Question: How are difficulty grades assigned?

[GeoGirl]

Hi ski divas!

My burning question of the day is: how do resorts decide whether to classify routes as green, blue, black, double-black, etc? Is it like rock climbing where several people run it and decide "huh, this feels like a blue" and then come to a consensus? Is it determined by the steepness of the slope? If you've been involved in making new ski trails, what goes into your thought process about difficulty?

The "Geo" part of my usernames stems from the fact that I'm a geologist in a geography master's program and therefore a total nerd. Skiing has given me some great ideas for projects for my geospatial information science classes! Namely, I'm hoping to run slope, elevation, and aspect analysis on elevation data for Mt. Hood and Mt. Bachelor and then compare it with the ski trails. I'm curious about the slope, and variation of slope values, on trails of different difficulty levels and how those would vary between ski areas. These would just be estimates, unfortunately, because the elevation data is just ground elevation and doesn't take snow grooming into account.

Anyhow, I would love some feedback. Also let me know if you'd be interested in me posting the final results of that analysis.

 

[mustski]

I would be interested in the data analysis for sure. I don’t think there is a consistent system mountain to mountain. The difficulty levels are only relative to that particular resort. For example the “double blacks” at my local bump are the hardest terrain there but a blue run at Mammoth.

 

[Christy]

It's not a scientific process, and people love to argue about it. Who has the easiest greens, the hardest blacks, why is one resort's blue so much easier than another's, etc etc. The ratings are only meant to be meaningful for that mountain--they are meant to suggest the easiest and hardest runs there and only there.

I've seen threads on other forums over the years advocating for some kind of standardized system but it's really not possible. You can't just use steepness, for example, because trail width, crowds and conditions are such a big factor. And, conditions are always changing. A semi steep trail of average width could feel like a black on weekends when it's icy but a blue when the snow is good or on weekdays. Trails ski differently throughout the year depending on snowpack--steepness changes, rocks/stumps appear and disappear, etc.

A lot of it has to do with publicity and customer service. You don't want to piss people off (say by identifying runs as green but they are actually fairly steep) but you don't want them to think your ratings are a joke either. And don't forget about moguls--many mogul runs are black, but that doesn't have anything to do with the slope/steepness, width, etc.

 

[Christy]

I think it's a lot more useful to think of trail ratings as a general guide and something that is very subjective, but not an objective fact.

 

[marzNC]

My burning question of the day is: how do resorts decide whether to classify routes as green, blue, black, double-black, etc? Is it like rock climbing where several people run it and decide "huh, this feels like a blue" and then come to a consensus? Is it determined by the steepness of the slope? If you've been involved in making new ski trails, what goes into your thought process about difficulty?

Nope, not like rock climbing grading at all. Although I'm only familiar with how that works for indoor climbing.

Ski trails are laid out based on the available terrain. There hasn't been a brand new ski area or ski resort set up in quite a while, although new terrain has been added in a few places in the last decade or so. Laying out trails is something few people really know how to do well. More like what it takes to lay out a golf course than an indoor climbing route.

The current rating symbols were put in place by NSAA in 1968. Inspired by what the Disney company came up with for a plan for a ski resort that never happened. Walt Disney was an avid skier. Note that the symbols used in Europe and Japan are different from North America.

https://snowslang.com/ski-trail-ratings/

The NY Times had an article about trail maps in 2015 that covers the American rating system.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/travel/5-things-skiers-may-not-know-about-the-trail-map.html

There is an unspoken factor to trail ratings, which is marketing. No ski resort out west could survive as a business without some green runs. In fact, there are a few resorts working hard to add more friendly beginner terrain these days. There are times when the rating is changed, most likely for marketing reasons. No ski area in the mid-Atlantic would want to have just green runs and no black terrain. Even though there isn't a black trail in the mid-Atlantic that would be rated more than a blue at a big mountain in the northeast or out west.

The way to use ratings when skiing at a place for the first time is to start with green or blue, and get a sense of what that means first. Then move on to blue, black, or whatever more challenging terrain is of interest.

 

[marzNC]

The "Geo" part of my usernames stems from the fact that I'm a geologist in a geography master's program and therefore a total nerd. Skiing has given me some great ideas for projects for my geospatial information science classes! Namely, I'm hoping to run slope, elevation, and aspect analysis on elevation data for Mt. Hood and Mt. Bachelor and then compare it with the ski trails. I'm curious about the slope, and variation of slope values, on trails of different difficulty levels and how those would vary between ski areas. These would just be estimates, unfortunately, because the elevation data is just ground elevation and doesn't take snow grooming into account.

Anyhow, I would love some feedback. Also let me know if you'd be interested in me posting the final results of that analysis.

Be fun to see what you come up with. Do you know about hillmap.com ?

Last month I skied Bachelor and Mt. Hood Meadows for the first time. As an advanced skier, I still started with blue groomers. After skiing Bachelor for three days, I decided that the ratings at Bachelor are comparable to Snowbird. Meadows didn't feel quite the same as Bachelor. But really didn't get a chance to ski much of the terrain in good conditions because it was pretty warm that day.

A comparison between Mt. Hood Snowbowl, Timberline, and Mt. Hood Meadows would be an interesting comparison since they are more or less on the same mountain but cater to different types of skiers/boarders.

 

[geargrrl]

It's easy enough to say Mt Spokane is like Lookout Pass, but really, the ratings are for that particular area, how the runs relate to each other and the mountain overall.

 

[GeoGirl]

Be fun to see what you come up with. Do you know about hillmap.com ?

Last month I skied Bachelor and Mt. Hood Meadows for the first time. As an advanced skier, I still started with blue groomers. After skiing Bachelor for three days, I decided that the ratings at Bachelor are comparable to Snowbird. Meadows didn't feel quite the same as Bachelor. But really didn't get a chance to ski much of the terrain in good conditions because it was pretty warm that day.

A comparison between Mt. Hood Snowbowl, Timberline, and Mt. Hood Meadows would be an interesting comparison since they are more or less on the same mountain but cater to different types of skiers/boarders.

Hi marzNC, thanks for giving me the inside scoop! I'll have to check out that nytimes article.
I did not in fact know about hillmap.com before and thank you for sharing it!
The downside seems to be that you can't seem to save routes or pull two routes up at once... I'll still have to fire up ArcGIS to run easily comparable statistics. But hillmap will be a great resource to have in my pocket for more recreational projects. Giant kudos to the developers for making such a neat web platform!

 

[Belgiangirl]

Nope, not like rock climbing grading at all. Although I'm only familiar with how that works for indoor climbing.

Ski trails are laid out based on the available terrain. There hasn't been a brand new ski area or ski resort set up in quite a while, although new terrain has been added in a few places in the last decade or so. Laying out trails is something few people really know how to do well. More like what it takes to lay out a golf course than an indoor climbing route.

The current rating symbols were put in place by NSAA in 1968. Inspired by what the Disney company came up with for a plan for a ski resort that never happened. Walt Disney was an avid skier. Note that the symbols used in Europe and Japan are different from North America.

https://snowslang.com/ski-trail-ratings/

The NY Times had an article about trail maps in 2015 that covers the American rating system.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/travel/5-things-skiers-may-not-know-about-the-trail-map.html

There is an unspoken factor to trail ratings, which is marketing. No ski resort out west could survive as a business without some green runs. In fact, there are a few resorts working hard to add more friendly beginner terrain these days. There are times when the rating is changed, most likely for marketing reasons. No ski area in the mid-Atlantic would want to have just green runs and no black terrain. Even though there isn't a black trail in the mid-Atlantic that would be rated more than a blue at a big mountain in the northeast or out west.

The way to use ratings when skiing at a place for the first time is to start with green or blue, and get a sense of what that means first. Then move on to blue, black, or whatever more challenging terrain is of interest.

Thank you for sharing these links, pretty interesting! As I've only skied in Europe so far, I've been curious as to how our resorts compare to American ones. Anyone that skied both who wants to share their opinion? Over here I feel like in general, slopes in France are a bit more challenging than their Austrian counterparts. The also leave more difficult slopes ungroomed more often.

 

[nopoleskier]

Hi @GeoGirl Cool Idea! I agree, The degree of difficulty is for each Mountain, they rate based on 'their terrain' There's a poster at whiteface kind of sums it up.. Our parking lot is your green trail, your blue trails are our greens, our blue trails are your blacks. Our black trails are your double blacks, Our double blacks- maybe you shouldn't go there.. Looking forward to your findings!

 

[DeeSki]

Thank you for sharing these links, pretty interesting! As I've only skied in Europe so far, I've been curious as to how our resorts compare to American ones. Anyone that skied both who wants to share their opinion? Over here I feel like in general, slopes in France are a bit more challenging than their Austrian counterparts. The also leave more difficult slopes ungroomed more often.

I haven’t skied France so I can’t compare but a ski instructor in Austria told me that they have a formal classification of slopes. I just googled this and sure enough, regulation S 4611 set by the Austrian Standards Institute sets out that blue slopes may not have an incline of more than 25% (approx 14 degrees), reds are between 25% and 40% (approx 22 degrees) and everything above that is black. Of course this doesn’t account for conditions, width etc which is how my conversation with the ski instructor came to be. I mentioned a red run I had not enjoyed because it was narrow, skied off and with lots of twists so that you couldn’t see the skier who had fallen just ahead of you - think water slide or a snaking half pipe. She explained that it’s red classification was determined by its pitch and agreed that it wasn’t much fun and reassured me of my own ability by telling me she tries not to ski it at all!

 

[newboots]

There's a poster at whiteface kind of sums it up.. Our parking lot is your green trail, your blue trails are our greens, our blue trails are your blacks. Our black trails are your double blacks, Our double blacks- maybe you shouldn't go there.

Don't ski areas love to brag about how dangerous they are? Pretty macho!

 

[santacruz skier]

You can't just use steepness, for example, because trail width, crowds and conditions are such a big factor. And, conditions are always changing. A semi steep trail of average width could feel like a black on weekends when it's icy but a blue when the snow is good or on weekdays. Trails ski differently throughout the year depending on snowpack--steepness changes, rocks/stumps appear and disappear, etc.

I have to agree with @Christy . I have skied all over the western US and many areas in Europe. Think it really depends on conditions. Skied the Grand Montets (definitely black and ungroomed) in Chamonix with perfect conditions and was fairly easy...... I do think that most "red runs" in Europe are like black runs in Tahoe. Once again, exceptions that might change ratings would be very icy and moguls...... I noticed this season that many runs at Northstar used to be black and now are marked "blue." Rightfully so.

 

[SallyCat]

Two places I’ve skied recently are a good examples of polar opposites in terms of ranking trails.

Okemo’s blacks are very intermediate-friendly if it’s not icy.

Magic Mountain has an ungroomed green trail with edge-to-edge moguls on the final, not-unsteep 50-yard pitch.

I’ve never been impressed by the "our blacks are your blues” argument, which is often blustery hyperbole. Magic has a point, though.

 

[Christy]

I mentioned a red run I had not enjoyed because it was narrow, skied off and with lots of twists so that you couldn’t see the skier who had fallen just ahead of you - think water slide or a snaking half pipe. She explained that it’s red classification was determined by its pitch and agreed that it wasn’t much fun and reassured me of my own ability by telling me she tries not to ski it at all!

That's exactly the problem with putting too much stock in the ratings, and why they should always be considered subjective. Pitch is the least of my worries--snow conditions, crowds and width are the issues for me.