See Following Discussion:
Barbara Brown <
poto...@gmail.com>
To:larry...@verizon.net
Cc:mozar...@gmail.com,Gary steinberg,John Snitzer,Tony Allred,Alf
Cooley,Bruce,David Cottingham,Gary Quam,Ginny Quam,Gus Anderson,Jenny
Thomas,Kim Buttleman,
lisa...@comcast.net,Mark Brenneman,Mike
Keefe,Rolando Arrieta,Sheila Chapelle,
hmsl...@msn.com,Wayne Mcdaniel
Sat, Sep 23 at 3:25 PM
Agreed! Barb
On Sep 23, 2023, at 12:40 PM, Larry Lempert <
larry...@verizon.net> wrote:
Thanks, Tony--well worth taking action.
Both "Class 2-3 (4)" and "Class 3+ (4)" are misleading. Seems the best
idea is, as soon as possible, to press AW to add "Class 3 (4)" as an
option, citing the fatality as the indicator of how necessary the change
is. In the meantime, better to have the error fall on the side of safety
and use "Class 3+ (4)." (Yes, you will probably get objections, but so
it goes.)
-----
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 12:31:50 PM EDT, Tony Allred
<
tony....@verizon.net> wrote:
All,
I have looked into the Little Falls ratings. All of the ratings of the
particular rapids/features on Little Falls are ranked Class III, except
for the Virginia side of Little Falls, which is ranked Class III+. The
overall ranking for the entire run (on both the main page and under
"difficulty" on the Little Falls page) is, as Rolando indicated, "Class
2-3 (4)." I think this is an error. I think it should be "Class 3
(4)". However, "Class 3 (4)" is not an available choice for a
difficulty ranking. Unless the "Class 3 (4)" can be added to the list
of possible rankings by AW programmers, the current choice is either
"Class 2-3 (4)" or "Class 3+ (4)."
Should it be "Class 3+ (4) -- will there be heartburn if I change it?
Tony Allred Jr.