How many levels of trail rating do we need?

Lots of places have double diamonds. A few have decided to make some trails triple diamond. i don't remember seeing anyplace else with lower and upper intermediates though. Do we like this or is it silly?

I think that 5 designations is good.

Green:  Easier
Blue:  Intermediate
Blue/Black:  Advanced
Black:  Most Difficult
Double Black:  Extremely Difficult

snoloco wrote

I think that 5 designations is good.

Green:  Easier
Blue:  Intermediate
Blue/Black:  Advanced
Black:  Most Difficult
Double Black:  Extremely Difficult

Black and Blue : Eastern Woods

I find any rating system highly objective.  Sometimes I've found I've held off from doing certain things because it had a difficult rating only to scoff at that when I actually did it.  Other times I did something that was rated as 'easy' and it was anything but.  I'm extending this beyond skiing obviously.

I've not skied at many resorts so I can't comment much on the system, but the one's I've been at had up to double diamonds, and the system was pretty good.  I kind of thought some blues skied harder than some of the blacks, and some blacks harder than the doubles.  But I never once thought a green should have been black or vice-versa, so I think it's a good system for beginners.

Also I think some ski areas tend to up-rate some of their terrain to attract more advanced skiers (and maybe adding more black, double and triple diamonds than they really have), particularly when they don't have a lot of really hard terrain.  It probably works the other way for really reputable ski areas - I'm sure they want to keep a good % of blues and maybe throw in some of what are considered easier black terrain to beef that up.

Where I'm from I can only think of one trail that I would consider 'double black', and it was never open.  Only reason I say it was 'hard' without skiing it is because it had the same pitch as the other double black trails but was about 10' wide and ungroomed.

I really like those color bar 3D pitch maps that I've found on the internet.  I wish I could have those in high resolution for a lot of different places.  Plus they are fun to look at when you are bored.

I have seen Red trails in Europe- difficulty between blue and black.

Ha. I just spent a few weeks in Italy. Bought a bike jersey in a small shop. Told the owner that Italain XL is like American medium. She told me, oh, well, just get 3Xl. 3XL, I said, wtf. Oh, sure, she said, it goes up to 6XL. Oh, OK, I said, I guess it's all relative, right?

I think you mean subjective. If so I agree. I think it's accepted in the ski business that each mountain is different so a blue on one mountain might be a black on another. It would be too difficult to create a standardized system. I was expecting more people to think it has gotten too complicated. The more I think about it it, the more I would like to go to just three ratings; green, blue, black. But on the other hand, since the map is really for newcomers rather then locals, maybe they ought to rank the trails too. So a beginner can look at the map and say, "oh, this is the easiest trail. I should start here."

I definitely meant subjective...

How drunk was I when I posted that????

69.  Mountains need a slope

Nope......relative is the key word in the way trail rating systems is supposed to work, I think.

There really is no comparitive objective rating system.  Sure, at every mountain green = easiest,  blue = more difficult, black = most difficult, and double black = extreme.  Sure, add a few secondary colors if you must, get tertiary crazy if you really want to, have ten color designations if that's what floats your fatties.  However, the question begs......easiest compared to what?  More difficult compared to what?  You get the idea.  I don't believe ratings were ever intended to be universally objective.  As to difficulty, you can't count on a black trail at mountain x to be the same as a black trail at mountain y.  Sure subjectivity may play in that, but more so the reason is that the trail rating system is intended to rate trails relative to other trails on the mountain you are at.  Green is the easiest way down this mountain, blue is more difficult, etc.  Yes, Thunder Ridge has black trails, as every mountain must, because people need to know which the most difficult way down Thunder Ridge, but nobody expects The Face at Thunder Ridge to be anything like Empire or Skyward at Whiteface.  Everybody knows this.....ratings are relative to the mountain.

Now, could there be a system that  is more objective, allowing one to reasonably compare Cloudspin to Goat to Pallavicini?  Perhaps, but subjectivity would be a problem in trying to do so.

Difficulty is relative.  What counts as intermediate at Mt van Hoevenberg might be listed as black diamond at Lapland lake.  I could see four levels of difficulty, but not six.

Brownski wrote

  The more I think about it it, the more I would like to go to just three ratings; green, blue, black.  

It used to be that way

it's all marketing BS now

I guess my preferred rating system has 4 levels: green, blue, black, double black, just because I think Double Black Diamonds are cool and kids do too.

I wonder if there should be reasons for ratings within the black. Like little white pictures of moguls or trees or a steep slope within the black, to show why it's a black diamond. That way, people can decide whether they want to ski it with that information available. Say, people who can deal with groomed steeps, but struggle with bumps.  (I realize that in this system, patrollers would have to go around changing signs due to changing conditions, but at least that gives them something useful to do )

Happy New Year all.  I have seen double green at places like Telluride.  I appreciated that.  Otherwise I'd say keep what we got.  BUT, with today's technology ( Gore excluded) resorts could easily prescribe or rank it's trails easiest to hardest.  Then skiers could use their judgement based on anew experienced persons data.  No hard printouts,would allow closed slopes to be removed and trails swapped around for conditions of the day.  At huge resorts, they only need to rate green and blue or light black slopes.  


There is another example on a similar thread

Given the reality of skiing in the east this season they should rate them in terms of the amount of snow:
White: for full coverage and good base depth
Grey: for mostly covered
Chocolate (thanks Harv for that one): Snow mud mix
Green: Grass and rocks

Ok
If I concede that double blacks are cool can we agree that most mountains don't really need them? I think once certain mountains started using the double black, they all felt the need to join in as a marketing tool.

I agree with Brownski.....the double back is overused due to the idea that every box should be filled.    

For clarity...the double green is more green than the green circle, almost flat.   You dare not ski or board it on a warm day.    They are otherwise great for kids/beginners.   The ones at Telluride (and a few others) travel around the resort to some of the uber rich, monster (vacant) houses.    Think the scenic route.      

FYI apparently an orange oval means terrain park. Is this being used elsewhere?