Cheyenne Wills wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 23:23:21 +0200, Wilko wrote:


The international difficulty rating has nothing to do with consequences,
but all with how difficult it is to stay on your line, because of the
width of the line, the manouvering required because of holes, waves,
rocks, drops, speed of current etc..



Hmmm according to the international scale of river difficulty (I found the
following on the americanwhitewater.org site)

Exactly, you got the *American Whitewater* version of the classes, which
for some bizarre reason includes consequences, not the international
scale of *difficulty* rating.

Apples and oranges.

Difficulty and consequences have little do to with eachother, and I
would understand it if they would add a seperate factor for consequences
(maybe another one for remoteness etc., a al Corran style), but that
would make the scale even more difficult to use. How do you rate
consequences, anyway?

I'm not a big fan of ratings, thinking that they should be nothing more
than guidelines for people wanting to take a first trip down something
when having done similarly rated rapids before. The real decision should
be made on the spot, including the feelings and atmosphere of the
moment. That decision making process should include the perceived
consequences, not some bizarre combined rating. Is something a class IV
because of a class I line with class VI consequences? What are class VI
consequences exactly?

Polluting the ratings makes them even less useful and more subjective,
especially when you look at the regional differences already in effect
(western U.S., eastern U.S., etc.).

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/