[jacobroecker]

Hey All!

I'm working on developing a wiki that will act as a one-stop shopping for route information etc. I'd some help developing a rating scheme similar to that used in whitewater sports. (http://www.paddling.net/guidelines/showArticle.html?67) I'd like people to be able to find a route and know how hard it is.

Below is my brainstorm--I'd love some help tweaking it.

I'd like it to be a 0-5 decimal scale.

0. Kid Friendly--Bring the Tricycle
1. Small bikes OK some difficulty without gears
2. Multiple gears required
3. Hazardous inexperienced riders beware
4. Hazardous advanced riders only
5. Get off bike every 2 seconds due to serious obstacles

Comment Away!!!

Anyone wishing to help with the wiki please contact me via email jacob@roeckerfam.com

[The BikeForums Team]

This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.

Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)

Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net

[joejack951]

What are you referring to when you describe a route as "hazardous?"

[Niten]

Seconding the request for definition of "hazardous".

Who is the intended audience of the site?

A part of one of the routes I use to commute, a MUP, has a varying "culture" depending on the day of the week and time of day. During rush hour it is used by serious commuters going from point A to point B at relatively high speeds. These folk are likely to consider passels of little riders wobbling back and forth across the center line to be hazards. At other times, it's crowded with families often riding several abreast at lower speeds, walkers, dogs, etc.

This doesn't sound like it fits neatly into such a categorization scheme.

[jacobroecker]

I've based the hazards or whether or not it makes sense to reconnoiter a route. Just like rating rapids there's a certain level of preparation involved in deciding how to approach things.

I've got a rough draft of the rating scheme up. http://www.unnecessaryhappiness.com/

[Click on the rating scheme in the upper right corner]

Thanks!

-Jacob

[joejack951]

Is your intention to limit this to mountain biking? If you plan on extending it to road cycling, how will your definition of "hazard" change? Have you ever seen the BLOS (bicycle level of service) rating system? Not that I think it's any good...

[jacobroecker]

This seems to be generating some good questions I might have otherwise ignored.

The intended audience for the site varies from the novice to the experienced. So I need a rating scheme that communicates across various levels. The site is/will be designed to accommodate any form of outdoor activity, cross country skiiing, equestrian activities, quad riding, whitewater, road cycling etc. Each activity will necessitate its own rating scheme.

The advantage of doing this as a wiki is that unlike currently published standards (such as hiking) are static These rating schemes can evolve with the sport instead of being a limiting factor for it.

There's certainly details to work out with the project. But I think that the ideas warrant some measure of discussion. The rating scheme has been updated from the original post and I would encourage folks to take a look at where it's at now. http://www.roeckerfam.com/happiness/index.php?title=Rating_Scheme


Thanks!