The track gradings question
Original post
Hi everybody,
This has been discussed in the past ( http://tramper.co.nz/?view=topic&id=2080 ). But I want to return to it and start implementing changes. The reason I think it needs to change is that subjective terms like "easy" are not helpful. They are both subjective and misleading -- an "easy" track with flooded rivers may be deadly.
Note that grades are never a complete description of a track, but they are useful in helping users search tracks that might be suitable for them. Grades need to be easy to understand, and not misleading.
Here is my proposal. The existing grade and grade notes to be replaced with four attributes:
* Grade (1-7 scale),
* Fitness indicator (A-D scale)
* Notes (checkboxes to indicate challenges and hazards, e.g. alpine conditions, river crossings, and type-in)
* Winter conditions (type-in)
Grade as follows:
1. Easy access short walk suitable for assisted wheelchair or stroller. Details to be provided in notes. Currently described as "Easy".
2. Short walk on smooth well-maintained track with hazards
well-managed. Suitable for walking shoes. Currently described as "Easy".
3. Easy walking on smooth well-maintained track with hazards
well-managed. Suitable for walking shoes or light weight hiking boots. Generally, Great Walks standard. Currently described as "Easy".
4. Generally easy walking and well marked. Somewhat rough underfoot with roots, mud, slips. Some routes follow rivers.
Hazards include: rivers. Lightweight hiking boots. Typical lowland tramping track. Currently described as "Easy/medium".
5. Unformed and poorly marked lowland track with hand-over-hand scrambling, or a marked but unformed tops track. Navigation skills required on open tops and passes. Suitable for experienced trampers only. Hazards include: tops, rivers. Currently described as "Medium".
6. Unmarked routes along rivers, ridges, and tops. Strong navigation skills, risk identification, and snow skills and equipment required. Scrambling on scree and steep grassy slopes. Hazards include: snow, tops, falls, and rivers. Currently described as "Medium/hard".
7. Exposed, challenging terrain that may require basic mountaineering skills and equipment. Currently described as "Hard".
Comments:
What are people's thoughts on combining both lowland and tops tracks in one grade (5)? Is this reasonable?
The distinction between grades 6 and 7 could be better defined. I don't do much walking at this end of things so I would welcome ideas. Should they be kept separate? How would you define these two grades? Do you have examples?
Fitness indicator as follows:
A: Less than 2 hours walking, gentle climbs.
B: Up to 4 hours per day, gentle climbs.
C: Up to 8 hours per day, ascents of up to 1000m.
D: More than 8 hours per day, or ascents of more than 1000m.
Comments:
What do you think of the balance between time and climb? Is it about right? I could switch it over to distance and climb. Any suggestions for that?
Notes to include checkboxes for: alpine conditions, river crossings, route finding, exposure to falls.
Please let me know your thoughts. Any change in grades will be staged, with a testing period.
use distance, one persons 2 hours is another persons 4
I prefer times - distance has far too many variables (ascents, descents, river travel, scree slopes etc etc) to be of much use.
Agree hutchk. Distance is the worst of the 2. 20km on a good benched track is an easy day. 20km though untracked scrub is a ***** of a day.
I agree specifying time is thrawt with pitfalls too - for the reasons Wayno gives. If we use time as a means of rating, we need a standard unit, such as DOC-signpost-hours. We all know how our own times convert to those, and by using those we can compare like with like, no matter who is rating the trip.
This clarification aside, the idea sounds very good - a vast improvement on what's there at present. Especially the check boxes, and the winter conditions field.
I prefer times to distances so long as they are fairly consistently applied.
With the DOC times you quickly get a feel for where you sit in comparison to their guideline times for a particular region and adjust your planning to suit. Same with the Permolat times where they try to be consistent.
Distance needs to be interpreted and tracks could be 2km an hour or 5km+ an hour. One persons 10km could be two hours and another persons 5hrs. Both would be better than just time or distance alone. With distance you need to know track terrain and track condition as well to interpret the info properly to estimate time but with times you just need to know an adjustment factor that will make it about right for you.
Time can be counted down by anyone in a tramping group with a watch.
While it can lead to false expectations of your arrival time and the inevitable "are we there yet?",it's a better measure than distance.
Most of us use time as a more of a measure than distance when we drive anywhere so it's sort of in our psyche methinks.
Maybe I am just an old fart and like to take in the scenery more than I used to but some DOC times are quite lean.
Best to be generous with suggested times, without being silly.
Time is so subjective. Its really only relative to super fit experienced trampers on a mission.
What takes me six hours takes my girlfriend nine. Shes fit but unsure on steep descents and broken ridges.
No matter how long it takes an hour in the hills is better than an hour at work.
Unless your lucky and your job is installing doc signs in huts haha.
Hmm...tried to apply the rating to a trip I've just come back from (Mt Lyndon): untracked tops travel but it seems a bit severe to call it a 6. Particularly since Frank said a workmate did it as her first tramp with the club. There was no scrambling, barely any shoving through scrub and no scree, just soft earthen surfaces studded with looseish small rocks. Apart from 2 cairns there was nothing marking the route. One could go astray in the clag though and go down the wrong spur without navigation skills. However, my gut feeling would be that it is a 4 or 5.
Timewise by Naysmith's rule it would take about 4 hours but consisted of a 650m ascent at a moderate angle so I guess it's a B. We did it there and back in 2 hours with 12 minutes on top, taking in the views. So I'll call it a 5B.
Not sure that I agree with poorly marked tracks being classed as "Medium" or 5, and only borderline mountaineering routes as "Hard" or 7. The toughest stuff Ive done have been the poorly or unmarked lowland stuff where you cant see where you're going due to dense bush.
Not saying that mountaineering isn't "Hard", but the ratings seam to reflect that that's it.
I find I tend to go slower on some untracked routes for no other reason than I am thinking more about where I'm going and possible retreats. So I just use the 'allow a day adventure factor'.
Sometimes it's like leaving the tarseal and trying to drive your car through a paddock when you should have used a 4x4.
I remember taking a short cut from Lake McKenzie Hut to Upper Caples Hut via Fraser Creek and getting bluffed a couple of times because I dropped south too soon.
But that was half the fun.
Better than walking the Routeburn highway again for the upmteenth time.
This thread was closed by matthew .
Search the forums
| Forum | This website |
|---|---|
| Started by | matthew |
| On | 7 June 2014 |
| Replies | 42 |
| Permanent link | |
Participation in the forums signifies acceptance of forum rules.
In order to manage spam, new members are limited to 1 post every 10 minutes.
Formatting your posts
The forums support MarkDown syntax. Following is a quick reference.
| Type this... | To get this... | |
|---|---|---|
| Italic | *Italic text* | *Italic text* |
| Bold | **Bold text** | **Bold text** |
| Quoted text | > Quoted text | > Quoted text |
| Emojis | :smile: :+1: :astonished: :heart: | :smile: :+1: :astonished: :heart: |
| Lists |
- item 1 - item 2 - item 3 |
- item 1 - item 2 - item 3 |
| Links | https://tramper.nz | https://tramper.nz |
| Images |  URL/of/image |
 |
| Mentions | @username | @username |