Track grades

I always think it doesn't matter how you grade a track, it all comes back to how fit you are . Get as fit as you can or prepare to suffer . Unfit people tend to over estimate their fitness and fit people tend to under estimate theirs, in general . Anyone can pull a trigger that doesn't mean they can hunt, much like anyone can walk, but that doesn't mean they can tramp . I always referred to my copy of Tararua footprints when starting out and found that the author was always bang on with his times going uphill, but I was always nearly twice as fast as him going downhill . Its all subjective really . Get fit, expect eight to nine hour days, learn how to navigate, get good gear, get out there and have fun .

"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?" Seriously though, @waynowski, 'fitness' means very different things to different people depending on experiences to-date and other things they've been told. To me it seems arrogant to call someone dumb just because they don't automatically realise that one type of exercise or health doesn't always equate to preparation for a certain activity. I don't think this is a major issue, certainly not when compared with being prepared to bail out of something that was too much to bite off, but as long as we're discussing how to make a rating system less fallible and misleading, it was a suggestion to explain more clearly what 'fitness' actually means, or use a term that the uninitiated are less likely to confuse with something that's already embedded in their head.

People might not want to wait until they get super fit, spend lots of money on good gear, and also learn to navigate, BEFORE leaving town and getting into the bush for the first time. That's why track gradings are helpful. So while you're still working on reaching that stage, you can start getting out here, and having fun - relatively safely.

I hear you, and those who are at that stage should not be putting themselves in too much trouble, so going for an hour or two hike or an easy overnighter to Totara Flats, Field Hut, or some where like that don't need to worry to much about track gradings . If your at an easy/novice stage you should look at 4-6 hour overnight hikes, or 2-4 hour day hikes . There are many well graded and rated easy beginner tracks in most areas of the country, so beginners are well catered for, in fact it seems that this demographic is the only one that DOC are interested in catering to these days . Anything beyond that I feel my above post should sort you right .

Off topic (as usual) but I can't resist... "a different set of rules applied to him than to everyone else... he considered he cwuld survive what others wouldnt" Except Simon had Marcella with him who only had 5 layers of clothing to his 8 among other things...speaking as someone who went out with a pal who wasn't as fit as she normally was and died. Now I really tune in to how my buddies are going. I was just used to always being the weakest and the slowest and forgot it no longer applied.

Yowch. Sorry to hear that you've been through that.

to a certain extent everyone is responsible for themselves on a tramp. they have to be realistic about where they are at fitness and experience wise and admit if they are taking on more than they can handle. I"ve turned back from a few trips for that reason. i've also suffered badly on trips i didnt pull out of but should... the mentality of we'll just keep on going till we get there doesnt always work out. doesnt matter what youve done in the past no one is on top of their game forever...

Hi everybody, Thanks for your ideas. As mentioned earlier, I want to move away from terms like "easy" which are subjective. The point of grades is to help people find a suitable track for their abilities. However, if grades are too complicated then they won't be recorded or understood. Here's what I'm leaning towards. Leaving aside details of individual grades, does this sound about right? 1) Add a track type field, in line with the DOC grades. - Easy access short walk - Short walk - Walking track - Easy tramping track - Tramping track - Marked route - Unmarked route - Alpine route 2) Replace current grade with technical grade as a 5 point scale. These are very similar to T1-5 on the Swiss Alpine Club scale, so similar that we could simply switch to that scale. 1: Easy walking on smooth well-maintained track with hazards well-mitigated. Sports shoes adequate. 2: Typical lowland tramping track. Generally easy walking and well marked. Some roots, mud, slips. Some routes follow rivers. Hazards include: rivers. Boots required. 3: Very rough lowland track, poorly marked or unmarked. Straightforward tops track. Navigation skills required on open tops and passes. Suitable for experienced trampers. Hazards include: tops, rivers. 4: Unmarked routes along rivers, ridges, and tops. Strong navigation skills, risk identification, and snow skills (use of ice axe and crampons) required. Scrambling on scree and steep grassy slopes. Hazards include: snow, tops, falls, and rivers. 5: Exposed, challenging terrain that may require basic mountaineering skills and equipment. Hazards include: snow, tops, falls, and rivers. 3) Add fitness grade as a 5 point scale: A: Less than 2 hours walking, gentle climbs. B: Up to 4 hours per day, gentle climbs. C: Up to 6 hours per day, ascents of up to 1000m. D: Up to about 8 hours tramping per day, ascents of up to 2000m. E: More than 8 hours tramping per day, with ascents of over 2000m. 4) Keep current grade notes field. 5) Add a winter conditions field as a simple text entry. I could add the technical grade field for winter conditions if people were prepared to add the information. So here's an example: Routeburn Track Tramping Track Grade 2C In winter: snow-skills required; avalanche risk.

Hi Madpom, thanks for your thoughts on tracks and routs. I've responded here. http://tramper.co.nz/?view=topic&id=2109

Hi Matthew. It mostly sounds good to me, but the fitness grade in item (3) is similar to grading systems that I've had trouble with in the past because it combines elevation change with time, which are often unrelated. (eg. An 8 hour walk along a beach allowing for many stops, compared with a 2 hour jaunt 2000 metres straight up the side of a volcano.) Perhaps I've misunderstood. Also, time is often (not always) a direct consequence of fitness. eg. Some tracks or routes can easily vary between 2 hours and 5-6 hours because of the difference between really able people barely wishing to stop at all whereas less-able people want to stop frequently. I wonder if it'd be more useful to allow for the stating of one or more times, and also an indication of how "fit" a person or group might need to be to comfortably complete it in that/those times. Perhaps a user could just enter a time/fitness allowance they're familiar with, if other users are able to edit/add/comment with adjustments later. But I guess it's going to be very hard to completely be rid of subjectivity in these kinds of ratings. In the club environments we've certainly had many debates, especially about how the trips that trend towards the middle should be rated. People's views tend to depend a lot on their perspectives of what they usually attempt.