			<div   class='message  msg_warn'>
									
				You are currently not logged in or haven't verified your email in a while. Please login or complete the verifictation process to post.
				</div>
			<div style='clear:both'></div>
		<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>American Whitewater Forums</title>
    <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/index</link>
    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>EN</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2012 14:11:48 -0400</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 May 2012 14:11:48 -0400</lastBuildDate>
    <category>American Whitewater Forums</category>
    <generator>Phorum 5.1.23</generator>
    <ttl>600</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Question about 'missing' L#, R#, H# values</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26958,26965/#msg-26965</link>
      <author>pmartzen</author>
      <description><![CDATA[In your example, Skip, you could add comments to each level that clarify/override the standard Water Level descriptors.  At least we can change the rating for different levels.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26958,26965/#msg-26965</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2012 14:11:48 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Question about 'missing' L#, R#, H# values</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26958,26964/#msg-26964</link>
      <author>rob</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I'll address the final issue:
&quot;I'm not sure why some of the choices for the dropdown list (&quot;L9,L9&quot; or &quot;L8+&quot; or &quot;H1,H2&quot;) even exist.&quot;

Essentially, this is all about giving the StreamTeam Member options.
You can:
1) Just specify a SINGLE &quot;low&quot; range ('L0-L9'),
*OR*
2) Specify a 'very low' range ('L8-') AND specify a 'low' (maybe an 'ELF') range ('L9').

AND, similarly, you can:
1) Just specify a SINGLE &quot;High&quot; range ('H0-H9'),
*OR*
2) Specify a &quot;high, but boatable&quot; ('H1-H2') range AND a &quot;super high&quot; range ('H3-H9').

Mostly a distinction with little difference, perhaps, but it allows the StreamTeam member to put a different COMMENT on one flow range vs. another within the 'too low' or 'too high' range. Again, to me, this is a fine way to suggest 'ELF' flows, or 'experts only' flows, versus flows that are truly 'too low' or 'suicidally high'.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26958,26964/#msg-26964</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 18:54:17 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Question about 'missing' L#, R#, H# values</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26958,26963/#msg-26963</link>
      <author>skipmorris</author>
      <description><![CDATA[A related question:

I recently added multiple flow levels for a local river where the difficulty range from class II  to V:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/1167/#tab-flow

This is one river where the character really does change significantly dependent upon flow.  Local boaters are well aware of this and will seek out (or avoid) the river accordingly.

When editing flow, we have the following choices:

R0-R9 Range of Boatable Flows
R0-R5 Low Runnable Range
R5-R9 High Runnable Range
R0-R4 Low Runnable
R4-R6 Medium Runnable
R6-R9 High Runnable
L0-L9 To Low to Boat
L9,L9 Too Low, Not Fun
L8- Extremely Low
H0-H9 Too High to Boat
H1,H2 Dangerously High (not fun)
H2+ Instant Death High Water

However, when looking at the river pages the associated verbage is different
(example from above mentioend river).

6.00 -7.49 ft    barely runnable-med runnable 	II(III) 	
7.50 -7.99 ft    med runnable-a bit pushy runnable 	II-III 	
8.00 -8.49 ft    med runnable-a bit pushy runnable 	II-III+ 	
8.50 -9.49 ft    med runnable-a bit pushy runnable 	III+ 	
9.50 -11.99 ft    a bit pushy runnable-high runnable 	IV 	
12.00 -14.99 ft  a bit pushy runnable-high runnable 	IV+ 	
15.00 -99.99 ft  barely High-extremely High  V 	

In polling local paddlers, most people agree with the varied ratings assigned. But no-one likes the displayed verbage.  What might be pushy to a class III paddler is tame for the IV paddler.

I suggest both the wording should change a bit, plus the verbage on the drop-down list should match what is displayed to the user.  Also, I'm not sure why some of the choices for the dropdown list (&quot;L9,L9&quot; or &quot;L8+&quot; or &quot;H1,H2&quot;) even exist.

/Skip]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26958,26963/#msg-26963</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 11:03:24 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Question about 'missing' L#, R#, H# values</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26958,26962/#msg-26962</link>
      <author>skipmorris</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I confess I didn't notice it; but now that it's pointed out I agree with Rob.

I do like the wording &quot;Below Recommended&quot;, &quot;Above Recommended&quot;, etc. But the numerical relative levels would be useful as well.

/Skip]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26958,26962/#msg-26962</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 10:26:44 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Virtual Guage</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26951,26961/#msg-26961</link>
      <author>eurotrash</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Cool, let me know when you got it working.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26951,26961/#msg-26961</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 21:07:28 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: SF Payette: Staircase flow calc</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26935,26960/#msg-26960</link>
      <author>pmartzen</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I decided to just change the gauge from SF at Staircase to SF near Banks, and redo the calculation to subtract the NF at Banks from the Main near Horseshoe. See what you think.
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/596/ 

Paul]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26935,26960/#msg-26960</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 02:13:13 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: SF Payette: Staircase flow calc</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26935,26959/#msg-26959</link>
      <author>wasatchbill</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi Paul, 
Thanks for the reply. That is cool they are pulling data from the Idaho power gauge at Cascade now. 
Here is another Idaho Power gauge, for the Malad near the confluence with the Snake; can they get data from this one also?
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/574/#tab-flow
I found that the Idaho Power gauges do have a &quot;Station Information&quot; section at the bottom, with lat/long coords, so that puts this gauge well below the lower dam. 

Regarding the SF Payette &quot;Staircase&quot; flow calc, when I was up at the Payettes last week, it was explained to me that there didn't used to be a gauge for NF Payette at Banks. So back then, the SF Payette *had* to be estimated by summing its 3 upstream gauges. Then that sum was subtracted from the Main@Horseshoe to get a rough estimate for the NF Payette. Now that there is a gauge for &quot;NF Payette near Banks&quot;, the locals estimate the SF Payette Staircase run using &quot;Main@Horseshoe minus NF-near-Banks&quot;. Most of the ungauged tributaries are on the SF Payette, downstream of the Deadwood and SF @ Lowman gauges. When I looked at the Deadwood+SF Payette confluence for example, the Deadwood looked like 3x what the Deadwood gauge said (255), since the gauge was upstream 24 miles, near the dam. 

If a formula was made to use an average of the &quot;low estimate&quot; and &quot;high estimate&quot;, I think the &quot;high estimate&quot; should be weighted by a factor of 5 or even 10. During the summer, I was told that &quot;Main@Horseshoe minus NF&quot; is pretty accurate. During spring melt and heavy rain, it could be a few percent high. 

Cheers, 
Bill Hunt]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26935,26959/#msg-26959</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 17:59:39 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Question about 'missing' L#, R#, H# values</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26958,26958/#msg-26958</link>
      <author>rob</author>
      <description><![CDATA[OK, maybe I missed it if there was some discussion of this, but . . . was there some compelling reason behind removal of the 'relative level' values (L0-L9, R0-R9, H0-H9)?

I will recognize that some people may have thought that they just cluttered up the page, were somehow too hard to understand or were arbitrary or meaningless (or whatever), but those people were free to ignore them (or turn them off using 'simple rivers'). However, I found them very useful and meaningful. They helped understand when a run was near a threshhold flow. For example, if a river is L8 or L9, but rising, I might reasonably expect it to go green (become runnable) quite soon. If a run was R8 or R9 and rising, it was likely to go blue/purple (become 'high', potentially either REAL fun or too-high/unrunnable, depending on the run and my interests), just as if it is blue/purple and falling, it was reasonable to expect it would soon be in the 'runnable' range.

Without the relative-level values, it is nowhere near as convenient to  tell WHERE the flow is WITHIN the listed/indicated flow range when I am looking at the state listing. I have to pull up each run description, click on the Flow Info tab, scroll down and look at each of the established 'recommended' ranges. (Yes, from the state page I can also click on the level description ('Runnable', 'Below Recom.', etc) and see the OVERALL runnable range, though not the subdivisions of it.)

As I have commented before, if there is some specificity which needs elimination from the state pages (and river listing), it is the specific value of how much the flow is rising or falling, based solely on comparing one (most recent) reading to one other (one-hour-prior) reading.  I agree it is great to have some 'trending' indicator, showing WHETHER the river is steady, or rising or falling (and perhaps trying to suggest how sharply), but showing a numerical 'rate' of change, without doing any other 'data smoothing' or averaging, is demonstrably horribly flawed. (Just throw onto a spreadsheet a day's worth of values from any gauge, create a column of 'hourly change' and watch how dramatically it can vary -- random hours can go completely contrary to overall trend. If that errant value/hour happens to be what we display, we give a completely misleading impression.)

So, anyway . . . the main question is why did relative level indicators go away?]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26958,26958/#msg-26958</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 12:08:08 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Maximum Gradient listing</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26915,26957/#msg-26957</link>
      <author>rob</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I haven't seen that particular (Holbeck/Stanley) book, so I can't specifically comment on its layout. I would only reiterate what I had already stated: In the text of a description, it seems entirely reasonable and appropriate to use whatever methods of calculation the author (StreamTeam member) desires, because it can be elaborated upon, explained, and (hopefully) made clear. For exactly such situations as Great Falls of the Potomac (as well as NUMEROUS other situations), it is important to emphasize the difficulty of the crux of the run.

Bottom line, anyone who thinks they can just look at gradient numbers to compare runs is naive, just as anyone who thinks they can compare runs based only on flow, based only on class/rating, or based only on any other single factor is naive. However, using that as excuse/reason to inflate the gradient figures in the masthead seems to lead more to confusion (and distrust) rather than more clarity or better understanding.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26915,26957/#msg-26957</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 10:11:47 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Virtual Guage</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26951,26956/#msg-26956</link>
      <author>matt</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Yeah, I saw that. We're working on getting it fixed.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26951,26956/#msg-26956</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 06:46:56 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Virtual Guage</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26951,26955/#msg-26955</link>
      <author>eurotrash</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Can you take a look for the code on the Embudo Gauge again?

Not really sure if is working correctly.

IF this helps the current l, m, h flows are still correct.
Low: 	150 - 250 cfs
Med 	250 - 400 cfs
High 	400 cfs and up

Ideally this wold be the primary gauge for the page if possible.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26951,26955/#msg-26955</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:07:57 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Adding New Reaches</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26859,26954/#msg-26954</link>
      <author>matt</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Skip,

Let me talk to Ryan, and I'll try to get back to you with a forMatt for a csv file that I could quickly upload to the db.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26859,26954/#msg-26954</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:51:16 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Virtual Guage</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26951,26953/#msg-26953</link>
      <author>matt</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Okay; I believe I've set up that gauge. [url=http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Gauge2/detail/id/51118/]See it by clicking here[/url].
It always takes a few hours for a new virt gauge to be populated with data. If it's not showing a flow by tomorrow (4/29/12) at this time, I probably didn't quite get the code right.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26951,26953/#msg-26953</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:56:24 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Adding a Map tab to my rivers</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26937,26952/#msg-26952</link>
      <author>ab257z</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Odd, the map tabs are there now.  Maybe some glitch in my browser the other day.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26937,26952/#msg-26952</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:25:35 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Virtual Guage</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26951,26951/#msg-26951</link>
      <author>eurotrash</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I'm wondering if it is possible to set up virtual gauge for one of the local creeks using the CMS.

Currently the only accurate way to get a good reading for the Embudo is to Subtract
- 08276500	 RIO GRANDE BLW TAOS JUNCTION BRIDGE NEAR TAOS, NM 
from
- 08279500	 RIO GRANDE AT EMBUDO, NM 

BTW, the CFS reading on the actual gauge for the Embudo seems to give inaccurate readings according to the locals.

Thanks]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26951,26951/#msg-26951</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:31:22 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Adding New Reaches</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26859,26950/#msg-26950</link>
      <author>skipmorris</author>
      <description><![CDATA[pmartzen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
&gt; Hey Skip,
&gt; 
&gt; Do you have this list of Quebec rivers already in a spreadsheet, database or csv format?
&gt; 
&gt; Since the AW guide is a database, there ought to be a template that we could use for submitting mass numbers of new rivers.  

Multiple databases, not exactly a csv file, but I could create one easily enough.

/Skip]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26859,26950/#msg-26950</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:11:11 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Maximum Gradient listing</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26915,26949/#msg-26949</link>
      <author>skipmorris</author>
      <description><![CDATA[rob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
&gt; Here in the Midwest, we've got SOME rivers which...

This is an important distinction.  In the Midwest the typical rivers are very different then those here in New England.

Many of the New England rivers are continuous whitewater.  If I calculate the Max Gradient over a mile it won't be much different the the Average Gradient for the entire run.

I think any solution has to allow for regional differences.

/Skip]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26915,26949/#msg-26949</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:48:08 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Adding New Reaches</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26859,26948/#msg-26948</link>
      <author>pmartzen</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hey Skip,

Do you have this list of Quebec rivers already in a spreadsheet, database or csv format?

Since the AW guide is a database, there ought to be a template that we could use for submitting mass numbers of new rivers.  

I seldom add rivers and then only one at a time, so it has not been an issue for me.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26859,26948/#msg-26948</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:53:13 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: SF Payette: Staircase flow calc</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26935,26947/#msg-26947</link>
      <author>pmartzen</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hey Bill,

Thanks for pointing out these issues.  I can't tell what is going on with the gauge differences without some deep study of each individual gauge.  One thing that might help others is to put links to the separate gauges and even display the AW versions with some explanations about interpretation.  

A &quot;summed gauge&quot; is a virtual gauge and those are all listed on one page.  In the Administrators menu, click on Stream team then click on the Virtual Gauge button near the top of the window.  Or go directly there with this link. 
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/StreamTeam/edit-virtualgauges/

I don't think that summed gauges necessarily add time delays, but the individual gauges may update at different times.  When I first looked at the gauge in question, the data was 12 hours old, but later when I looked it was only 53 minutes old.  So the time delay varies and could be from the gauges themselves.  

I have submitted a bug ticket with the suggestion that AW grab data from Idaho Power gauges.  

Dreamflows will often look at historical data from discontinued gauges.  Then it can create estimates based on pretty sophisticated statistical calculations.   We can make some adjustments with the AW calculations.  So we could add 10% to the estimate if the flow is always reading about that much low.  However, if the estimate is low during one season but high the rest of the year, we can't easily correct that.  We can just provide directions for interpreting the estimates.  

You provided directions for a different estimate that would tend to be high.  I think you could create a virtual gauge that used both estimates and averaged them together.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26935,26947/#msg-26947</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:40:47 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Maximum Gradient listing</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26915,26946/#msg-26946</link>
      <author>pmartzen</author>
      <description><![CDATA[The first time I really got thinking about this was when, I ran across a creek that had an extremely high gradient listed, 1400 fpm, I think.  It seemed faintly plausible till I looked at the map and found a total drop of 500 feet.
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/3150/
I changed Max Gradient to the actual total drop for the steepest mile, which was 330 fpm.  


&quot;The Best Whitewater in the State of California&quot; by Holbeck and Stanley always lists average gradient, often lists mile by mile drop, sometimes just lists the drop for the steeper miles, and occasionally lists total drop for shorter distances.  Then they go and mix it up for at least one river where they state fpm for a shorter distance
SF Salmon is listed at: 75 fpm: 165 fpm for 0.6 mile near mile 4.  Without looking at the map, I am unsure if this river drops 99 feet in 0.6 miles or 165 feet in 0.6 miles.  165 fpm for 0.6 miles is equal to 99 feet of total drop, but maybe it is a typo and it actually means 165 feet in 0.6 miles.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26915,26946/#msg-26946</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:06:11 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Conflicting flow info for the lower gauley</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26906,26945/#msg-26945</link>
      <author>pmartzen</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Well, that makes some sense Rob.   I have assumed that the system only utilizes the end points of each range and pays no attention to the possible intervals within a range.  I have not paid any attention to this, so you could be totally correct.  Something else to experiment with.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26906,26945/#msg-26945</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:56:25 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Maximum Gradient listing</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26915,26944/#msg-26944</link>
      <author>rob</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Well, the counter-argument to the grade example is that it is simply a percentage. EG., 5% could be 5&quot; in 100&quot;, 5' in 100',  50' in 1000', or 264' in a mile. There are NO implied units in 'percent grade' which either directly or indirectly state or imply any specific distance!

The MPH example is much more relevant. I don't have any counter-argument other than that there is no police officer enforcing any limit on my FPM. For that matter, if we allow FPM to be defined as Skip would have us do, my FPM would be virtually unlimited (I.E., *I* would not be able to set a limit on what I would run based upon Max.FPM). Without some standard agreement, each contributor is free to calculate FPM over whatever distance they wish, and it then becomes totally meaningless!

It is this always difficult task of trying to reach agreement on where to draw the line. If we report Max.Gradient based on something less than a mile, where should that line be. If we allow a half-mile, then why not 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, or 1/10. If we allow 1/10th mile (which is 176 yards), then why not 150 yards? Or 100 yards?

In the text of a description, I think it is totally appropriate to list how many feet the river drops across some shorter distance in order to illustrate and EMPHASIZE the difficulty of some particular stretch. (EG, &quot;The river drops 50 feet in a tenth of a mile.&quot;). If you want to add further emphasis, I have no problem saying (in the text) &quot;... for an [b]effective[/b] gradient of 500 FPM&quot; or &quot;[b]equivalent[/b] gradient of 500 FPM&quot;. However, to me, that value does not belong in the masthead. There are plenty of folks out there who already have 'issues' with data we present. They see a max.gradient of 600 FPM and then see nowhere on the run that drops 600' in one mile . . . heck there would not even have to be a total of 600' of drop in the whole run if we allow max.gradient to be for 1/10th of a mile! So, they think the AW pages are a total JOKE! If this particular value is that ridiculous, what else on the site is just plain wrong. It doesn't ADD to the description at that point, then, it detracts from it. (And THAT is the counterargument to the 1000' to your neighbor example.)]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26915,26944/#msg-26944</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:16:25 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Adding a Map tab to my rivers</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26937,26943/#msg-26943</link>
      <author>rob</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Good point, Paul . . . I meant to add a note about that, but got distracted and sent the message without it. FWIW, when doing my 'location' work (for rivers, put-ins, take-outs, rapids and other features), I do sometimes use GoogleEarth. It is a MARVELOUS, amazing tool (with its MANY MANY plusses, which I won't detail here), but it has its minuses:
1) It requires the first-time user to download and install the application (on each computer they may wand/need to work at).
2) It has (best that I can tell) essentially one 'view', a 'satellite' view. There are times when that view is far less than ideal.
3) Rivers and streams are not labeled (nor are rapids or falls) . . . you need to really KNOW the area to be sure you are in the right place as you look at or for tributaries and rapids.
4) It is a resource-hog (meaning it opens slowly, and can take a long time to populate the screen, especially if you take advantage of many of the 'layers' of data available).
5) While it does SHOW you the lat/lng coordinates of the pointer/cursor, you cannot cut/paste those values . . . you need to mentally note them and then manually enter them into AW. Not a big deal for just one or two lat/lng values, but if I'm doing many many rapids, that gets tedious.

So, I also like to use Acme Mapper (http://mapper.acme.com/).
1) It does NOT require download and set-up on each computer in order to use it.
2) Much like GoogleEarth, it has a FULL SCREEN map (not just the tiny little window embedded in the AW edit page, or the 3/4-page map in GoogleMaps).
3) It has eight (8) 'view' options (ok, some are largely redundant), allowing you (simply, easily) to swap to [b]Topo view[/b], Terrain view, Hybrid (Satellite) view, and more.
4) It generally loads (initially and while scrolling/working) fairly quickly (since it doesn't have all the fancy bells and whistles, and multiple data-layers that GoogleEarth has).
5) The lat/lng of the crosshairs (at the dead-center of the screen) are shown on a bar in the control overlay. You can highlight the lat/lng on that button to cut/paste into AW (or to a spreadsheet, or to any other application). I do this to create a spreadsheet of feature locations, elevations, etc, to which I can add upstream and/or downstream distances (yes, that's something best done on GoogleEarth, using the 'Ruler'/'Path' tool). Using this spreadsheet, I can calculate mile-by-mile gradients (and get max.gradient).
6) Much like GoogleEarth and GoogleMaps, AcmeMapper 'Find' will let you enter lat/lng (if you know it already), city+state, or a WIDE variety of geographical or other feature names. Quite often (on each app) you can enter a rivername and nearest city+state, and it will place a 'marker' and move/zoom to that location. Sometimes you can even (again, GoogleEarth or AcmeMapper) enter a rapids or falls name and it will find it!]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26937,26943/#msg-26943</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:11:15 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Maximum Gradient listing</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26915,26942/#msg-26942</link>
      <author>pmartzen</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Good points Skip.  I thought this topic might stir up some controversy.  

I have not come up with any counter arguments to your analogies of miles per hour and % grade, but I am thinking about it.  

I have never thought about Max Gradient, being the steepest drop or steepest 1/10 mile, and I somehow don't see myself going to that effort, as it is hard enough estimating the steepest mile.   I tend to think of it as how many steep drops are stacked up on top of each other.  

So if I see 600 feet per mile, I don't think, &quot;Oh, that is a couple waterfalls.&quot;  I think, &quot;We better get the ropes out and I hope we can make it through in a day.&quot;  So for the following puppy you will be dropping 450 feet in a mile.
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/179/

I do like the river pages where the gradient for each mile is laid out.  

As long as we have photos and descriptions I don't see this as any big deal, but it is very interesting to get the different viewpoints.  I look forward to others, as well.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26915,26942/#msg-26942</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:01:32 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Adding a Map tab to my rivers</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26937,26941/#msg-26941</link>
      <author>pmartzen</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Also, when you are having any trouble working on a river page, provide a link to that page and we can see for ourselves what you are dealing with.  Then we can be more specific in our answers.  

In this case, I suspect that Rob has it covered.  You probably have not added coordinates for put in and take out yet.  If you don't know what those coordinates are, there are a few ways of finding them.   You can use Google Earth to locate the river section and then see the coordinate readings at the bottom of the screen as you mouse over the put in and take out.  You can also take the coordinates of another nearby river, enter them, then use the Map-it tool to get the correct location.  With the Map it tool, you zoom out then drag to the correct approximate location, then zoom in to locate the precise correct location.  

When you create entries for rapids and click to add coordinates for that rapid the put in coordinates will be automatically entered.  Then you can scroll down to the actual location of the rapid and drop the marker there.]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26937,26941/#msg-26941</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:49:40 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Maximum Gradient listing</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26915,26939/#msg-26939</link>
      <author>rob</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Sorry, but for me, it is ludicrous calculating FPM for 1/10 of a mile, and then reporting THAT as the &quot;Maximum Gradient&quot;. Here in the Midwest, we've got SOME rivers which have SOME dams which are very runnable. Dead flat above the dam (on the 'pond'), and nominal gradient downstream. If such a dam is 15' high, should I report a &quot;max.Gradient&quot; of 150 FPM, since that 1/10 mile has 15' of drop? Does 150 FPM characterize this run? (I would say emphatically NOT!)

All these measures we use when describing whitewater rivers (overall class/rating, class/rating of individual drops, average gradient, maximum gradient, recommended flow, etc) are all INCOMPLETE descriptors of the difficulty of the whitewater on the run. These factors (and more) must be taken together to have anything close to an understanding of the run. Are the rapids continuous or pool/drop? Are they boulder gardens or ledges or slides or sheer falls or just wide-open waves? I've seen stuff which drops in excess of 100 FPM yet does it so continuously (encountering no rocks or bedrock) that it is noting more than fast flush swiftwater! The point being, JUST looking at FPM, expecting that value alone (whether Avg or MaxGradient) to be all you need in order to compare difficulty of two different runs is ABSURD! If we allow Max.Gradient to be measured across just 1/10th of a mile, then this metric becomes even LESS meaningful (at least, to me).]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26915,26939/#msg-26939</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:14:08 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: Adding a Map tab to my rivers</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26937,26938/#msg-26938</link>
      <author>rob</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I'm a bit perplexed about your question. The basic map tab should automatically appear on every reach on AW. Getting it to show the actual segment of the river requires only that the latitude and longitude of the put-in and take-out are provided on the initial edit page for the river/reach.

Aside from that tab, there is also a &quot;Directions&quot; tab which can show a map of the shuttle route (as determined by GoogleMaps). Having this tab show a map requires 1) the same lat/lng coordinates already mentioned, AND 2) turning the directions on by (while in 'Edit' for the reach) going to the Directions tab, clicking the pull-down menu next to &quot;Automatic Directions&quot;, selecting &quot;Shuttle/custom from putin-lon&quot;, pressing &quot;Update Edit Copy&quot;, AND 3) going to the &quot;Quick Preview&quot; or &quot;Full Preview&quot; tab, clicking the &quot;Make Edit Change Public&quot; (NOTE: NOT the &quot;Make Changes Public&quot; at the top of the page under &quot;Edit Stream&quot;, but the &quot;Make EDIT Change Public&quot; button below the Edit tabs and below the River/Reach masthead partway down the page! This is a bit confusing, I know.) 

If that doesn't get what you want, or if you mean something different than this, could you elaborate a little on what you mean?]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26937,26938/#msg-26938</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:44:31 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Adding a Map tab to my rivers</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26937,26937/#msg-26937</link>
      <author>ab257z</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Are there instructions how to add a map tab to the river reaches I edit?]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26937,26937/#msg-26937</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:10:19 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] Re: SF Payette: Staircase flow calc</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26935,26936/#msg-26936</link>
      <author>wasatchbill</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Here are numbers from around 11PM this evening, for the Staircase flow:
SF Payette@Lowman + Deadwood + Middle Payette=
3560+154+2700= 6414  

At that time AW had 5440, and Dreamflows had 6250. So I started wondering what Dreamflows is doing differently from AW (even though their number is also lower than the sum of the 3 gauges at that time). Of course, the flows are rising dramatically with the heat of the day right now, so the more time delay, the more off the sum will be. 

Note that another way to calculate the Staircase flow would be the Main Payette@Horseshoe minus the North Fork@Banks. This would be a high estimate, for the end of the Staircase run, and it would be higher by however many tributaries enter the Main after the South Fork+North Fork confluence, down to Horseshoe. At the same time this evening, ~11PM,  this second method had these numbers:
Main Payette @ Horseshoe  10,700 
NF Payette @ Banks,  3850 
10,700 - 3850 = 6850 for the South fork at the confluence with the NF  (end of the Staircase run)

So with a &quot;high estimate&quot; of 6850, and a &quot;low estimate&quot; of 6414, the AW number of  5440 looks a bit lower. 

The other thing in the back of my mind is that I have heard that this run gets significantly harder in the 7 to 9K range (I don't know what estimate method was being referred to there). I guess it washes out a bit above that. I heard that a number of Boise locals have swum on Staircase in the 7 or 8 to 9K range, &quot;but its not class V&quot;. I got a chuckle out of that;  Boise locals have the North Fork in their back yard, and they are pretty darn hardcore in my book. I guess Staircase could at least rate a IV+ at those flows. Actually, the highest I have done it was ~4600, and I thought it was a really great big water run at that level, which could probably be called IV+ in most areas. 

Anyway, I am curious how a &quot;summed gauge&quot; is created, why that adds time delay, and if there is any way to reduce the time delay. 
Thanks, 
Bill Hunt]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26935,26936/#msg-26936</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:44:51 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[StreamTeam Forum] SF Payette: Staircase flow calc</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26935,26935/#msg-26935</link>
      <author>wasatchbill</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Greetings, 
I am relatively new here; my name is Bill Hunt and I live in Riverdale Utah. I've been watching the rapid rise of some of Idaho classics with the warm weather over the past few days, such as the Main Payette going from 5500 to 11,000 in the past week :-). 

I was going to ask how the Staircase gauge is calculated, because I noticed its lower than the sum of the 3 upstream gauges (Lowman, Deadwood, Middle Payette), by almost 1000 cfs. But I went into edit mode and saw that the gauge is in fact the sum of those 3 gauges. So my question becomes: how much time delay is added by summing gauges like that? From looking at the gauges, that appears to be about a 6 hour delay. 

I was also wondering how to get data from a non-USGS gauge into an AW graph? Specifically, the NF Payette@Cascade, which is now an Idaho Power gauge. I put it in the text here:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/591/#tab-flow
Cheers, 
Bill Hunt]]></description>
      <category>StreamTeam Forum</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/25,26935,26935/#msg-26935</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:48:30 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

