testing long post

Matthew, Spent lunchtime looking through the discussion document on track grading. Far more interesting than what I was supposed to be reading! I agree with @hutchk's comments. +1 on the donations box. I have seen some similar route grading systems (predominately out of the US) that at first or second read appear to be nothing more than a big bowl of alphabet soup until you learn the secret code and only then can you appreciate the nuances. Your proposed system, to me contains sufficient objective and technical information to trampers at either end of an experience spectrum. It seems to be a good compromise between those alphabet soup systems and the simple but indeterminate gradings used presently on this site. I was wondering if the gap in navigation gradings from 1 to 4 would confuse some people. I can't think what definitions would fill the gap between marked-poorly marked without being somewhat subjective, which seems against the idea of the proposed grading system. I like the way the upper grades 4-6 also would typically marry up with the surface and terrain grades 4-6. However, some suggestions for the navigation grades Grade 1: Well marked - track/markers clearly defined/visible in all weather/light conditions, the next marker is clearly visible from the preceding marker in either direction. Grade 2: Well marked - track/markers usually defined/visible in all weather/light conditions, the next marker is normally visible from the preceding marker in either direction. When the marker is not visible the route to follow is still obvious. Grade 3: Poorly, lightly, or vaguely marked, markers are infrequent, the next marker is not normally visible/obvious from the preceding marker, but in combination with the track and landforms the route is indicated. Grade 4: Poorly, lightly, or vaguely marked, markers only available at key navigational points e.g. signs/poles at junctions/locations, indicating start of route. Grades 5 and 6: as is The surface and terrain gradings appear fine to me. The ascent fitness grades seem reasonable to me apart from the obvious lack of a masochist grading of over say 3600m ;-) to provide 6 levels as per the other categories. To me I think there is room for 6 time gradings, so the number of gradings across all categories is consistent. I suggest: Up to 2 hours: Grade A Low Up to 4 hours: Grade B Low Up to 6 hours: Grade C Moderate Up to 8 hours: Grade D Moderate Up to 12 hours: Grade E Hard Over 12 hours: Grade F Hard The A and B gradings would normally cover the more accessible walks/tracks that are up to half a day in length. The C and D grades I would guess cover pretty much any normal day on a great walk or reasonably popular overnight/multi-day tramp with a track and huts. That leaves the hard gradings E and F for long days in the Southern Alps or long traverses/crossings of the North Island Ranges. The only problem using time is comparing one person's 1 hour to another’s. For example @Madpom halves DOC times and eats them for breakfast, while other people are damn happy to make DOC time. I remember seeing an article somewhere on the web about how DOC comes to its times, but I recall there wasn't a consistent practice across the different areas. Naismith's rule and its various corrections is something that could be used to help moderate times. Ideally you’ll want the application of the rule to be automated based on a GPS route etc. Slips/large numbers of trees blown over that would require a detour or temporary change in the technical grading should also be mentioned under hazards. I think the waterways gradings under hazards should be more prominent as it is one of the more common ways to die in the NZ outdoors (highlighted by the recent tragedy on the Milford Track). Perhaps even elevating the grading to the same level as the terrain and fitness grades. Possible waterways gradings: Grade 1: All waterways bridged with solid bridges/boardwalks, or no waterways crossed. Grade 2: All minor and major waterways bridged with solid or suspension bridges, some small waterways that are unbridged are able to be crossed in 1-2 strides. Grade 3: Minor river crossings (side streams that would normally be negligible) unbridged, major river crossings suspension bridged. Minor waterways may become uncrossable when in flood. Grade 4: Major river crossings (Rivers that drain substantial catchments) including braided rivers of multiple channels, riverbed travel where normal water flows can be safety negotiated and escape routes from the riverbed are readily available. Mutual support techniques may be required. Open water, For example, crossing lakes or sounds to the starts of tracks. Grade 5: Difficult river travel (long, hazardous gorges, packfloats required, large boulders), limited escape routes exist. Grade 6: Canyoning where descent requires specialist equipment, a waterway route where low water is essential for successful completion and no escape route is possible once the route is started until completion of the route. In looking at my suggestions for waterways crossings, grades 1-3 appear quite compressed in scope whereas grade 4 is very broad and covers a lot of different situations. To me, I think the underlying principle of grade 4 is some knowledge/training/experience in river crossings, and have sound judgement about when and where and how to cross, and know when not to cross. On a more general note, love the site and the good work you put into it.