riverman wrote:

Which brings us to the REAL question: is a rating for a rapid, or for a
line? I think that it should be for the line, exactly how climbers rate
climbs, not mountains. Saying "Zungo Rapids" is a IV could mean several
things: the easiest run through is a IV, the most common route is a IV, or
the 'average' route is a IV. These have vastly different ramifications, so
instead, it would be wise to say "the popular route down the middle is a IV,
the sneak route on the left is a II, and there's a class V run if you go
down the right." I think most boaters talk to each other that way all the
time, but the guidebooks seem out of synch.

That's something we don't often have to worry about in Britain, most of
our rapids only have one line on those terms. That is to say you can hit
the same features in a variety of ways or places but mostly they are
either riverwide, or the difficulty doesn't change across the river :-)

When we talk about good or bad lines, we are normally talking about
those few inches that make a difference between styling and hurting!

Just thinking about some of the multi-line rapids over here, and almost
all are clearly described as such in any existing guides. Orchy chicken
chute: 3 left 4 right and centre, Tyne chicken chute: 2 left 4 centre 3
right, wow I can't easily think of any others where different routes
have different grades and I think I just noticed another clue in the
names of the ones that do :-)

Now different grades at different levels always amuses me, I like the
way that on the Orchy some rapids are harder at high flows and some are
easier :-)

JIM