The track gradings question
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.
43 comments
Hi Honora,
I think the best way forward is to take some routes, grade them and then figure out a formula to justify the grade. Here are some examples, with the grades translated directly.
Heaphy Easy. Grade 3.
Abel Tasman Easy. Grade 3.
St James Walkway Easy. Grade 3.
Dun Mountain Easy/Medium. Grade 4.
Routeburn Easy/medium. Grade 4.
Foggy Peak Easy/medium. Grade 4.
Avalanche Peak Medium. Grade 5.
Red Hill Medium. Grade 5.
Griffin Range Medium. Grade 5.
Kelly Range Medium. Grade 5.
Sudden Valley Medium. Grade 5.
Wangapeka Track Medium. Grade 5.
Thousand Acres Plateau Medium. Grade 5.
Barker Hut Medium with warnings. Grade 5.
Mount Cassidy Medium/Hard with warnings. Grade 6.
Kelly Range to Hunts Saddle Medium/Hard. Grade 6.
Three Passes Medium/Hard. Grade 6.
Mt Philistine Medium/Hard. Grade 6.
Mt Taranaki Hard. Grade 7.
Goat Ck or Rolleston River to Mt Barron Hard. Grade 7.
Garden of Eden Hard. Grade 7.
Mitre Peak Hard. Grade 7.
Ball Pass Hard. Grade 7.
Newton Ck Hut Hard. Grade 7.
Copland Track Hard. Grade 7.
First question is do those numeric grades "feel" right? I think Barker Hut should probably be a 6 due to route finding, exposure, and avalanche risk. If Mt Philistine is an exposed alpine route, should it be a 7?
Apologies for the Canterbury bias. Those are the easiest ones for me to think about.
Suggesting rewrite as follows:
4. Typical lowland tramping track. Generally easy walking and well marked. Somewhat rough underfoot with roots, mud, slips. Some routes follow rivers. Very straightforward tracks above the treeline that present no challenges except alpine conditions.
Hazards include: river crossings, alpine conditions. Lightweight hiking boots. Currently described as "Easy/medium".
5. Unformed and poorly marked lowland track with hand-over-hand scrambling, or an unformed tops track that is easy to follow in good conditions. Suitable for experienced trampers only. Hazards and challenges include: alpine conditions, route finding, river crossings. Currently described as "Medium".
6. Unmarked routes across rough country. Strong navigation skills, hazard identification, and snow skills and equipment required. Scrambling on scree and steep grassy slopes. Hazards and challenges include: alpine conditions, snow and ice, route finding, river crossings, exposure to falls. Currently described as "Medium/hard".
@Yarmoss, your lowland tracks could be a 6 on this scale. Does that work for you?
Can you give examples and describe where you think they fit in comparison to the ones above?
These are the DOC definitions of the track gradings they use.
Definitions that include "poorly marked" and "well marked" for tracks the require marking, are pointless. the DOC standard for "marked" tracks are similar (in theory).
any variation from that, is poor maintenance, not different "standards".
the confusion is probably in the "tramping track" grade, where variations
will introducing a multi tiered system really help? will it simply make grading tracks more complex to understand.
Easy access short walk
• Easy walking for up to an hour
• Even surface, well formed with no steps or steep sections
• Suitable for people of all abilities, wheelchairs, buggies and strollers
• Stream and rivers are bridged
• Walking shoes required
Short walk
• Easy walking for up to an hour
• Track is well formed, with an even, well drained surface. There may be steps
• Suitable for people of most ages and fitness levels
• Stream and rivers crossings are bridged
• Walking shoes required
Walking track
• Gentle walking from a few minutes to a day
• Track is mostly well formed, some sections may be steep, rough or muddy
• Suitable for people with low to moderate fitness and abilities
• Some tracks suitable for mountain biking
• Clearly signposted. Stream and river crossings are bridged
• Walking shoes or light tramping/hiking boots required
Great Walk/Easier tramping track
• Comforatable multi-day tramping/hiking
• Track is generally well formed, some sections may be rough, muddy or steep
• Suitable for people with limited backcountry (remote area) experience
• Some tracks suitable for mountain biking
• Track has signs, poles or markers. Major stream and rivers crossings are bridged
• Light tramping/hiking boots required
Tramping track
• Challenging day or multi-day tramping/hiking
• Track is mostly unformed, may be rough and steep
• Suitable for people with moderate to high level backcountry (remote areas) skills and experience, navigation and survival skills required
• Some tracks suitable for mountain biking
• Track has markers, poles or rock cairns. Expect unbridged stream and river crossings
• Tramping/hiking boots required
Route
• Challenging overnight tramping/hiking
• Track unformed and natural, may be rough, muddy or very steep
• Suitable for people with high level backcountry (remote areas) skills and experience, navigation and survival skills required
• Complete self sufficiency required
• Track has markers, poles or rock cairns. Expect unbridged stream and river crossings
• Sturdy tramping/hiking boots required
Cheers, Matthew. Mt Lyndon would be a 4 then as it's similar to Foggy Peak. That also has the potential for people to pick the wrong spur when descending in clag.
Matthew your grades seem about right but I'd question a 7 for Newton Creek Hut if coming in the esiest route via the lower Arahura. By Copeland Track I take it you mean the whole main divide crossing route not just the cut section to just above Douglas Rock Hut?
OOPS, My mistake, thought this was a review of the DOC national gradings, for tracks :)
presume this is whats being referred to
http://www.tramper.co.nz/?2707
@Matthew Your rewrites above look better. A couple of examples of 6 would be the Pyke (unformed and poorly marked in lowland country but unmaintained, overgrown, waist deep mud, river crossings, tidal crossings, strong navigational skills required).
The Dusky by comparison is reasonably well marked, but includes criteria for both 5 and 6 plus waist deep mud. I would still rate both theses trips as "Hard" but I might be including the physical aspects when I think of them.
Given we'll never agree on the exact ratings for each track, how about the option of rating a track's difficulty when you use the visitor's book? Then you could show an average and spread of ratings given. That's be much more informative than a single person's opinion.
The down-side is you may get hundreds of overseas visitors rating the Milford and Routeburn as '7-D' because it's the hardest thing they've ever done ... and swamping out more 'informed' local ratings! Still, worth considering I'd say.
==
That aside, the rewritten guide looks good for the numerical ratings. I'll resist the temptation to criticize the ratings given above for individual tracks - we could play that game for ever, as discussed above.
On the A-D fitness rating, I'd be rating certain riverbed routes as 'D', even though they might include no real altitude gain and not necessarily long days. If you're scrambling over boulders the size of houses all day the other factors do not matter - you need to be fit. Ditto for crawling through endless tangled scrub. Not sure if there's some general wording that can cover this: '... or extremely rough and demanding terrain' ... or if we just keep is as assumed but unsaid.
==
@madpom: "Then you could show an average and spread of ratings given. That's be much more informative than a single person's opinion."
Do you mean an average and spread of the ratings given for the track, or given by the user?
That's a good idea, but I'm guessing it might also create an incentive for people to strongly over-rate or strongly under-rate, which might need to be managed. eg. They'll see a rating between 4 other people which they think is slightly lower than what it should be, so they put in their own rating of very high or very low so as to have more effect on the average. Then the next person comes along and does the same thing, to make up for it.
Ignoring that risk there are still some potentially cool extensions. Maybe there could be scope to score the raters, somehow, and measure whether a person's likely overrate or underrate certain tracks and routes compared with other people. Maybe even a "find people similar to me" function could be interesting?
@izogi - With data-mining skills like that you should work for Google!
Yes - I meant the stats for all the ratings for the track:
==
At minimum: Just show mean or median
==
Better: mean/median and a range, say the 20th/80th percentile.
i.e:
'Most people rated this track between 3 and 6. The average rating was 4.8'.
or
'Most people rated this track between 3 and 6. The most common rating was 4'.
==
Rolls-royce solution: a little graph of grade vs no. of responses.
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) URL/of/image |
![](/whio/image/icons/ic_photo_black_48dp_2x.png) |
Mentions | @username | @username |