
> Black Metal Martha wrote:
>
>> ant wrote:
>>
>>> "foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> 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.
>

If you are uphill, you should be skiing with enough control to ski out
of the way. If you can't do this, you are on a more advanced run than
you should be.


28 Feb 2005 15:29:55
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Mary Malmros wrote:


> 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.

I've seen item #2 of the skiers code written in in a variety of ways.
Here are two examples:

When skiing downhill or overtaking another skier, you must avoid
the skier below you.

People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility
to avoid them.

Note that the second rendering doesn't talk about it in terms of
uphill/downhill, but rather ahead/behind. In this rendering, a skier
shooting across the trail would have the responsibility of avoiding
those skiing down the fall line. (and the skier in the fall line would
have the responsibility of avoiding the traverser - i.e. both skiers
would be responsible for avoiding each other)

Seems like better language. Is there a definitive version of the code
somewhere?

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


28 Feb 2005 17:03:19
downhill
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:
> "downhill" down_hill@penguinponds.com
> If it was a smaller kid I would have picked him up.

> I really think that the kid doing this did this with intent, he was a good
> skier in a good body position. A inexperanced skier out of control would
> never been able to pull it off. I was going straight down the fall line on
> the steepest section and his line was at a right angle to my direction of
> travel. I think it was more of see if we can "cut off the old guy" !
>
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<
>
> He might have thought he could make it, being an impatient
> kid and all. Why *wait* for anybody. I want to go now.

And I should injure my self because of his lack of control, I will put
my self at risk to help somebody in need -- just not for somebody who
does not give me the choice to decide to put myself in Harms Way.
>
> Up to the preteens, and even beyond that, it often
> isn't a case of any intention at all, just lack of attention span,
> and mis assessment of cause and effect.
>
> The person being smaller and far lighter than me, even if
> he/she had been the one that got us both into this, I would
> feel a responsiblity to try to protect the kid with my own
> body however I could, if the collision could not be avoided.
If I did something reckless and endangered other people I would do
everything possible to lessen the impact, otherwise I go into survival
mode and let the chips fall. As it turned out I pulled a move that
avoided a collision and did not really break my stride.
>
> If it was in fact a toddler-magical thinker less than six
> years, they don't even *have* the ability to plot and
> plan in such a way. I always get a giggle out of parents
> who feel their toddler is always "plotting". They
> simply can't do it. It's all random behavior and lack
> of attention span.
It was not a small child I have never seen a small child move at the
speed this one was traveling at. After spending a week at Mt hood during
the summer you expect such actions from kids on a race hill not on a
public ski mountain.
>
> Maybe you are right, and it was a much older child who
> for some reason wanted to buzz you. Even still, I know
> I'll not end up on the sorry end of *this* collision no
> matter what, so I'll still do what I can to protect the child.
> I am, after all, a contact sport type. I know how to protect
> the other person as well as hammer them.
>
> The last thing I'd want is for the child to end up dead,
> which might have happened in such a collision.
>
Not dead just really bruised, with some people it takes pain to
reinforce lessons of education.
> Even if he was an unconscionable brat.
> It just isn't worth that.

I find your response very humorous that you would flatten a person who
slipped on ice or had a mechanical problem on a bicycle and wound up in
front of your car, and that would be fine and not effect you. I guess
you have never experienced being the first responder to somebody injured
by a car. Plus you figure they would not be good clients for your ski
lectures so pedestrians are expendable.


28 Feb 2005 14:14:40
Armin
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:
> "Armin" <meanon@telus.net> wrote in message
> >
> > foot2foot wrote:
> >>
> >> You know Walt, I hate to say it, but you guys really do tend
> >> to make things more complicated than they need be.
> >
> > I think my irony alarm just blew a fuse!!!!!!!!!!
>
> And that figures. The mechanics of skiing are so simple a
> child can fully comprehend them. Yet Armin can't. They're
> too complicated.

Hey Foot, we are talking about "Trail Difficulty Ratings"... where did
"mechanics of skiing" come from all of a sudden?

Check the subject line of the thread or better yet, read the post I
replied to.

> Oh. *I* make them too complicated.

Yes you certainly do. When *you* suggest replacing a simple system of
green/blue/black trail designations with one that gives all kinds of
other info (no matter that the new data has been shown to be virtually
meaningless)then *you* are making it more complicated.

> I just make things *way* too complicated huh?
>
> 'Course, an eight year old has little trouble...

Well Foot, an eight year old could probably keep track of what was
being talked about... "Trail Difficulty Ratings".

> Haven't we been through this before?

Yeah, we did... and you came of looking like a pompous ass who likes to
hear himself talk that time as well.

Armin



28 Feb 2005 19:35:24
JQ
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


(snip)
>
> Hey Foot, we are talking about "Trail Difficulty Ratings"... where did
> "mechanics of skiing" come from all of a sudden?
>
> Check the subject line of the thread or better yet, read the post I
> replied to.
>
> > Oh. *I* make them too complicated.
>
> Yes you certainly do. When *you* suggest replacing a simple system of
> green/blue/black trail designations with one that gives all kinds of
> other info (no matter that the new data has been shown to be virtually
> meaningless)then *you* are making it more complicated.
>

The only thing that Foot thought should be added is pitch degree of the
steepest section of the run. I think this would be great for the advid ski
traveler, but I see problems with it. For one all the teenagers (mostly
boarders) would go down every trail that had a steep pitch, which isn't bad
in itself but as most here know these kids would side scrape down the run
taking all the snow with them until the only thing that would be left is ice
and rocks. The other problem would be the resorts that are pretty flat
would not want it know for all to see, bad for business.

JQ
Dancing on the edge

(snip)




28 Feb 2005 20:01:47
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

JQ wrote:
> (snip)
>
>>Hey Foot, we are talking about "Trail Difficulty Ratings"... where did
>>"mechanics of skiing" come from all of a sudden?
>>
>>Check the subject line of the thread or better yet, read the post I
>>replied to.
>>
>>
>>>Oh. *I* make them too complicated.
>>
>>Yes you certainly do. When *you* suggest replacing a simple system of
>>green/blue/black trail designations with one that gives all kinds of
>>other info (no matter that the new data has been shown to be virtually
>>meaningless)then *you* are making it more complicated.
>>
>
>
> The only thing that Foot thought should be added is pitch degree of the
> steepest section of the run. I think this would be great for the advid ski
> traveler, but I see problems with it. For one all the teenagers (mostly
> boarders) would go down every trail that had a steep pitch, which isn't bad
> in itself but as most here know these kids would side scrape down the run
> taking all the snow with them until the only thing that would be left is ice
> and rocks. The other problem would be the resorts that are pretty flat
> would not want it know for all to see, bad for business.

And the third problem, or really the most important problem -- which has
already been pointed out -- is that _it doesn't tell you anything
useful_. If I put "20 degrees" next to a trail, that doesn't tell you
if the trail is 20 degrees for its entire length or for five feet. So
how useful is that "20 degrees"?

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



28 Feb 2005 20:30:16
JQ
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote in message
news:yvedndrcFrdiI77fRVn-3w@bcn.net...
> JQ wrote:
> > (snip)
> >
> >>Hey Foot, we are talking about "Trail Difficulty Ratings"... where did
> >>"mechanics of skiing" come from all of a sudden?
> >>
> >>Check the subject line of the thread or better yet, read the post I
> >>replied to.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Oh. *I* make them too complicated.
> >>
> >>Yes you certainly do. When *you* suggest replacing a simple system of
> >>green/blue/black trail designations with one that gives all kinds of
> >>other info (no matter that the new data has been shown to be virtually
> >>meaningless)then *you* are making it more complicated.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The only thing that Foot thought should be added is pitch degree of the
> > steepest section of the run. I think this would be great for the advid
ski
> > traveler, but I see problems with it. For one all the teenagers (mostly
> > boarders) would go down every trail that had a steep pitch, which isn't
bad
> > in itself but as most here know these kids would side scrape down the
run
> > taking all the snow with them until the only thing that would be left is
ice
> > and rocks. The other problem would be the resorts that are pretty flat
> > would not want it known for all to see, bad for business.
>
> And the third problem, or really the most important problem -- which has
> already been pointed out -- is that _it doesn't tell you anything
> useful_. If I put "20 degrees" next to a trail, that doesn't tell you
> if the trail is 20 degrees for its entire length or for five feet. So
> how useful is that "20 degrees"?
>
> --
> Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
> Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.
>

That's true and would be another draw back to the idea but it still would
give an outsider (someone new to the area) some idea that there would at
least some point there would be a certain degree pitch, along with the color
code one would know how difficult the run would be.

JQ
Dancing on the edge




28 Feb 2005 21:06:23
JQ
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote in message
news:1126qjqddc2p053@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "JQ" <jq@wadenet.com> wrote in message
>
> > 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
>
> Ah, but JQ, the smaller, *not necessarily less challenging at all*
> resorts are some of the neatest places of all to ski.
>
> They're often times the same as they've been for the longest time
> save paint, polish and appliances. Great nostalgia.
>
> They're cheap. They're usually uncrowded. They're usually not
> that far from whatever action you want, though usually *not*
> bestowed with ski in ski out lodging. They're sometimes
> blessed with *real* old time moutain towns just down the
> road. Ski town city. Like Mccall, Idaho for instance.
>
> There are indeed such places with *seriously* challenging
> terrain.
>
> There are *tons* of these "little" resorts still going strong,
> and to me (and others) it looks like they're coming back,
> because people are getting tired of paying these high prices if all
> they want to do is ski. You could hit several places on one trip
> if you wanted.
>

The problem is how do you know how challenging these smaller resorts are?
You really can not go off the trail maps and color codes. With each trail
color coded and a degree of pitch listed you will get a better idea of its
trail challenge.
Lift tickets around my neck of the woods seemed to be pretty close in price.
If you get on their e-mail list it seems you can get the best lift ticket
rates.

> The only real difference is the need to rent a car, but you save
> oodles all the way around even so. And you can do exactly
> what you want.
>
> Some might benefit, some might not, but then, the majority
> of guests seem to be looking for easier terrain.

I agree with this, it seems most of the people only ski a few time per year
and their main concern is have as much fun as possible. They do not want to
be filled with fear of injury which a resort with very tough terrain would
invoke.

>
> Me, I'm like you, I look for, and need, pretty steep stuff.
> Now if I could just finally learn to deal with it, each time
> every time, exactly like I want to.
>
>

Yes, I wish I too could ski the steep and challenging runs exactly the way I
want to. With continued practice I hope to be able to do it one day.

JQ
Dancing on the edge




28 Feb 2005 21:18:16
Bill Griffiths
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Fri, 25 Feb 2005
21:13:39 +0000 (UTC), Kurt Knisely<skisuphill@nospam.please > wrote:

>In article <v51v11t3idb7hchtpnifpunnp8hv6eu9ga@4ax.com>, Bill Griffiths says...
>>
>>Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Thu, 24 Feb 2005
>>20:28:26 -0500, Mary Malmros <malmrosnospam@bcn.net> 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.
>
>Well, the food is pretty good at Bambi Ba$in. I've had a tasty BBQ Chicken
>Sandwich at the top of The Plunge in T-ride and not-too-bad Navajo Tacos at
>Sunrise in AZ. 'Couldn't afford to eat at Aspen Highland$.
>
>Generally though, good stinky Lox, onion, capers and cream cheese on a Jalapeno
>Bagel is a fine lunch while touring. Top it off w/ an Indian Pale Ale and
>you're ready to sleep in the sun.

The Expensive Bellboy is an exception, and bringing your own is both
necessary and cheating. But when you succumb to the urge for
something hot only one question matters: how can they burn soup?

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


28 Feb 2005 21:54:58
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

JQ wrote:
> "Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net> wrote in message
> news:yvedndrcFrdiI77fRVn-3w@bcn.net...
>
>>JQ wrote:
>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hey Foot, we are talking about "Trail Difficulty Ratings"... where did
>>>>"mechanics of skiing" come from all of a sudden?
>>>>
>>>>Check the subject line of the thread or better yet, read the post I
>>>>replied to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Oh. *I* make them too complicated.
>>>>
>>>>Yes you certainly do. When *you* suggest replacing a simple system of
>>>>green/blue/black trail designations with one that gives all kinds of
>>>>other info (no matter that the new data has been shown to be virtually
>>>>meaningless)then *you* are making it more complicated.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The only thing that Foot thought should be added is pitch degree of the
>>>steepest section of the run. I think this would be great for the advid
>
> ski
>
>>>traveler, but I see problems with it. For one all the teenagers (mostly
>>>boarders) would go down every trail that had a steep pitch, which isn't
>
> bad
>
>>>in itself but as most here know these kids would side scrape down the
>
> run
>
>>>taking all the snow with them until the only thing that would be left is
>
> ice
>
>>>and rocks. The other problem would be the resorts that are pretty flat
>>>would not want it known for all to see, bad for business.
>>
>>And the third problem, or really the most important problem -- which has
>>already been pointed out -- is that _it doesn't tell you anything
>>useful_. If I put "20 degrees" next to a trail, that doesn't tell you
>>if the trail is 20 degrees for its entire length or for five feet. So
>>how useful is that "20 degrees"?
>>
>>--
>>Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
>>Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.
>>
>
>
> That's true and would be another draw back to the idea but it still would
> give an outsider (someone new to the area) some idea that there would at
> least some point there would be a certain degree pitch, along with the color
> code one would know how difficult the run would be.

Would they really? If you had a twenty-degree pitch for five feet on a
trail that was otherwise almost flat, but all you saw on the trail map
was, "Green 20", what exactly would that tell you? And how would that
be useful?

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



28 Feb 2005 22:19:07
Bill Griffiths
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Mon, 28 Feb 2005
21:06:23 -0500, "JQ" <jq@wadenet.com > wrote:

>
>"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> wrote in message
>news:1126qjqddc2p053@corp.supernews.com...

>> There are *tons* of these "little" resorts still going strong,
>> and to me (and others) it looks like they're coming back,
>> because people are getting tired of paying these high prices if all
>> they want to do is ski. You could hit several places on one trip
>> if you wanted.
>>
>
>The problem is how do you know how challenging these smaller resorts are?
>You really can not go off the trail maps and color codes. With each trail
>color coded and a degree of pitch listed you will get a better idea of its
>trail challenge.

Would you really gain that much? Granted, when the pitch is extreme
that is all you focus on, but for lesser slopes things like trail
width are pretty important.

If you really wanted to compare ski areas, you'ld have to gather the
data from skiers, not surveyors.

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


01 Mar 2005 14:27:03
ant
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Jeremy Mortimer" <mortimer@ifrc.remove_this.org > wrote in message
news:Xns960B63C56E4BCmortimerifrcorg@140.99.99.130...
> "foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> wrote in news:1121tdd4k1r70b5
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>> 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.
>
> IMHO (as always - this is Usenet) this is really terrible advice. It
> doesn't need to be icy to be dangerous to walk down, particularly if
> you're
> not used to moving around on snow. It's almost always better to keep your
> skis on.

So true. If it's too steep and you can't slip, you can even step down, but
with the skis on you always have better grip than in ski boots.

ant




28 Feb 2005 23:05:01
JQ
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Bill Griffiths" <wkgriffiths@post.harvard.edu > wrote in message
news:nfl721l8ui6lpor9kfseheev9b7mficoea@4ax.com...
> Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Mon, 28 Feb 2005
> 21:06:23 -0500, "JQ" <jq@wadenet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> wrote in message
> >news:1126qjqddc2p053@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >> There are *tons* of these "little" resorts still going strong,
> >> and to me (and others) it looks like they're coming back,
> >> because people are getting tired of paying these high prices if all
> >> they want to do is ski. You could hit several places on one trip
> >> if you wanted.
> >>
> >
> >The problem is how do you know how challenging these smaller resorts are?
> >You really can not go off the trail maps and color codes. With each
trail
> >color coded and a degree of pitch listed you will get a better idea of
its
> >trail challenge.
>
> Would you really gain that much? Granted, when the pitch is extreme
> that is all you focus on, but for lesser slopes things like trail
> width are pretty important.
>
> If you really wanted to compare ski areas, you'ld have to gather the
> data from skiers, not surveyors.
>
> --
> Bill Griffiths
> "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as justice."
Hobbes

You'd gain more than you are getting now. It isn't always practical or
available to get the info that you want from other skiers. The info. you
get from one skier could be completely different than another skier to but
before this you need to know skiers that have skied the areas that you are
looking at which is no small feat. But you are correct would of mouth is
the best to get the scoop on any mountain.

JQ
Dancing on the edge




28 Feb 2005 23:37:27
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

JQ wrote:

> "Bill Griffiths" <wkgriffiths@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:nfl721l8ui6lpor9kfseheev9b7mficoea@4ax.com...
>
>>Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Mon, 28 Feb 2005
>>21:06:23 -0500, "JQ" <jq@wadenet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1126qjqddc2p053@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>>There are *tons* of these "little" resorts still going strong,
>>>>and to me (and others) it looks like they're coming back,
>>>>because people are getting tired of paying these high prices if all
>>>>they want to do is ski. You could hit several places on one trip
>>>>if you wanted.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The problem is how do you know how challenging these smaller resorts are?
>>>You really can not go off the trail maps and color codes. With each
>
> trail
>
>>>color coded and a degree of pitch listed you will get a better idea of
>
> its
>
>>>trail challenge.
>>
>>Would you really gain that much? Granted, when the pitch is extreme
>>that is all you focus on, but for lesser slopes things like trail
>>width are pretty important.
>>
>>If you really wanted to compare ski areas, you'ld have to gather the
>>data from skiers, not surveyors.
>>
>>--
>>Bill Griffiths
>>"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as justice."
>
> Hobbes
>
> You'd gain more than you are getting now.

No, you'd _think_ you'd gain more than you are getting now. To
paraphrase what someone else said in this thread, more information
doesn't necessarily mean more knowledge -- and information that makes
you think you know something when you really don't is, arguably, worse
than no information at all. Information that makes you think you know
what you're getting into on a particular trail is going to cause
problems, when it turns out that your assumptions weren't valid after all.

> It isn't always practical or
> available to get the info that you want from other skiers.

When isn't it practical or available? When do you go skiing and find no
one else there on the whole mountain?

> The info. you
> get from one skier could be completely different than another skier to but
> before this you need to know skiers that have skied the areas that you are
> looking at which is no small feat.

It doesn't seem all that hard to come by here.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



01 Mar 2005 00:19:21
JQ
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote in message
news:n8mdnUdei9QWbL7fRVn-oQ@bcn.net...
> JQ wrote:
(snip)

> >>>The problem is how do you know how challenging these smaller resorts
are?
> >>>You really can not go off the trail maps and color codes. With each
trail
> >>>color coded and a degree of pitch listed you will get a better idea of
its
> >>>trail challenge.
> >>
> >>Would you really gain that much? Granted, when the pitch is extreme
> >>that is all you focus on, but for lesser slopes things like trail
> >>width are pretty important.
> >>
> >>If you really wanted to compare ski areas, you'ld have to gather the
> >>data from skiers, not surveyors.
(snip)

> > You'd gain more than you are getting now.
>
> No, you'd _think_ you'd gain more than you are getting now. To
> paraphrase what someone else said in this thread, more information
> doesn't necessarily mean more knowledge -- and information that makes
> you think you know something when you really don't is, arguably, worse
> than no information at all. Information that makes you think you know
> what you're getting into on a particular trail is going to cause
> problems, when it turns out that your assumptions weren't valid after all.

Mary, I agree with a lot of what you normally have to say but here I
disagree. More information is always better than no or misleading or little
information. Information is never knowledge... You assume that information
is a bad thing, what is a bad thing is no information. Yes, taking
information and manipulating it can be dangerous, but that is the
individual's fault not the information.


>
> > It isn't always practical or
> > available to get the info that you want from other skiers.
>
> When isn't it practical or available? When do you go skiing and find no
> one else there on the whole mountain?
>
> > The info. you
> > get from one skier could be completely different than another skier to
but
> > before this you need to know skiers that have skied the areas that you
are
> > looking at which is no small feat.
>
> It doesn't seem all that hard to come by here.
>
> --
> Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
> Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.
>

So you know people that have skied Snowshoe, WV? I was thinking about
skiing there.
I talk to people on the lift all the time about the mountain that I am
skiing at if I am new to the mountain or if they know anything about another
area that I am interested in. You can only get so much info while on the
lift which isn't much. Now I know you are a ski racer thus you have
traveled to many different mountains to race and you are also in contact
with others that have traveled to areas that you may not have skied. The
rest of us skiers aren't as fortunate as you. So who do we speak to? The
people I know that ski only ski in this area and for some they'd be lucky to
make it to NY or VT.

JQ
Dancing on the edge




28 Feb 2005 22:42:17
rosco
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings



downhill wrote:

> foot2foot wrote:
>
>>"downhill" <down_hill@penguinponds.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>>. 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Ah, I'd probably have just picked the kid up and skied to a stop with him if
>>it had gotten too close. The put him down on the snow and told him off.
>>
> foot
>
> If it was a smaller kid I would have picked him up. The velocity he was
> traveling at would have caused a hurt full crash if I tried to pick him
> up. There was no time to debate a course of action, it happen so quick.
> It was either get in impact mode or one quick maneuver. From my years of
> playing hockey when ever I am going to have an impact with somebody or
> object I lead with my shoulder. At this point it time it is not a
> conscious effort more of a natural reaction. Frequently when I run
> slalom gates I whack them out of way with shoulder.
> I really think that the kid doing this did this with intent, he was a
> good skier in a good body position. A inexperanced skier out of control
> would never been able to pull it off. I was going straight down the fall
> line on the steepest section and his line was at a right angle to my
> direction of travel. I think it was more of see if we can "cut off the
> old guy" !
>


Ahhhhhh... a clue.

Hear is a little-thought-of reality that I learned from pilots: When a
plane or any other moving body approaches your moving body at right
angles (90 degrees) they will appear stationary. The only way you can
tell they are getting closer is by them getting visually larger. I have
noticed this before while skiing, especially at merging trails. Its
kinda scary and another good reason to ski off piste. The bitch is that
niether of you can tell the other is making for a bump.

RAC



01 Mar 2005 00:54:59
Stephen B.
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote in message
news:O4GdnUmdsJ4bRL7fRVn-2w@bcn.net...
> JQ wrote:
> > "Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net> wrote in message
> > news:yvedndrcFrdiI77fRVn-3w@bcn.net...
> >
> >>
> >>And the third problem, or really the most important problem -- which has
> >>already been pointed out -- is that _it doesn't tell you anything
> >>useful_. If I put "20 degrees" next to a trail, that doesn't tell you
> >>if the trail is 20 degrees for its entire length or for five feet. So
> >>how useful is that "20 degrees"?


I see this idea most useful for the beginner skier who is scared of anything
steeper than they have experienced. In my experience an intermideat skier
will have both more confidence in pushing there limits, and more ability to
deal with areas that are over thier head.


> > That's true and would be another draw back to the idea but it still
would
> > give an outsider (someone new to the area) some idea that there would at
> > least some point there would be a certain degree pitch, along with the
color
> > code one would know how difficult the run would be.
>
> Would they really? If you had a twenty-degree pitch for five feet on a
> trail that was otherwise almost flat, but all you saw on the trail map
> was, "Green 20", what exactly would that tell you? And how would that
> be useful?


After following this thread for a while, I realized that the best answer in
my opinion would be for the ski areas to add the topographical contour lines
to there trail maps. I have looked at various resort sights mainly in VT and
NH and one resort actually had a topographical map and a trail map. I know
trail maps are not fully to scale, but the contour lines would be useful for
those not familiar with the mountain.

Stephen B.
NYC




01 Mar 2005 08:54:49
Jeremy Mortimer
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote in
news:1126qjf9im20o47@corp.supernews.com:

>
> "Jeremy Mortimer" <mortimer@ifrc.remove_this.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns960B63C56E4BCmortimerifrcorg@140.99.99.130...
>> "foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> wrote in news:1121tdd4k1r70b5
>> @corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> IMHO (as always - this is Usenet) this is really terrible advice. It
>> doesn't need to be icy to be dangerous to walk down, particularly if
>> you're
>> not used to moving around on snow. It's almost always better to keep
>> your skis on.
>>
>> Learn how to sideslip, and don't worry about irritating the hot shots
>> by scraping the snow off. If they were that good they wouldn't even
>> notice.
>>
>
> Well, I must admit, any slope that a novice skier would ever
> likely be on would indeed be one that they could sideslip
> down if they had to and were able to. But this isn't a thing
> that's generally taught to, or suggested to a new skier.
>
> If you can't sideslip, what option do you have?

I'm not often around beginners, and I'm certainly not a ski instructor,
but on rare occasions when I've been with a never-ever waiting to hand
them over to the ski school, sideslipping is what I've shown them, to
give them a taste of standing on the things without having to point them
downhill. Perhaps I permanently damaged their ability to learn to ski,
but it seems to me it's a good skill to have, and trivial to learn
(perhaps a little less trivial on parabolic skis, but not difficult).

Are people really not taught to sideslip as a matter of course?


> BTW, the response to me on the skier cutting in front of you
> thing in the other thread was, well, dumb.
>
> The situation cited did not speak of beginners being run into.
> It talked about an accomplished skier or boarder *overtaking*
> another then cutting in front of him.
>
> You really should follow the thread out before you make
> statements like that.
>
> The above has happened to more people than just me as
> you can tell if you had read out the thread.
>
> Not to hurt your feelings or anything, but...

It wasn't actually aimed specifically at you - sorry if it seemed so.
Something in the thread reminded me of the ones we get occasionally about
how accidents happen to really good skiers because they're trying to
avoid beginners, which always strikes me as being a bit bogus, but you're
right (as far as I remember - I can't be bothered to go back and look)
that wasn't exactly what the thread was about.

Though now I think about it there may be the hint of a point there
anyway; that skiing appropriately around other skiers, including being
aware of others who aren't skiing appropriately, is a neccessary skill.
Like driving, you do need to learn what to do when others screw up -
being in the right isn't sufficient. But now I'm in danger of kicking off
the whole dreary discussion all over again!

Anyway, my feelings are certainly not hurt. You're only a stream of
electrons, after all :-)

Jeremy


01 Mar 2005 04:14:47
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"downhill" <down_hill@penguinponds.com > wrote in message


> It was not a small child I have never seen a small child move at the speed
> this one was traveling at. After spending a week at Mt hood during the
> summer you expect such actions from kids on a race hill not on a public
> ski mountain.

> Not dead just really bruised, with some people it takes pain to reinforce
> lessons of education.

Yea but, downhill, here's the heck of it all.

If *any* collision might be possible with a child, you need to
avoid it at all costs. If there is a collision with a child you
need to be sure that at least the child isn't hurt, because,
even everything being as you describe your unfortunate plight,

With the lynch mob mentality that 's starting to catch on
around resorts these days, if a child gets hurt they'll blame
*you* regardless of whether or not you're at fault at all.

Then all these witnesses will show up and such, all full of
how reckless you were when you killed or bumped up
that poor little child.

It's a bad deal. You just have to avoid hurting the kid at
all costs. You'll never win.







01 Mar 2005 04:14:53
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

YEA! YEA! GO STEVE GO!!!!! ::::::::<<<<<))))))


> After following this thread for a while, I realized that the best answer
> in
> my opinion would be for the ski areas to add the topographical contour
> lines
> to there trail maps. I have looked at various resort sights mainly in VT
> and
> NH and one resort actually had a topographical map and a trail map. I know
> trail maps are not fully to scale, but the contour lines would be useful
> for
> those not familiar with the mountain.
>
> Stephen B.
> NYC
>

The vertical profile per run. Or, as you describe, contour lines
(which of course, if you turn up and sideways, would be a
vertical profile) It would *not* take just a heck of a lot, since
they *did* have to go and survey the runs anyway, didn't they?
Seems like they kinda already know what the profiles for the
runs are.

Seriously. Most people seem to want the more forgiving
pitches, the more intermediate skiing.




01 Mar 2005 04:15:09
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


<dxyzc@nospam.com > wrote in message

> If you are uphill, you should be skiing with enough control to ski out of
> the way. If you can't do this, you are on a more advanced run than you
> should be.

Huh uh. It happens, it happens a fair amount when people ski
and board next to each other or in fairly close relation behind
or in front.

Apparenlty it's never happened to you. When it does, if it does,
you'll understand. Apparently you won't otherwise, but there
are plenty of people that do, because it happened to them
as well.

The best rule is to maintain the path you have established, no
matter what you do, be it to continue or to stop altogether.
Do it in the same "lane" you have established, if there are
people *anywhere* foreseeably around you.

Do *not* make a series of short turns and then suddenly cut
way wide across the run in one big swoop if there is any chance
that others from above might try to over take you.

Merging is another situation. Maintain the path you have
established into the "intersection" unless you have to change it to
avoid someone. That way people above you or from other
directions will know what to expect.




01 Mar 2005 04:27:16
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"JQ" <jq@wadenet.com > wrote in message
news:3s6dnXsbhPxpUL7fRVn-oQ@comcast.com...

> The problem is how do you know how challenging these smaller resorts are?
> You really can not go off the trail maps and color codes. With each trail
> color coded and a degree of pitch listed you will get a better idea of its
> trail challenge.

Yea, darn it, that's a good idea JQ.

But, a person should get out and ski these small places anyway,
even if they're maybe flatter or shorter than what you're used
to.

You could always do drills or one ski skiing or something.

You could cruise or work on new stuff.

Point is, it's really *neat* to ski the home hills. Even the little
tiny ones. It's neat to watch all the neigborhood peeps have
lots of fun, and to be a part of it.




01 Mar 2005 09:38:42
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Stephen B. wrote:

> I see this idea most useful for the beginner skier who is scared of anything
> steeper than they have experienced. In my experience an intermideat skier
> will have both more confidence in pushing there limits, and more ability to
> deal with areas that are over thier head.

BING BING BING BING -- We've got a winner!

This kind of info would be helpful to beginners mostly. And mainly as
an aid to choosing which resort to go to, as opposed to choosing which
trail to take once they're there.

I remember early on in my ski career going to a place that had nothing
that I was really capable of skiing. (Mont Ripley, if you must know) I
did four runs, with a spectacular yard sale on each of the first three.
I finally made it down without falling on the fourth run, declared
victory and went home. Not one of the better ski experiences.

Meanwhile, I avoided Boyne Mountain thinking it was a more advanced area
and would be too tough for me. Boy, was I wrong about that - by the
time I went there I'd progressed enough that the greens were not really
all that interesting. I wish I had gone there when I was still lousy
enough to enjoy the large quantities of easy flat green runs.

Anyway, it would have been nice to have known to go to Boyne instead of
Ripley.

At this point in my career, I've got a better idea of how to read
between the lines of trailmaps, and the ability to deal with whatever I
find once there. I don't think the "micro ratings" would be all that
useful for intermediates and above.

> After following this thread for a while, I realized that the best answer in
> my opinion would be for the ski areas to add the topographical contour lines
> to there trail maps.

A topographical map is a good idea, but I think it would be better as a
separate map. Adding topo lines would just make the trail map
cluttered. IMHO, of course.

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


01 Mar 2005 09:39:14
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

JQ wrote:

> "Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net> wrote in message
> news:n8mdnUdei9QWbL7fRVn-oQ@bcn.net...
>
>>JQ wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>>>>The problem is how do you know how challenging these smaller resorts
>
> are?
>
>>>>>You really can not go off the trail maps and color codes. With each
>
> trail
>
>>>>>color coded and a degree of pitch listed you will get a better idea of
>
> its
>
>>>>>trail challenge.
>>>>
>>>>Would you really gain that much? Granted, when the pitch is extreme
>>>>that is all you focus on, but for lesser slopes things like trail
>>>>width are pretty important.
>>>>
>>>>If you really wanted to compare ski areas, you'ld have to gather the
>>>>data from skiers, not surveyors.
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>>You'd gain more than you are getting now.
>>
>>No, you'd _think_ you'd gain more than you are getting now. To
>>paraphrase what someone else said in this thread, more information
>>doesn't necessarily mean more knowledge -- and information that makes
>>you think you know something when you really don't is, arguably, worse
>>than no information at all. Information that makes you think you know
>>what you're getting into on a particular trail is going to cause
>>problems, when it turns out that your assumptions weren't valid after all.
>
>
> Mary, I agree with a lot of what you normally have to say but here I
> disagree. More information is always better than no or misleading or little
> information. Information is never knowledge... You assume that information
> is a bad thing, what is a bad thing is no information. Yes, taking
> information and manipulating it can be dangerous, but that is the
> individual's fault not the information.

Ah, ah, JQ -- there's no manipulation whatsoever in my example. There's
only interpretation. So tell us: how is someone to interpret "Green 20"?

>>>It isn't always practical or
>>>available to get the info that you want from other skiers.
>>
>>When isn't it practical or available? When do you go skiing and find no
>>one else there on the whole mountain?
>>
>>
>>>The info. you
>>>get from one skier could be completely different than another skier to
>
> but
>
>>>before this you need to know skiers that have skied the areas that you
>
> are
>
>>>looking at which is no small feat.
>>
>>It doesn't seem all that hard to come by here.
[snip]
> So you know people that have skied Snowshoe, WV? I was thinking about
> skiing there.

No, I don't, but if I wanted to go there, I'd ask here or in another
forum. I'd look at information available online. If I were going to be
in town anyway, maybe I'd stop by and eyeball the mountain. I'm a good
enough skier that there's pretty much certain to be something I _can_
ski at any ski area; the question is whether I want to, and like
deciding whether I'm going to go to a particular beach I've never been
to before, you have to take some chances as to whether it'll be to your
particular tastes.

What about the beginners? Well, beginners are typically not jetting
around the continent trying out different mountains -- and if they are,
they're wasting their time and money. A beginner needs miles under the
skis, not a gazillion different resort stickers on the bumper of the
SUV. A (relative) beginner might make a trip to somewhere, but a little
research should provide them with the info about how worthwhile that
trip would be.

> I talk to people on the lift all the time about the mountain that I am
> skiing at if I am new to the mountain or if they know anything about another
> area that I am interested in. You can only get so much info while on the
> lift which isn't much.

I guess that just hasn't been my experience. Maybe our lifts are slower
than yours, and we're sitting on them longer ;-)

> Now I know you are a ski racer thus you have
> traveled to many different mountains to race and you are also in contact
> with others that have traveled to areas that you may not have skied. The
> rest of us skiers aren't as fortunate as you. So who do we speak to? The
> people I know that ski only ski in this area and for some they'd be lucky to
> make it to NY or VT.

FWIW, I don't spend much time traveling to different mountains -- like
most people, I've got my "home area", or in my case two: Mount Snow,
which a lot of people know of, and Berkshire East, which a surprising
number of people know (lot of college racers from this neck of the woods
do a lot of training there). I don't need to wonder if the "easiest way
down" green trail at a given mountain will be easy enough for me. Folks
who are at that stage in their skiing have some unique needs: they're
less experienced and less able to put together available information to
allow them to make a good decision about whether to ski at an area or
not. But that is, or should be, a transitional stage in skiing, and
while you're in that stage, you're probably not planning lots of trips.

I've always thought that this forum was a good place to get comparitive
assessments of various hills, as in, "If you liked x, you should try y."
What it's _not_ as good for is telling you, based on how _you_ ski,
how much terrain you'll find comfortable/congenial. Even then, I think
people here do offer a lot of helpful advice _if_ you can give them an
accurate self-assessment of your ability and a good description of what
you enjoy.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



01 Mar 2005 09:55:56
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Stephen B. wrote:

> After following this thread for a while, I realized that the best answer in
> my opinion would be for the ski areas to add the topographical contour lines
> to there trail maps. I have looked at various resort sights mainly in VT and
> NH and one resort actually had a topographical map and a trail map. I know
> trail maps are not fully to scale, but the contour lines would be useful for
> those not familiar with the mountain.

Good idea, but there's one huge drawback: topo maps use a different
perspective than trail maps. A topo map looks from directly above, a
trail map -- the kind we're all used to looking at -- is viewed from the
front of the mountain, typically. Many trail maps are significantly
distorted, because they are looking at the face of a mountain that isn't
flat and that has trails curving around it, and flatten it onto a
two-dimensional space. But that's how we're used to looking at trail
maps, and to change it to an overhead topo view would probably create a
lot of confusion among the many people who are used to looking at and
interpreting maps with the face-on perspective.

For an example of what I'm talking about, here are the two different
views of Mount Snow.

From topozone, the topo map:
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=18&n=4758799&e=670679&s=50&size=l&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25
Note that like a good topo map, it does distinguish between wooded and
cleared areas -- but not in such detail that you can see all the trails.
Yes, there are more than a dozen trails at Mount Snow.

From the Mount Snow website, the trail map page:
http://www.mountsnow.com/trailmaps.html#
Because of the wrap-around problem, they have several different maps for
the different faces. The artist's-rendering style of the trail map
sometimes seems to indicate where the steepest parts are, but sometimes
is misleading -- and, as discussed elsewhere in the thread, a lot of the
"why" of the difficulty is missing. Click on the link for the
interactive map of the main face, and then click on the black diamond at
the left to highlight the black diamond terrain. Now you can glide over
the black runs and see their names, but it doesn't tell you why they're
blacks. Nitro is a black because it's a bump run; Mineshaft is a black
because it's steep; Iron Ring is a black because it's fairly steep and
quite narrow. None of that sticks out on the topo.



--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



01 Mar 2005 10:38:26
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt wrote:

> A topographical map is a good idea, but I think it would be better as a
> separate map. Adding topo lines would just make the trail map
> cluttered. IMHO, of course.

You can't really add contour lines to the trail map because topo maps
use an overhead perspective and trail maps do not.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



01 Mar 2005 10:58:56
Chuck
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Jeff wrote:
> We all know about single black and double black difficulty ratings.
> Occasionally rumors surface as to the existence of some nefarious
> triple blacks. Rarely, if ever, do I see beginner and intermediate
> trails with intercolor distinctions.
>
> My local ski area contains single and double greens, single and double
> blues and single and double blacks. I always thought this was quite
> useful. The double difficulty hills offer a nice introduction to the
> next level. A double green might have some intermediate levels of steep
> at short intervals. A double blue might be a cruiser with a short but
> steep drop at the top of the hill.
>
> Jeff
>

Maybe they should use something like you suggested but augment it with a
3d online model of the resort that you could rotate any which way you
want. It wouldn't help the computer illiterate skiers but I don't think
there's too many of those out there anymore.


01 Mar 2005 11:44:43
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Mary Malmros wrote:
> Walt wrote:
>
>> A topographical map is a good idea, but I think it would be better as
>> a separate map. Adding topo lines would just make the trail map
>> cluttered. IMHO, of course.
>
> You can't really add contour lines to the trail map because topo maps
> use an overhead perspective and trail maps do not.

Well, you could add them, but the result wouldn't look like a topo map -
it'd look like a trail map with lines over it.

I'm not sure how useful that would be. Especially to the majority of
people who couldn't read a topo map if their life depended on it.


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


01 Mar 2005 12:29:57
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt wrote:

> Mary Malmros wrote:
>
>> Walt wrote:
>>
>>> A topographical map is a good idea, but I think it would be better
>>> as a separate map. Adding topo lines would just make the trail map
>>> cluttered. IMHO, of course.
>>
>>
>> You can't really add contour lines to the trail map because topo maps
>> use an overhead perspective and trail maps do not.
>
>
> Well, you could add them, but the result wouldn't look like a topo map -
> it'd look like a trail map with lines over it.
>
> I'm not sure how useful that would be. Especially to the majority of
> people who couldn't read a topo map if their life depended on it.

It wouldn't even be useful to those who _can_ read a topo map. The
contour information on a topo map is useful because the orientation is
from directly overhead.(*) The two dimensions of the map show you
distance; the contours show you rise and fall. Combine the two and
voila, you know the rise/fall over a given distance. But on a trail
map, the distance information is missing. You're seeing it from a sorta
front-face view; throw the contours on it, and you can see the vertical
drop, but you don't know the distance that goes with it.

(*) "Directly overhead" is a bit of an oversimplification -- obviously,
the POV can't be precisely, directly overhead _every_ point on the topo
map. But because of the maps' scale, it's still close enough for the
distances to be precise enough to be useful. Trail maps, OTOH, are
drawn on a much smaller scale. That, combined with the fact that
they're drawn from a front-facing perspective, means that they depict
some trails straight-on, but others -- those more toward the sides of
the mountain -- are seen more from the side. Some distances are
foreshortened, IOW. So...it won't work.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



01 Mar 2005 12:41:09
JQ
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote in message
news:87ednRXhXcgK47nfRVn-3w@bcn.net...
> JQ wrote:
>
> > "Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net> wrote in message
> > news:n8mdnUdei9QWbL7fRVn-oQ@bcn.net...
> >
> >>JQ wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >
> >>>>>The problem is how do you know how challenging these smaller resorts
> >
> > are?
> >
> >>>>>You really can not go off the trail maps and color codes. With each
> >
> > trail
> >
> >>>>>color coded and a degree of pitch listed you will get a better idea
of
> >
> > its
> >
> >>>>>trail challenge.
> >>>>
> >>>>Would you really gain that much? Granted, when the pitch is extreme
> >>>>that is all you focus on, but for lesser slopes things like trail
> >>>>width are pretty important.
> >>>>
> >>>>If you really wanted to compare ski areas, you'ld have to gather the
> >>>>data from skiers, not surveyors.
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >
> >>>You'd gain more than you are getting now.
> >>
> >>No, you'd _think_ you'd gain more than you are getting now. To
> >>paraphrase what someone else said in this thread, more information
> >>doesn't necessarily mean more knowledge -- and information that makes
> >>you think you know something when you really don't is, arguably, worse
> >>than no information at all. Information that makes you think you know
> >>what you're getting into on a particular trail is going to cause
> >>problems, when it turns out that your assumptions weren't valid after
all.
> >
> >
> > Mary, I agree with a lot of what you normally have to say but here I
> > disagree. More information is always better than no or misleading or
little
> > information. Information is never knowledge... You assume that
information
> > is a bad thing, what is a bad thing is no information. Yes, taking
> > information and manipulating it can be dangerous, but that is the
> > individual's fault not the information.
>
> Ah, ah, JQ -- there's no manipulation whatsoever in my example. There's
> only interpretation. So tell us: how is someone to interpret "Green 20"?
>
> >>>It isn't always practical or
> >>>available to get the info that you want from other skiers.
> >>
> >>When isn't it practical or available? When do you go skiing and find no
> >>one else there on the whole mountain?
> >>
> >>
> >>>The info. you
> >>>get from one skier could be completely different than another skier to
> >
> > but
> >
> >>>before this you need to know skiers that have skied the areas that you
> >
> > are
> >
> >>>looking at which is no small feat.
> >>
> >>It doesn't seem all that hard to come by here.
> [snip]
> > So you know people that have skied Snowshoe, WV? I was thinking about
> > skiing there.
>
> No, I don't, but if I wanted to go there, I'd ask here or in another
> forum. I'd look at information available online. If I were going to be
> in town anyway, maybe I'd stop by and eyeball the mountain. I'm a good
> enough skier that there's pretty much certain to be something I _can_
> ski at any ski area; the question is whether I want to, and like
> deciding whether I'm going to go to a particular beach I've never been
> to before, you have to take some chances as to whether it'll be to your
> particular tastes.
>
> What about the beginners? Well, beginners are typically not jetting
> around the continent trying out different mountains -- and if they are,
> they're wasting their time and money. A beginner needs miles under the
> skis, not a gazillion different resort stickers on the bumper of the
> SUV. A (relative) beginner might make a trip to somewhere, but a little
> research should provide them with the info about how worthwhile that
> trip would be.
>
> > I talk to people on the lift all the time about the mountain that I am
> > skiing at if I am new to the mountain or if they know anything about
another
> > area that I am interested in. You can only get so much info while on
the
> > lift which isn't much.
>
> I guess that just hasn't been my experience. Maybe our lifts are slower
> than yours, and we're sitting on them longer ;-)
>
> > Now I know you are a ski racer thus you have
> > traveled to many different mountains to race and you are also in contact
> > with others that have traveled to areas that you may not have skied.
The
> > rest of us skiers aren't as fortunate as you. So who do we speak to?
The
> > people I know that ski only ski in this area and for some they'd be
lucky to
> > make it to NY or VT.
>
> FWIW, I don't spend much time traveling to different mountains -- like
> most people, I've got my "home area", or in my case two: Mount Snow,
> which a lot of people know of, and Berkshire East, which a surprising
> number of people know (lot of college racers from this neck of the woods
> do a lot of training there). I don't need to wonder if the "easiest way
> down" green trail at a given mountain will be easy enough for me. Folks
> who are at that stage in their skiing have some unique needs: they're
> less experienced and less able to put together available information to
> allow them to make a good decision about whether to ski at an area or
> not. But that is, or should be, a transitional stage in skiing, and
> while you're in that stage, you're probably not planning lots of trips.
>
> I've always thought that this forum was a good place to get comparitive
> assessments of various hills, as in, "If you liked x, you should try y."
> What it's _not_ as good for is telling you, based on how _you_ ski,
> how much terrain you'll find comfortable/congenial. Even then, I think
> people here do offer a lot of helpful advice _if_ you can give them an
> accurate self-assessment of your ability and a good description of what
> you enjoy.
>
> --
> Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
> Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.
>

Before I go driving or fly out to a mountain, I want to know what they have
to ski. Reading most resort web sites will give some indication but when
you get there it may not come up any where near the hype that you read.
Every resort tries to make you feel that they have the mountain that will
challenge you and keep you excited. No matter how non challenging a
mountain is I'm going to enjoy myself while skiing but it doesn't mean I
want to drive 2 - 10 hrs to get there.

I have skied at Mount Snow at least 15 times and your lift ride times are no
longer than any other so again the chat time is not sufficient enough to get
any meaningful info.

Again I agree with most of what you have written. Like you said most
beginners do not go jetting around to different mountains as most would not
really be able to ski most of the entire mountain other than just to say
they skied at X mountain.

You fail to realize that most people that ski do not frequent this NG or any
other ski chat line. They will go to the resort web site to get the info on
any particular resort. Trail maps with there trail ratings only will give a
indication of how they rated their runs. I know I would like more info.
before I head out on 8 hour drive. I try to get to at least 3 new ski
resorts a year and I don't make my mind up to which it will be until about a
day before I head out.

I always do at least 2 blue runs before I head out the to black runs to get
a feel for the mountain. I also need to get the body in gear and get my
knees working to deal with the pain before I push them. I try to ski as
much of the mountain as I can that also includes the green runs. I am not
worried if a trail is too difficult as I can ski most marked trails. I may
not look as good as others going down the trail so be it, if I get into
trouble I can always side slip as needed. I am a beginner at skiing moguls
and getting better so if a mogul field all of a sudden shows up it's OK. I
am not big into tree skiing specially if the trails through the woods are
very narrow with no way to slow down or stop. I had a great time skiing the
trees at Jay Peak this past weekend. The trails were wide and all over, it
was a mogul field with trees, branches and bushes as barriers.

JQ
Dancing on the edge




01 Mar 2005 13:05:07
JQ
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote in message
news:1128nt6ongcfn0c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "JQ" <jq@wadenet.com> wrote in message
> news:3s6dnXsbhPxpUL7fRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>
> > The problem is how do you know how challenging these smaller resorts
are?
> > You really can not go off the trail maps and color codes. With each
trail
> > color coded and a degree of pitch listed you will get a better idea of
its
> > trail challenge.
>
> Yea, darn it, that's a good idea JQ.
>
> But, a person should get out and ski these small places anyway,
> even if they're maybe flatter or shorter than what you're used
> to.
>
> You could always do drills or one ski skiing or something.
>
> You could cruise or work on new stuff.
>
> Point is, it's really *neat* to ski the home hills. Even the little
> tiny ones. It's neat to watch all the neigborhood peeps have
> lots of fun, and to be a part of it.
>
So true the small flat hills can be and are very fun to ski. One can really
work on improving skills and doing drills.
All of the ski areas within 3 hours of me are small local hills. Most of
them are also into selling condo's or time sharing properties.

I need to work on skiing on one ski and turning both directions. I have
this fear that will turn towards the outside and end up twisting my knee. I
don't know why the feeling is there and so strong.

JQ
Dancing on the edge




01 Mar 2005 13:35:39
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

JQ wrote:

> Before I go driving or fly out to a mountain, I want to know what they have
> to ski. Reading most resort web sites will give some indication but when
> you get there it may not come up any where near the hype that you read.

That's why you ask _people_. Take the resort's promo with a grain of
salt, and talk to _people_.

> I have skied at Mount Snow at least 15 times and your lift ride times are no
> longer than any other so again the chat time is not sufficient enough to get
> any meaningful info.

You can't get meaningful info in a 5-10 minute convo???

> You fail to realize that most people that ski do not frequent this NG or any
> other ski chat line.

I don't "fail to realize that". But before the internet, Ullr didn't
whisper into our ears all the beta about this and that ski area. We
talked to people, or if we couldn't stir ourselves to try to get the
information, we took our chances.

> They will go to the resort web site to get the info on
> any particular resort. Trail maps with there trail ratings only will give a
> indication of how they rated their runs. I know I would like more info.
> before I head out on 8 hour drive.

And "Green 20" is not going to give you that information.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



01 Mar 2005 13:37:23
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

JQ wrote:

> So true the small flat hills can be and are very fun to ski.

And not every small hill is flat.

http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=18&n=4720568&e=674461&s=50&size=l&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



01 Mar 2005 13:40:58
JQ
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote in message
news:p6SdnTNH47adK7nfRVn-tw@bcn.net...
> JQ wrote:
>
> > Before I go driving or fly out to a mountain, I want to know what they
have
> > to ski. Reading most resort web sites will give some indication but
when
> > you get there it may not come up any where near the hype that you read.
>
> That's why you ask _people_. Take the resort's promo with a grain of
> salt, and talk to _people_.
>
> > I have skied at Mount Snow at least 15 times and your lift ride times
are no
> > longer than any other so again the chat time is not sufficient enough to
get
> > any meaningful info.
>
> You can't get meaningful info in a 5-10 minute convo???
>
> > You fail to realize that most people that ski do not frequent this NG or
any
> > other ski chat line.
>
> I don't "fail to realize that". But before the internet, Ullr didn't
> whisper into our ears all the beta about this and that ski area. We
> talked to people, or if we couldn't stir ourselves to try to get the
> information, we took our chances.
>
> > They will go to the resort web site to get the info on
> > any particular resort. Trail maps with there trail ratings only will
give a
> > indication of how they rated their runs. I know I would like more info.
> > before I head out on 8 hour drive.
>
> And "Green 20" is not going to give you that information.
>
> --
> Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
> Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.
>

If most of the black rated trails were "black 25" or less it would tell me
something.
I would not drive 5 hours to get there. I would stay at my home mountain.

JQ
Dancing on the edge




01 Mar 2005 13:43:15
JQ
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote in message
news:p6SdnTJH47b6K7nfRVn-tw@bcn.net...
> JQ wrote:
>
> > So true the small flat hills can be and are very fun to ski.
>
> And not every small hill is flat.
>
>
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=18&n=4720568&e=674461&s=50&size=l&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25
>
> --
> Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
> Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.
>
Never said all small hills are flat nor did I imply that. It is just like
the trail rating with pitch. We all have our own bias and see things
through it.

JQ
Dancing on the edge




01 Mar 2005 14:27:58
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Mary Malmros wrote:
> JQ wrote:
>
>> So true the small flat hills can be and are very fun to ski.
>
> And not every small hill is flat.
>
> http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=18&n=4720568&e=674461&s=50&size=l&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25

Right.

<http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=47.3909&lon=-88.0145&datum=nad83color=#0000FF> >

Cool tool, BTW. Thanks.


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


01 Mar 2005 13:11:46
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

JQ wrote:


> All of the ski areas within 3 hours of me are small local hills. Most of
> them are also into selling condo's or time sharing properties.


Sorry, but I seem to have misplaced my RSA scorecard that list the names
and locations of all the players. Where are you located again?

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


01 Mar 2005 15:18:39
JQ
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Walt" <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Df2Vd.182$Ql3.101@news.itd.umich.edu...
> JQ wrote:
>
>
> > All of the ski areas within 3 hours of me are small local hills. Most
of
> > them are also into selling condo's or time sharing properties.
>
>
> Sorry, but I seem to have misplaced my RSA scorecard that list the names
> and locations of all the players. Where are you located again?
>
> --
> //-Walt
> //
> // There is no Völkl Conspiracy

Southern NJ.

JQ
Dancing on the edge




01 Mar 2005 13:28:51
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

YEA!!! like you said. A vertical profile for each run.

"Chuck" <skilover_nospam@softhome.net > wrote in message

> Maybe they should use something like you suggested but augment it with a
> 3d online model of the resort that you could rotate any which way you
> want. It wouldn't help the computer illiterate skiers but I don't think
> there's too many of those out there anymore.




01 Mar 2005 13:28:44
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings- one ski skiing/steering


"JQ" <jq@wadenet.com > wrote in message

> So true the small flat hills can be and are very fun to ski. One can
> really
> work on improving skills and doing drills.
> All of the ski areas within 3 hours of me are small local hills. Most of
> them are also into selling condo's or time sharing properties.
>
> I need to work on skiing on one ski and turning both directions. I have
> this fear that will turn towards the outside and end up twisting my knee.
> I
> don't know why the feeling is there and so strong.
>
> JQ
> Dancing on the edge

You're like me, you need steering, man. Did you see my posts
on the pivot slips?

Also, the biggest secrets to skiing on one ski are,

First, the strength to really do it, the muscles on the pinky toe
side of your legs, foot and ankle, you get that by sideslipping
and traversing on the pinky edge, and starting a turn on the
outside ski while finishing on the inside ski.

Then, pull the ski as far underneath you as possible, so it's
easy to steer. Further points on steering it, you need to lead
a bit with the upper body so you have something to steer
against, and a bent leg has a lot more steering power than
a more straight one.

After that, realize that to get the crossover you need, the best
way to do this is to move your *hip* to one side or the other
of the ski. This of course, because you'll be moving at low
speed at first. If you ask a one legged skier, he'll likely tell
you it's all in moving the hips to one side or the other.

I don't know about twisting your knee (seems unlikely really)
but if the leg is bent and you twist the whole leg in the hip
socket, there's almost no stress on the knee itself, it's almost out
of the picture altogether. If you foot steer, that's really hard on
the knees.

Beyond that, a little up unweight really helps you to get
started at first. Set up the upper body, flex, up unweight,
crossover and steer.

Mind you, myself, I'm OK on the right foot, not fully
competent on the left yet at all, but I *do* in fact now know
what it will take to get me there.




01 Mar 2005 14:19:12
lal_truckee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt wrote:
> Especially to the majority of
> people who couldn't read a topo map if their life depended on it.

You mean everybody doesn't print out the pertinent topo map for ski
areas of interest and laminate the maps to stuff in a pocket when
visiting those ski areas? How in the world can they make an independent
judgement about the area's skiable terrain? Seems obvious to me.


01 Mar 2005 17:09:05
JQ
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings- one ski skiing/steering


"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote in message
news:1129nkd94crejde@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "JQ" <jq@wadenet.com> wrote in message
>
> > So true the small flat hills can be and are very fun to ski. One can
> > really
> > work on improving skills and doing drills.
> > All of the ski areas within 3 hours of me are small local hills. Most
of
> > them are also into selling condo's or time sharing properties.
> >
> > I need to work on skiing on one ski and turning both directions. I have
> > this fear that will turn towards the outside and end up twisting my
knee.
> > I
> > don't know why the feeling is there and so strong.
> >
> > JQ
> > Dancing on the edge
>
> You're like me, you need steering, man. Did you see my posts
> on the pivot slips?
>
> Also, the biggest secrets to skiing on one ski are,
>
> First, the strength to really do it, the muscles on the pinky toe
> side of your legs, foot and ankle, you get that by sideslipping
> and traversing on the pinky edge, and starting a turn on the
> outside ski while finishing on the inside ski.
>
> Then, pull the ski as far underneath you as possible, so it's
> easy to steer. Further points on steering it, you need to lead
> a bit with the upper body so you have something to steer
> against, and a bent leg has a lot more steering power than
> a more straight one.
>
> After that, realize that to get the crossover you need, the best
> way to do this is to move your *hip* to one side or the other
> of the ski. This of course, because you'll be moving at low
> speed at first. If you ask a one legged skier, he'll likely tell
> you it's all in moving the hips to one side or the other.
>
> I don't know about twisting your knee (seems unlikely really)
> but if the leg is bent and you twist the whole leg in the hip
> socket, there's almost no stress on the knee itself, it's almost out
> of the picture altogether. If you foot steer, that's really hard on
> the knees.
>
> Beyond that, a little up unweight really helps you to get
> started at first. Set up the upper body, flex, up unweight,
> crossover and steer.
>
> Mind you, myself, I'm OK on the right foot, not fully
> competent on the left yet at all, but I *do* in fact now know
> what it will take to get me there.
>
>

Thanks, I will try it out this weekend. From what you say I may be using
foot steering more than the whole leg. I will need to keep an eye on this
and correct.

JQ
Dancing on the edge




01 Mar 2005 17:39:42
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

lal_truckee wrote:
> Walt wrote:
>
>> Especially to the majority of people who couldn't read a topo map if
>> their life depended on it.
>
> You mean everybody doesn't print out the pertinent topo map for ski
> areas of interest and laminate the maps to stuff in a pocket when
> visiting those ski areas? How in the world can they make an independent
> judgement about the area's skiable terrain? Seems obvious to me.

Right. I'd never even think about leaving home without this:

<http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=17&n=4713342.99989687&e=269496.999774051&datum=nad83color=#0000FF> >

(Note to Bob Lee - I double-dog dare you to click on that link)

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


01 Mar 2005 19:22:40
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

JQ wrote:

> "Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net> wrote in message
> news:p6SdnTNH47adK7nfRVn-tw@bcn.net...
[mercy snip]
>>And "Green 20" is not going to give you that information.
>>
>>--
>>Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
>>Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.
>>
>
>
> If most of the black rated trails were "black 25" or less it would tell me
> something.

Really? What exactly would it tell you? You didn't answer when I told
you what "green 20" means, so maybe you'll tell me what "black 25" tells
you.


--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



01 Mar 2005 19:23:28
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt wrote:

> Cool tool, BTW. Thanks.

Innit though? Topo maps have always been one of THE coolest tools, and
having them on the net is damn nifty if you ask me.


--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



01 Mar 2005 20:33:35
downhill
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:

>Then all these witnesses will show up and such, all full of how reckless you were when you killed or bumped up
>that poor little child.
>
A little work for lawyers, I would also suspect the snowboard killer had
in the past exhibited cases of recklessness as did the twit that cut me
off.

>
>It's a bad deal. You just have to avoid hurting the kid at
>all costs. You'll never win.
>
>
>
The snowboarder that killed the 28 year old was a kid, by your logic
when an out of control kid is about to hit me I should act like safety
netting and take the full brunt of it. Willing to bet that if the 28
year old victim was braced and had some warning of the impact it may
have not turned out as bad for her. I am sure that all parties involved
with the death of the 28 year old would have preferred the snowboarder
to get a broken bone than a manslaughter charge.....



01 Mar 2005 19:49:44
David Harris
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote in
news:1128n5vre6j7861@corp.supernews.com:

> YEA! YEA! GO STEVE GO!!!!! ::::::::<<<<<))))))
>
>
>> After following this thread for a while, I realized that the best
>> answer in
>> my opinion would be for the ski areas to add the topographical
>> contour lines
>> to there trail maps. I have looked at various resort sights mainly in
>> VT and
>> NH and one resort actually had a topographical map and a trail map. I
>> know trail maps are not fully to scale, but the contour lines would
>> be useful for
>> those not familiar with the mountain.
>>
>> Stephen B.
>> NYC
>>
>
> The vertical profile per run. Or, as you describe, contour lines
> (which of course, if you turn up and sideways, would be a
> vertical profile) It would *not* take just a heck of a lot, since
> they *did* have to go and survey the runs anyway, didn't they?
> Seems like they kinda already know what the profiles for the
> runs are.
>
> Seriously. Most people seem to want the more forgiving
> pitches, the more intermediate skiing.
>
>
This might work for Podunk Mountain (with complete profiles of both
runs), but for a large resort - where would you put these profiles? If
an area has 100 marked trails, that's a lot of space. And I wouldn't be
bothered correlating the side profile of run 57 (black 36*) against #92
(blue 37*) to see what's what. I'd just utter an oath along the lines of
"first, we kill all the cartographers...", and go for a ski.

Sheesh, now we're making maps with "noise added".

dh


01 Mar 2005 21:41:55
Stephen B.
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"Mary Malmros" wrote
> Stephen B. wrote:
>
> > After following this thread for a while, I realized that the best answer
in
> > my opinion would be for the ski areas to add the topographical contour
lines
> > to there trail maps. I have looked at various resort sights mainly in VT
and
> > NH and one resort actually had a topographical map and a trail map. I
know
> > trail maps are not fully to scale, but the contour lines would be useful
for
> > those not familiar with the mountain.


I checked, magic mountain http://magicmtn.com/trailmap.html gives a trail
map, arial shot and a topographical map. I hope other resorts will start
doing this also.

> Good idea, but there's one huge drawback: topo maps use a different
> perspective than trail maps. A topo map looks from directly above, a
> trail map -- the kind we're all used to looking at -- is viewed from the
> front of the mountain, typically. Many trail maps are significantly
> distorted, because they are looking at the face of a mountain that isn't
> flat and that has trails curving around it, and flatten it onto a
> two-dimensional space. But that's how we're used to looking at trail
> maps, and to change it to an overhead topo view would probably create a
> lot of confusion among the many people who are used to looking at and
> interpreting maps with the face-on perspective.


I think you missunderstood my idea. I would keep the trail map as is, just
add some contour lines, maybe a fith or tenth those that a topographical map
uses.

Yes *PERSPECTIVE* is key. A good artist (not me) can use perspective to make
your eye see almost anything (think http://www.mcescher.com/).I personaly
would envision a wider contor line on the "closer" parts of the mountain
thining out as they wrap around to the back side, just like the trees that
are drawn larger in the forground than in the back ground. I would also not
invision using the standard topographical increments between contor lines
(6' indrements would be just clutering), they would just be an aid in
showing the steepness of the slope.

Lets remember a Topographyical map is made to scale. It can be measured for
acurate distances. While a trail map is a artists rendering and uses
*PERSPECTIVE* to show distances and steepnes.

> For an example of what I'm talking about, here are the two different
> views of Mount Snow.
>
> From topozone, the topo map:
>
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=18&n=4758799&e=670679&s=50&size=l&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25
<snip >


Thanks for the TopoZone.com link. I definitely plan on using it in the
future.




02 Mar 2005 13:49:26
ant
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Jeremy Mortimer" <mortimer@ifrc.remove_this.org > wrote in message
> I'm not often around beginners, and I'm certainly not a ski instructor,
> but on rare occasions when I've been with a never-ever waiting to hand
> them over to the ski school, sideslipping is what I've shown them, to
> give them a taste of standing on the things without having to point them
> downhill. Perhaps I permanently damaged their ability to learn to ski,
> but it seems to me it's a good skill to have, and trivial to learn
> (perhaps a little less trivial on parabolic skis, but not difficult).

That's a great way to get new skiiers balancing, and if you are able to
teaach it to beginners, maybe you should take it up professionally! I
agree, being able to slip in control is an essential skill to have on the
mountain.

> Are people really not taught to sideslip as a matter of course?

Most of us teach it, but not usually to beginners, as it's actually quite
tricky. For boarders, the heelside slip is the first thing they're taught.
For skiiers, it comes a bit later. Depends on the skiier, but it can be
taught at level 3 or above, depending on who they are, the terrain, their
goals, etc blah. They need it to do that all-important hockey stop so they
can get revenge on their more advanced friends/family.

ant




01 Mar 2005 22:54:27
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Stephen B. wrote:

> "Mary Malmros" wrote
>
>>Stephen B. wrote:
>>
>>
[snip]


>>Good idea, but there's one huge drawback: topo maps use a different
>>perspective than trail maps. A topo map looks from directly above, a
>>trail map -- the kind we're all used to looking at -- is viewed from the
>>front of the mountain, typically. Many trail maps are significantly
>>distorted, because they are looking at the face of a mountain that isn't
>>flat and that has trails curving around it, and flatten it onto a
>>two-dimensional space. But that's how we're used to looking at trail
>>maps, and to change it to an overhead topo view would probably create a
>>lot of confusion among the many people who are used to looking at and
>>interpreting maps with the face-on perspective.
>
>
> I think you missunderstood my idea. I would keep the trail map as is, just
> add some contour lines, maybe a fith or tenth those that a topographical map
> uses.

I understand your idea just fine. It won't work. See my reply to Walt;
there's too much distortion in the trail map as is.

> Lets remember a Topographyical map is made to scale. It can be measured for
> acurate distances. While a trail map is a artists rendering and uses
> *PERSPECTIVE* to show distances and steepnes.

Right, but contours give useful information on a topo map _because_ it
is to scale. You can look at a topo map, and see the rise/fall over a
given distance. You can't do that with a trail map, because the
*PERSPECTIVE* only suggests distance; it doesn't depict it with any
accuracy or consistency.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



01 Mar 2005 21:11:12
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings- one ski skiing/steering


"JQ" <jq@wadenet.com > wrote in message

> Thanks, I will try it out this weekend. From what you say I may be using
> foot steering more than the whole leg. I will need to keep an eye on this
> and correct.
>
> JQ
> Dancing on the edge

Yup. That little pivot slip drill has brought home to me what
leg steering really is. I've never had it, I've never really done
it. I never understood the relationship of upper body to steering,
you have to position the upper body so you have something to
steer against. Face the body down the hill just a bit, *then* steer
the skis into the turn. You'll have a lot more power. It's a bit of
a nice new world for me. Now, I think the steeps and bumps
and such are really going to open up for me, in addition, the get
way forward and make little tiny steering movements thing works
pretty well on narrow trails too. Little hop turns sort of. Almost
like the old Wedel. And, the time you spend in the air kills
speed as well. Jump off the toes, like a jump shot with a
basketball. It really is great.

The drill basically is,

Pull the skis as far underneath you as you can.
It is *really* easy to steer the skis from this position.
Also, from here, you can jump from the balls of the
feet.

Face your body straight down the hill, bring skis straight
across the hill, sideslip, then give a little hop and switch
the skis to facing clear across the hill the other way, pull
the skis back underneath you again. Repeat and continue.

Do this switch by a quick, crisp movement of the knees,
pointing clear across the hill one way, then clear to
the opposite direction. This in fact will be, a twisting
movement of both legs from the hip socket.

Feel the movement coming from the legs, turning *against*
the upper body, as opposed to the legs simply turning
because the shoulders have been turned.

Partially bent legs are also much easier to steer than straight
legs.

Then, try to make really quick, short radius turns to a stop,
one at a time, in some cut up snow. The steeper the better
once you get the idea. *Here* is the real power of this sort
of steering. Cut up snow that locks your skis into a path.
Sweet. Very Sweet. Instead of scary and frustrating.

The today typical, oh so vaunted, European racing style
leave rails on the snow type "carving" it is not. Oh well.

It's not the bouncy wouncy, pritsie witsie PSIA task turns
either. But it sure is fun and useful.

I'm just shot now for an attempt this year at level II, because
I think all I'm going to do for the rest of the year is ski way
forward, up unweight and steer.

COOL!!!!!!

PSIA just won't like that though. It's not the task.




01 Mar 2005 21:11:37
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"David Harris" <david.harrisNOT@rogersNOWAY.com > wrote in message



> This might work for Podunk Mountain (with complete profiles of both
> runs), but for a large resort - where would you put these profiles?

On the trail sign on top of each run? Little tiny square with
a picture? Maybe a number or two?


If
> an area has 100 marked trails, that's a lot of space.

Nah.


> And I wouldn't be
> bothered correlating the side profile of run 57 (black 36*) against #92
> (blue 37*) to see what's what. I'd just utter an oath along the lines of
> "first, we kill all the cartographers...", and go for a ski.
>
> Sheesh, now we're making maps with "noise added".
>

All these guys with tons of reasons why something won't
work. But a few with ideas of how it could work.

I like to hear ways to make things work, not reasons
why things will never work.




01 Mar 2005 21:11:44
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Jeremy Mortimer" <mortimer@ifrc.remove_this.org > wrote in message

>
> It wasn't actually aimed specifically at you - sorry if it seemed so.
> Something in the thread reminded me of the ones we get occasionally about
> how accidents happen to really good skiers because they're trying to
> avoid beginners, which always strikes me as being a bit bogus,

Very bogus.

Yea, I sort of went off a little early, made a bit of a fool of
myself really. I'm too used to the general climate around here
lately. I should have realized, as I knew I was talking to a
gentleman.


>but you're
> right (as far as I remember - I can't be bothered to go back and look)
> that wasn't exactly what the thread was about.

> Though now I think about it there may be the hint of a point there
> anyway; that skiing appropriately around other skiers, including being
> aware of others who aren't skiing appropriately, is a neccessary skill.
> Like driving, you do need to learn what to do when others screw up -
> being in the right isn't sufficient. But now I'm in danger of kicking off
> the whole dreary discussion all over again!
>
> Anyway, my feelings are certainly not hurt. You're only a stream of
> electrons, after all :-)

And a darn good one I like to think....




01 Mar 2005 21:13:06
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"downhill" <down_hill@penguinponds.com > wrote in message

> The snowboarder that killed the 28 year old was a kid, by your logic when
> an out of control kid is about to hit me I should act like safety netting
> and take the full brunt of it. Willing to bet that if the 28 year old
> victim was braced and had some warning of the impact it may have not
> turned out as bad for her. I am sure that all parties involved with the
> death of the 28 year old would have preferred the snowboarder to get a
> broken bone than a manslaughter charge.....

Yea. The bad thing is, if an adult ends up in a collision with a
*child* and serious injury results to the child, you can bet that
the adult will be charged, *regardless* of who was at fault,
given the climate today. You'll be the one spending ten to
twenty inside.

That's the bad thing. If it's a child involved you simply have
to do all you can to protect the child from injury or you'll
be the one to suffer. I'm not saying it's right, it just seems to
be the way it is these days.






02 Mar 2005 01:45:07
downhill
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090409020902030605060903
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

footer
YOU KEEP REPEATING the same comment a "child" well a child is not the
problem, I am referring to a kid about 130 plus pounds who is acting
reckless and putting my life in danger. No court is going to convict me
if the little brat rams me from behind takes out my legs and I fall on
it and break its neck. As far as I am concerned if somebody is charging
into me at high speed without making any attempt to avoid or care for my
well being it is an assault,<example being the snow boarder charged with
man slaughter > the law is very clear about allowing me to use a much
force as necessary to terminate the assault. The law makes no
distinction about age.
I am not referring to someone having problems and not being able to
control direction, I am referring to a good skier being reckless or
thrill seeking with no regard to the people about them.
Anyway this is getting pointless, you can be the safety cushion for
these idiots.

foot2foot wrote:

>"downhill" <down_hill@penguinponds.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>>The snowboarder that killed the 28 year old was a kid, by your logic when
>>an out of control kid is about to hit me I should act like safety netting
>>and take the full brunt of it. Willing to bet that if the 28 year old
>>victim was braced and had some warning of the impact it may have not
>>turned out as bad for her. I am sure that all parties involved with the
>>death of the 28 year old would have preferred the snowboarder to get a
>>broken bone than a manslaughter charge.....
>>
>>
>
>Yea. The bad thing is, if an adult ends up in a collision with a
>*child* and serious injury results to the child, you can bet that
>the adult will be charged, *regardless* of who was at fault,
>given the climate today. You'll be the one spending ten to
>twenty inside.
>
>That's the bad thing. If it's a child involved you simply have
>to do all you can to protect the child from injury or you'll
>be the one to suffer. I'm not saying it's right, it just seems to
>be the way it is these days.
>
>
>
>
>
>

--------------090409020902030605060903
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" >
<html >
<head >
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" >
<title ></title>
</head >
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff" >
footer<br >
YOU KEEP REPEATING the same comment a "child" well a child is not the
problem,  I am referring to a kid about 130 plus pounds  who is acting
reckless and putting my life in danger. No court is going to convict me
if the little brat rams me from behind takes out my legs and I fall on
it and break its neck. As far as I am concerned if somebody is charging
into me at high speed without making any attempt to avoid or care for
my well being it is an assault,<example being the snow boarder
charged with man slaughter > the law is very clear about allowing me
to use a much force as necessary to terminate the assault. The law
makes no distinction about age.<br >
I am not referring to someone having problems and not being able to
control direction, I am referring to a good skier being reckless or
thrill seeking with no regard to the people about them.<br >
Anyway this is getting pointless, you can be the safety cushion for
these idiots.<br >
<br >
foot2foot wrote:<br >
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid112aiqtekqpej70@corp.supernews.com" >
<pre wrap="" >"downhill" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:down_hill@penguinponds.com"><down_hill@penguinponds.com></a> wrote in message

</pre >
<blockquote type="cite" >
<pre wrap="" >The snowboarder that killed the 28 year old was a kid, by your logic when
an out of control kid is about to hit me I should act like safety netting
and take the full brunt of it. Willing to bet that if the 28 year old
victim was braced and had some warning of the impact it may have not
turned out as bad for her. I am sure that all parties involved with the
death of the 28 year old would have preferred the snowboarder to get a
broken bone than a manslaughter charge.....
</pre >
</blockquote >
<pre wrap="" ><!---->
Yea. The bad thing is, if an adult ends up in a collision with a
*child* and serious injury results to the child, you can bet that
the adult will be charged, *regardless* of who was at fault,
given the climate today. You'll be the one spending ten to
twenty inside.

That's the bad thing. If it's a child involved you simply have
to do all you can to protect the child from injury or you'll
be the one to suffer. I'm not saying it's right, it just seems to
be the way it is these days.




</pre >
</blockquote >
</body >
</html >

--------------090409020902030605060903--



01 Mar 2005 23:40:06
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"downhill" <down_hill@penguinponds.com > wrote in message

<<<<<<<<
footer

YOU KEEP REPEATING the same comment a "child" well a child is not the
problem, I am referring to a kid about 130 plus pounds who is acting
reckless and putting my life in danger. No court is going to convict me if
the little brat rams me from behind takes out my legs and I fall on it and
break its neck. As far as I am concerned if somebody is charging into me at
high speed without making any attempt to avoid or care for my well being it
is an assault,<example being the snow boarder charged with man slaughter >
the law is very clear about allowing me to use a much force as necessary to
terminate the assault. The law makes no distinction about age.
I am not referring to someone having problems and not being able to control
direction, I am referring to a good skier being reckless or thrill seeking
with no regard to the people about them.
Anyway this is getting pointless, you can be the safety cushion for these
idiots.

>>>>>>


Yea, I know.

Darn it, the thing is, if there's a kid involved, everyone is going to
sympathize with the kid and file charges against you and send
you away to jail for ten or twenty years or more. Same thing
for me or anyone else. It just really stinks these days, this
whole mentality. You should just protect your own self, but
you just can't afford to anymore. When the kid gets hurt all
these witnesses will show up and crap and say you were being
all restless, and they'll put you in prison. It's not right at all.






02 Mar 2005 05:47:40
JQ
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C51EEB.58F29D50
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


"downhill" <down_hill@penguinponds.com > wrote in message =
news:d03ndj$lum@dispatch.concentric.net...
footer
YOU KEEP REPEATING the same comment a "child" well a child is not the =
problem, I am referring to a kid about 130 plus pounds who is acting =
reckless and putting my life in danger. No court is going to convict me =
if the little brat rams me from behind takes out my legs and I fall on =
it and break its neck. As far as I am concerned if somebody is charging =
into me at high speed without making any attempt to avoid or care for my =
well being it is an assault,<example being the snow boarder charged with =
man slaughter > the law is very clear about allowing me to use a much =
force as necessary to terminate the assault. The law makes no =
distinction about age.
I am not referring to someone having problems and not being able to =
control direction, I am referring to a good skier being reckless or =
thrill seeking with no regard to the people about them.
Anyway this is getting pointless, you can be the safety cushion for =
these idiots.

(snip)
We haven't heard from the kid, so we don't know what really happened. =
He may not have seen the person or was out of control and a beginner not =
knowing how to turn or avoid the skier. Just because the kid was being =
charged with an assault doesn't mean he will be convicted of it or is =
guilty of it. We don't even know if the skier had just turned into the =
path of the boarder. I believe it is better to wait to get all the =
info. before branding the kid as deliberate killer. What would your =
opinion be if the kid was your child?

JQ
Dancing on the edge
------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C51EEB.58F29D50
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" >
<HTML ><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type =
content=3Dtext/html;charset=3DISO-8859-1 >
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=3DGENERATOR >
<STYLE ></STYLE>
</HEAD >
<BODY text=3D#000000 bgColor=3D#ffffff >
<DIV > </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" >
<DIV >"downhill" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:down_hill@penguinponds.com" >down_hill@penguinponds.com</A>=
>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:d03ndj$lum@dispatch.concentric.net" >news:d03ndj$lum@dispatch=
.concentric.net</A >...</DIV>
<DIV >footer<BR>YOU KEEP REPEATING the same comment a "child" well a =
child is=20
not the problem,  I am referring to a kid about 130 plus =
pounds  who=20
is acting reckless and putting my life in danger. No court is going to =
convict=20
me if the little brat rams me from behind takes out my legs and I fall =
on it=20
and break its neck. As far as I am concerned if somebody is charging =
into me=20
at high speed without making any attempt to avoid or care for my well =
being it=20
is an assault,<example being the snow boarder charged with man=20
slaughter > the law is very clear about allowing me to use a much =
force as=20
necessary to terminate the assault. The law makes no distinction about =

age.<BR >I am not referring to someone having problems and not being =
able to=20
control direction, I am referring to a good skier being reckless or =
thrill=20
seeking with no regard to the people about them.<BR >Anyway this is =
getting=20
pointless, you can be the safety cushion for these =
idiots.<BR ><BR>(snip)</DIV>
<DIV >We haven't heard from the kid, so we don't know what really=20
happened.  He may not have seen the person or was out of control=20
and a beginner not knowing how to turn or avoid the skier.  =
Just=20
because the kid was being charged with an assault doesn't mean he will =
be=20
convicted of it or is guilty of it.  We don't even know if the =
skier had=20
just turned into the path of the boarder.  I believe it is better =
to wait=20
to get all the info. before branding the kid as deliberate =
killer.  What=20
would your opinion be if the kid was your child?</DIV >
<DIV > </DIV>
<DIV >JQ</DIV>
<DIV >Dancing on the edge</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C51EEB.58F29D50--



02 Mar 2005 07:31:39
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

foot2foot wrote:

> Darn it, the thing is, if there's a kid involved, everyone is going to
> sympathize with the kid and file charges against you and send
> you away to jail for ten or twenty years or more.

Do you think this is what's going to happen with the 16-year=old kid who
hit the woman at JH? From what I've read, he's looking at a possible 20
years inside.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



02 Mar 2005 07:41:48
Bob Lee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt wrote:

> lal_truckee wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> >
> >> Especially to the majority of people who couldn't read a topo map if
> >> their life depended on it.
> >
> > You mean everybody doesn't print out the pertinent topo map for ski
> > areas of interest and laminate the maps to stuff in a pocket when
> > visiting those ski areas? How in the world can they make an independent
> > judgement about the area's skiable terrain? Seems obvious to me.
>
> Right. I'd never even think about leaving home without this:
>
> <http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=17&n=4713342.99989687&e=269496.999774051&da
> tum=nad83>
>
> (Note to Bob Lee - I double-dog dare you to click on that link)

Thanks for the link, Walt - it's just what I need! I'm printing it,
and I'm going to put one copy up on the wall and another in my pocket
and every chance I get I'm going to study and dream about maybe someday
being able to ski Mt. Brighton...when I get the skills, of course.

Scary as it is, that map's an inspiration, but more importantly, it'll
give me the crucial beta that I'm gonna need if I don't want to get my
ass severely kicked by the infamous Mt. Brighton. Boy, there's going to
be lots of poring over (and dreaming over) that map.

Thanks again. It looks...awesome.

Bpb


02 Mar 2005 09:46:52
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Mary Malmros wrote:

> foot2foot wrote:
>
>> Darn it, the thing is, if there's a kid involved, everyone is going to
>> sympathize with the kid and file charges against you and send
>> you away to jail for ten or twenty years or more.
>
>
> Do you think this is what's going to happen with the 16-year=old kid who
> hit the woman at JH? From what I've read, he's looking at a possible 20
> years inside.


20 years is the max sentence; I seriously doubt that he'll get that.
The Liftie at Vail (Nathan Hall) who waxed Alan Cobb in 1997 got 90
days, and it took four years or trials before he even served a day.

Granted, this was Colorado, not Wyoming, and some of the circumstances
are different. But I don't see him getting 20 years.

BTW, Hall faced a civil suit for wrongful death, but I don't know what
ever came of it. Probably still in litigation - it's only been 8 years.

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


02 Mar 2005 11:14:53
VtSkier
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings- one ski skiing/steering

foot2foot wrote:
> "JQ" <jq@wadenet.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>Thanks, I will try it out this weekend. From what you say I may be using
>>foot steering more than the whole leg. I will need to keep an eye on this
>>and correct.
>>
>>JQ
>>Dancing on the edge
>
>
> Yup. That little pivot slip drill has brought home to me what
> leg steering really is. I've never had it, I've never really done
> it. I never understood the relationship of upper body to steering,
> you have to position the upper body so you have something to
> steer against. Face the body down the hill just a bit, *then* steer
> the skis into the turn. You'll have a lot more power. It's a bit of
> a nice new world for me. Now, I think the steeps and bumps
> and such are really going to open up for me, in addition, the get
> way forward and make little tiny steering movements thing works
> pretty well on narrow trails too. Little hop turns sort of. Almost
> like the old Wedel. And, the time you spend in the air kills
> speed as well. Jump off the toes, like a jump shot with a
> basketball. It really is great.
>
Wedeln, or wedel, if I remember correctly, is a "sloshing" of
your skis back and forth across the fall line with little or
no edging. Very fast. It was pretty much "chust for pretty".

I really liked Stein's "mambo" turns which can be described
as a slow wedeln with exaggerated counter-rotation with the
hips really pushed to the inside of the turns. Even prettier
than wedeln. Graceful. Something I might think of a Frenchman
doing, but invented by a Norwegian. It was much less frantic
than watching the Austrians do wedeln.

Now, what some see or describe as wedeln, is more correctly
called "short swing". Remember the old school turn progression
of beginning from a traverse, setting your edges by a little
downhill skid of the tails of your skis accompanies by a flexing
of your knees and ankles to make a "platform", from which you
up-unweight and "steer" your skis around to the new direction,
ending the turn with a down motion edging to make the platform
for the next turn, or simply converting the turn to a straight
running traverse.

Now do this very close to the fall line with the turns very
close together. Remember the platform and setting the edges.
If the slope gets pretty steep you may hop your turns if you
wish with the up-unweight. You may use the terrain features
for your unweight.

You are still not into windshield wiper turns, but you have
a powerful, speed controlling series of turns for use on moderate
to steep terrain. It's NOT wedeln, it's "short-swing" in
1960's 70's PSIA terminology.

Note that the slight down-skid of tails to get everything started
is only done for the first turn off the traverse and may be
unconsciously omitted as the slope increases. Remember that
most turning is easier as the slope increases, to a point, then
you must change technique a bit to what works on very steep.

Y'know, this sounds a bit like what you are describing, there
foot.

Upper body positions.

I will frequently, from a neutral traverse, rotate my upper
body to face more downhill and then do the steering maneuver
as described to make a powerful turn across the fall line.
I often do this in lieu of starting my turn from a platform.

I would make a note that most of what we have been discussing
are primarily speed-controlling turns. The "carving craze"
turns haven't been touched upon much at all.

> The drill basically is,
>
> Pull the skis as far underneath you as you can.
> It is *really* easy to steer the skis from this position.
> Also, from here, you can jump from the balls of the
> feet.
>
> Face your body straight down the hill, bring skis straight
> across the hill, sideslip, then give a little hop and switch
> the skis to facing clear across the hill the other way, pull
> the skis back underneath you again. Repeat and continue.
>
> Do this switch by a quick, crisp movement of the knees,
> pointing clear across the hill one way, then clear to
> the opposite direction. This in fact will be, a twisting
> movement of both legs from the hip socket.
>
> Feel the movement coming from the legs, turning *against*
> the upper body, as opposed to the legs simply turning
> because the shoulders have been turned.
>
> Partially bent legs are also much easier to steer than straight
> legs.
>
> Then, try to make really quick, short radius turns to a stop,
> one at a time, in some cut up snow. The steeper the better
> once you get the idea. *Here* is the real power of this sort
> of steering. Cut up snow that locks your skis into a path.
> Sweet. Very Sweet. Instead of scary and frustrating.
>
> The today typical, oh so vaunted, European racing style
> leave rails on the snow type "carving" it is not. Oh well.
>
> It's not the bouncy wouncy, pritsie witsie PSIA task turns
> either. But it sure is fun and useful.
>
> I'm just shot now for an attempt this year at level II, because
> I think all I'm going to do for the rest of the year is ski way
> forward, up unweight and steer.
>
> COOL!!!!!!
>
> PSIA just won't like that though. It's not the task.
>
yer right, they won't like it. I was watching a level II exam
at Pico a while back. The examiner was tracing the path of the
"railed" turn with his ski pole to criticize the student. You
won't get any railed trenches with steering.

The PSIA is subject to change. They have been changing for
years. It appears to me that the PSIA goes with what people
say they want. It also appears to me that there may well be
methods of teaching beginners which get results quicker. I
think I'll go watch how Killington/Perfect Turn does it. The
trail they work on is specially shaped for teaching beginners,
it may well be the bunny berm, but it appears to me that
the slope is too shallow to get much speed. But that could
be just my frustration at trying to get to the bottom at the
end of the day over this terrain.

One thing K does is to eliminate the lift ride lessons on the
first day out by using specially equipped trucks to carry the
beginners to the top without wearing their skis. They have
been doing this for years, even before "Perfect Turn". It
works because the beginner learning trail is right next to the
road at the top and bottom.

VtSkier


02 Mar 2005 08:28:15
Jeff
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

JQ wrote:
> > Sorry, but I seem to have misplaced my RSA scorecard that list the
names
> > and locations of all the players. Where are you located again?
>
> Southern NJ.
>

This answer is in clear violation of New Jersey code of conduct. You're
supposed to supply an *EXIT NUMBER*

;-)


Jeff



02 Mar 2005 10:11:48
snoig
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote in message
news:1126qjf9im20o47@corp.supernews.com...
> Well, I must admit, any slope that a novice skier would ever
> likely be on would indeed be one that they could sideslip
> down if they had to and were able to. But this isn't a thing
> that's generally taught to, or suggested to a new skier.
>
> If you can't sideslip, what option do you have?

Well, it's been awhile for me but back in my ski instructing days, that was
the first thing we taught never-evers.

snoig




02 Mar 2005 12:50:11
Stephen B.
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote in message
news:svSdnfc5YqZqpbjfRVn-pw@bcn.net...
> Stephen B. wrote:
>
> > "Mary Malmros" wrote
> >
> >>Stephen B. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>Good idea, but there's one huge drawback: topo maps use a different
> >>perspective than trail maps. A topo map looks from directly above, a
> >>trail map -- the kind we're all used to looking at -- is viewed from the
> >>front of the mountain, typically. Many trail maps are significantly
> >>distorted, because they are looking at the face of a mountain that isn't
> >>flat and that has trails curving around it, and flatten it onto a
> >>two-dimensional space. But that's how we're used to looking at trail
> >>maps, and to change it to an overhead topo view would probably create a
> >>lot of confusion among the many people who are used to looking at and
> >>interpreting maps with the face-on perspective.
> >
> >
> > I think you missunderstood my idea. I would keep the trail map as is,
just
> > add some contour lines, maybe a fith or tenth those that a topographical
map
> > uses.
>
> I understand your idea just fine. It won't work. See my reply to Walt;
> there's too much distortion in the trail map as is.
>
> > Lets remember a Topographyical map is made to scale. It can be measured
for
> > acurate distances. While a trail map is a artists rendering and uses
> > *PERSPECTIVE* to show distances and steepnes.
>
> Right, but contours give useful information on a topo map _because_ it
> is to scale. You can look at a topo map, and see the rise/fall over a
> given distance. You can't do that with a trail map, because the
> *PERSPECTIVE* only suggests distance; it doesn't depict it with any
> accuracy or consistency.
>

I think this is a case of us having to agree to disagree, but I will give it
one more try.

A simple line drawing of the trails and lifts (like a NYC or London subway
map) will show clearly how to connect from one trail to another, but miss
all slope and trail details.

An aerial photograph gives great realism but trees and ridges can block the
view of the trails behind them. The human eye can extrapolate the exposed
slopes and trail widths somewhat adequately.

Current trail maps do a good job of combining the line drawing and aerial
photograph. using artistic license to pull the areas hidden behind trees and
ridges into view. Thus allowing safe navigation of the mountain.

Now picture the same mountain painted width a red stripe on everything
between the base 0 and 10 feet of elevation and another between 50 and 60
feet, 100-110, 150-160 and so on up the mountain. This painted width of the
line would be 10 feet wide on a cliff face, but could easily surpass 50 feet
wide in places.

These contour lines on the equivalent aerial photo would make judging the
slope of the trails that much easier. Especially for those trails that runs
down the middle and around to the back side of the mountain. My suggestion
is that an equivalent set of shaded contour lines be added to existing trail
maps. If you look at the Mt Snows trail map, and the intermediate trail
Break was only the upper half (ending at exhibition), would you know by
looking at the map which side was up? How about if the mountain was painted
red below the midpoint of this theoretical run?

Stephen B.
NYC




02 Mar 2005 14:26:50
JQ
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Jeff" <jeff@bruce.com > wrote in message
news:1109780895.921030.178590@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> JQ wrote:
>> > Sorry, but I seem to have misplaced my RSA scorecard that list the
> names
>> > and locations of all the players. Where are you located again?
>>
>> Southern NJ.
>>
>
> This answer is in clear violation of New Jersey code of conduct. You're
> supposed to supply an *EXIT NUMBER*
>
> ;-)
>
>
> Jeff
>

Between exit 2 & 3 on NJ turnpike, how's that?

JQ
Dancing on the edge




02 Mar 2005 16:23:38
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Stephen B. wrote:

> "Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net> wrote in message
> news:svSdnfc5YqZqpbjfRVn-pw@bcn.net...
>
>>Stephen B. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Mary Malmros" wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Stephen B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Good idea, but there's one huge drawback: topo maps use a different
>>>>perspective than trail maps. A topo map looks from directly above, a
>>>>trail map -- the kind we're all used to looking at -- is viewed from the
>>>>front of the mountain, typically. Many trail maps are significantly
>>>>distorted, because they are looking at the face of a mountain that isn't
>>>>flat and that has trails curving around it, and flatten it onto a
>>>>two-dimensional space. But that's how we're used to looking at trail
>>>>maps, and to change it to an overhead topo view would probably create a
>>>>lot of confusion among the many people who are used to looking at and
>>>>interpreting maps with the face-on perspective.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think you missunderstood my idea. I would keep the trail map as is,
>
> just
>
>>>add some contour lines, maybe a fith or tenth those that a topographical
>
> map
>
>>>uses.
>>
>>I understand your idea just fine. It won't work. See my reply to Walt;
>>there's too much distortion in the trail map as is.
>>
>>
>>>Lets remember a Topographyical map is made to scale. It can be measured
>
> for
>
>>>acurate distances. While a trail map is a artists rendering and uses
>>>*PERSPECTIVE* to show distances and steepnes.
>>
>>Right, but contours give useful information on a topo map _because_ it
>>is to scale. You can look at a topo map, and see the rise/fall over a
>>given distance. You can't do that with a trail map, because the
>>*PERSPECTIVE* only suggests distance; it doesn't depict it with any
>>accuracy or consistency.
>>
>
>
> I think this is a case of us having to agree to disagree, but I will give it
> one more try.
>
> A simple line drawing of the trails and lifts (like a NYC or London subway
> map) will show clearly how to connect from one trail to another, but miss
> all slope and trail details.
>
> An aerial photograph gives great realism but trees and ridges can block the
> view of the trails behind them. The human eye can extrapolate the exposed
> slopes and trail widths somewhat adequately.

Right, but an aerial photograph takes artistic license, and contours, to
be useful and meaningful, rely on a realistic representation.

> Current trail maps do a good job of combining the line drawing and aerial
> photograph. using artistic license to pull the areas hidden behind trees and
> ridges into view. Thus allowing safe navigation of the mountain.
>
> Now picture the same mountain painted width a red stripe on everything
> between the base 0 and 10 feet of elevation and another between 50 and 60
> feet, 100-110, 150-160 and so on up the mountain. This painted width of the
> line would be 10 feet wide on a cliff face, but could easily surpass 50 feet
> wide in places.

I don't think you meant a painted line 10 feet wide, I think you meant
"painted lines 10 feet in elevation apart". Either way, you're still
not addressing my objective. Let me try to explain the problem using
some simple math.

Imagine the simplest possible mountain -- shaped like a cone.
Three-dimensional object. A line from the top to any point on the base
is the same length as a line from the top to any other point on the
base, right?

Now imagine that you're looking at the cone from the front, and that
you've drawn a line from the top to the base at the point closest to
you, and another from the top to the base at a point 90 degrees away
from you. On the three-dimensional cone surface, the lines are the same
length (or, on our cone-shaped mountain, the runs are the same distance).

However, when you take that front-facing image of the cone and project
it onto a flat piece of paper, the lines that represent the two runs are
not the same length. The one directly facing you is a vertical line,
the other is at an angle and joins the first one at the top, and the
vertical line -- the one representing the run on the moountain that
faces you directly -- is shorter than the other (ref. pythagorean
theorem).

Now draw contours onto that mountain map. What do you see? A series of
perfectly regular horizontal lines. Looking at that, someone says,
"Gee, this run down the front face has less distance between the
contours; it's steeper than the other one!" Even though, of course, the
slope of the two runs is identical.

I understand that you believe that an artist's rendering could somehow
overcome this. My reply is that I want to see the artist's rendering
that does that. In any case, it's all suggestion and interpretation,
not hard data.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



02 Mar 2005 13:40:09
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings- one ski skiing/steering


"VtSkier" <VtSkier@nospam.com > wrote in message



> Wedeln, or wedel, if I remember correctly, is a "sloshing" of
> your skis back and forth across the fall line with little or
> no edging. Very fast. It was pretty much "chust for pretty".

Actually, Wedeln is a whole system for learning, teaching
and skiing, mostly involving getting way foward on the skis,
and jumping the tails of the skis back and forth, in a wedeln
(wagging, like a dog's tail) motion.

Mostly in the US in the seventies, it seemed to mean quick
hop turns with steering in between. That's what I saw anyway.

> I really liked Stein's "mambo" turns which can be described
> as a slow wedeln with exaggerated counter-rotation with the
> hips really pushed to the inside of the turns. Even prettier
> than wedeln. Graceful. Something I might think of a Frenchman
> doing, but invented by a Norwegian. It was much less frantic
> than watching the Austrians do wedeln.

Yes, that "serpentine' motion of the body, hips going one way
laterally, shoulders the other, tight stance. It's only good for
linked turns though. You can't really pick your turn shape.


> Now, what some see or describe as wedeln, is more correctly
> called "short swing". Remember the old school turn progression
> of beginning from a traverse, setting your edges by a little
> downhill skid of the tails of your skis accompanies by a flexing
> of your knees and ankles to make a "platform", from which you
> up-unweight and "steer" your skis around to the new direction,
> ending the turn with a down motion edging to make the platform
> for the next turn, or simply converting the turn to a straight
> running traverse.

The short swing that all the ski world knew, that PSIA (as of
two years ago anyway, I haven't seen it since) had polluted out
of existence.

Lito describes it as used on something so steep, narrow and icy
that you can do nothing else. You can't edge, or else you'll
accellerate and go off the cliff, into the rock, or whatever, so
you have to slip the whole time, save for one strong edge set
per turn, with skis across the hill, to control speed. Indeed, a
scary idea to *need* to resort to this. One slip and you're
dead.

Start to slip down the hill, set the edges sharply, rebound from
that set and pivot the skis the other way, land in a *sideslip*,
skid the skis the rest of the way around, and set the edges
again, then repeat all the way down the hill until you are safe.

> Now do this very close to the fall line with the turns very
> close together. Remember the platform and setting the edges.
> If the slope gets pretty steep you may hop your turns if you
> wish with the up-unweight. You may use the terrain features
> for your unweight.

About the same thing I guess, yes? I've heard it called a check
turn, well described in many older how to ski books.

> You are still not into windshield wiper turns, but you have
> a powerful, speed controlling series of turns for use on moderate
> to steep terrain. It's NOT wedeln, it's "short-swing" in
> 1960's 70's PSIA terminology.
>

Yes, with or without PSIA. All called it that, those that really
know still do, but I suppose there aren't many still that *really*
know.

I doubt even that many of today's extreme all mountain skiers
know of that turn, maybe they never need it? Perhaps the
conditions have changed over the years, or most skiers today
just wouldn't attempt a slope in a condition what would require
that turn. Or, maybe the skis have made it obsolete. I can't think
of anything that would work better on the slope and conditions
cited though.

> Note that the slight down-skid of tails to get everything started
> is only done for the first turn off the traverse and may be
> unconsciously omitted as the slope increases. Remember that
> most turning is easier as the slope increases, to a point, then
> you must change technique a bit to what works on very steep.
>
> Y'know, this sounds a bit like what you are describing, there
> foot.
>
> Upper body positions.
>
> I will frequently, from a neutral traverse, rotate my upper
> body to face more downhill and then do the steering maneuver
> as described to make a powerful turn across the fall line.
> I often do this in lieu of starting my turn from a platform.

Well, it's just that, the more anticipated the upper body is,
the more steering power there seems to be in that direction,
that and the more knee bend you have the more steering
power you have as well.

This is *different* from turning the skis by shoulder rotation,
as in traditional rotation and counter rotation. It used to be
the actual shoulder movement either direction that turned
the skis, and still could be today, but steering *against* the
position of the upper body using mostly the legs seems to
be pretty effective, as opposed to just turning the shoulder
to turn the legs and skis. .

> I would make a note that most of what we have been discussing
> are primarily speed-controlling turns. The "carving craze"
> turns haven't been touched upon much at all.

I don't know. I've just discovered I really like being *way*
forward and steering, with solid effective hand and body
position. You don't need to worry about much of anything else
it all seems to happen so automatically, lead change, edge
change, all of it. You can jump off of it, and it works *so*
well for steep crud.

It's a bit of a scare to get over the initial fear of going over the
handlebars from being *that* far forward, but it doesn't seem
to be an issue.

> yer right, they won't like it
. I was watching a level II exam
> at Pico a while back. The examiner was tracing the path of the
> "railed" turn with his ski pole to criticize the student. You
> won't get any railed trenches with steering.

I think there is certainly *some* room for steering without
losing the rail. Steering the highly edged skis to some extent.

PSIA's "skis carving before they reach the fall line" turns
are purely, unquestionably, skidded turns. But, in order
to do them, I'll need the very steering stuff I'm working on.
But they'd *never* buy the way I'm skiing right now, and
it would work just fine, in nearly any condition.

It's just that, though they seem to want to *try* to come
away from "the look" as a standard, and yet they/we are still
way caught up in it. Even if you didn't get "the task" right,
and yet you proved that you clearly had the control the
task is supposed to show out, you should pass. You don't. It's
still about, well, conformity, and "the look".

> The PSIA is subject to change. They have been changing for
> years. It appears to me that the PSIA goes with what people
> say they want.

More like what the royalty decide at the beginning of the year.
(just kidding there, guys, kinda)

> It also appears to me that there may well be
> methods of teaching beginners which get results quicker.

Absolutely. If you ever actually saw the magic turns system
at work on the bunny berm, you'd never teach any other way
again. You'd probably do most of the same things with more
experienced skiers, but, for beginners, it really is the stuff.
See, I can tell that you're a realistic person. You wouldn't let
ego and such interfere with judgement, you'd actually look at
the results and decide. Rare these days in ski instruction.

> I
> think I'll go watch how Killington/Perfect Turn does it. The
> trail they work on is specially shaped for teaching beginners,
> it may well be the bunny berm, but it appears to me that
> the slope is too shallow to get much speed. But that could
> be just my frustration at trying to get to the bottom at the
> end of the day over this terrain.

If they don't teach a lifting of the tail of the inside ski to learn
ski matching, they need to put it in.

If they don't emphasize not letting any student ski for *one
second* without hands forward, they need to.

If they don't send 'em into a berm big enough to stop them
at maybe 20 mph (30 kph), they need to.

I'm almost *certain* they don't use the bunny berm as magic
turns would.

> One thing K does is to eliminate the lift ride lessons on the
> first day out by using specially equipped trucks to carry the
> beginners to the top without wearing their skis. They have
> been doing this for years, even before "Perfect Turn". It
> works because the beginner learning trail is right next to the
> road at the top and bottom.
>
> VtSkier


Thanks for the reply Vt.




02 Mar 2005 14:49:10
snoig
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote in message
news:P4KdnS--c-AYmrjfRVn-tg@bcn.net...
> Walt wrote:
>
> > Cool tool, BTW. Thanks.
>
> Innit though? Topo maps have always been one of THE coolest tools, and
> having them on the net is damn nifty if you ask me.

If you want the coolest tool, check out this one:
http://www.keyhole.com/?promo=app-en-us

snoig




02 Mar 2005 14:00:06
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"snoig" <snoig@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:38mah7F5o232mU1@individual.net...
>
> "foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> wrote in message
> news:1126qjf9im20o47@corp.supernews.com...
>> Well, I must admit, any slope that a novice skier would ever
>> likely be on would indeed be one that they could sideslip
>> down if they had to and were able to. But this isn't a thing
>> that's generally taught to, or suggested to a new skier.
>>
>> If you can't sideslip, what option do you have?
>
> Well, it's been awhile for me but back in my ski instructing days, that
> was
> the first thing we taught never-evers.
>
> snoig
>

Me, as soon as it makes decent sense to teach them to
sideslip. I always do during an extended, "teach until they
learn how to ski" lesson, because it's integral to learning
to skid the tails around the tips.Thing is, it's not all that
easy for the student to get it, then it takes lots of practice
after that.

It isn't a part of the basic beginner progression that anyone
I know teaches, with the system I teach, the idea is to get
them to turn as quickly as possible, and as such they don't
need anything else but the turn they have learned until they
finally move on to the advanced slopes. And they *do* learn
to skid the tales around the tips, but not necessarily to slip
sideways straight down the hill.

In the typical progression of hour or two hour sessions, I
would touch on the subject in the second teaching day, or
session.

You'd be surprised how many "accomplished" skiers on the
hill, even including area personnel, can't slip worth a darn.

But, honestly I think the question is silly, in the worst case,
you *can* walk down any slope a skier at that level would
be on, unless it's unbreakable ice. This "not used to walking
on snow" is pure nonsense. It's ridiculous. Worse come to
worst, a beginner or novice *can* walk down if they really
feel intimidated. I see it done all the time. I'm trying to
think of the last time a guest was hauled off the hill after
trying to walk down, and I'll venture to say it has never
happened.

On a slope steep enough to be dangerous, like a black or
double, that might be different. I'd leave my skis on as well,
maybe just sit on the snow somewhere it is safe to do so
(where you won't start to slide down the hill on your nylon) ,
and flip the skis over in the other direction, then stand up
and continue down. The old rump turn.

But not on an easy blue or green. You *can* walk down
such a slope kidz.




02 Mar 2005 15:23:35
snoig
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote in message
news:112cdr7964qg5de@corp.supernews.com...
> >> If you can't sideslip, what option do you have?
> >
> > Well, it's been awhile for me but back in my ski instructing days, that
> > was
> > the first thing we taught never-evers.
> >
> > snoig
> >
>
> Me, as soon as it makes decent sense to teach them to
> sideslip. I always do during an extended, "teach until they
> learn how to ski" lesson, because it's integral to learning
> to skid the tails around the tips.Thing is, it's not all that
> easy for the student to get it, then it takes lots of practice
> after that.

That was way back in the early 80's and I imagine things have changes quite
a bit since then. Our first lesson was pretty much sidestep up the hill,
sideslip down, straight running and the snowplow. I think focusing on the
sideslip did help beginners learn about the fall line rather quickly. I
think it also depended on our beginner terrian which was pretty bad. We
didn't have the berm that you are so fond of.

snoig




02 Mar 2005 18:17:08
VtSkier
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings- one ski skiing/steering

foot2foot wrote:
> "VtSkier" <VtSkier@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>>Wedeln, or wedel, if I remember correctly, is a "sloshing" of
>>your skis back and forth across the fall line with little or
>>no edging. Very fast. It was pretty much "chust for pretty".
>
>
> Actually, Wedeln is a whole system for learning, teaching
> and skiing, mostly involving getting way foward on the skis,
> and jumping the tails of the skis back and forth, in a wedeln
> (wagging, like a dog's tail) motion.
>
> Mostly in the US in the seventies, it seemed to mean quick
> hop turns with steering in between. That's what I saw anyway.
>
Lots of Austrians imported to Killington in the 60's. Most of
them arrogant, at least as far as their ability was concerned.
I remember one whose name was Eric Bind....... who walked to
work every morning in his ski boots which were leather hiking
boots with semi-rigid soles. No ankle support to speak of.
Watching him ski was like watching a god. He could make 215 cm
Kneissl Whitestars do anything from what passed for powder to
GFI (glare @#$%^& ice) with such grace and control that it made
all of us quite envious. Little guy, about 5'5 and 140#, bald
and bashful until on skis.

What the Austrians at Killington described as wedeln was not
especially a way to ski as in instruction method, it was the
"sloshing" back and forth that I described. I could have been
that they weren't allowed to use terms from the Austrian method
since Killington was a PSIA mountain, even back then, when
Okemo was trying out Walter Foeger's "NaturTechniq". Camel
Back skiers remember this?
>
>>I really liked Stein's "mambo" turns which can be described
>>as a slow wedeln with exaggerated counter-rotation with the
>>hips really pushed to the inside of the turns. Even prettier
>>than wedeln. Graceful. Something I might think of a Frenchman
>>doing, but invented by a Norwegian. It was much less frantic
>>than watching the Austrians do wedeln.
>
>
> Yes, that "serpentine' motion of the body, hips going one way
> laterally, shoulders the other, tight stance. It's only good for
> linked turns though. You can't really pick your turn shape.
>
Yes, only linked turns, if you didn't begin the next turn,
you'd fall to the inside.
>
>>Now, what some see or describe as wedeln, is more correctly
>>called "short swing". Remember the old school turn progression
>>of beginning from a traverse, setting your edges by a little
>>downhill skid of the tails of your skis accompanies by a flexing
>>of your knees and ankles to make a "platform", from which you
>>up-unweight and "steer" your skis around to the new direction,
>>ending the turn with a down motion edging to make the platform
>>for the next turn, or simply converting the turn to a straight
>>running traverse.
>
>
> The short swing that all the ski world knew, that PSIA (as of
> two years ago anyway, I haven't seen it since) had polluted out
> of existence.
>
"polluted" out of existence?
meaning its function as an arrow in you quiver of turns has
been replaced by something else?

> Lito describes it as used on something so steep, narrow and icy
> that you can do nothing else. You can't edge, or else you'll
> accellerate and go off the cliff, into the rock, or whatever, so
> you have to slip the whole time, save for one strong edge set
> per turn, with skis across the hill, to control speed. Indeed, a
> scary idea to *need* to resort to this. One slip and you're
> dead.
>
> Start to slip down the hill, set the edges sharply, rebound from
> that set and pivot the skis the other way, land in a *sideslip*,
> skid the skis the rest of the way around, and set the edges
> again, then repeat all the way down the hill until you are safe.
>
This sounds/feels more like the windshield wiper turn for
VERY steep scary conditions.
>
>>Now do this very close to the fall line with the turns very
>>close together. Remember the platform and setting the edges.
>>If the slope gets pretty steep you may hop your turns if you
>>wish with the up-unweight. You may use the terrain features
>>for your unweight.
>
In the 60's the "platform" was the basis for all strong turns.
(Stemming was the only other method of getting a turn started,
but even that was changing. A down-stem strongly resembles
a parallel platform, but was seen as inefficient and despite
the fact that they were teaching a down skid for a platform,
they were teaching an up-stem for that kind of turn.)

The short-swing as it was developing was a series of linked
turns close to the fall line with the platform preceding each
turn. What I think you are describing is something similar but
a little more aggressive in its braking ability. I'll bet the
skis are supposed to go almost perpendicular to the fall line
between each turn and you are almost jumping off a traverse,
however short, for each turn. Very effective on steep, but on
icy you need to keep a more quiet edge. Going from one set of
edges to the other so abruptly usually results in a juddery
skid if it's steep also.
>
> About the same thing I guess, yes? I've heard it called a check
> turn, well described in many older how to ski books.
>
>>You are still not into windshield wiper turns, but you have
>>a powerful, speed controlling series of turns for use on moderate
>>to steep terrain. It's NOT wedeln, it's "short-swing" in
>>1960's 70's PSIA terminology.
>>
>
>
> Yes, with or without PSIA. All called it that, those that really
> know still do, but I suppose there aren't many still that *really*
> know.
>
> I doubt even that many of today's extreme all mountain skiers
> know of that turn, maybe they never need it? Perhaps the
> conditions have changed over the years, or most skiers today
> just wouldn't attempt a slope in a condition what would require
> that turn. Or, maybe the skis have made it obsolete. I can't think
> of anything that would work better on the slope and conditions
> cited though.
>
Neither can I. Being really far forward has strong advantages
except when you skis are too short.
>
>>Note that the slight down-skid of tails to get everything started
>>is only done for the first turn off the traverse and may be
>>unconsciously omitted as the slope increases. Remember that
>>most turning is easier as the slope increases, to a point, then
>>you must change technique a bit to what works on very steep.
>>
>>Y'know, this sounds a bit like what you are describing, there
>>foot.
>>
>>Upper body positions.
>>
>>I will frequently, from a neutral traverse, rotate my upper
>>body to face more downhill and then do the steering maneuver
>>as described to make a powerful turn across the fall line.
>>I often do this in lieu of starting my turn from a platform.
>
>
> Well, it's just that, the more anticipated the upper body is,
> the more steering power there seems to be in that direction,
> that and the more knee bend you have the more steering
> power you have as well.
>
> This is *different* from turning the skis by shoulder rotation,
> as in traditional rotation and counter rotation. It used to be
> the actual shoulder movement either direction that turned
> the skis, and still could be today, but steering *against* the
> position of the upper body using mostly the legs seems to
> be pretty effective, as opposed to just turning the shoulder
> to turn the legs and skis. .

I think the French technique of the 60's - 70's even called
this "anticipation". Rotate in the direction of the turn, then
steer your feet/legs around under you without further rotation,
ending up in a counter-rotated stance.
>
> > I would make a note that most of what we have been discussing
>
>>are primarily speed-controlling turns. The "carving craze"
>>turns haven't been touched upon much at all.
>
>
> I don't know. I've just discovered I really like being *way*
> forward and steering, with solid effective hand and body
> position. You don't need to worry about much of anything else
> it all seems to happen so automatically, lead change, edge
> change, all of it. You can jump off of it, and it works *so*
> well for steep crud.
>
I have friends that like to ski with me. I didn't know it until
recently that some of them are actually emulating what I do.
But my far forward stance and almost tip-hooking turns seem to
work very well for the kind of hill and conditions we have around
here. I'm a little flattered but I still tell people to take a
lesson from a "real" instructor.

> It's a bit of a scare to get over the initial fear of going over the
> handlebars from being *that* far forward, but it doesn't seem
> to be an issue.
>
It would be if your skis were too short.
>
>>yer right, they won't like it
> > . I was watching a level II exam
>>at Pico a while back. The examiner was tracing the path of the
>>"railed" turn with his ski pole to criticize the student. You
>>won't get any railed trenches with steering.
>
>
> I think there is certainly *some* room for steering without
> losing the rail. Steering the highly edged skis to some extent.
>
> PSIA's "skis carving before they reach the fall line" turns
> are purely, unquestionably, skidded turns. But, in order
> to do them, I'll need the very steering stuff I'm working on.
> But they'd *never* buy the way I'm skiing right now, and
> it would work just fine, in nearly any condition.
>
> It's just that, though they seem to want to *try* to come
> away from "the look" as a standard, and yet they/we are still
> way caught up in it. Even if you didn't get "the task" right,
> and yet you proved that you clearly had the control the
> task is supposed to show out, you should pass. You don't. It's
> still about, well, conformity, and "the look".
>
Even when technique was changing, the "look" of the moment
seemed to be all important.
>
>>The PSIA is subject to change. They have been changing for
>>years. It appears to me that the PSIA goes with what people
>>say they want.
>
>
> More like what the royalty decide at the beginning of the year.
> (just kidding there, guys, kinda)
>
>
>>It also appears to me that there may well be
>>methods of teaching beginners which get results quicker.
>
>
> Absolutely. If you ever actually saw the magic turns system
> at work on the bunny berm, you'd never teach any other way
> again. You'd probably do most of the same things with more
> experienced skiers, but, for beginners, it really is the stuff.
> See, I can tell that you're a realistic person. You wouldn't let
> ego and such interfere with judgement, you'd actually look at
> the results and decide. Rare these days in ski instruction.
>
When I was actually teaching, a thousand years ago, I always
tried to look at results. Even today, I'll admire an effective
skier more than I will admire a pretty skier (in terms of
skiing, there can also be other criteria).

Actually I've lost all interest in teaching. Been there, done
that, moved on to ski for myself. I've earned it.
>
>>I
>>think I'll go watch how Killington/Perfect Turn does it. The
>>trail they work on is specially shaped for teaching beginners,
>>it may well be the bunny berm, but it appears to me that
>>the slope is too shallow to get much speed. But that could
>>be just my frustration at trying to get to the bottom at the
>>end of the day over this terrain.
>
>
> If they don't teach a lifting of the tail of the inside ski to learn
> ski matching, they need to put it in.
>
> If they don't emphasize not letting any student ski for *one
> second* without hands forward, they need to.
>
> If they don't send 'em into a berm big enough to stop them
> at maybe 20 mph (30 kph), they need to.
>
> I'm almost *certain* they don't use the bunny berm as magic
> turns would.
>
I'll check it out and be back to you.
>
>>One thing K does is to eliminate the lift ride lessons on the
>>first day out by using specially equipped trucks to carry the
>>beginners to the top without wearing their skis. They have
>>been doing this for years, even before "Perfect Turn". It
>>works because the beginner learning trail is right next to the
>>road at the top and bottom.
>>
>>VtSkier
>
>
>
> Thanks for the reply Vt.
>
Yer welcome.


02 Mar 2005 18:10:56
David Harris
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote in
news:112aio4kjfal944@corp.supernews.com:

>
> "David Harris" <david.harrisNOT@rogersNOWAY.com> wrote in message

>
>> And I wouldn't be
>> bothered correlating the side profile of run 57 (black 36*) against
>> #92 (blue 37*) to see what's what. I'd just utter an oath along the
>> lines of "first, we kill all the cartographers...", and go for a ski.
>>
>> Sheesh, now we're making maps with "noise added".
>>
>
> All these guys with tons of reasons why something won't
> work. But a few with ideas of how it could work.
>
> I like to hear ways to make things work, not reasons
> why things will never work.
>
Ah, another philosophical difference. When someone tells me they're
going to shoot themselves in the foot, I'm first in line to tell them it
won't be a good thing.

A lot of time and energy is spent in this world trying to make non-
starters start. Sometimes they do, but I think it is worthwhile to try
to think things through first. And if you find the gun aimed at your
foot, you should think again.

Not defeatist, or alarmist or negative. Just critically smart.

dh


02 Mar 2005 17:01:45
lal_truckee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings- one ski skiing/steering

foot2foot wrote:
>
> Actually, Wedeln is a whole system for learning, teaching
> and skiing, mostly involving getting way foward on the skis,
> and jumping the tails of the skis back and forth, in a wedeln
> (wagging, like a dog's tail) motion.

Do you have a cite for this? I've never heard of wedeln as a "system for
learning" - only as a graceful showoff series of undulating almost-turns
where the skier made no direction change or edge set at all, but just
appeared to, back in my early days.

Where have you run across it as a "system for learning?" That would be
an interesting ski history tidbit unknown to me.


02 Mar 2005 17:14:21
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings- one ski skiing/steering

>
> What the Austrians at Killington described as wedeln was not
> especially a way to ski as in instruction method, it was the
> "sloshing" back and forth that I described.

Or, you could read the book "Wedeln, The New Way to
Ski".... or something like that, by the boys themselves.

> It could have been
> that they weren't allowed to use terms from the Austrian method
> since Killington was a PSIA mountain, even back then, when
> Okemo was trying out Walter Foeger's "NaturTechniq". Camel
> Back skiers remember this?

>>
>>>I really liked Stein's "mambo" turns which can be described
>>>as a slow wedeln with exaggerated counter-rotation with the
>>>hips really pushed to the inside of the turns. Even prettier
>>>than wedeln. Graceful. Something I might think of a Frenchman
>>>doing, but invented by a Norwegian. It was much less frantic
>>>than watching the Austrians do wedeln.
>>
>>
>> Yes, that "serpentine' motion of the body, hips going one way
>> laterally, shoulders the other, tight stance. It's only good for
>> linked turns though. You can't really pick your turn shape.
>>
> Yes, only linked turns, if you didn't begin the next turn,
> you'd fall to the inside.

There's lots of people that still ski that way.

>>
>> The short swing that all the ski world knew, that PSIA (as of
>> two years ago anyway, I haven't seen it since) had polluted out
>> of existence.
>>
> "polluted" out of existence?

Meaning PSIA took skiing reality and changed it into
their own group version.

Meaning, as of three years ago when it was a level II task
it was this silly thing that involves a pivot after a "sink"
(or down unweight), and some other steering and crap,
it was nothing like the real shortswing. It was more of a
down unweight short radius task turn.

In fact, I *did* the real shortswing (kind of, but well enough),
and got a sort of, what's that? By a serious veteran "old time
boy" examiner that was even known to spout the term
"stembogen". Didn't actually know what a real shortswing
turn was and has been for decades.

>> Lito describes it as used on something so steep, narrow and icy
>> that you can do nothing else. You can't edge, or else you'll
>> accellerate and go off the cliff, into the rock, or whatever, so
>> you have to slip the whole time, save for one strong edge set
>> per turn, with skis across the hill, to control speed. Indeed, a
>> scary idea to *need* to resort to this. One slip and you're
>> dead.
>>
>> Start to slip down the hill, set the edges sharply, rebound from
>> that set and pivot the skis the other way, land in a *sideslip*,
>> skid the skis the rest of the way around, and set the edges
>> again, then repeat all the way down the hill until you are safe.
>>
> This sounds/feels more like the windshield wiper turn for
> VERY steep scary conditions.

Land in a slip, and slip all the way around till the skis are
across straight across the hill? I've always known that as
shortswing.

With windshield wiper, the skis wouldn't come all the way
across the hill as far as I thought.

> In the 60's the "platform" was the basis for all strong turns.
> (Stemming was the only other method of getting a turn started,
> but even that was changing. A down-stem strongly resembles
> a parallel platform, but was seen as inefficient and despite
> the fact that they were teaching a down skid for a platform,
> they were teaching an up-stem for that kind of turn.)
>
> The short-swing as it was developing was a series of linked
> turns close to the fall line with the platform preceding each
> turn. What I think you are describing is something similar but
> a little more aggressive in its braking ability.

Yea, skis straight across the fall line, *really* hard edge set
to rebound. It's described in "Breakthrough on Skis" first
edition, and other places, I'll look.

> I'll bet the
> skis are supposed to go almost perpendicular to the fall line
> between each turn and you are almost jumping off a traverse,
> however short, for each turn. Very effective on steep, but on
> icy you need to keep a more quiet edge. Going from one set of
> edges to the other so abruptly usually results in a juddery
> skid if it's steep also.

You slip into the edgeset, like a hockey stop, hit really hard
then rebound off that and turn again. Kind of like a platform.

It really isn't a "turn" at all, there's no time for the skis to judder,
they slip, then a pop of an edgeset, then another "turn".


>
> I think the French technique of the 60's - 70's even called
> this "anticipation".

So do a lot of people today. Besides us PSIA's.

We have to call anything like that "counter" which falls a bit
short of what's really going on, in any case.

> Rotate in the direction of the turn, then
> steer your feet/legs around under you without further rotation,
> ending up in a counter-rotated stance.

DONT SAY THAT!!!!!! DON'T SAY COUNTER ROTATION!!!

Say counter. They'll dock you.


> I have friends that like to ski with me. I didn't know it until
> recently that some of them are actually emulating what I do.
> But my far forward stance and almost tip-hooking turns seem to
> work very well for the kind of hill and conditions we have around
> here. I'm a little flattered but I still tell people to take a
> lesson from a "real" instructor.

Ach, ask the Mahre bros how they used to ski. All over
the front of it, from what I understand. I think it still works
just fine today, but there's emphasis on being right in the
center of the ski. I mean, you *can* be in the center if
you want, it might have advantages, but it just *might*
be a bit easier the farther forward you are. For me, the
jury is still out, I'm just having a lot of fun fooling with this
forward, steer, up unweight stuff.

> Even when technique was changing, the "look" of the moment
> seemed to be all important.

That's what a lot of us feel needs to change, once and forever.

We like to think of teaching to the mechanics of skiing
themselves, and not a style or look. For instance, which
part of the mechanics does this skier lack?

That as opposed to, how does this skier not look like
our PSIA task turn?

> When I was actually teaching, a thousand years ago, I always
> tried to look at results. Even today, I'll admire an effective
> skier more than I will admire a pretty skier (in terms of
> skiing, there can also be other criteria).

Pretty is *so* deceptive, and relative. And such a social
construction. Results don't lie.

> Actually I've lost all interest in teaching. Been there, done
> that, moved on to ski for myself. I've earned it.

Sure.




02 Mar 2005 20:19:06
VtSkier
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings- one ski skiing/steering

lal_truckee wrote:
> foot2foot wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, Wedeln is a whole system for learning, teaching
>> and skiing, mostly involving getting way foward on the skis,
>> and jumping the tails of the skis back and forth, in a wedeln
>> (wagging, like a dog's tail) motion.
>
>
> Do you have a cite for this? I've never heard of wedeln as a "system for
> learning" - only as a graceful showoff series of undulating almost-turns
> where the skier made no direction change or edge set at all, but just
> appeared to, back in my early days.
>
> Where have you run across it as a "system for learning?" That would be
> an interesting ski history tidbit unknown to me.

Good Lord, LAL, did we grow up at the same ski
area unbeknownst to each other? That's exactly
as I described it.


02 Mar 2005 20:49:36
VtSkier
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings- one ski skiing/steering

foot2foot wrote:
>>What the Austrians at Killington described as wedeln was not
>>especially a way to ski as in instruction method, it was the
>>"sloshing" back and forth that I described.
>
>
> Or, you could read the book "Wedeln, The New Way to
> Ski".... or something like that, by the boys themselves.
>
>
>>It could have been
>>that they weren't allowed to use terms from the Austrian method
>>since Killington was a PSIA mountain, even back then, when
>>Okemo was trying out Walter Foeger's "NaturTechniq". Camel
>>Back skiers remember this?
>
>
>>>>I really liked Stein's "mambo" turns which can be described
>>>>as a slow wedeln with exaggerated counter-rotation with the
>>>>hips really pushed to the inside of the turns. Even prettier
>>>>than wedeln. Graceful. Something I might think of a Frenchman
>>>>doing, but invented by a Norwegian. It was much less frantic
>>>>than watching the Austrians do wedeln.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, that "serpentine' motion of the body, hips going one way
>>>laterally, shoulders the other, tight stance. It's only good for
>>>linked turns though. You can't really pick your turn shape.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, only linked turns, if you didn't begin the next turn,
>>you'd fall to the inside.
>
>
> There's lots of people that still ski that way.
>
Don't they think they are carving?
>
>>>The short swing that all the ski world knew, that PSIA (as of
>>>two years ago anyway, I haven't seen it since) had polluted out
>>>of existence.
>>>
>>
>>"polluted" out of existence?
>
>
> Meaning PSIA took skiing reality and changed it into
> their own group version.
>
> Meaning, as of three years ago when it was a level II task
> it was this silly thing that involves a pivot after a "sink"
> (or down unweight), and some other steering and crap,
> it was nothing like the real shortswing. It was more of a
> down unweight short radius task turn.
>
> In fact, I *did* the real shortswing (kind of, but well enough),
> and got a sort of, what's that? By a serious veteran "old time
> boy" examiner that was even known to spout the term
> "stembogen". Didn't actually know what a real shortswing
> turn was and has been for decades.
>
>
>>>Lito describes it as used on something so steep, narrow and icy
>>>that you can do nothing else. You can't edge, or else you'll
>>>accellerate and go off the cliff, into the rock, or whatever, so
>>>you have to slip the whole time, save for one strong edge set
>>>per turn, with skis across the hill, to control speed. Indeed, a
>>>scary idea to *need* to resort to this. One slip and you're
>>>dead.
>>>
>>>Start to slip down the hill, set the edges sharply, rebound from
>>>that set and pivot the skis the other way, land in a *sideslip*,
>>>skid the skis the rest of the way around, and set the edges
>>>again, then repeat all the way down the hill until you are safe.
>>>
>>
>>This sounds/feels more like the windshield wiper turn for
>>VERY steep scary conditions.
>
>
> Land in a slip, and slip all the way around till the skis are
> across straight across the hill? I've always known that as
> shortswing.
>
I thought so. We learned that for the conditions you mention,
but we also did "shortswing" as I described, platforms, but
a long way from perp to the fall line.

> With windshield wiper, the skis wouldn't come all the way
> across the hill as far as I thought.
>
The pictures of Souvaine (sp?) that I've seen sure look
that way.
>
>>In the 60's the "platform" was the basis for all strong turns.
>>(Stemming was the only other method of getting a turn started,
>>but even that was changing. A down-stem strongly resembles
>>a parallel platform, but was seen as inefficient and despite
>>the fact that they were teaching a down skid for a platform,
>>they were teaching an up-stem for that kind of turn.)
>>
>>The short-swing as it was developing was a series of linked
>>turns close to the fall line with the platform preceding each
>>turn. What I think you are describing is something similar but
>>a little more aggressive in its braking ability.
>
>
> Yea, skis straight across the fall line, *really* hard edge set
> to rebound. It's described in "Breakthrough on Skis" first
> edition, and other places, I'll look.
>
>
>>I'll bet the
>>skis are supposed to go almost perpendicular to the fall line
>>between each turn and you are almost jumping off a traverse,
>>however short, for each turn. Very effective on steep, but on
>>icy you need to keep a more quiet edge. Going from one set of
>>edges to the other so abruptly usually results in a juddery
>>skid if it's steep also.
>
>
> You slip into the edgeset, like a hockey stop, hit really hard
> then rebound off that and turn again. Kind of like a platform.
>
> It really isn't a "turn" at all, there's no time for the skis to judder,
> they slip, then a pop of an edgeset, then another "turn".
>
Yes, that would work but you would really need to be out over
your skis so they don't go out from under you.
>
>
>>I think the French technique of the 60's - 70's even called
>>this "anticipation".
>
>
> So do a lot of people today. Besides us PSIA's.
>
> We have to call anything like that "counter" which falls a bit
> short of what's really going on, in any case.
>
>
>>Rotate in the direction of the turn, then
>>steer your feet/legs around under you without further rotation,
>>ending up in a counter-rotated stance.
>
>
> DONT SAY THAT!!!!!! DON'T SAY COUNTER ROTATION!!!
>
> Say counter. They'll dock you.
>
Oh, sorry. I REALLY meant a quiet upper body, generally
facing down the hill.
>
>
>>I have friends that like to ski with me. I didn't know it until
>>recently that some of them are actually emulating what I do.
>>But my far forward stance and almost tip-hooking turns seem to
>>work very well for the kind of hill and conditions we have around
>>here. I'm a little flattered but I still tell people to take a
>>lesson from a "real" instructor.
>
>
> Ach, ask the Mahre bros how they used to ski. All over
> the front of it, from what I understand. I think it still works
> just fine today, but there's emphasis on being right in the
> center of the ski. I mean, you *can* be in the center if
> you want, it might have advantages, but it just *might*
> be a bit easier the farther forward you are.

Steeper the hill, the more forward I am, unless tired, then
I can get into the backseat with no trouble at all.

A centered stance works nice for big, hill-hogging carved
turns that the euros like to do without poles. A lot of modern
skis like this stance and respond nicely. However, where
I ski, this is often a good way to get hit, so when it's
crowded, there I am, right up next to the woods, doing
linked short turns and If it's clear, pressing out across
the trail for a few big ones.

Also, next to the trees is where all the snow gets scraped
to, so it's often the best conditions available until you
go into the woods.

> For me, the
> jury is still out, I'm just having a lot of fun fooling with this
> forward, steer, up unweight stuff.
>
Think about this:
Down-unweighting is flexing your knees. If you flex your knees
you tend to press them (your knees) a bit into the hill. This
has the effect of edging you skis MORE when you really want to
edge them LESS.

Up-unweighting on the other hand is straightening your legs,
allowing the skis to flatten, making the skid a cinch to do.

Where down-unweighting, or rather flexing your knees to initiate
a turn, works well is in the use of terrain features like
moguls, covered rocks and stumps, etc. Here the "feature"
provides an up-force AND a flexing of the knees. Go with it
and change the ski direction with the knees very flexed, maybe
in a skid, but more likely with the tails actually off the
snow.
>
>>Even when technique was changing, the "look" of the moment
>>seemed to be all important.
>
>
> That's what a lot of us feel needs to change, once and forever.
>
> We like to think of teaching to the mechanics of skiing
> themselves, and not a style or look. For instance, which
> part of the mechanics does this skier lack?
>
> That as opposed to, how does this skier not look like
> our PSIA task turn?
>
>
>>When I was actually teaching, a thousand years ago, I always
>>tried to look at results. Even today, I'll admire an effective
>>skier more than I will admire a pretty skier (in terms of
>>skiing, there can also be other criteria).
>
>
> Pretty is *so* deceptive, and relative. And such a social
> construction. Results don't lie.
>
>
>>Actually I've lost all interest in teaching. Been there, done
>>that, moved on to ski for myself. I've earned it.
>
>
> Sure.
>
>


02 Mar 2005 21:32:05
VtSkier
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings- one ski skiing/steering

Here are some references to wedeln and a few other things
I wrote about in this thread and others. In effect there is
little new under the sun. But some action always has a
starting point. These pages point to some of the origins of
the things we have been discussing. Foot, you have some
others, I'm sure, but these refer to events in the dark ages
of the 1950's.

From "German English Words . Com
wedeln n.
from wedeln "to wag": a skiing technique first developed in Austria
in the 1950s that consists of high-speed turns made in succession with
both skis parallel while not noticeably setting the ski edges on a
slope. Using this technique one's rear end wags like a dog's tail [<
German wedeln "to wag (the tail), fan" < Middle High German wadelen,
wedelen < wadel, wedel "fan, tuft of hair" < Old High German wadal, wedil].

Note the "not noticeably setting the ski edges" part of the
definition.

I mentioned Walter Foeger in this thread.
http://www.walterfoeger.com/article_naturteknik_02.htm

This is really cool, It appears to be a scan to text using OCR
with misteaks left in:
http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/accn425/bx1/fd1/054.html

Another interesting page, minutes from Information angĺende
Interski Interski ‘Federation of Ski Instruction’ 50 Years old"
by Sepp Redl.
http://www.friluftsframjandet.ac.se/Distriktstrimning%20alpin%2003/Distrtiktstrimning%20Interski%2003.htm

And interestingly, here is what we have been talking about, with
pictures:
http://www.btinternet.com/~diptone/arp/bioski.htm
Not as well written as Lito, for instance, but all there.
There is a statement in this which I find interesting, and
note that it was written about 1994:
"The steering phase of this turn follows an idealised arc
round a radius. However, since it is impossible to perfectly
carve a turn, we can only apply Newton's laws in theory."


There is a statement on this page that describes the "event"
as something "new" and "never done before". Well, about 5
years ago we had a couple who were Ambassadors at Killington
who were VERY skilled in this event, using unique equipment.
They were a joy to watch.
http://www2p.biglobe.ne.jp/~skid/english.htm


02 Mar 2005 22:54:58
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings- one ski skiing/steering

VtSkier wrote:

> lal_truckee wrote:
>
>> foot2foot wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Actually, Wedeln is a whole system for learning, teaching
>>> and skiing, mostly involving getting way foward on the skis,
>>> and jumping the tails of the skis back and forth, in a wedeln
>>> (wagging, like a dog's tail) motion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you have a cite for this? I've never heard of wedeln as a "system
>> for learning" - only as a graceful showoff series of undulating
>> almost-turns where the skier made no direction change or edge set at
>> all, but just appeared to, back in my early days.
>>
>> Where have you run across it as a "system for learning?" That would be
>> an interesting ski history tidbit unknown to me.
>
>
> Good Lord, LAL, did we grow up at the same ski
> area unbeknownst to each other? That's exactly
> as I described it.

Me too. Maple Ridge, what was yours?

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



02 Mar 2005 22:19:03
Stephen B.
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote in message
news:s-2dneRr4bZCs7vfRVn-hw@bcn.net...
> Stephen B. wrote:
>
<SNIP >
> >
> >
> > I think this is a case of us having to agree to disagree, but I will
give it
> > one more try.
> >
> > A simple line drawing of the trails and lifts (like a NYC or London
subway
> > map) will show clearly how to connect from one trail to another, but
miss
> > all slope and trail details.
> >
> > An aerial photograph gives great realism but trees and ridges can block
the
> > view of the trails behind them. The human eye can extrapolate the
exposed
> > slopes and trail widths somewhat adequately.
>
> Right, but an aerial photograph takes artistic license, and contours, to
> be useful and meaningful, rely on a realistic representation.


An Aerial Photograph is a Photograph no artistic licence. It is what the
camera sees. "the camera never lies" untill it gets digitaly enhanced.

> > Current trail maps do a good job of combining the line drawing and
aerial
> > photograph. using artistic license to pull the areas hidden behind trees
and
> > ridges into view. Thus allowing safe navigation of the mountain.
> >
> > Now picture the same mountain painted width a red stripe on everything
> > between the base 0 and 10 feet of elevation and another between 50 and
60
> > feet, 100-110, 150-160 and so on up the mountain. This painted width of
the
> > line would be 10 feet wide on a cliff face, but could easily surpass 50
feet
> > wide in places.
>
> I don't think you meant a painted line 10 feet wide, I think you meant
> "painted lines 10 feet in elevation apart". Either way, you're still
> not addressing my objective. Let me try to explain the problem using
> some simple math.
>
> Imagine the simplest possible mountain -- shaped like a cone.
> Three-dimensional object. A line from the top to any point on the base
> is the same length as a line from the top to any other point on the
> base, right?


Right

> Now imagine that you're looking at the cone from the front, and that
> you've drawn a line from the top to the base at the point closest to
> you, and another from the top to the base at a point 90 degrees away
> from you. On the three-dimensional cone surface, the lines are the same
> length (or, on our cone-shaped mountain, the runs are the same distance).
>
> However, when you take that front-facing image of the cone and project
> it onto a flat piece of paper, the lines that represent the two runs are
> not the same length. The one directly facing you is a vertical line,
> the other is at an angle and joins the first one at the top, and the
> vertical line -- the one representing the run on the moountain that
> faces you directly -- is shorter than the other (ref. pythagorean
> theorem).


Depends where are you putting the projection point, and the paper.

*IF* you are projecting onto a vertical plane yes, but trail maps typicaly
are NOT projections onto a vertial plane, they are aerial views from above
the mountain. Measure the distance on a photograph of that cone when looked
at from above and to the side, the front trail is longer.

Ok I admit the angle of view is somewhat critical, when taken at infinity
looking perpendicular to the midle of the slope the lines would be
identical. Veiwing from this angle but closer in, the front line gets
bigger. Shift further up (looking more downword) and again the front line
will be longer untill you look straight down onto the cone.

> Now draw contours onto that mountain map. What do you see? A series of
> perfectly regular horizontal lines. Looking at that, someone says,
> "Gee, this run down the front face has less distance between the
> contours; it's steeper than the other one!" Even though, of course, the
> slope of the two runs is identical.

Depends again where you put the projection point and paper. My orientation
would have a series of arcs. with the side run ending hier up on the page.

> I understand that you believe that an artist's rendering could somehow
> overcome this. My reply is that I want to see the artist's rendering
> that does that. In any case, it's all suggestion and interpretation,
> not hard data.

True it is not hard data, it is a trail map which is a visualization aid. We
are talking about improving trail maps (which are not hard data) not
mountain elevations or topographical maps.

Stephen B.
NYC




03 Mar 2005 01:31:33
foot2foot
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings- one ski skiing/steering


"lal_truckee" <lal_truckee@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:38n4vsF5plruoU1@individual.net...
> foot2foot wrote:
>>
>> Actually, Wedeln is a whole system for learning, teaching
>> and skiing, mostly involving getting way foward on the skis,
>> and jumping the tails of the skis back and forth, in a wedeln
>> (wagging, like a dog's tail) motion.
>
> Do you have a cite for this? I've never heard of wedeln as a "system for
> learning" - only as a graceful showoff series of undulating almost-turns
> where the skier made no direction change or edge set at all, but just
> appeared to, back in my early days.
>
> Where have you run across it as a "system for learning?" That would be an
> interesting ski history tidbit unknown to me.

Have you *still* not learned to trust me yet?

Try:

WEDELN,

the new Austrian Skiing Technique, by Clemens M. Hutter.

Hanover House, 1960

L o C card catalogue number 60-14565

It's a whole learn how to ski thing.

sHEEsh.




03 Mar 2005 08:32:57
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Stephen B. wrote:

> "Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net> wrote in message
> news:s-2dneRr4bZCs7vfRVn-hw@bcn.net...
>
>>Stephen B. wrote:
>>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>>
>>>I think this is a case of us having to agree to disagree, but I will
>
> give it
>
>>>one more try.
>>>
>>>A simple line drawing of the trails and lifts (like a NYC or London
>
> subway
>
>>>map) will show clearly how to connect from one trail to another, but
>
> miss
>
>>>all slope and trail details.
>>>
>>>An aerial photograph gives great realism but trees and ridges can block
>
> the
>
>>>view of the trails behind them. The human eye can extrapolate the
>
> exposed
>
>>>slopes and trail widths somewhat adequately.
>>
>>Right, but an aerial photograph takes artistic license, and contours, to
>>be useful and meaningful, rely on a realistic representation.
>
>
> An Aerial Photograph is a Photograph no artistic licence. It is what the
> camera sees. "the camera never lies" untill it gets digitaly enhanced.

Sorry, bad terminology on my part. It's not an aerial photograph, it's
an artist's rendering from an aerial perspective.

>>>Current trail maps do a good job of combining the line drawing and
>
> aerial
>
>>>photograph. using artistic license to pull the areas hidden behind trees
>
> and
>
>>>ridges into view. Thus allowing safe navigation of the mountain.
>>>
>>>Now picture the same mountain painted width a red stripe on everything
>>>between the base 0 and 10 feet of elevation and another between 50 and
>
> 60
>
>>>feet, 100-110, 150-160 and so on up the mountain. This painted width of
>
> the
>
>>>line would be 10 feet wide on a cliff face, but could easily surpass 50
>
> feet
>
>>>wide in places.
>>
>>I don't think you meant a painted line 10 feet wide, I think you meant
>>"painted lines 10 feet in elevation apart". Either way, you're still
>>not addressing my objective. Let me try to explain the problem using
>>some simple math.
>>
>>Imagine the simplest possible mountain -- shaped like a cone.
>>Three-dimensional object. A line from the top to any point on the base
>>is the same length as a line from the top to any other point on the
>>base, right?
>
> Right
>
>>Now imagine that you're looking at the cone from the front, and that
>>you've drawn a line from the top to the base at the point closest to
>>you, and another from the top to the base at a point 90 degrees away
>>from you. On the three-dimensional cone surface, the lines are the same
>>length (or, on our cone-shaped mountain, the runs are the same distance).
>>
>>However, when you take that front-facing image of the cone and project
>>it onto a flat piece of paper, the lines that represent the two runs are
>>not the same length. The one directly facing you is a vertical line,
>>the other is at an angle and joins the first one at the top, and the
>>vertical line -- the one representing the run on the moountain that
>>faces you directly -- is shorter than the other (ref. pythagorean
>>theorem).
>
> Depends where are you putting the projection point, and the paper.

I just explained that. Front view. Like, well, a trail map.

> *IF* you are projecting onto a vertical plane yes, but trail maps typicaly
> are NOT projections onto a vertial plane, they are aerial views from above
> the mountain. Measure the distance on a photograph of that cone when looked
> at from above and to the side, the front trail is longer.

You're looking at it from the front, and if you like, from a slightly
higher perspective (not directly above). Mox nix. The front trail is
shorter, the side trail is longer.

> Ok I admit the angle of view is somewhat critical, when taken at infinity
> looking perpendicular to the midle of the slope the lines would be
> identical. Veiwing from this angle but closer in, the front line gets
> bigger.

No, it gets shorter. I'm talking about the typical projection of the
typical trail map. I can't even think of an exception.

>>Now draw contours onto that mountain map. What do you see? A series of
>>perfectly regular horizontal lines. Looking at that, someone says,
>>"Gee, this run down the front face has less distance between the
>>contours; it's steeper than the other one!" Even though, of course, the
>> slope of the two runs is identical.
>
> Depends again where you put the projection point and paper.

You put it where it's typically put on a trail map. If you do anything
different, you're not doing what you said -- adding contour lines onto a
trail map -- you're reinventing the trail map.

> My orientation
> would have a series of arcs. with the side run ending hier up on the page.

Then you've just distorted it in another way.

>>I understand that you believe that an artist's rendering could somehow
>>overcome this. My reply is that I want to see the artist's rendering
>>that does that. In any case, it's all suggestion and interpretation,
>>not hard data.
>
> True it is not hard data, it is a trail map which is a visualization aid. We
> are talking about improving trail maps (which are not hard data) not
> mountain elevations or topographical maps.

Again, I'd want to see an example. As it is a visual aid, I don't think
it's something you can demonstrate with words.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



03 Mar 2005 09:47:18
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings- one ski skiing/steering

VtSkier wrote:
>
> From "German English Words . Com
> wedeln n.
> from wedeln "to wag": a skiing technique first developed in Austria
> in the 1950s that consists of high-speed turns made in succession with
> both skis parallel while not noticeably setting the ski edges on a
> slope. Using this technique one's rear end wags like a dog's tail [<
> German wedeln "to wag (the tail), fan" < Middle High German wadelen,
> wedelen < wadel, wedel "fan, tuft of hair" < Old High German wadal, wedil].
>
> Note the "not noticeably setting the ski edges" part of the
> definition.


Ohmygod! Flat boarding again. Head for the hills.


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


03 Mar 2005 19:08:21
toony
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings - Please post your views on www.realisticskiing.com

On 24 Feb 2005 04:45:13 -0800, "Jeff" <jeff@bruce.com > wrote:

>We all know about single black and double black difficulty ratings.
>Occasionally rumors surface as to the existence of some nefarious
>triple blacks. Rarely, if ever, do I see beginner and intermediate
>trails with intercolor distinctions.
>
>My local ski area contains single and double greens, single and double
>blues and single and double blacks. I always thought this was quite
>useful. The double difficulty hills offer a nice introduction to the
>next level. A double green might have some intermediate levels of steep
>at short intervals. A double blue might be a cruiser with a short but
>steep drop at the top of the hill.
>
>Jeff




03 Mar 2005 13:01:59
The Real Bev
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Mary Malmros wrote:
>
> Stephen B. wrote:

> > True it is not hard data, it is a trail map which is a visualization aid. We
> > are talking about improving trail maps (which are not hard data) not
> > mountain elevations or topographical maps.
>
> Again, I'd want to see an example. As it is a visual aid, I don't think
> it's something you can demonstrate with words.

OK, how about this: Regular trail map BUT with slope areas >=45 degrees
colored red, slopes 35-44 degrees colored dark pink, slopes 25-34
degrees a lighter pink, etc... I look on it as a matter of interest
only, not of essential decision-making information.

--
Cheers,
Bev
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
"I read somewhere that 77 per cent of all the mentally ill live in
poverty. Actually, I'm more intrigued by the 23 per cent who are
apparently doing quite well for themselves." -- Emo Philips


05 Mar 2005 22:27:04
Sven Golly
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

klaus <klaus@xmission.xmission.com > wrote in news:cvnogv$unt$2
@news.xmission.com:

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

Same at Mammoth. My guess is Dos Pasos is pretty much a cakewalk right now.
The skier's left Paso is normally a cliff drop at the end and skier's right
is normally only 10' wide at the choke. Stuff that's normally double-D goes
single in huge snow years.

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove "_" to reply


05 Mar 2005 22:38:48
Sven Golly
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

"foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com > wrote in news:1122p9514dbkif7
@corp.supernews.com:

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

You must not have read my other post. This has all been suggested by the
ski industry and summarily rejected by the insurance companies and the
lawyers (and to a lesser extent by areas reluctant to deal in absolutes).

In addition, slope angles change with snow ccnditions and they are not
consistent over the course of the entire run.

It has even been suggested that the traditional blue, green, blue/black,
black, double black be modified to take into account slope angle but make
it absolute across all ski areas. That likewise has been rejected by the
insurance companies and lawyers. IF the US were a little more like Europe
in terms of skier self-responsibility / liability, there would probably
be a far greater chance of something like this happening. As it is, no
way Jose.

Now, shall we move on?

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove "_" to reply


07 Mar 2005 10:03:41
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Sven Golly wrote:
> "foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> wrote
>
>>A number with the degree of the slope is *simple*. And to
>>the point.
>
>
> You must not have read my other post. This has all been suggested by the
> ski industry and summarily rejected by the insurance companies and the
> lawyers (and to a lesser extent by areas reluctant to deal in absolutes).
>
> In addition, slope angles change with snow ccnditions and they are not
> consistent over the course of the entire run.
>
> It has even been suggested that the traditional blue, green, blue/black,
> black, double black be modified to take into account slope angle but make
> it absolute across all ski areas. That likewise has been rejected by the
> insurance companies and lawyers.

Insurance companies and lawyers. Insurance companies and lawyers.

Do you have any real evidence that this is the case, or are you just
blaming everything on your favorite two personal demons?


> IF the US were a little more like Europe
> in terms of skier self-responsibility / liability, there would probably
> be a far greater chance of something like this happening.

If the US were a little more like Europe in terms of universal health
care and a social safety net, you wouldn't need all this litigation. As
it is, if you get seriously injured in the states and you can't work,
you lose your job, and then lose your health insurance. And then you're
SOL, unless you can sucessfully sue someone.


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


07 Mar 2005 11:00:27
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt wrote:

> Sven Golly wrote:
>
>> "foot2foot" <foot2foot@notatjuno.com> wrote
>>
>>> A number with the degree of the slope is *simple*. And to
>>> the point.
>>
>>
>>
>> You must not have read my other post. This has all been suggested by
>> the ski industry and summarily rejected by the insurance companies and
>> the lawyers (and to a lesser extent by areas reluctant to deal in
>> absolutes).
>>
>> In addition, slope angles change with snow ccnditions and they are not
>> consistent over the course of the entire run.
>>
>> It has even been suggested that the traditional blue, green,
>> blue/black, black, double black be modified to take into account slope
>> angle but make it absolute across all ski areas. That likewise has
>> been rejected by the insurance companies and lawyers.
>
>
> Insurance companies and lawyers. Insurance companies and lawyers.
>
> Do you have any real evidence that this is the case, or are you just
> blaming everything on your favorite two personal demons?

Well, I suppose they could have always rejected it because it just ain't
all that functional...

>> IF the US were a little more like Europe in terms of skier
>> self-responsibility / liability, there would probably be a far greater
>> chance of something like this happening.
>
>
> If the US were a little more like Europe in terms of universal health
> care and a social safety net, you wouldn't need all this litigation. As
> it is, if you get seriously injured in the states and you can't work,
> you lose your job, and then lose your health insurance. And then you're
> SOL, unless you can sucessfully sue someone.

Amen. Hey, I've got a suggestion: if we have a flu vaccine, um, _issue_
like we did this past winter, I think there are a few more categories of
people who ought to have higher priority than the average shlub. Anyone
who lacks health insurance, anyone who doesn't have any paid time off
from their job, anyone who works with small children (and their runny
noses), and anyone who has to work outside in the winter!

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



07 Mar 2005 08:50:03
lal_truckee
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Mary Malmros wrote:
> anyone who has to work outside in the winter!
>
Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! Me!
My work [snork] takes me outside all winter long, and spring, summer and
fall! I want the goodies.



07 Mar 2005 11:53:04
bdubya
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:00:27 -0500, Mary Malmros
<malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote:

>
>Amen. Hey, I've got a suggestion: if we have a flu vaccine, um, _issue_
>like we did this past winter, I think there are a few more categories of
>people who ought to have higher priority than the average shlub. Anyone
>who lacks health insurance, anyone who doesn't have any paid time off
>from their job, anyone who works with small children (and their runny
>noses), and anyone who has to work outside in the winter!

I'd like to see the use of flu vaccines _severely_ reduced,
personally. I always just trust to my immune system, and if I do get
one, it's generally not too bad. But after a few more years of
breeding for the nastiest strains (which is what we're really doing
with the widespread vaccinations), the "average" flu could be
something much more virulent than it is today.

bw


07 Mar 2005 18:17:22
MoonMan
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Bob Lee wrote:
> foot2foot wrote:
>
>> "... 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.
>
> You might consider that you're the one making it more complicated than
> it needs to be. Green, blue, black - easier, more difficult, most
> difficult. What could be more simple? Plus most of the runs at most
> of the places I ski don't have signage that would easily support the
> information you're suggesting.
>
>> The skier or boarder would *really* know for sure what
>> they are getting into, and it would hold true from resort to
>> resort.
>
> I have to say that *really* knowing for sure what I was getting into
> would suck all the fun out of it in a heartbeat. But having fun
> doesn't seem to be one of your top priorities.
>

I think you should go for a nice simple system like for example

blue = Easy
red = intermediate
black = Difficult.

Oh and possibly Green = flat or a road.

and of course you must remember the requirements for a piste grader
1) a complete inabilty to ski (or board)
2) no sense of proportion!

Chris *<:-)




07 Mar 2005 14:44:38
VtSkier
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

lal_truckee wrote:
> Mary Malmros wrote:
>
>> anyone who has to work outside in the winter!
>>
> Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! Me!
> My work [snork] takes me outside all winter long, and spring, summer and
> fall! I want the goodies.
>
Pay no attention here, lal is pretending he's retired.


08 Mar 2005 07:19:06
ant
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Walt" <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com > wrote in message news:h3_Wd.353
> If the US were a little more like Europe in terms of universal health care
> and a social safety net, you wouldn't need all this litigation. As it is,
> if you get seriously injured in the states and you can't work, you lose
> your job, and then lose your health insurance. And then you're SOL,
> unless you can sucessfully sue someone.

Hey, that there's Communist talk!

I had a similar conversation yesterday with a guest from Romania, of all
places.

ant




08 Mar 2005 07:20:39
ant
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote in message
news:pNWdnUCoTrQ857HfRVn-
> Amen. Hey, I've got a suggestion: if we have a flu vaccine, um, _issue_
> like we did this past winter, I think there are a few more categories of
> people who ought to have higher priority than the average shlub. Anyone
> who lacks health insurance, anyone who doesn't have any paid time off from
> their job, anyone who works with small children (and their runny noses),
> and anyone who has to work outside in the winter!

Many companies in Australia give free flu needles to their staff, to cut
down on long term illness. And last year at Stowe, they offered us all flu
needles too, which was great. Many of us took them up on that.

ant




07 Mar 2005 20:31:16
uglymoney
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:20:39 +1100, "ant" <ant_kNOT@geocities.com >
wrote:

>
>"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net> wrote in message
>news:pNWdnUCoTrQ857HfRVn-
>> Amen. Hey, I've got a suggestion: if we have a flu vaccine, um, _issue_
>> like we did this past winter, I think there are a few more categories of
>> people who ought to have higher priority than the average shlub. Anyone
>> who lacks health insurance, anyone who doesn't have any paid time off from
>> their job, anyone who works with small children (and their runny noses),
>> and anyone who has to work outside in the winter!
>
>Many companies in Australia give free flu needles to their staff, to cut
>down on long term illness. And last year at Stowe, they offered us all flu
>needles too, which was great. Many of us took them up on that.
>
>ant
>

A lot of US companies offer free shots. I've had them offered to me
every year for a decade. This year they had to cancel, which stunk.

I love getting a flu shot. I'd get a cold shot, a bronchitis shot,
creeping crud shot, whatever they offer

Bring on the shots!

nate


07 Mar 2005 20:49:46
Sven Golly
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com > wrote in
news:h3_Wd.353$Ql3.328@news.itd.umich.edu:

> Insurance companies and lawyers. Insurance companies and lawyers.
>
> Do you have any real evidence that this is the case, or are you just
> blaming everything on your favorite two personal demons?

Yeah, I've talked to the people involved directly including two mountain
managers, several ski company execs and many lawyers.

>> IF the US were a little more like Europe
>> in terms of skier self-responsibility / liability, there would
>> probably be a far greater chance of something like this happening.
>
> If the US were a little more like Europe in terms of universal health
> care and a social safety net, you wouldn't need all this litigation.
> As it is, if you get seriously injured in the states and you can't
> work, you lose your job, and then lose your health insurance. And
> then you're SOL, unless you can sucessfully sue someone.

Give me a break. You have neither in "Europe" and what there is varies
widely by country. Social safety net? Define please. Examples. Are you
saying that all of Europe guarantees you'll have your job if you're laid
up from a ski injury for 6 months? Maybe in a couple of French unions
but that's changing too.

What you DO have is universal very limited liability for ski areas
across the board no matter what bad things they do or what conditions
exist. That doesn't exist in the US (or Canada for that matter).

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove the _ to reply by email


07 Mar 2005 15:50:15
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

lal_truckee wrote:
> Mary Malmros wrote:
>
>> anyone who has to work outside in the winter!
>>
> Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! Me!
> My work [snork] takes me outside all winter long, and spring, summer and
> fall!

Ah, but are you getting paid for it?


--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



07 Mar 2005 16:00:06
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

bdubya wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:00:27 -0500, Mary Malmros
> <malmrosnospam@bcn.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Amen. Hey, I've got a suggestion: if we have a flu vaccine, um, _issue_
>>like we did this past winter, I think there are a few more categories of
>>people who ought to have higher priority than the average shlub. Anyone
>>who lacks health insurance, anyone who doesn't have any paid time off
>
>>from their job, anyone who works with small children (and their runny
>
>>noses), and anyone who has to work outside in the winter!
>
>
> I'd like to see the use of flu vaccines _severely_ reduced,
> personally. I always just trust to my immune system, and if I do get
> one, it's generally not too bad. But after a few more years of
> breeding for the nastiest strains (which is what we're really doing
> with the widespread vaccinations), the "average" flu could be
> something much more virulent than it is today.

Feel free to severely reduce your own use. I would have had no problem
being sick once, for a week or so, but after two go-rounds of being
pretty seriously sick this winter -- sick for weeks, including a case of
walking pneumonia -- in a situation where no work = no pay, I think I'd
go for the vaccine next time.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



07 Mar 2005 16:26:39
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Sven Golly wrote:
> Walt <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com> wrote
>
>>Insurance companies and lawyers. Insurance companies and lawyers.
>>
>>Do you have any real evidence that this is the case, or are you just
>>blaming everything on your favorite two personal demons?
>
> Yeah, I've talked to the people involved directly including two mountain
> managers, several ski company execs and many lawyers.

But nothing that you can cite. Just a friend of a friend told me so.
Right....

>>>IF the US were a little more like Europe
>>>in terms of skier self-responsibility / liability, there would
>>>probably be a far greater chance of something like this happening.
>>
>>If the US were a little more like Europe in terms of universal health
>>care and a social safety net, you wouldn't need all this litigation.
>>As it is, if you get seriously injured in the states and you can't
>>work, you lose your job, and then lose your health insurance. And
>>then you're SOL, unless you can sucessfully sue someone.
>
> Give me a break. You have neither in "Europe"

There is no universal health care in Europe? News to me.

And no social safety net? Then why all the Sweden-bashing among the
right-wingers? Is it all about the Lutefisk and Volvos?


> What you DO have is universal very limited liability for ski areas
> across the board no matter what bad things they do or what conditions
> exist. That doesn't exist in the US (or Canada for that matter).

Bullshit. You are completely talking out of your ass here, Sven.

Please familiarize yourself with the relevant US statutes before
shooting your mouth off. For instance, here's a reasonable intro:

http://www.skisafety.com/jimart-beginners.html

And if you really really wanna feel embarrased, read this actual legal
decision:

http://www.icle.org/michlaw/oview.cfm?caseid=12158711

and re-evaluate you statement about limited liability being non-existant
in the US. What you say is preposterous.


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


07 Mar 2005 15:56:21
bdubya
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

On 7 Mar 2005 20:49:46 GMT, Sven Golly <sven_golly@myrealbox.com >
wrote:

> You have neither in "Europe" and what there is varies
>widely by country.

Man, I just LOVE sentences like that.

bw


07 Mar 2005 17:10:35
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt wrote:

> Sven Golly wrote:
>
>> Walt <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>> Insurance companies and lawyers. Insurance companies and lawyers.
>>>
>>> Do you have any real evidence that this is the case, or are you just
>>> blaming everything on your favorite two personal demons?
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I've talked to the people involved directly including two
>> mountain managers, several ski company execs and many lawyers.
>
>
> But nothing that you can cite. Just a friend of a friend told me so.
> Right....

Jeez, Walt, listen to yourself. He _didn't_ give names; doesn't mean
they don't exist. He said nothing about "friend of a friend"; rather,
he said he talked to these people directly. Why did you distort his
words?

[snip]

What you say is preposterous.

Perhaps it would seem less preposterous if you tried to get insurance
for an outdoor sport. Regardless of the statute and case law, insurance
companies have the power to enforce "safety standards" if they want to,
simply be refusing to cover you (or jacking your premiums through the
roof) if you don't comply. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is,
and insurance companies have a lot of de facto power. My neighbor is a
whitewater outfitter, owner of a company that's been incident-free its
entire history, and I've heard a bit from him about what's happened to
his premiums and requirements over the years.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



07 Mar 2005 17:46:51
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Mary Malmros wrote:
> Walt wrote:
>> Sven Golly wrote:
>>> Walt <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Insurance companies and lawyers. Insurance companies and lawyers.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any real evidence that this is the case, or are you just
>>>> blaming everything on your favorite two personal demons?

>>>
>>> Yeah, I've talked to the people involved directly including two
>>> mountain managers, several ski company execs and many lawyers.
>>
>> But nothing that you can cite. Just a friend of a friend told me so.
>> Right....
>
> Jeez, Walt, listen to yourself. He _didn't_ give names; doesn't mean
> they don't exist. He said nothing about "friend of a friend"; rather,
> he said he talked to these people directly. Why did you distort his words?


Sorry, Mary, but at this point I just don't put much stock in what Sven
says. He claims to have talked to people in the industry, but I just
don't believe his assertion that Lawyers and Insurance Companies are the
reason why there is no cross-resort standard for trail difficulty
ratings. As you pointed out, such a system is not really all that
practical - and that impracticality is a far simpler explanition than
Lawyers and Insurance Companies.

IOW, I'm calling bullshit.


> [snip]
>
> > What you say is preposterous.
>
> Perhaps it would seem less preposterous if you tried to get insurance
> for an outdoor sport. Regardless of the statute and case law, insurance
> companies have the power to enforce "safety standards" if they want to,
> simply be refusing to cover you (or jacking your premiums through the
> roof) if you don't comply. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is,
> and insurance companies have a lot of de facto power. My neighbor is a
> whitewater outfitter, owner of a company that's been incident-free its
> entire history, and I've heard a bit from him about what's happened to
> his premiums and requirements over the years.


So, have the Lawyers and Insurance Companies prevented the river rating
system?

I'm not arguing that insurance isn't expensive.

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


07 Mar 2005 17:54:50
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt wrote:

> Mary Malmros wrote:
>
>> Walt wrote:
>>
>>> Sven Golly wrote:
>>>
>>>> Walt <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Insurance companies and lawyers. Insurance companies and lawyers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have any real evidence that this is the case, or are you
>>>>> just blaming everything on your favorite two personal demons?
>
>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I've talked to the people involved directly including two
>>>> mountain managers, several ski company execs and many lawyers.
>>>
>>>
>>> But nothing that you can cite. Just a friend of a friend told me so.
>>> Right....
>>
>>
>> Jeez, Walt, listen to yourself. He _didn't_ give names; doesn't mean
>> they don't exist. He said nothing about "friend of a friend"; rather,
>> he said he talked to these people directly. Why did you distort his
>> words?
>
>
>
> Sorry, Mary, but at this point I just don't put much stock in what Sven
> says. He claims to have talked to people in the industry, but I just
> don't believe his assertion that Lawyers and Insurance Companies are the
> reason why there is no cross-resort standard for trail difficulty
> ratings. As you pointed out, such a system is not really all that
> practical - and that impracticality is a far simpler explanition than
> Lawyers and Insurance Companies.
>
> IOW, I'm calling bullshit.

I favor simpler explanations as being the likely ones, along the lines
of the old saying, "When you hear hoofbeats, look for horses." OTOH,
when Sven said he's had conversations that indicate otherwise, and you
say bullshit, what you're doing is calling the guy a liar. Sometimes
those hoofbeats _are_ zebras.

>> [snip]
>>
>> > What you say is preposterous.
>>
>> Perhaps it would seem less preposterous if you tried to get insurance
>> for an outdoor sport. Regardless of the statute and case law,
>> insurance companies have the power to enforce "safety standards" if
>> they want to, simply be refusing to cover you (or jacking your
>> premiums through the roof) if you don't comply. Maybe it shouldn't be
>> that way, but it is, and insurance companies have a lot of de facto
>> power. My neighbor is a whitewater outfitter, owner of a company
>> that's been incident-free its entire history, and I've heard a bit
>> from him about what's happened to his premiums and requirements over
>> the years.
>
>
> So, have the Lawyers and Insurance Companies prevented the river rating
> system?

The only thing that river ratings and ski trail ratings have in common
is the word "ratings". The river rating system was not created by
either commercial interests or by the Lawyer/Insurance Company Hegemony;
neither commercial interests nor the L/ICH own rivers, and they do not
rate them. You're talking apples and wankel rotary engines here.

> I'm not arguing that insurance isn't expensive.

Do you agree that insurance can be expensive and restrictive enough that
an insurance company's requirements swing an awful lot of clout -- as
much as laws, perhaps?

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



07 Mar 2005 17:02:23
Phlubarb
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

bdubya wrote:

>
> I'd like to see the use of flu vaccines _severely_ reduced,
> personally. I always just trust to my immune system, and if I do get
> one, it's generally not too bad. But after a few more years of
> breeding for the nastiest strains (which is what we're really doing
> with the widespread vaccinations), the "average" flu could be
> something much more virulent than it is today.
>
Actually that's not true. You're confusing the overuse of antibiotics vis-a-vis
antibiotic resistant bacteria. Your immune system does not have any impact on the
development on the virulent strains of viral infections. Immunizations basically introduce the
organism to your immune system in much the same way nature does. What DOES happen is
that viral agents mutate very rapidly and alter the antigen-antibody match-up to the point
that the organism appears to be new. Influenza RNA is extremely volatile but other viral
infections such as measles, varicella, rubella etc. are stable and once immunized you will not
catch them again. Jnfluenza mutates so quickly that the strains in vogue this year will be
different next year. That's why you need a new shot every year. In essence, immunizations
are quick and a smart way to go. The overuse of antibiotics is another story. Just remember,
the worst pandemic in the history of mankind was the 1918 Spanish (Swine) Flu outbreak.
Influenza is nothing to be triffled with. The evolution of the flu is unique as well because it
can make the jump from one species to another and that is where the virulence is derived.
Whenever you have pigs, chickens and humans living in close proximity, you're going to have
disease.




07 Mar 2005 18:51:44
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Mary Malmros wrote:

> The only thing that river ratings and ski trail ratings have in common
> is the word "ratings". The river rating system was not created by
> either commercial interests or by the Lawyer/Insurance Company Hegemony;
> neither commercial interests nor the L/ICH own rivers, and they do not
> rate them. You're talking apples and wankel rotary engines here.

Ok. Ski trail ratings are designated by the resort operator. River
ratings are rated by an independent org. That's certainly a difference.

But what's to stop an independent org (similar to the outfit that rates
rivers) from rating ski areas in a manner that is consistent across the
board? You and several others have suggested that such a hypothetical
rating system is impractical, and I'm inclined to agree. I just don't
think its the lawyers and insurance companies standing in the way.


> Do you agree that insurance can be expensive and restrictive enough that
> an insurance company's requirements swing an awful lot of clout -- as
> much as laws, perhaps?

Yes, it can. Especially in an area where there are few players and your
choices are either do as they say or go bare.

And sometimes insurance companies require unnecessary things. OTOH,
sometimes they require things that are quite a good idea, and that's not
necessarily a bad thing.

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


07 Mar 2005 18:58:26
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt wrote:

> Mary Malmros wrote:
>
>> The only thing that river ratings and ski trail ratings have in common
>> is the word "ratings". The river rating system was not created by
>> either commercial interests or by the Lawyer/Insurance Company
>> Hegemony; neither commercial interests nor the L/ICH own rivers, and
>> they do not rate them. You're talking apples and wankel rotary
>> engines here.
>
>
> Ok. Ski trail ratings are designated by the resort operator. River
> ratings are rated by an independent org. That's certainly a difference.

Not even an organization, just...people.

> But what's to stop an independent org (similar to the outfit that rates
> rivers) from rating ski areas in a manner that is consistent across the
> board? You and several others have suggested that such a hypothetical
> rating system is impractical, and I'm inclined to agree. I just don't
> think its the lawyers and insurance companies standing in the way.

I have no way of knowing if they are or not; I'm not sure why you're
assuming they aren't, or that it hasn't been proposed and met with some
resistence from those sources. There are more differences between ski
trails and rapids than the fact that the latter aren't rated by
commercial interests. They're not _owned_ by commercial interests, or
by anybody. If you get yourself killed in Stop Crying You Big Baby
Falls, nominally rated Class II, unless you were there with a commercial
outfitter, there's no one that you can possibly sue. No one owns the
rapid, certainly not any commercial interests or lawyers or insurance
companies -- so they can hardly stop anyone from rating anything what
they want. But commercial interests _do_ own ski areas.

>> Do you agree that insurance can be expensive and restrictive enough
>> that an insurance company's requirements swing an awful lot of clout
>> -- as much as laws, perhaps?
>
> Yes, it can. Especially in an area where there are few players and your
> choices are either do as they say or go bare.
>
> And sometimes insurance companies require unnecessary things. OTOH,
> sometimes they require things that are quite a good idea, and that's not
> necessarily a bad thing.

Yup.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



08 Mar 2005 01:02:24
Sven Golly
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Mary Malmros <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote in
news:WPSdnUaSQab9TLHfRVn-hw@bcn.net:

> Jeez, Walt, listen to yourself. He _didn't_ give names; doesn't mean
> they don't exist. He said nothing about "friend of a friend"; rather,
> he said he talked to these people directly. Why did you distort his
> words?

Please trust me on this. I have spoken to those people. I'm not going to
mention them by name here because it's not an appropriate forum and "you
know who" starts playing games with that stuff.

I have worked as a ski rep, tester, consultant, sports product designer
and in marketing in the general sporting and action sports biz. Total of
about 15 years doing that off & on plus 10 years in high tech. I have no
axe to grind on the issue and would actually prefer to see a universal
trail rating system IF it was feasible.

Universal trail rating systems come up every so often with pretty much the
same issues everyone has run through here. Even IF you got a third party
to do the rating, none of the areas would post them on the actual slopes.
You might get someone to map the major areas but it's not the same as
seeing a blue circle right next to the run sign.

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove the _ to reply by email


07 Mar 2005 20:03:25
VtSkier
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt wrote:
> Mary Malmros wrote:
>
>> The only thing that river ratings and ski trail ratings have in common
>> is the word "ratings". The river rating system was not created by
>> either commercial interests or by the Lawyer/Insurance Company
>> Hegemony; neither commercial interests nor the L/ICH own rivers, and
>> they do not rate them. You're talking apples and wankel rotary
>> engines here.
>
>
> Ok. Ski trail ratings are designated by the resort operator. River
> ratings are rated by an independent org. That's certainly a difference.
>
> But what's to stop an independent org (similar to the outfit that rates
> rivers) from rating ski areas in a manner that is consistent across the
> board? You and several others have suggested that such a hypothetical
> rating system is impractical, and I'm inclined to agree. I just don't
> think its the lawyers and insurance companies standing in the way.
>
Occasionally I stick my nose in where I know nothing and have
no experience and that's what I'm doing here. Sticking
in an opinion that I can readily be disabused of
with a few facts. Of which I have none.

How many rivers are there in North America?
How many rivers are there in North America suitable for kayaking?

How many ski areas are there in North America?
How many trails does each ski area have on average?
(Killington claims 200 including Pico)

Somehow, and I could be all wet (!), but I suspect there
are a whole lot more ski trails in NA than there are
rivers suitable for kayaking. Oh, I know, different
stretches of rivers will have different ratings, but
so do different portions of ski trails.

Also, ski trail ratings can depend on things other than
pitch and width alone. There are blacks at Killington
that trails of that pitch and width are blue elsewhere
*on the mountain*. The difference is whether or not there
is snowmaking and grooming.

Great Bear would be blue for its pitch, but the fact
that it has no snowmaking and no grooming and the fact
that there is often open water at the bottom, the trail
is rated black. From my point of view it is one of the
nicer trails because the bumps never get bulletproof,
where snowmaking bumps do.

Ridge run, based on pitch would be green. But it is
always bumped and sometimes has difficulty with ice
in the troughs, it is rated blue. Again, no snowmaking
and no grooming.

For the reason that a national rating system for trails
is a hugely monumental task AND there are factors other
than pitch and width that enters into the trail's rating
that I agree that trail rating should be relative only
to the other trails at the area.

Also, put into the mix the fact that a trail that is
marked green, may be just fine for the person who has
had two days of lessons to get down in the morning, may
be a mine field to him at 4:00PM. Trail conditions change.
It's the nature of the beast. I've helped LOTS of people
get down at the end of the day when they should never
have been up there in the first place, but could have
negotiated the trail at the beginning of the day. We
try to warn people that they may have trouble, even with
"easier" trails (really roads) at the end of the day, but
after spending the day in lesson at Snowshed, they really
want the adventure of the "Big Mountain" to cap off
a day. We chuckle behind our glove and comment about how
dumb the folks are, but really, who wouldn't want to go
up the Big Mountain at the end of the day?

(snip the stuff about insurance companies)


07 Mar 2005 20:53:57
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

VtSkier wrote:

> Walt wrote:
[snip]
> How many rivers are there in North America?
> How many rivers are there in North America suitable for kayaking?
>
> How many ski areas are there in North America?
> How many trails does each ski area have on average?
> (Killington claims 200 including Pico)
>
> Somehow, and I could be all wet (!), but I suspect there
> are a whole lot more ski trails in NA than there are
> rivers suitable for kayaking. Oh, I know, different
> stretches of rivers will have different ratings, but
> so do different portions of ski trails.

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]

> For the reason that a national rating system for trails
> is a hugely monumental task AND there are factors other
> than pitch and width that enters into the trail's rating
> that I agree that trail rating should be relative only
> to the other trails at the area.

It is a huge task, which is why it didn't happen that way with rivers,
i.e., there wasn't a big project to rate 'em all. They got rated by the
people who ran 'em -- people who had enough experience with other rivers
that they could look at something new and call it class III or class IV
or whatever. And there's still plenty of disagreement, and frequent
accusations that this region or that overrates or underrates their rapids.

What it all boils down to is the need for local knowledge when venturing
into a new place -- something that has been mentioned in the context of
this thread. If you regularly run class IV whitewater, you probably
wouldn't think twice about running a strange river that's rated class
II. OTOH, if you're just moving up to class III, you'd want some real
detailed knowledge about a run before you took on a strange class III.
That's the only practical way to work it on the river, regardless of
class ratings, and I think people should expect things to work the same
way on the hill.

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



07 Mar 2005 19:59:57
bdubya
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:02:23 -0600 (CST), "Phlubarb"
<Wrigleyfield-no-spam@.invalid > wrote:

>bdubya wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd like to see the use of flu vaccines _severely_ reduced,
>> personally. I always just trust to my immune system, and if I do get
>> one, it's generally not too bad. But after a few more years of
>> breeding for the nastiest strains (which is what we're really doing
>> with the widespread vaccinations), the "average" flu could be
>> something much more virulent than it is today.
>>
>Actually that's not true. You're confusing the overuse of antibiotics vis-a-vis
>antibiotic resistant bacteria.

No, I'm not; I'm actually well aware of the differences. What I'm
really doing is applying a general concept (selective pressure) to a
specific case (the mutability and virulence of influenze strains) in
order to hassle Mary and kill a few minutes on a slow afternoon in the
office.

>Your immune system does not have any impact on the
>development on the virulent strains of viral infections. Immunizations basically introduce the
>organism to your immune system in much the same way nature does. What DOES happen is
>that viral agents mutate very rapidly and alter the antigen-antibody match-up to the point
>that the organism appears to be new. Influenza RNA is extremely volatile but other viral
>infections such as measles, varicella, rubella etc. are stable and once immunized you will not
>catch them again. Jnfluenza mutates so quickly that the strains in vogue this year will be
>different next year. That's why you need a new shot every year. In essence, immunizations
>are quick and a smart way to go. The overuse of antibiotics is another story. Just remember,
>the worst pandemic in the history of mankind was the 1918 Spanish (Swine) Flu outbreak.
>Influenza is nothing to be triffled with. The evolution of the flu is unique as well because it
>can make the jump from one species to another and that is where the virulence is derived.
>Whenever you have pigs, chickens and humans living in close proximity, you're going to have
>disease.

I'll allow as to how I may be wrong, but it does seem to me that
engaging in this sort of race with the group of virii in question
(producing a new vaccine each time around) would constitute a
selective pressure, encouraging increased mutability (although not
necessarily increased virulence as I suggested above). A bigger
problem with my argument is that we'd have to vaccinate a much higher
proportion of the population than we currently do in order to have
such an effect (hmm...mebbe I owe the prezdet an apology there.)

All of this raises two questions, one minor and one major. The minor
one is: was it hypociritical of me to dose myself with Zicam this AM
when I woke up with what feels like a chest cold coming on? The major
one relates to microbial cloud-seeding (cf. the 9/17/03 article at
http://brainmind.com/ScienceNews.html),and is more ethical in nature.
To wit, if we develop a virus which can prompt aerial crystallization
of water at temperatures above the commonly-accepted "freezing" point,
who do we use for a host organism to produce the quantities needed to
normalize surface conditions to a point where a cross-resort system of
trail ratings would be viable?

b"Captain On-Topic"w


08 Mar 2005 03:04:36
Sven Golly
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com > wrote in news:lO5Xd.371$Ql3.97
@news.itd.umich.edu:

> But what's to stop an independent org (similar to the outfit that rates
> rivers) from rating ski areas in a manner that is consistent across the
> board?

Nothing. The old SIA, then SSIA, now back to SIA, even proposed it. The
areas would never post them on the trails.

> You and several others have suggested that such a hypothetical
> rating system is impractical, and I'm inclined to agree. I just don't
> think its the lawyers and insurance companies standing in the way.

Then you don't know the ski industry.

BTW, we were "instructed" by our insurance company to adopt a few new
"practices" at work to simply keep our liability rates at 2004 levels.
This is in a FRICKING office for a company that does NOTHING risky. Oh,
and you might want to talk to an ObGyn about insurance practices and
legal liability sometime.

Walt, you can "call bullshit" on me all you like. I could really care
less. The prizes for "Best Bullshit Post" here are very small.

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove "_" to reply


08 Mar 2005 08:44:14
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

bdubya wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:02:23 -0600 (CST), "Phlubarb"
> <Wrigleyfield-no-spam@.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>bdubya wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'd like to see the use of flu vaccines _severely_ reduced,
>>>personally. I always just trust to my immune system, and if I do get
>>>one, it's generally not too bad. But after a few more years of
>>>breeding for the nastiest strains (which is what we're really doing
>>>with the widespread vaccinations), the "average" flu could be
>>>something much more virulent than it is today.
>>>
>>
>>Actually that's not true. You're confusing the overuse of antibiotics vis-a-vis
>>antibiotic resistant bacteria.
>
>
> No, I'm not; I'm actually well aware of the differences. What I'm
> really doing is applying a general concept (selective pressure) to a
> specific case (the mutability and virulence of influenze strains) in
> order to hassle Mary and kill a few minutes on a slow afternoon in the
> office.

You stop hassling me, or I'll come to your house and hawk up a
virulently virus-laden loogie and spit it in your face. So there.

>>Your immune system does not have any impact on the
>>development on the virulent strains of viral infections. Immunizations basically introduce the
>>organism to your immune system in much the same way nature does. What DOES happen is
>>that viral agents mutate very rapidly and alter the antigen-antibody match-up to the point
>>that the organism appears to be new. Influenza RNA is extremely volatile but other viral
>>infections such as measles, varicella, rubella etc. are stable and once immunized you will not
>>catch them again. Jnfluenza mutates so quickly that the strains in vogue this year will be
>>different next year. That's why you need a new shot every year. In essence, immunizations
>>are quick and a smart way to go. The overuse of antibiotics is another story. Just remember,
>>the worst pandemic in the history of mankind was the 1918 Spanish (Swine) Flu outbreak.
>>Influenza is nothing to be triffled with. The evolution of the flu is unique as well because it
>>can make the jump from one species to another and that is where the virulence is derived.
>>Whenever you have pigs, chickens and humans living in close proximity, you're going to have
>>disease.
>
> I'll allow as to how I may be wrong, but it does seem to me that
> engaging in this sort of race with the group of virii in question
> (producing a new vaccine each time around) would constitute a
> selective pressure, encouraging increased mutability (although not
> necessarily increased virulence as I suggested above). A bigger
> problem with my argument is that we'd have to vaccinate a much higher
> proportion of the population than we currently do in order to have
> such an effect (hmm...mebbe I owe the prezdet an apology there.)

Prezdet! I love it!

I've only ever had a flu shot once, and I got wicked sick afterwards.
BUT, I think if I continue to spend the winter surrounded by runny
noses, I might make a different choice next time around. It's likely
that a flu shot in the fall would have spared me several weeks of misery
and some lost wages and expenses.

Would it have encouraged the li'l bastards to mutate faster? Yeah,
arguably it does produce that pressure...or rather, it ups it. A
vaccine stimulates the immune system to produce antibodies that match
the anticipated flu strain of the year -- something that a healthy
immune system would do anyway once exposed to the virus, so one way or
another, whether by vaccine or exposure, I suppose the pressure on the
virus to mutate all comes out the same.

> All of this raises two questions, one minor and one major. The minor
> one is: was it hypociritical of me to dose myself with Zicam this AM
> when I woke up with what feels like a chest cold coming on?

Yes, you hypocrite! Doubly so if you then went skiing...

> The major
> one relates to microbial cloud-seeding (cf. the 9/17/03 article at
> http://brainmind.com/ScienceNews.html),and is more ethical in nature.
> To wit, if we develop a virus which can prompt aerial crystallization
> of water at temperatures above the commonly-accepted "freezing" point,
> who do we use for a host organism to produce the quantities needed to
> normalize surface conditions to a point where a cross-resort system of
> trail ratings would be viable?

Before you go there, I think you need to read "Cat's Cradle" by Kurt
Vonnegut. It's the end of the world!

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



08 Mar 2005 08:50:54
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Sven Golly wrote:
>
> Universal trail rating systems come up every so often with pretty much the
> same issues everyone has run through here. Even IF you got a third party
> to do the rating, none of the areas would post them on the actual slopes.
> You might get someone to map the major areas but it's not the same as
> seeing a blue circle right next to the run sign.

Ok. I see your point - the slopes wouldn't post the additional
information even if it was available.

And there is a real legal basis for it that the lawyers would no doubt
point out - Ski Area Operators are required to post a sign indicating
the relative degree of difficulty of the trail, using the usual symbols
(here, at least - your local laws may vary).

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


08 Mar 2005 10:18:19
Bill Griffiths
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Mon, 07 Mar 2005
20:03:25 -0500, VtSkier <VtSkier@nospam.com > wrote:

>Walt wrote:

>> But what's to stop an independent org (similar to the outfit that rates
>> rivers) from rating ski areas in a manner that is consistent across the
>> board? You and several others have suggested that such a hypothetical
>> rating system is impractical, and I'm inclined to agree. I just don't
>> think its the lawyers and insurance companies standing in the way.

[snip examples]

>For the reason that a national rating system for trails
>is a hugely monumental task AND there are factors other
>than pitch and width that enters into the trail's rating
>that I agree that trail rating should be relative only
>to the other trails at the area.

It's a monumental task if you want a national rating system to cover
individual trails.

If you're willing to settle for much less detail, and compare ski
areas instead of individual trails, then the task is manageable.


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


08 Mar 2005 11:00:25
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Bill Griffiths wrote:

> Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Mon, 07 Mar 2005
> 20:03:25 -0500, VtSkier <VtSkier@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Walt wrote:
>
>
>
>>>But what's to stop an independent org (similar to the outfit that rates
>>>rivers) from rating ski areas in a manner that is consistent across the
>>>board? You and several others have suggested that such a hypothetical
>>>rating system is impractical, and I'm inclined to agree. I just don't
>>>think its the lawyers and insurance companies standing in the way.
>
>
> [snip examples]
>
>
>>For the reason that a national rating system for trails
>>is a hugely monumental task AND there are factors other
>>than pitch and width that enters into the trail's rating
>>that I agree that trail rating should be relative only
>>to the other trails at the area.
>
>
> It's a monumental task if you want a national rating system to cover
> individual trails.
>
> If you're willing to settle for much less detail, and compare ski
> areas instead of individual trails, then the task is manageable.

Hrm. Interesting. So, clearly, we'd be departing completely from the
realm of green, blue, black. So what would the ratings consist of? And
would you get into environmental stuff too, like percent above treeline
or incidence of sudden severe weather or...???

--
Mary Malmros malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



08 Mar 2005 22:02:30
Sven Golly
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com > wrote in
news:35iXd.391$Ql3.174@news.itd.umich.edu:

> And there is a real legal basis for it that the lawyers would no
> doubt point out - Ski Area Operators are required to post a sign
> indicating the relative degree of difficulty of the trail, using the
> usual symbols (here, at least - your local laws may vary).

Yep - here's Colorado's law...

http://www.dora.state.co.us/tramway/SkierSafetyStatute.htm

Specifically look at 107. Basically, Colorado says define "Easiest" and
"Most Difficult" on YOUR hill as green circle and black diamond. Then
figure out what's in between. I notice there's no mention of "double
diamonds" which are used on trail maps so I'm thinking that maybe there's
an update to the code or it's simply accepted practice (sort of the "at
least one diamond" approach).

And this might also make you think about what ski areas go through in
thinking about how they might get sued.

http://www.hlnsj.com/pdf/RiskMgmt_SkiLift.pdf

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove the _ to reply by email


08 Mar 2005 17:54:39
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Sven Golly wrote:

> And this might also make you think about what ski areas go through in
> thinking about how they might get sued.
>
> http://www.hlnsj.com/pdf/RiskMgmt_SkiLift.pdf

Interesting reading, although it's a bit frustrating that many of the
cases cited don't include a jurisdiction - laws vary quite a bit from
state to state. It'd be nice to know what law applies.

The article's mostly about avoiding litigation regarding lift accidents,
and I can't say I see anything they suggest to be all that onerous - put
up signs, train the lifties, keep track of who's working when, etc.

There's also a section about making sure manmade hazards (i.e. fences,
barriers, signs, etc) are clearly visible. Again, I don't see much of a
problem with that.

But observe that there's nothing about avoiding litigation regarding
garden-variety accidents - i.e. falling down on the slopes and breaking
or snapping something. And that's because injuries that are part of the
inherent risk of the sport aren't actionable. People can try to sue,
but they don't win.

And I guess that's my main point - it's not like ski areas are being
sued everytime somebody falls down and gets hurt. There's a very broad
limitation of liability for things that fall under the inherent risk.


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


08 Mar 2005 22:04:23
Stephen B.
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@bcn.net > wrote
> Stephen B. wrote:

<SNIP >
> >>Now draw contours onto that mountain map. What do you see? A series of
> >>perfectly regular horizontal lines. Looking at that, someone says,
> >>"Gee, this run down the front face has less distance between the
> >>contours; it's steeper than the other one!" Even though, of course, the
> >> slope of the two runs is identical.
> >
> > Depends again where you put the projection point and paper.
>
> You put it where it's typically put on a trail map. If you do anything
> different, you're not doing what you said -- adding contour lines onto a
> trail map -- you're reinventing the trail map.
>
> > My orientation
> > would have a series of arcs. with the side run ending hier up on the
page.
>
> Then you've just distorted it in another way.

<SNIP >
> Again, I'd want to see an example. As it is a visual aid, I don't think
> it's something you can demonstrate with words.

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?

Stephen B.




09 Mar 2005 04:00:03
Sven Golly
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

bdubya <bdubya@interaccess.com > wrote in
news:iejp219hdghcr5v3jp8h6e3svh6rruv344@4ax.com:

> Man, I just LOVE sentences like that.

The construction? The artful turn? The poetic tripping off the tongue?

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove "_" to reply


09 Mar 2005 03:59:08
Sven Golly
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com > wrote in news:P2qXd.21$6V3.12
@news.itd.umich.edu:

> And I guess that's my main point - it's not like ski areas are being
> sued everytime somebody falls down and gets hurt. There's a very broad
> limitation of liability for things that fall under the inherent risk.

Sigh. Only in a few states such as Colorado and California. Even
Colorado's inherent risk provision has come under fire recently. Keep in
mind that many, even frivolous, lawsuits get settled out of court because
it's cheaper than litigating. Our HOA was sued for a slip and fall on ice
that ALWAYS happens in certain areas of the project. The insurance
company forced us to settle out of court for $25,000 even though there
was a clear expectation of ice -- and there always will be. Duh, it's at
7500' and winter brings about 500" of snow annually.

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove "_" to reply


09 Mar 2005 00:27:11
bdubya
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 04:00:03 GMT, Sven Golly
<sven_golly@myrealbox.com > wrote:

>bdubya <bdubya@interaccess.com> wrote in
>news:iejp219hdghcr5v3jp8h6e3svh6rruv344@4ax.com:
>
>> Man, I just LOVE sentences like that.
>
>The construction? The artful turn? The poetic tripping off the tongue?

The construction.
"We're all out of cheese, and what we DO have is too runny."

bw


09 Mar 2005 10:39:38
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Sven Golly wrote:
> Walt <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com> wrote in news:P2qXd.21$6V3.12
> @news.itd.umich.edu:
>
>
>>And I guess that's my main point - it's not like ski areas are being
>>sued everytime somebody falls down and gets hurt. There's a very broad
>>limitation of liability for things that fall under the inherent risk.
>
>
> Sigh. Only in a few states such as Colorado and California.

And Alaska. And Idaho. And Massachusetts. And Michigan. And Montana.
And North Dakota. And New Hampshire. And Ohio. And Oregon. And
Pennsylvania. And Utah. And Vermont. And West Virginia.

And, believe it or not even Rhode Island and Tenessee.

That's a few, I suppose.

> Our HOA was sued for a slip and fall on ice
> that ALWAYS happens in certain areas of the project. The insurance
> company forced us to settle out of court for $25,000 even though there
> was a clear expectation of ice -- and there always will be. Duh, it's at
> 7500' and winter brings about 500" of snow annually.

What's an HOA? Hooters of America?


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


09 Mar 2005 10:45:48
Walt
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

bdubya wrote:
> Sven Golly <sven_golly@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>bdubya <bdubya@interaccess.com> wrote
>>
>>>Man, I just LOVE sentences like that.
>>
>>The construction? The artful turn? The poetic tripping off the tongue?
>
>
> The construction.
> "We're all out of cheese, and what we DO have is too runny."

I don't care how fucking runny it is. Hand it over with all speed.


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


09 Mar 2005 16:00:25
Sven Golly
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com > wrote in news:%MEXd.43$6V3.4
@news.itd.umich.edu:

> And Alaska. And Idaho. And Massachusetts. And Michigan. And Montana.
> And North Dakota. And New Hampshire. And Ohio. And Oregon. And
> Pennsylvania. And Utah. And Vermont. And West Virginia.
>
> And, believe it or not even Rhode Island and Tenessee.

I assume you pulled these from SkiLaw.com. If you read closer, only about
1/2 are full-on "inherent danger" states. The rest still place a
significant burden on the ski areas for assumption of risk. In fact, based
on recent case law, Colorado and California should go back into the risk
category since their case law has put the definition of inherent danger in
the hands of juries.

I suppose we could argue over the definition of a few. I'll grant you that
there are more than a handful but far less than a plethora.

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove the _ to reply by email


09 Mar 2005 16:02:20
Sven Golly
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt <walt_askier@YerBootsyahoo.com > wrote in news:%MEXd.43$6V3.4
@news.itd.umich.edu:

> What's an HOA? Hooters of America?

HomeOwners Association

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove the _ to reply by email


09 Mar 2005 15:58:00
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

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 malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



09 Mar 2005 18:11:04
Stephen B.
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings


"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.




09 Mar 2005 18:35:14
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

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 malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.



10 Mar 2005 19:18:44
miles
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

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.


10 Mar 2005 21:40:07
Mary Malmros
Re: Trail Difficulty Ratings

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 malmros@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.