new ISRD
Rob
Kevin Colburn
Jim Mazzola III
I'm always hesitant to comment on findings or published results that some groups spend months on. Usually because the group will find any comment condescending or critical of the vast amount of time and effort that was put in to it. It should never be taken this way.
I find it worthwhile to get 'first time' reactions to these bodies of work. Often, when working closely for so long, groups can become desensitised, or immune as to how an unfamiliar person will perceive the information they are trying to convey.
So please regard my comments as constructive.
First, while I realize that this is supposed to be an 'all' rivercraft definition, my initial reaction is 'why a SUP'? or 'why ONLY a SUP'?
If a user/paddler just see's a SUP in all the pictures, is the kayaker or canoer apt to disregard, thinking it only applies to SUP's?
Next, I find the additional words in the RECOMMENDED CRAFT section confusing:
i.e. Class II indicates '......specific craft', while Class III indicates '.......specific craft and equipment'.
This would cause me to assume I need some additional equipment for Class III. I'm not sure such equipment differentiation exists.
What would you take on a Class III river that you leave home on a Class II?
In the RECOMMENDED CRAFT description for Class IV, it seems to imply 'groups' are recommended at this level but not the others?
Finally, the change in verbiage in Class II and Class III from 'river-specific' to 'whitewater-specific' is easily read-over and lost, so don't see it as adding much, if any, value.
I applaud the work done to make the definitions clearer, but I'm not so sure that goal was reached in its entirety.
Jim Mazzola
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "American Whitewater StreamTeam Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to american-whitewater-stre...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/81a52964-ce62-4310-9767-f2d0297b4573n%40googlegroups.com.
Steve Strange
I have always appreciated AW and all of the work it does on our behalf. Further I see the AW website as an amazingly valuable resource that I use almost daily and have shared with many people. I have also tried to contribute information to it when I’ve had the chance. I don’t like to “complain”, but I have to say that the recent discussion regarding the inclusion of not only non-whitewater, but (at times) even non-moving water in the River Inventory, combined with the recent changes to the ISRD, concern me.
I understood the comments made by Paul M. and others about the inclusion of other paddling opportunities and even agree in large part. But I also see that the discussion itself points to a possible dilution of what many would see as AW’s purpose. Maybe that’s necessary today. I don’t know. In the end I fear that maybe if we continue moving in that direction and become “America Paddling”, or some such thing, actual whitewater paddlers may begin to migrate away, eventually leaving behind only those who have nothing to do with the original mission of the organization.
It strikes me that some aspects of the new ISRD highlight the same conflict. First, while I know it might be viewed as petty, featuring no kayak, no canoe, no raft, no C-1, etc. and only showing a stand-up paddle boarder in every image (not a very common or popular craft for navigating whitewater) seems odd. I am certainly aware that people do paddle on boards down many different rivers of many different difficulties, and that a very small, but growing number attempt Class 5 rivers. But I’m sure that over 99% of paddle boarding is done on non-moving flatwater. Additionally, the vast majority of whitewater paddling occurs using rafts, kayaks, and canoes.
Aside from the paddle board, in my opinion, being an odd and possibly confusing choice of craft for the handout’s images, I worry that those unfamiliar with whitewater paddling will be even more likely than experienced paddlers to miss the subtle changes in equipment from image to image, and will take from the new ISRD handout an increased perception that they can boat down nearly any rapid in nearly any craft.
The “Class 1” category’s image and description in particular seem to directly speak to the aforementioned concerns of those who worry we are diluting our “product” away from the original purpose, and from our actual name. In that first description, “fast moving water”, previously a key characteristic in differentiating Class 1 water from flatwater, isn’t even mentioned. Further, the pose of the “paddler” reinforces the impression that this category describes or includes flatwater, and/or that there is no difference between flat water and moving water. We all know that this is untrue. By its nature, moving water presents dangers that are non-existent in stationary water. I’ve never seen anyone go through any rapid, even Class 1, while balancing on one leg with their other leg held behind their head. I think most folks would assume this image shows flat, non-moving water.
Beyond the flat vs whitewater discussion, I unfortunately have other concerns about the new ISRD. When I heard that it was to be updated, I assumed that the objective would be to make it more objective, more clear and less vague, so that it could be interpreted more consistently. In 1997 when many boaters contributed to creating a list of benchmark rapids, that seemed to be a way of achieving that objective. By establishing that list nearly anyone could compare their own experiences to those of others and end up with a more consistent and stable consensus about river difficulties. The benchmark rapids added to the complexity of the resource and the time necessary to digest it, but it provided a very solid foundation for comparisons and discussions.
Kevin has pointed out that the descriptions in the ISRD were being summarized differently by different people, leading to confusion. That is certainly a problem. Attempting to clarify and simplify the descriptions is a laudable goal. In my opinion, IF a single page handout could be generated which simplified the descriptions, that would be great, but only if those simplified/summarized descriptions did not conflict with or alter the original and more complete descriptions that should still exist as a reference.
I disagree that an acceptable way to solve the problem is to “dumb down” the descriptions by making them more subjective and more vague and leaving out important information. Whitewater rapids are complex and dangerous. By necessity, descriptions of them must be complex as well. The complexity and level of detail in each description must also increase relative to the complexity, difficulty and danger of the rapids being described. I would argue that improving the descriptions could involve removing subjective language when possible and replacing it with clearer, more specific and objective language (measurements, etc.) if at all possible. I realize this may not be possible, but the new descriptions seem to have gone in the other direction, to my eye making categories more vague and wider with more possible overlap.
I find it particularly concerning that the portions regarding hazards have been removed from the descriptions. These following lines were in the Class 4 and Class 5 sections previously:
Class 4 - “Risk of injury to swimmers is moderate to high, and water conditions may make self-rescue difficult. Group assistance for rescue is often essential but requires practiced skills.”
Class 5 - “Scouting is recommended but may be difficult. Swims are dangerous, and rescue is often difficult even for experts. Proper equipment, extensive experience, and practiced rescue skills are essential.”
These sections of the descriptions helped to emphasize the seriousness of our endeavor and the need for caution. I personally would love to see mention that “consequences of errors in paddling or judgement, may include serious injury or even death” included somewhere. This is a very true statement relative to class 5 and 6 whitewater (actually, truth be told, it’s true for nearly all water, moving or not).
It may not be possible to create better and also simpler descriptions, which more effectively explain the difficulty levels that have already been established but of course, it certainly can’t hurt to try. I do appreciate the work that’s been done relative to this and I’m sure I haven’t helped to solve this situation, but I respectfully felt that I needed to voice my concerns.
I had heard rumors some while back that some task force at AW was in the process of revising the International Scale of River Difficulty (ISRD). It seems they have finished that discussion and I just now noticed the apparent results of their work have been posted on the website. I'm curious to know reactions of others here.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "American Whitewater StreamTeam Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to american-whitewater-stre...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/ba529873-17d1-44ce-8b4b-abffc8e6ba8fn%40googlegroups.com.
Rob
From time to time, I had come across comments that the former ISRD did not adequately differentiate difficulty vs danger, so I thought the goal might have been to address that issue. Instead, while the old ISRD spoke of risk or dangers in nearly every category, only Class 4 now mentions anything of risk or danger ("hazardous").
I was unaware of the issue of others shortening the descriptions. That said, it seems an ill-advised strategy to throw out the meaningful descriptions used in the past, just because others shorten them in inappropriate ways.
In addition to Jim's excellent and concise comments, it seems that the section titled "Recommended Craft:" should be simply "Recommendations:", since three of the five classes mention not only the appropriate craft, but also equipment, skills, and groups. Better yet, the title should be "Suitable for:", since each of these descriptions (of equipment, skills, and groups) starts with those words anyway!
As Jim also mentioned, the wording of the 'Recommended Craft' portion (as well as the images) have such subtle differences as to require much closer attention (and re-reading) than people seeing a sign at a put-in are likely to do. Which begs my curiosity as to what percent of river access sites even have such signs. (I'm guessing they only exist at highly trafficked, commercially exploited put-ins.) I doubt how many people bother to look at them where they do exist. Moreover, by the time they have decided upon their destination, packed, and driven to a put-in, I'm doubtful any sign is going to dissuade them from their intent to paddle that stretch of river. Especially, as Jim pointed out, if that sign shows that someone on a SUP can do EVERY class whitewater!
Furthermore, unless AW is going to mount a massive campaign, to raise awareness of this new ISRD, I'm very doubtful how many pre-existing signs, websites, and brochures (from non-AW sources) are going to be removed or redone. It was merely a fluke that I happened to look at the Safety page of the website and find the change which apparently went online mid-December (two months ago)! I'd guess even most folks familiar with and involved in AW are likely not to notice the change for a long time (if at all) if they don't check in on this GoogleGroup regularly, or ... scroll to bottom of page, click 'Safety', click either "AW Safety Code" or "International Scale of River Difficulty" (both seem to go to the same place?), scroll down and click one of a few different options which will get them the ISRD. (I doubt any existing whitewater paddlers are bothering to do that.)
Beyond the already mentioned subtle changes, I'm a bit puzzled by inclusion of the word "long" only in class V. (I do note that this same problem existed in the former ISRD.) Does this mean there can't be any long rapids of any other class rating? And that there can't be any short Class V rapids? And ... no mention of plusses and minuses, no mention of the decimal divisions in class 5, and class VI has disappeared!?!
Looking at the rest of the Safety Code document (https://www.americanwhitewater.org/resources/repository/Safety%20Code%2024%20Print.pdf ), while I do sincerely appreciate the talent of (and time spent by) the person doing the drawings, I find a number of them only marginally convey what they are supposed to be illustrating, reducing their impact and value to anyone newly learning the special concerns of moving water and whitewater. Photos (of actual rivers, rapids, watercraft, equipment,...) would be far more meaningful (though I totally understand the simplicity of line drawings is far more adaptable for lo-res or grayscale brochures, signs, etc).
Good definitions should be nearly as easy to apply by a total newbie as they are by a seasoned expert. The former ISRD was very descriptive, so (when looking at a rapids) it was pretty easy to decide if it fit all (or at least most) of the criteria of a certain class/rating. These new definitions seem to leave an awful lot of interpretation. Decades ago, my brother took a canoe down a fairly long, fairly continuous boulder garden rapids in a river with what he perceived to be strong current. Using the new ISRD, I have no doubt he would say it would fit into Class 4 or 5, and I would find little in the wording to reason differently, although it is a section presently rated I-II (III). That is a problem.
DRC
mine) were mysteriously deleted (possibly due to a bug on Google's end):
Absolutely agree that the pictures need to show craft that are
appropriate for the class of whitewater in question, rather than
implying that a SUP is the default whitewater craft. IMHO, the Class 2
SUP picture is more appropriate for Class 1. The Class 1 picture shows
a standup paddler doing yoga on flat water, but a standup paddler would
not be doing that through "regular waves and riffles." Also, Class 1
doesn't necessarily mean deep water. People may be fine not wearing a
helmet on Class 1, but the default picture should probably show one.
For Class 2, maybe show a sit-on-top kayak or canoe. For Class 3, maybe
show a half slice. For Class 4, maybe show a raft. For Class 5, maybe
show a creek boat.
Any 1-dimensional scale, such as the ISRD, that attempts to capture
multiple parameters (risk and skill level, in this case) will always be
problematic. I do think, however, that a couple of simple tweaks might
further clarify the risk of Class 4-5. For instance, you could replace
"hazardous" with "potentially injury-causing" in the Class 4
description, and you could replace "features" with "potentially deadly
features" in the Class 5 description.
DRC
Jim Mazzola III
As some of us have discussed and identified this last week, there appear to be a number of issues with the recently released ISRD.
It would seem prudent that some action be taken on these omissions and mis-repressentations. There is too much incorrect and/or misleading information with the current document to let it stand without some sort of action being taken.
If you are in agreement that a number of identifiable flaws have been pointed out that need to be addressed, is there a plan to move forward with any sort of action?
Also, out of curiosity, how were the individuals of the group that developed the ISRD selected? Was a request to participate ever put to the wider AW membership? To my knowledge I never saw any sort of request to participate, but I certainly could have missed it. I'm sure that there are members here in the Streamteam group that would have been willing to participate in the development of this document as they are the same individuals who actually do the submissions and writing up of the rivers that this group is trying to categorize.
The following bullet points should appropriately be addressed by the ISRD group as a whole rather than this specific group, but I think it bears consideration.
a.) While we are 'American' Whitewater, the title of the document was 'International' Scale of River Difficulty. That infers a more 'worldwide' acceptance of its characterization of rivers. Were there individuals from offshore that participated in developing the chart?
b.) What, if any, implications does this chart have for insurance purposes. It has been drummed into me many times that liability insurance groups utilize these types of documents from 'THE' voice of whitewater (i.e. American Whitewater) in the U.S. to determine risk and exposure when insuring events and schools.
If I may suggest a plan to move forward, I would start with the following:
1.) Unpublish/remove the current ISRD
2.) In its place, put a 'placeholder' or announcement of a NEW document coming or re-publish the previous document, also with a similar message. (We really do not want the Ver 1.0 of the ISRD to be disseminated to a wider audience than it already has been. In fact it should really be rescinded as there are misleading and potentially depictions in the chart. I have already seen this chart published in many high profile Whitewater FB groups).
3.) Reconvene the original ISRD group and provide them with the feedback that has been identified by this group.
4.) When the ISRD group has a revised proposal, instruct them to distribute it to a peer group for review. It would appear as this was probably not done, hence one of my original comments that being too close to the subject matter for too long can distort how a first timer perceives the significance and importance of the pictures and verbiage. I would, in fact, suggest this group of Streamteam members as at least one logical choice for review.
5.) Publish the Version 2.0 of the ISRD and make it known that this supersedes the previous one and there will likely be confusion with TWO ISRD's out there with the American Whiterwater moniker on it.
Respectfully,
Jim Mazzola
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "American Whitewater StreamTeam Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to american-whitewater-stre...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/7915b2e0-90da-4156-a6fe-c12faf7c8d2c%40gmail.com.
Evan Stafford
Hello Streamteam :) Thank you for your interest in the newly revised safety code and comments on our reworking of the representations of the international scale of river difficulty. Over the past two years, the team at American Whitewater conducted a review of the safety code by expert river safety and rescue practitioners, river managers and other river safety educators. This invitation based review included an online collaborative editing and commenting exercise, a webinar-based consensus-oriented discussion of significant topics, and finally a review of a draft revised Safety Code and adoption of revised language. A review of the accident database and current trends in river incidents informed the Code’s revision as well, identifying focus areas for safety material to emphasize and make the most easily accessible for our community.
The current language in the ISRD was originally devised during American Whitewater’s open source river signage project, which was also vetted with expert consultation. Those definitions were then included in the exact wording from the signage project to be consistent across our materials because they were already agreed upon and vetted for a second time during the safety code revision, and because they met the goal of making them concise enough to be quickly read, while still giving an impression of what each classification means generally.
We chose to use one craft type in the illustrations because it is easier to see the changes in the whitewater features and the gear worn across classes with the same craft in each image. We used the SUP because if it was a kayak, people would bitch about no rafts, if it was a raft people would bitch about no canoes, and if it was a canoe, people would say nobody paddles canoes anymore or why is it a C2 instead of a C1 :) The SUP rider shows what gear they're wearing most clearly, which was another factor. We thought a SUP would help keep the whole thing light, which was another goal in an attempt to make it obvious that this isn't something you should be relying on as your sole piece of information about a river. It's a rough framework for deciding how difficult average rapids are on any given run, not a dissection of the physics that make it more difficult to boof a sloping pour over vs. a more vertical hole. River difficulty is not constant. Rivers and rapids change and we are attempting to de-emphasize the reliance on the difficulty scale in favor of a more holistic approach to understand what challenges and dangers exist in running whitewater rivers.
We did remove the language about dangers and this was on purpose. The difficulty scale is meant to describe the difficulty of descending the rapids, not the hazards you will encounter. If you read the page in the safety code proceeding the scale, it describes our approach to the ISRD. The only reason Class I is class I is because it is easier to navigate, not because strainers, undercuts, sieves, difficult portages and more can’t and don’t exist on those runs, or in those rapids. They are less likely to exist and in fewer numbers than in class V, usually, but that's not the definition for the scale, or at least the definition we're working off.
One of the major overall goals of this revision was to make it quicker and easier to understand key guidelines in the code, while also making it both consciously and subconsciously clear that none of the guidelines are a replacement for caution, humility, and experience on the river. The sections on the big 4, river running strategy, preparation, and hazard recognition are in our opinion more important to the safety and growth of new and intermediate boaters, in comparison to the ability of an inexperienced boater to look at a stretch of river and accurately identify its classification on the scale.
Trying to convey something that can't really be conveyed accurately just by reading descriptions and looking at pictures is a challenge. Endless revisions could ensue. We appreciate your input and will consider it when we make another revision to the signage document and / or safety code. Of some consolation hopefully, we will be building out the online materials in the safety code space and a more in-depth document on how to use the code when deciding which rivers to run, a revised list of comparative example runs at each river difficulty level, and other materials related to river classification will be forthcoming. I will also share that the initial feedback we've received from both rescue and boating technique instructors has been overwhelmingly positive, and they are already finding it useful and ordering our published safety code books for distribution in their classes. Finally, I want to address the promotion of the code, as the revision is in a soft release state currently and our campaign to promote the revised code and its parts will ramp up as we get into spring. Sincerely,
Evan Stafford
American Whitewater
Communications Director
Rob
"In order to fully realize the beneficial paradigm shift needed to actualize our goals, it will be necessary to maximize the break with the past as we boldly create our future. We envision a world encompassed within a classless society, and feel we can best motivate that movement by keeping rapids classless as well. So, for now, ISRD stands for "Incredibly Simple Rapids Delineations". Since the whitewater paddling and downhill skiing communities overlap, we further embrace this unity by declaring rapids shall not be assigned numbers but merely colors and shapes. Green Circle: Beginners, Blue Square: Intermediate, Black Diamond: Advanced, Black Double-Diamond: Extreme.
(Just trying to roll with the "keep the whole thing light" vibe.)
DRC
Ignoring the Swiftian humor (AKA trolling) above, I would make the following points to Evan and Kevin directly:
If it requires so much ink to explain the intent of a simple
infographic to an audience (experienced whitewater boaters, i.e.
StreamTeam members) who should instantly be able to recognize its
intent, then that should raise a red flag that the infographic is
not as clear as it should be. Not sure which experts were
consulted, but I can't imagine any Class IV/V boater or whitewater
instructor or river outfitter I know signing off on this.
"Keeping it light" is one thing, but designing a whitewater
safety infographic that shows a SUP running Class IV-V is
tantamount to designing a ski/snowboard safety infographic that
shows someone sledding a double black diamond. I'm sure it's
possible to sled a double black diamond, but that isn't the
recommended or normal conveyance for such a feature, it isn't what
instructors will teach, it isn't what outfitters will rent, and it
isn't what insurance companies will underwrite. It doesn't make
sense to imply that a craft that is the least maneuverable and the
most likely to result in a swim is recommended for whitewater
classes in which a swim is the most likely to result in injury or
death, and in which maximum maneuverability is required to avoid a
swim. It's a huge disconnect from the point that the infographic
is trying to make.
This has nothing to do with my chosen craft. (In fact, I would prefer to see the infographic show the most common type of river craft for each class.) I just don't want to see people die on the river because AW chose to "keep it light." I feel strongly, as a dues-paying member and volunteer, that an organization whose focus includes whitewater safety should not be in the business of recommending that people take SUPs on Class IV-V. (And again, if it wasn't the intent to recommend that, then the intent was not clear.) If you want to use one craft for all of the classes in the infographic, then a kayak represents the majority of AW members, the majority of those learning the sport, and the majority of those participating in the sport independently. Like you said, people are going to bitch no matter what you do, so IMHO the concern should be less about who's going to bitch and more about who might die as a result of the infographic.
My read of the ISRD is that, at least for the higher classes, it
makes assumptions both about paddler capability and craft
capability. With Class IV and V, it seems to assume that paddlers
will be in a craft that can maneuver around potentially injurious
or deadly obstacles and that they can mitigate the risk of a swim
(for instance, by having a solid combat roll in a kayak or knowing
how to "high side" a raft, etc.) As far as I know, such
mitigation techniques are not commonly taught for SUPs, if they
exist at all. More specifically, the full description of Class IV
includes "unavoidable waves and holes or constricted passages", a
"fast, reliable eddy turn", and "'must make' moves above dangerous
hazards." Class V includes "large, unavoidable waves and holes or
steep, congested chutes with complex, demanding routes", "what
eddies exist may be small, turbulent, or difficult to reach", and
"[S]wims are dangerous." Class V even says that proper equipment
is essential, and I seriously doubt that a SUP was considered
"proper equipment" when the ISRD was written.
You can find some YouTube videos of SUP riders on Class IV/V
(e.g. the top part of Green Narrows, Pine Creek), but invariably
they're using leashes that could become entrapment/pin hazards.
It is also unclear how a crew of only SUP riders could affect a
swiftwater rescue, should one of them become entrapped, or how
such a crew could rescue a wayward SUP that got away from a
swimmer. I'd feel better about showing a SUP in conjunction with
Class IV/V if those equipment/safety protocol limitations did not
exist. I would guess that, if you polled frequent Class IV/V
boaters (which, to be clear, I am not) as to whether they would
allow a SUP on their crew, most of them would say no, mainly
because the SUP could not pull its weight in a rescue situation.