Info on New Ski Routes in the Cascades

Well, I think most importantly, to answer this with the first thought that came to my mind would be a way to quantify all of the information.  As is the case right now, wiki technology (I am taking my example specifically from wikipedia) allows everyone and anyone to adjust the definitions as they see fit.  So, how do we accurately quantify information about ski mountaineering?  I think wiki technology is great in something as objective as dictionary meanings.  Everyone knows, or has an idea about, what the word "mountain" means.  Someone might have a more scientific explanation and can objectively add that to the wikipedia definition, and on and on.

Ski mountaineering isn't objective though.  It's subjective, so I see it as being a difficult move to accurately portray routes in ski mountaineering in a "guidebooked" format.  Variables such as snowpack/avy danger, solar warming, slope angle/aspect, convergence zones, weather/snowfall, wind, ability, ect. will constantly own us in the mountains.  I'm not saying guidebooks are bad - but they are written by people who do all the tours in them and have extensive experience.  To get this kind of information from a wiki source - where the sources might range from experts to noobs - I find a little scary.  Not that TAY isn't also somewhat in this category, which has been discussed before - to what degree are TR's taken to plan for trips, or forecast conditions for others venturing out?  I don't know an answer, I'm just throwing out my thoughts and posing the rhetoric...

One thing I do know is that when I'm looking into new areas to ski where I have no previous information, I dig through the Becky guidebooks.  I use respected sources, or the "wise sages" that may have some information about the area I'm thinking about.  I get maps of the area.  I collect photos.  I look up key words in the TAY search.  I sometimes even use some trig when looking at topos and trying to figure out approx. slope angle before venturing out...not to mention all the other subjective variables that come with ski mountaineering.  And sometimes I reap some great benefits from the work.  Afterwards I usually write up a TR.  I go through all my photography and touch it up.  I edit my video footage and sometimes throw a quick vid together.  After all that work, at least for me, I don't really want to hand it over to a wiki technology.  Like I said before, it's selfish, but I feel it would pull the magic out of bc touring and ski mountaineering.

Stugie, well put - I agree with your sentiment.

This is a fantastic tool for slope angles:

thesnowpit.com/main/index.php?option=com...view&id=34&Itemid=29

I prefer to save the brain cycles for other things.

I think some people fear that it may increase use into areas previously thought of as personal stashes.  That may be so.  On the other hand it may also spread parties out and make those areas that are now heavily used more pleasant.  I don't know.

Hard to know for sure w/o unleashing the grand experiment, which as mjolner notes someone may likely unleash regardless of opinions shared here. In any case, my bet is that if such a site reaches critical mass, it will increase the supply of BC skiers (who already have the gear - just ask the folks at places like Marmot what the run rate on gear sales has been like the past few seasons, and then ask their opinion on whether they're seeing a corresponding influx in the backcountry...). It will reduce the barriers just enough to get more folks out with their toys. A good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view, but if true, this would make it possible both for use to spread out as well as increase use at some closer-in-but-currently-quieter spots. It would likely also spell more competition for people's favorite little stashes at already-popular but spread-out spots like Paradise, Crystal, and Baker near the ski area.

The general notion and its associated controversy brings up some other thoughts. Unlike editorially created books, it's quite possible for a wiki effort to suffer from sabotage from those who don't like its existence (I've heard from folks who were not at all happy with Burgdorfer's much-more-limited print effort...) - denial of service attacks, pollution with bogus routes to make it harder to trust, etc. If you are trying to develop guidelines for such an effort, you might want to ponder these issues a bit as well. The goal of saboteurs would be to simply raise the cost of operating and using the site enough as to overtake the benefits. Perhaps this would not happen, but I'm guessing such a site would pass a threshold of anger that the trip reports forum here has not managed to reach (I've also heard of people who refuse to ski with people who post detailed reports here...).

One thought on guidelines would be price-of-entry. How about you have to post routes to read routes? This could be gamed and would create some administration hassles, but doesn't it seem like the most fair trade possible? Just look at the post/read ratio on any of your favorite local outdoor sites that have trip reports to take a guess at the lurker factor. If you are going to start a site like this, make it your mission to draw the lurkers out and make them productive members of the community!

For my part, I'm with the curmudgeons, despite being very into the general notion of crowdsourcing of content.

Hey Cookie_Monster - cool tool. Thanks for sharing.