I think rob is going to lead this:

The new website (in testing) has a mandatory Minimum, Maximum and Ideal Flow which is used to calculate a "relative" level. (see wisconsin flows page ).

So now what's in the middle shows a low Medium and a high Medium where the perfect (specified by the ideal flow) is coded M4-M5. Ok.

I have seen quite a bit of variation on how Low and High is specified. I've cleaned up the website language to say "Maximum Recommended Flow" and "Minimum Recommend Flow". The fact that it is mandatory means that a class I run on the Mississippi will still require a number like 1 million, but ideal is 600cfs and minimum of 0. All that means is that the Mississippi will always be running green and will never show much above a M5.

When the website data is pulled over to testing, the Max and Min values are automatically grabbed but the "ideal" is the center of Max and Min and will need editing. Correlations without a max or min are defaulted to zero and 1 million respectively (this might not work on a foot gauge).

Do you think this is a workable situation?

Do you see any pitfalls?

The specification of a Max and Min also helps the website appear more complete and allows selecting a gauge for comparison.

One other change in logic is that rivers are correlated when a new linked gauge is updated. So if you have a foot gauge from one source and a cfs gauge from a different source and the latter is updated once every 4 hours and the other once an hour you can get the color coding based on either gauge getting updated. If one gauge gets lost, the other kicks in.


OK, enough for now. Rob has some thoughts I know.

Sorry about the delay in getting back to this . . . many rivers in S.E.Wisconsin have been in flood. While this has resulted in unfortunate personal and financial loss and hardship for many people and families in the area (personally, I had only some minor seepage in my basement), it has also resulted in outrageous once-in-a-lifetime opportunities on some of our local whitewater runs. Thus, things have been busy around here.

So . . . on to the issue which Ryan wrote about which I had raised with regard to Min/Max values, especially as they will affect forthcoming changes he is working on with the river pages. I'll do my best to be succinct (not easy for me) while still doing my best to communicate as fully as possible somewhat more of the whole complexity of the concern as I see it.

As Ryan points out, forthcoming changes he is proposing would mandate both min and max (and a new value for the 'ideal' flow) for every reach which has an online gauge. (If none are specified, zero and a million would be defaulted, and 'ideal' flow (until modified and specified by STMembers) would be defaulted as the arithmetic mean of the min and the max, whether those are specified or defaulted.) The Min/Max will further be used to create more meaningful 'relative level' descriptors (not just 'low', 'mod', 'high' as in the present system, but 'M0' through 'M9' to show 'low runnable' through 'high runnable'). The issue then gets to be even more critical in terms of how each STMember interprets 'minimum' and 'maximum' recommended levels.

Some reaches may have no recommended minimum (they allow some sort of whitewater experience down to the lowest ever recorded flow). This is not a problem -- for any such reach a minimum can be specified which is below historic low flows. Similarly, some reaches may have no recommended maximum (they can reasonably allow some sort of whitewater experience for mere-mortal boaters, not just super-elite 'push the limits' boaters, up to the highest ever recorded flow). Again, this is not a problem -- for any such reach a maximum can be specified which is above historic high flows. However, for the vast majority of reaches, I think it begs a philosophical discussion, leading to a more uniform, specific definition, interpretation and application of just what is supposed to be used as or meant by recommended minimum and maximum.

It is my feeling that the greater portion of our 'audience' is beginning-to-intermediate-level boaters, or people with more advanced skills who may be looking for information on runs which they have never done before. In both cases, I think our primary concern should be relaying accurate information to these people who really RELY on these descriptions to tell whether they might be comfortable on the run at a given level. I would posit that well-experienced boaters may tend to rely more on their own personal knowledge (or that of trusted paddlers whom they know to be of similar abilities and interests to themselves) than they would on the word or opinion of someone (most often effectively a 'random stranger') who happened to put info up on AW.

Further, in my estimation, rivers in the class IV and higher range may, indeed, have 'maximum' levels -- that is, levels at which most sane (mere mortal) boaters (with class IV/V/V+ skills) will agree is 'too high'. However, I think that most rivers in the class II or class III territory (and perhaps even some class IVs) are far less likely to have any true 'maximum' level -- most of them are likely to be boatable at virtually any level they reach. They will become 'big water', they may have different inherent difficulty or danger levels (some features may wash out, some may build to become sweet and others may build to become 'avoid at all costs'), and certain rapids or features may become 'unrunnable', but (on the whole) they are still largely 'runnable' no matter how high the level. Therefore, in all these cases, it makes more sense to me that the 'maximum' be used to try to indicate the level where things (arguably) change -- where a normally class II run becomes (perhaps) more class III-ish -- a level where folks who might 'normally' expect to be totally comfortable on the run (at lower, 'normal' flows) might feel challenged or intimidated by the run, and (conversely) folks who might be almost bored with the run at 'normal' levels might find it more exciting!

Thus, on most of my rivers/reaches, the definitions I have been using are:

"Minimum" is the absolute, bare bones, 'ELF' (extreme low flow) level, below which it is hard to imagine that anyone (even a rank beginner, or someone rather 'desperate' for a whitewater 'fix' or just keenly interested in doing the run) would feel the run would be worthwhile or legitimately qualify as a whitewater experience (rather than a boat assisted/hampered hike).

"Maximum" (in the vast majority of cases) is a level at which the run is likely to be perceived as 'subtantially different' from the 'normal, usual, expected, described' run, at the 'usual, average, most common' levels for the run.That is, I most commonly use this not as a true 'maximum', but more as an alert that levels are 'above the norm', and that boaters should be prepared for the run to be different from 'the usual'. Thus, for many (more experienced) boaters, the 'maximum' might end up being their personal 'minimum'. They won't look for the reach to 'go green', they look for it to 'go blue' (or 'go purple').

However, I fully recognize that (especially absent any formal definition, absent any 'instruction' to STMembers) the values other STMembers use in these fields may be based on substantially different interpretations. They may set 'minimum' to be more like 'everything is fully formed, nothing is boney or scrapey, the run is fully robust', even though many boaters will regularly do the run at lower (perhaps even much lower) levels. Similarly, they may set 'maximum' to be the highest they've ever run (or ever heard stories of someone running) the reach, even though those runs may be 'epic' and far from what most boaters (who are otherwise quite comfortable on the reach) would ever be comfortable doing.

So, in the new system, the meaning or usefulness of these new numeric values for 'relative level' (M0 through M9, based on a percentage of the min/max range) seems extremely dependent on what definition each STMember has used for 'minimum' and 'maximum'. It would seem this should be an item for wider discussion resulting in formal definition or guidelines for STMembers (I.E., there should be some better guidlines detailed in the "StreamTeam 101" instructions, as well as in the 'pop-up' in the river 'edit' page).

Further, the new/proposed 'ideal' level will obviously be affected by varying definitions as well. Apparently this will be initially 'defaulted' to the arithmetic mean of the STMember-specified min/max, but will be available to be changed/edited by the STMember from the update/edit pages for each river/reach. However, I am curious what other STLeaders think about the concept of 'Ideal' level. As 'personal', subjective, and open to debate as 'recommended minimum' and 'recommended maximum' are, 'ideal level' seems far more personal, subjective, and open to debate. "Ideal for what?" "Ideal for whom?"

My favorite class II-III playboating run is "ideal" for beginners at flows of 400-600. It's "ideal" for strong intermediate boaters (and anyone content to do wave-surfing, flat-spins, and 'grinds') at 700-900. It becomes "ideal" for hole-boaters and the full-out rodeo crowd when it goes into the 1500-2000 range (or even higher)! Which "ideal" do I use? It just strikes me that any specification of "ideal" level is an unworkable, relatively meaningless premise, better left to a write-up in the description than confined to some single value presuming to the the ideal for anyone and everyone, anything and everthing.

So, I know this has been a rather lengthy treatise, but there it is. Please provide your feedback.

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Editor

I guess an alternative (with more 'logical consistency') would be to change both min and max from current wording. We could instead specify the 'usual, normal, standard' runnable levels -- levels that the river most often gets run at, levels that (arguably) the most people who might normally be doing the run would be expected to be 'entirely comfortable' on the run. The levels that 'set the standard' for the run, and which the majority of the description would be geared toward. These might be called the 'standard low' and 'standard high' levels.

Using that definition, then, it would be extremely helpful if STMembers were given some way, or were encouraged in some way, to specify the "Recommended ELF" ('Extreme Low Flow" - lowest flow conceivably possible to consider a whitewater experience on the run) and "Recommended EHF" ("Extreme High Flow" - highest flow of any known runs, or highest flow which mere mortal boaters might reasonably consider a run). This could be done either through additional fields or (at the least) via encouraging STMembers to do so in their descriptions in the "Flow Info" tab (and/or "River Info" tab, or in individual "Rapids" descriptions).

If we provided for four values (ELF, Standard Low, Standard High, EHF) this would allow five quite distinct divisions, and would answer questions which commonly arise about reaches ("What's the lowest for an ELF run?" "What's the highest you'd do it?")

1) TOO LOW - below ELF
Relative Level = D
maybe color coded red/orange/brown/tan
(dusty dirty brown/tan means Don't-bother, Down.)

2) low boatable - above ELF, but below 'standard low'; generally tamer than standard description, though could be more technical
Relative Level = L0 through L9
color coded orange/yellow (perhaps lt.yellow/orange to darker yellow/orange or lt.orange into lt.yellow, as flow goes from lower to upper portion of this range)
(yelLOW means Low.)

3) standard boatable - between 'standard low' and 'standard high'
Relative Level = M0 through M9
color coded green (perhaps lt.green to darker green as flow goes from lower to upper portion of this range)
(Green, of course, means GO!)

4) high boatable - above 'standard high' but below EHF; generally tougher than standard description (though could wash-out and be just big water push)
Relative Level = P0 through P9
color coded blue/purple (perhaps lt.blue/purple to dark blue/purple as flow goes from lower to upper portion of this range)
(Purple means Pushy, Plus levels)

5) TOO HIGH - above EHF
Relative Level = X (as in stay off, not recommended,)
color coded violet or gray
(violet means violent? or Gray means stay away?)

Using (at least something akin to) the 'relative level' identifiers as I have laid out here, there is an added benefit. When one clicks on the column title, these relative level identifiers would keep everything in it's logical order. (Right now, things sort 'nogauge, High, Low, Med(ium)', or click again and get 'Med(ium), Low, High, nogauge' -- neither order makes much sense.)

For implementation (if it were deemed possible/worthwhile to implement this 'four value' system) obviously we would need to decide where to migrate the current "Min/Max" to, and what to default the other two values as (until STMembers could supply more proper values to fit the new definitions).

I suspect that the more common prevailing usage of these fields (at present) might be contrary to how I have been using them. That is, more STMenbers might use the current 'recommended minimum' more equivalent to what I propose as 'regular low', and more of them might use the current 'recommended maximum' more equivalent to a 'true maximum', that is, more like what I propose as the 'EHF' level.

If that assumption seems true, we would need defaults for the 'ELF' value and for the new 'standard high'. Perhaps ELF would be defaulted 10% (or ?) below existing minimum (new 'standard low'), and the new 'standard high' might be halfway between the former min and max?

Comments, input and ideas welcome. Does any of this sound worthwhile, reasonable, workable?

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Editor

I think there are really two different questions to be answered:

1. Is the river boatable? (ie, neither too low nor too high).

2. Within boatable limits, how high/low is the river (ie, how enjoyable or how difficult, and what is the river character to expect)?

The boatable "too high" case here is a safety issue. Anything above the recommended maximum would not be safe.

The boatable "too low" generally is so low that a paddler has to get out and drag their boat downstream.

With regard to enjoyability and difficulty, most guide books use the terms: "low", "medium", "high". We should strive to use these terms as well.

I would recommend the following:

Recommended Maximum Level (above which the river is not safe)
High
Medium
Low
Recommended Minimum Level (below which you walk)

Use the color red for anything above the maximum. Use Yellow/Green/Blue for the Low/Medium/High levels. And brown or some other neutral color for too low.

Note: I deliberately left out the term "flood" because I'm not sure how to deal with it. Some rivers are boatable in flood, most are not.

/Skip

I have not thought a lot about how min and max relates to our website, but in general, I believe it is a mistake to try to get super specific about a highly subjective and variable measure. Different measures of high and low may be appropriate for different rivers. Some rivers may have fairly precise transitions from optimum to too high, or too low. Certainly different boaters can have different preferences for flow. On many rivers, we may not know what the upper and lower limits are, at least until somebody tests out those flow ranges and reports back.

Also, boaters will make estimates of flow that differ radically from actual flow. They will make estimates of high and low flow cut offs, based on one trip down a river.

We can't really know the maximum flow until enough boaters exceed it and report back that the flow was too high.

Or, we can just talk to a sampling of boaters and find out at what flow ranges, most of them won't boat the river any more.

The current min/max setup is fine. We don't need more useless data on the river pages.

Instead of adding more confusion, clean up what is already there.

For example, look at the "Flow Info" tab for New River Gorge http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River_detail_id_2418_.

The graphs on that page are totally useless.

Ditto for the graph on http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River_detail_id_2378_

Regarding "I believe it is a mistake to try to get super specific about a highly subjective and variable measure."

I guess I don't see this as too much different than the whole river/rapids rating system. One might just as well argue all we really need is "easy, moderate, and hard" or "beginner, intermediate, and advanced" rather than class I through VI (and now class 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, et cetera, just to be even more nit-picky). With all the pluses and minuses, we take this highly subjective and variable measure (of difficulty and danger) and break it up into (potentially) FIFTEEN or so different categories!

And NONE of them inherently allow for the fact that things CHANGE at different flows! We still try to say "This river/rapids is class ___", period!!!

I would actually love to see some way for the website to allow StreamTeam Members to input flow values and corresponding class ratings, and then have the system display (on the listing) the present rating based upon the present flow!

My favorite (hard print) guide books did essentially that:
Flow (cfs) Class Rating
<500 cfs too low
500 - 750 II
750 - 2000 II+
2000 -6000 III+

Obviously, we are all able to include such a table within the description presently. However, many people do not look at the descriptions of rivers they have some familiarity with. And (for people looking at rivers they are unfamiliar with) we are limited to showing only one fixed difficulty (class) rating, rather than having the overall (state) listings recognize and reflect that (in most cases) as the level changes, so does the difficulty!

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Editor

I would vote to just keep min and max flows only. The character of rivers changes considerably with flow, and which level is best is just too subjective. For example, some might say the Lochsa is best at low flows because more play is in, while other might say it's best at higher flows which provide the big water ride the river is famous for. The bottom line is that the optimal flow depends on the user. Let's stick with min and max. The description section can be used to describe how the character of the run changes with flow. Keep it simple and easy to understand, the site already has enough complexity.

Todd