Track grades

I'd favour a 3 axis sysyem: Track type: Walking track, tramping track, marked route, unmarked route, alpine route Fitness level: 1-5 Technical level: easy - medium - hard I'd also favour a field to enter seasonal info as we are always asked about that.

I know I've said it before but i'd also really appreciate a separation of tracks and route-guides. With the knowledge we have between us we could create an excellent online alternative to mours guide on a national level. Where each 'route guide' is not a complete walk, but a guide from one point to another. E.g. route guide: birdcage hut (Cass) to liebig hut (murchinson) via rutherford pass E.g. track. A five day circuit from mt cook via jolly, cass, murchinson A route guide would have to start and end at a hut or place so connected route guides also starting / ending at the same hut / place could be listed when viewing a route. This would rejuvenate the site any allow us to build a whole new library of info. As it is doc have picked up their act on providing info on huts and walks and that section of this site becomes less useful as time goes by.

good scheme madpom. i think theres a big difference between each of the three technical grades you mention. I'd say have four or five technical levels you could put in easy- medium and medium- hard. unless you throw in a very hard and or extremely hard above the hard grade... people should bear in mind when they apply grades that they are applying htem according to what the below average tramper would grade them as.. err on over grading rather than under grading, what a seasoned fit tramper would call easy is going to be the more run of the mill trampers, medium to even medium hard....

that's why I separate out technicality and fitness. If its a waling track then rate it for the average dog walker. If its a technical alpine route then rate it for an experienced tramper on an alpine route.

Like Matthew said, I think fitness required can be ascertained from the distance the walk is, altitude etc. I also think it depends on the time you take - more fit people could do a track in say two days and less fit people could do the same track in three or four. Maybe some won't find this perfect, but how about using DOC's system for the sake of compatibility/consistency? http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/parks-and-recreation/plan-and-prepare/choosing-a-track.pdf

Yes. But imagone you're.someone searching for a track for a beginner within 3hrs of queenstown. Do you want to get out every map and look at thr terrain of every track on the site in that radius to determine if it's for you? No: you want the site to narrow it down for you. That's why you came here instead of merely poring over maps from the outset.

As for doc's categories: great, that's one axis of my proposal. Except I break down the hard end (route) a bit more. As do doc in their signs / leaflets. Marked route, unmarked route, alpine route

How do you lot see aspects like navigation skills fitting in? In @madpom's system I'm guessing that a hard-rated 'route' would imply good navigation skills are likely required whereas perhaps not as much for a hard-rated 'track' (or 'walk'). Still, I've met the odd person who's really into highly technical alpine routes yet they're quite wishy-washy in their general navigation skills beyond some of the specific techniques they use, and don't have much interest or intent of improving them. I'm also wondering if 'fitness' is a good term to be using without a clear explanation of what it means. It'd be easy for someone to presume they're in the fit category based on having done lots of cycling or time in a gym or whatever, only to discover that they've been tuning a different muscle group to what's ideal for getting up and down steep hills, or walking a long way on the flat with a heavier load.

any rating system is falable. there will always e people who over rate their fitness.... common sense would tell most people what "high level of fitness" means. if they are dumb enough to think, walking round the block gives them a high level of fitness , what rating system will ever work with them? put teh phrase "mountain fitness" in and they can work out the rest... or else we have to become a site that explains to people how to get fit for the mountains.... if they are reading this they have access to the internet, if they arent sure then they should google it...

i think people bothering to pay attention to fitness grading are more likely to make sure their fitness matches the trip. buckets of people go into the hills with inadequate information, they either disregard information regarding the difficulty of a trip, over rate themselves of just dont bother doing research... but even the experienced get it wrong, because tramping isnt something you have to have a qualification to do there will always be discrepencies between peoples abilities and the conditions. even seddon bennington over rated his substantial experience when he headed into a storm in the tararuas and his death. he was also known to navigate by dead reckoning without a map and compass... i dont think he would have bothered researching the difficulty of a track before he did a trip, he was expereinced, he always got through, he disregarded advise from others not to proceed up the mountain, yet he had been up there another time with his chidren and turned back because bad weather was coming.... a different set of rules applied to him than to everyone else... he considered he cwuld survive what others wouldnt