I have a few issues with the river difficulty list (used when
editing a river description.)

First off, I haven't found a good definition of how it is used.

ie, for a "II-IV (V)". I've always assumed that meant "river difficulty
ranges from class II to class IV with isolated class V spots that
can be avoided or portaged". (ie, When the river is running, all those
difficulty levels will be encountered.)

But it could also mean "Depending upon water level, the river difficulty
can vary from class II to class IV, and even class V in extreme circumstances."
(ie, At low water a "II-IV (V)" is a class II river; at higher water class
IV, and in flood a class V.)

The single number ranges (eg, "III") can likewise be read: "River is
continuous class III thru its entire length", or instead "river is
class III in difficulty at all water levels".

How do other people view these ranges? And can it be documented
in the drop-down list so it's clear and gets used in a consistent
manner?

Another thing, are the "+" designators really useful? We
don't seem to use them constantly. And they're only used at the
upper end of the range.

ie, I see:
"xxx to yyy" and "xxx to yyy+"
But there are no:
"xxx+ to yyy" or "xxx+ to yyy+".

Is there a reason for this?

Or how about minus designators as well?
"xxx- to yyy-"
"xxx to yyy-"
"xxx+ to yyy-"
"xxx- to yyy"
"xxx to yyy"
"xxx+ to yyy"
"xxx- to yyy+"
"xxx to yyy+"
"xxx+ to yyy+"

Would this be useful?

The plus values for ranges includes II+, III+, IV+ and V+.
(ie, "I-III+") But the values used in parentheses only include "V+".
The II+, III+ and IV+ got left out? (And there is no "I+" used
anywhere at all.) Is this deliberate?

ie, What's there now:
II-III+
II-III+ (IV)
II-III+ (V)
II-III+ (V+)

What happened to: "II-III+ (IV+)"? (And other similar ranges.)

The ranges don't include values where it's close, ie: II-II+, III-III+,
IV-IV+, and V-V+. I can see where this probably isn't useful.

And, are the "V" and the "5.0" duplicate entries?

Lastly... give what I think the intended list is supposed to look like;
it's not complete. The following values are missing:

I-II+
III (IV)
III (V)
III (V+)
IV+ (V)
IV+ (V+)
I-V
I-V (V+)
II-V
II-V (V+)
III-V
III-V (V+)
IV-V
IV-V (V+)
V (V+)
I-V+

Here's the current list (hopefully I copied it correctly):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, I (II), I (III), I (IV), I (V), I (V+), I-II, I-II (III), I-II (IV), I-II (V), I-II (V+), II, II (III), II (IV), II (V), II (V+), I-II+ (III), I-II+ (IV), I-II+ (V), I-II+ (V+), II+, II+ (III), II+ (IV), II+ (V), II+ (V+), I-III, I-III (IV), I-III (V), I-III (V+), II-III, II-III (IV), II-III (V), II-III (V+), III, I-III+, I-III+ (IV), I-III+ (V), I-III+ (V+), II-III+, II-III+ (IV), II-III+ (V), II-III+ (V+), III+, III+ (IV), III+ (V), III+ (V+), I-IV, I-IV (V), I-IV (V+), II-IV, II-IV (V), II-IV (V+), III-IV, III-IV (V), III-IV (V+), IV, IV (V), IV (V+), I-IV+, I-IV+ (V), I-IV+ (V+), II-IV+, II-IV+ (V), II-IV+ (V+), III-IV+, III-IV+ (V), III-IV+ (V+), IV+, V, II-V+, III-V+, IV-V+, V+
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

/Skip

And while I'm at it; regarding rapid difficulty ranges:

Currently the list is:
I
II
II+
III
III+
IV
IV+
V
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
VI

I see "I+" is missing (ok with that).

Are "V" and "5.0" duplicate?

How about minus numbers?

ie,
II-
III-
IV-
V-

/Skip

Skip,

These are good questions. They've been around since the americanwhitewater.org website came online in 2000, nine years ago. So I'd say it's time to discuss them and come to a resolution.

I use the parenthetical difficulty along the lines of the first way that you describe. Thus, II-III (V) means that, generally, the reach is II-III, but with one or two V's that one might wish to portage. If we reach as consensus that that is what we mean by the parentheses, we should include it in the guidelines for ST volunteers.

As to your other questions: yeah, the class list definitely has some gaps. We should close those, though it'll make the dropdown choices long.

And you're right about the choices in Rapids. If we're including IV- in the Standard Rated Rapids, it should be a choice as we rate those rapids in the rapids' descriptions. As it stands now, High Falls is rated as IV- in the Benchmark Rapids, but a IV in the reach description. That's inconsistent.

V and 5.0 are redundant. I vote for 5.0, to be consistent with 5.1 etc.

My 'take' on ratings has always been that they should represent what the paddler encounters at some 'usual, customary, standard flow'. That is, perhaps, the flow at which the majority of paddlers who do the reach might actually do the reach. (Some might think of this as some sort of 'optimum' flow, though calling it that is so very subjective, so I prefer to avoid that terminology altogether.)

In keeping with the above, then, my 'take' on the use of the parenthetical value is for the case of the 'out-of-character' rapids (I.E., one or two areas or rapids which, at 'normal, usual, standard flow', are significantly more difficult than the rest of the run).

That meant that the only way to differentiate how the difficulty changed at different flows was to do so within the text of the descriptions (either in the general river description or in the "Rapids" tab), if the ST volunteer happened to think about and choose to attempt different descriptions at different flows.

With the above definitions, I'm thrilled that we now have the capability to differentiate and delineate how the difficulty changes with differing flows. We can now say "at low flows (whatever they may be, in cfs or feet on a gauge) the difficulty (or range of difficulty) is I-II+, at moderate flows (perhaps the 'usual, customary, standard flow') the difficulty is II-III, at high (but not outrageous) flows the difficulty is III(iv), and at rare unusually high flows maybe it's a III+(V). Thus, preserving the use of the parenthetical value to represent one or two 'out-of-character' areas or rapids on the run.

Of course, I understand it puts an additional burden on volunteers, to actually try to decide all these new flow ranges and corresponding difficulty ratings, and to then make appropriate changes to each of the rivers and reaches. It may be a while before many StreamTearmers get around to doing this, and many are likely to not bother to do so at all, so it will be a while (if ever) before this capability may be recognized by many users on many reaches. Nonetheless, I think this is long overdue, and sets the AW river pages giant steps ahead of any other online resource that I'm aware of, recognizing that which all boaters know from early on -- the fact that difficulty changes as flow changes -- the fact that it is patently absurd to just categorically state that such-and-such a river (or rapids) IS class whatever, without saying at what flow!

As to the 'completeness' of the list of available ranges, that is something I have also noticed in the past, and occasionally been (only very slightly) frustrated by, having to compromise and settle on some existing range when I had something else (slightly different) in mind. However, the list is already quite long, and finding the range one is looking for can already get a bit tedious. If one could type in their intended choice and have the system 'verify' that it is a valid choice from all the possible ranges, it would not matter so much that there is such an overwhelming variety of ranges to choose from. However, when we cannot type in a value, but have to just scroll through the drop-down-list, it gets a bit tedious. Especially since the 'logic' to the order of appearance in the list is open to debate. Should all options having class I explicitly stated [I, I-II, . . ., I-V(V+)] be grouped together, first in the list? Or should they be scattered down through the list (as they are presently), so the list (presumably) attempts to reflect increasing order of 'overall difficulty'?

It seems some of these ranges should not be necessary. Should we need a I-III, I+ - III, II- - III, I-III-, I+-III-, . . ..? At some point it becomes absurd. Do we really need "I-V" or II-V+? Doesn't every boater of a river which is rated class IV or V (or III-IV, etc) understand that there are likely some class I and II? And should we need to care? The rating should be the overall, prevailing difficulty -- the 'overall impression' one will have.upon completion of the run. Was it primarily class I-II, but with just one or two 'out-of-character' drops (of class III or Iv or V) thrown in? Then it's class I-II(IV) or whatever. Or, was the overall impression (of the predominant features) that it was class III-IV, with some lesser (forgettable) rapids interspersed? Then it's just class III-IV, with the lesser rapids pretty much 'assumed'. I suppose it could be argued that class III-IV could mean there is nothing but class III-IV (continuous), whereas class I-IV would be used for less continuously difficult rivers/rapids, where there is a good mix of rapids of all difficulties, and no overwhelming predominance of any particular class of difficulty.

This starts getting to what I would call the "character" of the run, which may be related to, but is rather different from, the overall "difficulty" or "class" of the run. Character can be "Pool/drop" versus "Continuous". It can be "bedrock ledge-drops" versus "boulder garden". It may be "flat banked" (therefore easy scouting) versus "dells" or "canyon" (which sometimes may be possible to scout, but could make scouting difficult to impossible). It may be "big water" versus "micro-creeking". It may be "in town" or "roadside" versus "remote". Trying to have the class/rating convey that information is the subject of regular recurring debate (see BoateTalk, the "Corran Addison scale", etc). Frankly, trying to put too much detail into a simple classification mnemonic is an exercise in futility. No matter what device or scheme is used, it still begs more detail to 'make it real', to tell the boater what they need to know. That detail will be possible only through a more complete written description, not through the class rating.

Well, anyway, all that gets a bit far afield from the immediate questions posed. Should the list be 'more complete', including some of the values/options Skip identified as missing? I suppose. It would allow volunteers to be as 'precise' and detailed as they may wish to be. However, at some point is does get to be too much implied 'precision' on something which is inherently subjective and imprecise. Should we have I-II, I+, II-, I+-II, I+-II-, . . .? (And all the rest of the permutations and combinations.) Should we have 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 . . .? Frankly, I think it was largely a mistake to go there in the first place. (Probably in part because I have no aspirations or expectations of ever doing any such rapids.) While in theory this is supposed to be 'open endend', In practice, the 'Standard Rated Rapids' list goes only to 5.3 (and then, to VI, of course). So, we used to have V-, V, V+, and V-VI, now we have 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. Big whoop! How is this 'better'? But . . . since those have been defined, I guess they must be allowed for, at least on individual "Rapids". On the class/rating for the river as a whole, I doubt that any of them (5.0, etc) is appropriate or necessary. (I can't imagine that some whole river/reach needs to be rated 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 or so forth.) Thus, I would agree that the V and 5.0 are duplicate/redundant entries (on the overall river/reach ratings list).

(Well, that's another $1.98 when only my $0.02 was asked for.)

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Leader

Ahhh, now here's the rub. While we now can specify different difficulty (value or range) for the whole river/reach at different flows, for the individual rapids we are 'stuck' with having to specify one supposedly definitive difficulty (with no specific provision for saying 'at what level', other than if they think (with no specific reminder) to do so in the body of the text of the accompanying description).

For "Rapids", especially since the "Standard Rated Rapids" list contains (at least some of) the 'minus' classifications, they should be available here so that we can be consistent. And, here I would have no problem leaving both options, V and 5.0, just because for some rapids, some volunteers may not feel completely qualified to distinguish between 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. (I know I wouldn't!) They should have the option of just saying something is a class V, and letting that be that.

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Leader

For rivers I prefer to say V-, V, V+ as these are general and vague descriptions. I don't use the 5.0, 5.1 etc ratings because the list of standard rapids does not make much sense to me on the few rapids that I am familiar with. I think making an attempt at a 5. decimal system is reasonable, but we have to start with a better comparison system between rapids, which is a whole different topic.

I like having the parenthesis mean that there is one or two portagable rapids with out of character and higher difficulty. If the rapids can't be portaged then the river has to have the rating of the most difficult mandatory or generally run rapid.

Most rivers have class 1 rapids on them, but I don't think it is worthwhile to rate a river I-V. I think the two ratings should only be used for adjacent ratings, such as l-ll, ll-lll, lll-lV, lV-V. This allows the streamteamer to be vague on whether the rating is one or the other, somewhere in between or a mixture.

It's looking like a consensus. The parentheses only refer to one or a couple of out-of-character rapids that are portageable. And this I-V stuff don't fly. I completely agree that the hyphenated ratings should be used for consecutive numbers only.

V, V-, V+, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2? I dunno. For now, I'd say that question is bigger than the Stream Team.

I tend to use the ranges as a general guide of overall river character.

For example, the St. Catherine section of the Jacques-Cartier I gave a range of II-V because it has a number of rapids in all those levels of difficulty. This is a good river
to take a mixed group on. It has enough easy stuff to challenge the weaker boaters. And a few more difficult rapids which the advanced boaters can have fun on (which the weaker boaters will portage).

If I recall correctly, this section has two class V's, two class IV's, two III's, and a bunch of II's. (I do remember one advanced boater commenting she thought this had a "work-to-fun" ratio that was a bit too high.) The overriding factor was an even distribution of rapids at each difficulty level.

Another section of river, the Pont Rouge section of the Jacques-Cartier I gave a ratings of III+(IV). Here, the majority of rapids were all III and III+'s. Yes there were some II's and I's, but they were few enough that it didn't bore people. And the two isolated IV rapids were easily (and universally) portaged by the weaker boaters.

So I think my usage of ranges is answered by the question "what is the majority of the river like?". And the usage of the number in parentheses is "what are the exceptions?".

/Skip

Matt's last response and mine crossed in the mail...

In case my last wasn't really clear (likely)...

Assuming I'm a paddler who likes to boat class IV water...

A 'IV' will be a fun and exhausting river.

A 'III-IV' will be fun and exciting, but I'll have time to rest between the scary spots.

A 'II-IV' might be a spot to take my girlfriend. She can portage the difficult rapids,
and I won't get too bored because it has a few fun spots. (Or even better, I can
paddle her boat down the IV's.)

A 'I-IV' is a river to do probably once to say I did it.

okay?
/Skip

Skip makes some very valid points and I would wholeheartedly agree!

The only 'reservation' would be that I doubt that one can really rest assured that every streamteamer is going to interpret that range in that way, or that every paddler should expect to be able to interpret the rating that way (without consulting the full description). One river rated class II-IV might be (as suggested) a couple of II's, a couple of III's, and a couple of IV's, very poo/drop, thus very 'do-able' by novice paddlers (who would run the II's and probably the III's, and portage the IV's) and not too boring for the more experienced paddler. However, another river rated class II-IV might be a whole mess o' IV's, with a reasonable smattering of II's and III's as boogie water between, and be fairly continuous. For the experienced paddler, this would be great stuff. For the novice, not so much. It could be a treacherous portage fest, and a long day!

Anyway . . . I can certainly see some legitimate use of the 'non-adjacent ratings ranges', such as II-IV or III-V. I guess I would still just question whether we would need to include any skip level stuff starting with class I (eg., I-IV, I-V).

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Leader