Re: [aw-streamteam-forum] Digest for american-whitewater-streamteam-forum@googlegroups.com - 6 updates in 1 topic

[DRC]

IMHO, it’s a pretty weak argument to say that AW should step in to fill beta gaps that are outside of its core mission. It may not cost money to host those entries, but it does cost attention. AW is no longer the only game in town for whitewater beta, and there are already some areas of the country in which its gauge page isn’t taken very seriously (the perception being that it is perennially broken by new features or that it doesn’t update quickly enough to use for rainfall-dependent runs.) It doesn’t help matters when the gauge page has entries that are clearly not whitewater or even “flat-water training grounds.” Beta exists to facilitate participation in the sport of whitewater paddling. Any beta that doesn’t facilitate participation in the sport of whitewater paddling is distracting from AW’s core mission.

On Feb 14, 2025, at 10:38 PM, american-whitewate...@googlegroups.com wrote:



american-whitewate...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• Who are we? - 6 Updates

Who are we?

Rob <myre...@aol.com>: Feb 14 04:14AM -0800 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'. On Thursday, February 13, 2025 at 11:53:01 AM UTC-6

Rob <myre...@aol.com>: Feb 14 05:51AM -0800 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)   On Friday, February 14, 2025 at 6:14:29 AM UTC-6 Rob wrote:

Tom Welander <tomwe...@gmail.com>: Feb 14 06:25AM -0800 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.   On Friday, February 14, 2025 at 8:51:11 AM UTC-5 Rob wrote:

DRC <drcom...@gmail.com>: Feb 14 07:29AM -0800 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.   On Friday, February 14, 2025 at 9:25:27 AM UTC-5 Tom Welander wrote:

Rob <myre...@aol.com>: Feb 14 08:47AM -0800 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! On Friday, February 14, 2025 at 9:29:30 AM UTC-6 DRC wrote:

Paul Martzen <paul.m...@gmail.com>: Feb 14 12:20PM -0800 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

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to american-whitewater-stre...@googlegroups.com.