Who are we?

[Rob]

For the last 2+ years I've noticed a growing number of purely flatwater paddles on the American Whitewater database, E.G.:
- ~54 miles of flatwater on Cacapon (West Virginia)
- ~34 miles of flatwater on Monocacy River (in Maryland),
- 12.5 miles of flatwater on the Patuxent (in Maryland)
- three routes on Chesapeke Bay (obviously flatwater, in Maryland, masquerading as Magothy River, Rock Ck/Patapsco R.Trib, and (unashamedly proclaiming itself) Bodkin Bay)
- 130 miles of the Lower Yakima (WA) (This one at least claims one 15 mile stretch with "some class II", but the other 115 miles? And 82 photos, mostly of put-ins and dams and flatwater ... oh, and a few of photos of actual class I-II rapids.)
- 9.6 miles of South Fork Gualala (CA)
(just a representative sample, by no means an exhaustive list)

When descriptions say "scenic float trip", it doesn't seem like it's appropriate on a whitewater database. Especially when it's 10, 20, 30, even 100+ miles! I know I'm stepping on some pretty important toes with these, but ...

Can someone tell me the whitewater related justification behind including these reaches (and dozens more) on the database when they have no whitewater? Are we diluting our focus, becoming simply "American Scenic Water"?

[Rob]

A bit more looking and ... in Maryland, 30 (out of a total of 142) listed runs are Class I. (Not counting class I-II or class I(II).) That's over 20% of the runs listed in MD are FLAT WATER!

Exactly two of those even mention anything close to riffles and swiftwater.

Pennsylvania and West Virginia each have 15 class I sections listed. (Much smaller percentage of runs, since both those states have far more runs listed than has Maryland.)

The point is ... if the only criteria for listing a section of river is that it is paddled, or that it is scenic, then we are opening it up for anything and everything to be listed. I've met people who think paddling the industrial harbor in Milwaukee is scenic, but I would NEVER consider listing it on AW!

[Steve Strange]

I think Rob makes a good point. It seems that, with the exception of tidal rapids such as Skookumchuck, listings should at least be limited to fresh, moving water. No lakes, ponds, bays, harbors, etc. 

--
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/9363664d-8b13-46f4-b482-ef750b340c9cn%40googlegroups.com.

Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains information of Tewksbury Township Public Schools/Tewksbury Township Board of Education (contact information is available athttp://www.tewksburyschools.org/) and/or its affiliates, that may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, you are notified that distributing, copying or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from your system. Tewksbury Schools accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

[Kevin Colburn]

I'll share my personal agreement - in part. I don't get concerned when I see Class I river paddling opportunities on the site because those are often good starter and training resources for our community. I added the French Broad just upstream of Asheville for example for this reason, and because it is a nice paddle trip that our community uses, and it has just enough features to teach/learn eddy turns, surfs, etc. Seeing the great lake shores added though (for example) does give me pause and seems like a stretch for the NWI's purpose. I don't think AW has a policy on this (?), but maybe it's something we should figure out as a community. 

Kevin Colburn
National Stewardship Director
American Whitewater

828-712-4825

ke...@americanwhitewater.org

www.americanwhitewater.org

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/CAJhpNQ%3D5AZYULh9ighWuQT2m9pTKN%2B10b4vW3H4SXeH2v_NRCg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob]

I put Lake Michigan up (in WI/IL/IN/MI) because (as I've stated many times) some of my most memorable times in a whitewater boat were when the lake went large. It absolutely stacks up with some of my best days on class IV creeks!

You would deny the legitimate whitewater interest evidenced here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJRL04KQpwQ&t=85s

But (just as board surfers are fully aware) not every beach gets good 'break', so it's important to know the best locations.

And it seems valuable to also point to the best 'gauge' for these beaches: https://www.surfline.com/surf-reports-forecasts-cams-map/@43.053112,-87.881361,12z

I could see an issue if there was a listing for every single beach location, but I created one listing (for each state), and made each beach which is known to have good 'breaks' as a 'Feature'. I strongly feel these (single listing in each Great Lakes state) have far more merit than literally hundreds of miles (and dozens of listings) of flat 'scenic' rivers which I noted.

If a river has no legitimate class II rapids, but "has just enough features to teach/learn eddy turns, surfs, etc.", I would expect to see at least some of those locations detailed in the "River Features" section, as evidence or proof of legitimate value to the whitewater community! (Especially if there is a claim that there is someplace to teach/learn surfs!)

Without any provided detail of legitimate observable eddy lines, legitimate surfable waves, etc., I have a hard time accepting dozens and dozens of 'scenic float trips'.

If existence of eddies is sufficient for a listing, there's thousands and thousands of flatwater rivers that become eligible and legitimate fodder for the database. Anything with current and a bridge pier somewhere will have a 'teachable eddy'.

[Rob]

I'll also freely confess I have put one other lake on the database: https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/view/river-detail/10212/main

Absolutely admittedly it is a non-whitewater venue, but if you read the description for it, I think it is absolutely as well-justified as any flatwater 'training grounds' river which might be allowed on the database due to the unique opportunity it represents for paddlers (whitewater and flatwater alike) who live in the land of the frozen tundra. (YMMV)

[Tom Welander]

It's a good push.  If enforcement/management becomes ornery, rather than police which waterways get into the database, it might be easier to assign them class zero and put them behind a filter that conceals them unless a user opts-in to display them.  I suppose there's nominal value in confirming "no whitewater here" in case someone's wondering.   There was a day when I would have been averse to the extra electricity consumed by that extra computer storage.  How quaint that seems now. :o   --Tom W.

[DRC]

IMHO, the criteria should be uniqueness and applicability to whitewater paddling.  An argument could be made that listing beta about a specific surf site on the Great Lakes is useful for the furtherance of whitewater boating, but only if that site provides a truly unique experience for whitewater paddlers.  (Otherwise, basically any beach with breaking waves could be a whitewater feature, and trying to track all of those would needlessly clutter up the AW site.  Surfboarding web sites/apps are generally a better home for such beta.)  It's harder to make an argument in favor of listing a lake that is always flat (since literally any such lake could be a "flat-water training ground"-- as could a large swimming pool, for that matter.)  I have generally only mentioned such flat-water training grounds in passing under the listing of a whitewater feature to which they are connected.

[Rob]

Yes, I would totally agree we don't want to list every swimming pool or lake. The uniqueness in the case I cited above is that " Water temperatures reportedly stay around 80 degrees (obviously varies with distance from power plant discharge and other factors), making it a popular place for paddlers during the winter months. Where else do you have an opportunity to practice your roll (or flatwater tricks) outdoors, in warm water, in winter, in the Upper Midwest?" So, it definitely "provides a truly unique experience," for all Upper Midwest paddlers (flatwater and whitewater alike) who want to be outdoors in winter!

[Paul Martzen]

I have added a few scenic flat water stretches in my area.  I usually try to note some justification in the description.  Most commonly they are river sections that have some modest whitewater in the first few miles, but get less and less as the river flattens out.  Yet, with California rainfall and dam release patterns, a lot of these sections have enough hazards that they are of much more interest to whitewater boaters than to non whitewater boaters.   Meaning a casual scenic float trip for a whitewater boater could be completely inappropriate for a flat water boater, usually because of tree hazards, high flows, weird currents and eddies, and lack of safe shoreline.

I have a couple other motivations.  To my knowledge there is no comparable or even decent database of paddling areas for non-whitewater trips.  I have seen some rudimentary paddling destination databases, but nothing actually decent or very useful.   So AW has no competition if we want to allow some moving water rivers in our database.  I have no idea of the cost per river section entry in our database, or what it costs per search or access.  It does not seem like we have figured out how to make any money from the database other than from advertising for memberships.  But to me, having reaches that are of interest to people on the edge of whitewater makes good sense.

Another motivation I have had for a couple sections is documenting boating use and thus legal navigation.  Local land owners will actively try to prevent boating on these sections and will track and accost boaters on the river.

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/f6f1aa1e-ae7f-47c7-9e21-e27568b9111bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Martzen]

Does the inclusion of some class 1, or scenic  sections of rivers,  or surf breaks used by kayakers, or other nonstandard sections cause any actual harm to AW or to the AW river database?    What is the evidence of such harm?   Not just your opinion.  What is your evidence?

DRC in a new thread, implies that having scenic sections in the AW database will cause harm similar to having problems with our flow information.   I am skeptical about that.  I don't think there is any comparison between having river sections that some one is not interested in, vs not having information that they really are interested in.   Every AW state listing of rivers has myriad sections that we don't look at because the flow is wrong, the grade is uninteresting, or the river is too far away, or whatever. 

Do class 5 boaters find it offensive to skip over class 1 rivers as well as Class 2, 3, and 4?  Do you find it offensive when there are hundreds of rivers displayed in a state listing, but you are only interested in 3 or 4 of them?

Are you offended, or is AW harmed when a boater looks for info about a river with a scenic float, and google sends them to a good description at AW?  Are whitewater boaters never interested in scenic float trips?  I am interested in scenic float trips.

Very, very few people contribute information or photos to the AW river database.   When somebody does contribute, even if it is for a scenic float trip, I think we should say, "Thank you!"

Paul

[Pete Giordano]

My opinion is that AW really should be something like American Rivers or American Paddling. The emphasis on whitewater is perhaps a bit limiting in some ways. I get that it is good to have focus but I think the reality is that there are plenty of primarily whitewater paddlers that enjoy some Class 1 every now and then. I think the distinction for most is the river emphasis rather than the whitewater emphasis. I think in some ways having some presence in the "flatwater" information space is a decent bridge to maybe converting a few of those folks to more moving water or small rapids in the future. In that sense, it actually helps AW in the long run. And from a conservation perspective, I feel like being inclusive to the whole river is somewhat important.

Looking at some of the sections Rob originally listed, I didn't find much specific information on actually planning a trip on those sections outside of AW and only a few actually had information on AW other than the outline of the section. I think in some ways anything that gets eyes on the AW page is a good thing.

Personally I could go either way but I get more annoyed at the many, many whitewater sections listed on AW that don't have any specific beta than I do the flatwater sections with no or limited beta.

pete

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/b9fd83a6-0bf2-4723-9995-ce9b10052415n%40googlegroups.com.

[Anthon Allred]

I think what this comes down to, is that if volunteer river editors are going to receive criticism for adding reaches to the database, that there is a need for criteria that is documented so that everybody knows what the deal is.   Moreover, in the development of this criteria, it is important to seek out input from the AW membership at large, and everybody needs to know that this may take some time.  There is a large range of existing and potential "moving water" reaches, some of which are important to the broader AW membership (think: SFSB Potomac Trough in West Virginia, Pine Creek [Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania], in Pennsylvania and the Paw Paw overnight trip on the Potomac in Maryland/West Virginia) .  For the Potomac drainage which includes the Monocacy and the Cacapon, my general thinking had been that more is better, and that there was value in numbering reaches based on river access points so that reaches aren't renumbered in the future which could result in discrepancies with the reaches identified in the AW accident database.  If this thinking was wrong, I can provide a list of reaches that were added under this reasoning to be deleted.  I can add and edit reaches, but I don't have privileges to take them down.

Secondly, there are, in my opinion, simply more important to be resolved in the short term, as we approach the Spring and Summer general public paddling season (yes, I know paddlers paddle year round, but you know what I am getting at).   Since the recent revision of the river listing system, it has left reaches deleted in the past and other duplicate reaches visible that need to be cleaned up in the general State Lists.  There remains a problem with existing virtual gauges that incorporate mathematical operators other than addition.  Can this be resolved before March and April or should the river editors adjust the ranges, which will make them wrong if the problem is subsequently corrected?  These are things that matter with respect to the AW site's public face, that public users notice and affect the public's opinion of AW.  (as an off topic aside, there are river access issues, particularly in the Baltimore area, really could use AW involvement in the short term [Spring this year]). 

Finally, I did not like the manner this issue was originally raised on this semi-public list-serve.   Snark, targeted cherry-picked examples, a negative tone and assumptions of bad faith are uncalled for.  Everybody needs to understand that we are all good-faith volunteers trying to do the best we can, particularly in the absence of documented criteria.  It's easy for volunteers who feel put upon to simply walk away and that's not beneficial to AW.

Tony Allred

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/CAMQwbmgJ69wDrmv5ceX2kMd4arXnLqBtDLSUA0ZLNYdQhZPQ_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Pete Giordano]

Anthon,

I looked at a virtual gauge I created years ago and don't really use anymore and it is an (A-B)*.1 formula. It still seems to work.

Not sure if this is helpful at all but have been meaning to mention it for awhile. This is the gauge:

https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Gauge2/detail/id/50935/

pete

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/f363b287-2274-4927-8379-6400e8a41c0e%40gmail.com.

[Tom Welander]

How would including smoothwater rivers in the database affect AW's
responsibilities? Would the organization find itself obligated to take
on access and conservation fights on those additional streams?

[DRC]

To address some of the comments above, since some of them were directed at me:

I was just expressing my perspective. I am trying to contribute to a conversation, not pick a fight. I personally feel that AW cannot be all things to all people. It has "whitewater" in the name because that is its focus. The moving water reaches in the U.S. far outnumber the whitewater reaches, and AW lacks the resources to extend its scope to all things moving water. (Also, please note that Class 1 and moving water are not the same thing. Class 1 is actually whitewater with riffles and small waves.) Of course most Class 1 and even some Class 2 is safely navigable by recreational paddlers, but whitewater paddling in general requires specialized skills, gear, safety protocols, etc.  Whitewater rivers also tend to require more advocacy resources.  Because whitewater tends to occur in steeper sections of a river that are often walled in, those sections are the most prone to destructive flash flooding and are the most likely to be eyed for hydroelectric projects and road/railroad corridors.  Because whitewater reaches require specialized skills, gear, and protocols to run safely (as opposed to moving water reaches that can be navigated by anyone with a john boat, sit-on-top, or canoe), fewer people are aware of the issues surrounding their preservation.  (As an example, it required skilled whitewater boaters to document CSX's illegal mining of the Nolichucky riverbed, because it is in the middle of an isolated Class III/IV run with numerous debris hazards.)

My experience as an AW streamkeeper was in a state where almost all of the whitewater is rainfall-dependent and sporadic. It was a constant struggle to raise awareness of the fact that we are not just yahoos out for an adrenaline rush, that we have the skills, gear, and protocols necessary to navigate those rivers safely. Because there are so many moving water reaches and lakes in that state, everyone and their dog (literally) owns a sit-on-top or canoe, so it was also a constant struggle to discourage people from taking their rec. boats or inner tubes on raging Class III and above. Because so many did, and because the public didn’t understand the difference between rec. boaters and whitewater boaters, it was a constant struggle to avoid getting arrested for paddling Class III/IV rivers. Because landowners didn’t understand statutory navigability laws, sometimes it was also a struggle to avoid getting shot at. 

These days, I live in a whitewater-friendly state, but still a state in which the moving water reaches far outnumber the whitewater reaches. Because there is an actual whitewater industry here, the optics of the sport are thankfully less of a problem, but the whitewater rivers still have unique advocacy needs. The reality is that AW's advocacy work is primarily funded by whitewater paddlers who prefer that their money be focused on whitewater. Sure, I go out on the lake sometimes with my wife, but my passion is whitewater, and I contribute to AW because it shares that passion.  I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do.  This isn't a black & white issue.  It's shades of gray.  As an example, some multi-day trips (e.g. the Buffalo National River in AR, the Green River in UT, and the Rio Grande in TX) contain both moving water and whitewater.  I'm just trying to prevent a situation whereby, if people see a critical mass of low-skill moving water reaches on AW, it will be more difficult for AW to emphasize the skills, gear, and protocols necessary to safely navigate the whitewater reaches that are interspersed with them.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for river advocacy, but I do believe that, if AW were to become American Rivers, it would lose a lot of cred in the areas of the country that have the highest concentrations of members. That would make it more difficult for AW to focus on the unique advocacy needs of whitewater rivers. Kevin would be in a much better position to comment on that, however, since he's the National Stewardship Director.  I'm just a long-time whitewater paddler and AW StreamTeam member.  My opinion doesn't count any more than anyone else's in this forum.

[Rob]

My recollection from back in Y2K (when I was recruited by a good boating buddy to volunteer with the AW river pages) is that I was told not to put any purely flatwater or purely class I on the database. There had to be legitimate class II whitewater (in part, perhaps, because the line between flatwater/swiftwater and class I is very hard to pin down). My recollection is that I was also told we were not to put any lone feature (wave, playspot, waterfall, etc., with no other whitewater for miles on the stream), nor any artificial course. I don't recall if this was documented anywhere at the time or just passed along informally. The point was that whitewater is in the name because naturally existing whitewater was the defining, driving purpose of the organization.

Across the years (as boats shortened from the old 12-13+' barges, and playboating became more of a 'thing'), singular features became permissible, since park-and-play (and park-and-huck, of verticals and steep slides) were becoming more and more sought after. Also, more and more playparks were being developed, and it was deemed appropriate to list those (in part to encourage more locales to consider creating whitewater parks when dams were being removed). But all these are are all still directly whitewater related.

There are plenty of local/state/regional websites, blogs, FBgroups, hardcopy guidebooks, pamphlets, etc. which provide plenty of info on paddling opportunities of all sorts (from lakes and rivers, from flatwater to whitewater, etc). My guess is that most novice recreational paddlers start out already knowing some rivers and lakes that are nearby, and (quite often) are content to stick with paddling waters that they know. If/when they choose to widen the selection of rivers, they'll find them on maps, or find those websites, blogs, FBgroups, etc., and use them. If there is any nationwide repository for flatwater paddlers, I'm not aware of it, but it should not be the concern of AW to fill any such gap which may exist in listing flatwater or even swiftwater.

In recent years, I have encountered a good number of whitewater paddlers who say (words to the effect): "AW is a JOKE! There's so much flatwater listed!" Yes, it shows that (in spite of that) they are still using the website, but it shows we are losing much respect for the apparent loss of focus. As previously stated, I can accept putting (as I have personally done) some flatwater river (or even lake) that presents a situation of interest to paddlers that sets it apart from virtually all other lakes or rivers, or streams in the state. When nothing in the listing makes it sound in any way unique, nor pertinent to whitewater paddlers, it seems to distract and detract from our stated purpose.

Yes, absolutely, getting the gauges fixed (and getting numerous other glitches taken care of) should be the primary concern for the programming team. Raising and discussing this issue does not stop nor in any significant way interfere with the programmers! It is simply meant to stimulate discussion (which it has done), and determine what the policy should be, going forward. And none of this discussion (nor our focus on whitewater) means to take nothing away from how wonderfully scenic any river might be, nor to sleight all those who may enjoy it for a float (be it in a canoe, kayak, raft, tube, SUP, or whatever else). Yes, there are people who a passionate about whitewater, but also enjoy a scenic float trip. However, this is about whether they should find (or be placing) such listings on a whitewater organization website.

[Paul Martzen]

Interesting points, Rob.  I thought maybe you had been editing river pages even longer than that.  As an aside, anybody know what happened to Matt Muir?  He was the national lead for the Stream Team for a long time.

I forget what year the whitewater database was first started.  There was quite a scramble to just fill in the well known runs.  I think I started helping within that first year, or shortly after.  For a long time, the number 6 photo in the database was one of mine.  It was probably 320 x200 or so as that was all we could load.  It disappeared after some website update, long ago.  Many of my photos have disappeared from their proper river pages over time.  At one time, I think most of the stream team instructions were written by Matt Muir and myself.  The editing process has changed so much that somebody has replaced my old instructions. 

In all that time, I don't recall ever discussing that we shouldn't allow class 1 or moving water sections.  There was nothing about this in any of the instruction that I wrote.  Matt and I never discussed this.  AW staff have never discussed this with me.  I don't think it occurred to anybody that this would be a problem, or be considered a problem.  We can barely get people to add whitewater information.  Of the few scenic floats in the database that I have looked at recently, most are by some AW staff, or long time Steam Team member. 

Last year or so, Pete and I volunteered to remove some corrupt links from around 40 popular rivers in Tennessee.  For just about every page we edited, the only info was a single sentence, "For information about this river see - corrupted website".    That was upsetting to me.  Nobody in Tennessee has added info to the AW database. Two guys from Washington and California had to clean up bad info.  Does AW have a bad reputation there?? 

I believe Rob, when he says some people think AW is a joke.  But I don't believe them, when they say it is because the river pages have some float trips on them.  I would believe them if they said they don't go to AW for beta on the gnarly runs.  They go to youtube, or guidebooks or other websites.  That is because a lot of hard core boaters don't put their photos or comments on the AW website.  They put their photos and write ups on the their own websites.  Eliminating info about float trips is not going to change that.  In my opinion. 

There could be some ways to more objectively explore these questions.  Why do some boaters think AW is a joke?  Why do so few people post to the AW website, while also posting lots to their own websites?  Does the presence of moving, flat water reaches reduce use of the AW database?

Paul

[Kevin Colburn]

Thanks all for this dialog. It's been valuable for me to participate in as someone playing a leadership role in the evolution of the NWI. You all bring up good points about the "product" - what it should be and who it is for. I'll take some of this conversation back to staff too. 

One thing I'll offer is that as staff we leverage the NWI constantly for statistics, images, mapping and descriptions of whitewater rivers. Every facet of the NWI provides a factual basis for our work. But of course the NWI is much more than that in terms of exploration, enjoyment, and safety of whitewater rivers - which are also parts of our mission. The NWI must be consistent with our mission, but putting something in the NWI does not require us to work on it within our stewardship program. 

I do think that we want a well-defined NWI, with well defined ways to contribute content to it that work well. We don't have that right now - or we at least have some edge cases that lack clarity (like do flatwater or non-rivers belong in the NWI) We've been working hard to update the site and make features work better, but this kind of big picture thinking is something I've been feeling the need for lately. Thanks for cueing this up.  

[Pete Giordano]

I think this is all great discussion and probably overdue. A couple thoughts from me:

1. I have my own website but I also contribute to AW. Personal websites offer control of content that isn't available on AW. I've had cases of my content additions to AW being randomly changed by an unknown person, adding less clear or sometimes just wrong content. It's the downfall of a WIKI-based model without sufficient volume of users to make sure content is correct and consistent. Trying to do both sites is time consuming so I would guess some choose to just do one or the other.

2. I would suspect much of why folks don't use the AW site as much is that the design is clunky in many aspects and just isn't user friendly in some ways. For example, I think that having Class 0 runs listed in the database wouldn't be an issue if there was a quick, user-friendly way to filter those out for those not interested. Currently, the filter/search feature is available as part of the site search feature but intuitively it should be available as a feature of river info listings. And it should have a "sticky" option so that I can always come back to that search. Also, when I'm trying to filter runs by Class level, there are so many different options that it took me way too long just to pick Class 4. There could be other options like "Most Popular" runs or "Classic" runs as filter options to make it easier for folks to find what they want. Currently the state list of river sections is mostly unusable from a practical sense.

3. The website isn't optimized for mobile which is a huge, obvious problem. Most people these days are going to ignore any site that isn't mobile-friendly and it's going to get penalized by Google as well.

4. For whatever reason, many private sites and apps just work better. I've been struggling with the AW app to get gages to work properly for probably two years now. Finally deleted the app to try I re-install and found out it isn't even offered on Google Play anymore and have no idea how to get it now. I downloaded a different river level app and all the gauges work properly for the runs I was struggling with on AW. I still would prefer to use an AW app that has AW content as well as river levels but right now that doesn't seem to be an option for Android. It wouldn't take many people long with this kind of problem to just never come back to AW.

This isn't meant as criticisms but more just some feedback from a user on how AW may be a turn-off for other users. At least here in Oregon and Washington we've had some great content added over the last 5 years from folks that have their own sites but also are committed to keeping the AW content relevant.

pete

--

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/63c0402f-3e1b-43ac-97c0-3229dc0719a9n%40googlegroups.com.

[DRC]

Regarding the comments that AW is a "joke", I have never heard anyone go that far.  People I've talked to and paddled with seem to appreciate AW's stewardship activities.  They just find the gauge page specifically to be unreliable, mostly because there is a perception that it is buggy and doesn't update frequently enough.  In WNC, which has a strong AW presence, most people I paddle with use RiverApp or Rivers.run.  I personally use the AW web site on my phone (even though it's not mobile-friendly) but not the AW app, because I found the app to be flaky and limited in the past and haven't kept up on whether that has changed.

I agree with Pete's comments above: mobile-friendly is key these days, and having the ability to filter out moving water reaches would eliminate a lot of concerns about those reaches being in the database.  However, I would still prefer not to see moving water reaches "take over" the database.  I think it really boils down to noteworthiness and context.  Whereas we probably want to inventory all whitewater reaches, there should be a much higher standard for listing a moving water reach.  I would also still prefer that AW focus its advocacy activities on whitewater, although I can imagine scenarios in which, for example, a court case regarding access to a moving water river might set a precedent for whitewater access as well.

[Kevin Colburn]

All good feedback. We re-wrote the gage service and it is updating and working great, and we are working to replace the apps, but I'd love more feedback on what specifically is not mobile friendly in the current NWI since that is not in our current scope of work. It is in our 1-year horizon, but if there are specific issues with mobile use of the NWI let us know. I am aware of two things:

• clicking on a river and then going back to the map-list often does not load the rivers onto the map. 
  
• the flow graphs only look right when you turn your phone horizontal. 

What else? 

It is going to take a while for people to realize that our gauge service is all new and updates fast and graphs well. Any help with that would be appreciated. 

Kevin Colburn
National Stewardship Director
American Whitewater

828-712-4825

ke...@americanwhitewater.org

www.americanwhitewater.org

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/0c6c2da8-fc10-44ee-83c4-35a2bafa2fe6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Pete Giordano]

Mobile-friendly usually comes down to load speed and readability. Using the Google test the main NWI page rates a 50, primarily because it is so slow to load. Using another SEO test site it rates at a 34. In a practical test on my phone, it is so slow that I don't ever use it. Regularly the map section doesn't load fully but might on a refresh. Navigating to a geographic area of interest is so awkward that I find it un-useful.

If you drill down into an individual state page, which is hard to even find if you don't know it's there since the map and subsequent "map-view" runs are listed first, the performance is still ranked low but readability is better. Text is still too small and menu issues are the same.

From a readability standpoint, the text is too small in the index of rivers and is hard to select. The menu option is so small that it is hard to even know it is there and when you click on it, the menu itself is very small.

Overall, I just personally feel that more thought needs to be given to how mobile users want or need to use the webpage and then adapt the design to fit that. Being able to effectively filter runs would be a huge improvement. I'm not interested in seeing the whole US map for daily boating. In fact, I don't really even need the map most of the time since I'm doing local runs so getting sucked into that loading and displaying each time is a huge turnoff. I suppose I could just keep a separate open tab for Oregon and Washington and just reload that each time but that seems a bit wonky. I still am left with a huge list of rivers in each state and no way to really filter them to get the info I need. Even USGS has a way to select favorite gauges and just reference those rather than the entire list for each state.

Hence the app which addressed a lot of these issues but was so buggy with the gauges that it also became frustrating. And now it is not available on Google Play Store.

pete

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/CAA9GcwWa6-oAgzmigg0V%2BJKGfqtkoPvXmTDK%3DTxpssVGLFtSmQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Welander]

Perennial talk of mechanical problems with flow reporting makes me wish
the NWI wouldn't attempt to inform boaters what's running.

The database is distinctive and invaluable for documenting and vending
static characteristics (location, length, gradient, rapids) and to
publicize periodic hazards and nuisances. But it seems we struggle to
provide instantaneous information about flows.

The compounding issue is that it doesn't tell me what's running even
when it's mechanically working perfectly. Because the one-size-fits-all
thresholds set by other streamkeepers (and random meddlers) often aren't
my cup of tea.

--Tom W.

pronouns: me/moi

> point was that whitewater is in the name because /naturally
> existing whitewater/ was the defining, driving purpose of

> the organization.
>
> --
>
> 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/63c0402f-3e1b-43ac-97c0-3229dc0719a9n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/63c0402f-3e1b-43ac-97c0-3229dc0719a9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the

> Google Groups "American Whitewater StreamTeam Forum" group.

> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/uiR4N-f6C8Q/unsubscribe <https://groups.google.com/d/topic/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/uiR4N-f6C8Q/unsubscribe>.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> american-whitewater-stre...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:american-whitewater-stre...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/0c6c2da8-fc10-44ee-83c4-35a2bafa2fe6n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/0c6c2da8-fc10-44ee-83c4-35a2bafa2fe6n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Rob]

With all due respect, the most recent few posts have been quite a bit off the original topic, which is flatwater reaches on the National Whitewater Inventory.

These very worthy comments should be introduced and addressed by starting a new, separate post.