Mount Snow 3-7-2010

[oakapple]

Date(s) Skied: 3-7-2010

Resort or Ski Area: Mount Snow

Conditions: Corn snow; nearly spring conditions

Trip Report: Compared with last week's Killington trip, Mount Snow was bound to be anti-climactic. There is no remaining visible evidence of the three-foot dump that fell in the last week of February. Most trails, if they were not groomed, were covered in coarse corn, which acquired a softer texture as the warm day went on. By the afternoon, the thin layer of snow at the lift boarding areas had turned to slush, and then disappeared entirely.

I always start the day with a warm-up on Greens, but Mount Snow has only a couple of long greens of any consequence, which meant I was onto the Blues pretty quickly, and pushing myself harder than I normally do. Mount Snow is a blue-skier's paradise. The main trail map is nearly all blue. There are tough double-diamonds on the North Face, but probably not enough of them to occupy an expert for a whole season. There's another big jump in difficulty from the bunny slopes to the long green cruisers, Long John/Little John/Deer Run.

Most trails at Mount Snow are pretty long, owing to the nearly complete absence of mid-mountain lifts. Regardless of difficulty level, whatever path you take down is going to be a long one. My conditioning isn't as good as it should be; sometimes, I simply had to stop at a safe place and catch a breather.

Mount Snow has a strange layout, with the two beginner's areas at opposite ends of the resort. A beginning skier would find this irritating, as there is no all-green route from one to the other. The ski school is tucked into a corner, rather far away from any of the main lodges. I signed up for a $45 clinic, which is supposed to be a group lesson, but as I was the only intermediate skier who showed up, I got a one-hour private lesson instead. Not a bad deal.

The instructor told me that Management has put most of its money into snow-making. The lift system has three high-speed quads, but it could clearly use another, as several of its fixed-grippers are rather long. The Summit Express had big lines most of the day, while you could ski right onto the Summit Local, which takes almost 15 minutes to reach the top.

The lodges are nice, but the rental area—at least at the Sundance Lodge, where I started and ended my day—is overdue for sprucing up. The rental line in the morning moved slowly; the posted trail map appeared to be at least five years old. When I returned, they didn't even seem to have the ability to check whether the skis and boots you returned were the same ones you had rented. The poles had no wrist straps.

Mount Snow has the worst-designed trail map of any ski area I've been to. Two of its main areas (Sunbrook and North Face) are on separate maps, an arrangement that obscures the connections between them. If Killington, a vastly more complex resort, can get its entire map on one page, Mount Snow ought to be able to do it too.

In the last few years, new Management has been re-drawing the trail map — not to good effect, in my humble opinion. Many of the trails have been re-branded, eradicating names that had stood for decades. When you encounter an old trip report mentioning a particular trail, there's a good chance that it no longer exists! The on-mountain signage does not always agree with the ever-changing map.

In another stupid move, all of the tree-skiing areas have been taken off the map. They still exist, but they no longer have convenient, recognizable names—e.g., if you want to recommend or comment on a particular area, or even to know where they are.

Another fairly recent change (last two years) is that all of the terrain parks have been removed from the main area, and crammed into Carinthia, a side area that was once a separate ski resort. Some of the little trails connecting Carintha to the main area used to have names, and now they don't.

As an example of trail-map silliness, I skied a trail called Rusty Nail, which I would consider a blue. On the map, it's a medium terrain park, but it had no terrain features at all. Two years ago, it was called "Au Natural". It runs out into another trail called The Gulch, which did have terrain features as advertised. Two years ago, this was called The Vermonster. On the map, the path of these two trails doesn't seem to have changed, so re-naming them was merely gratuitous confusion.

I took a day-trip from NYC operated by http://ovrride.com/, departing from the Blades shop on 72nd Street between Columbus & Amsterdam Avenues, the last stop before the bus heads north. The 4:30 a.m. departure time was reasonable; those leaving from Brooklyn had to be on the bus at 3:30. It would be about a 4-hour trip to Mount Snow, if not for a 20-minute rest stop along the way. Two 20-minute stops going home was altogether too much. Aside from that minor complaint, Ovrride runs a much more pleasant operation than Urban Sherpa, which I took to Windham about a month ago. They even feed you breakfast (muffins and water) and serve complimentary beer on the way home.

The timing of a long bus ride from New York means that you miss the first 1½ hours that the mountain is open. I don't have the stamina to go 7 full hours anyway, but if I had my druthers, I'd prefer to get in as much time as possible before the crowds start tracking things out. If you're going to visit Mount Snow for the day, that's the trade-off you have to accept.

 

[ta&idaho]

Glad you liked the Blades/Override trip--they've become my favorite bus trip operator in NYC (although that's in large part because I live about four blocks from the uptown location).

Sorry to hear you don't like some of the changes Mt Snow has been making (consolidating terrain parks into Carinthia, changes to the tree skiing policy), but if you poke around a bit at some of the Mt Snow threads on this site, you might see some decent reasons for some of those changes. As I understand the tree-skiing policy, for example, they've eliminated any official on-map recognition of the various gladed options but gone to an "always open" policy. Since they now have open tree areas with some occasionally dicey conditions, I think they got rid of the official designations to reduce their potential liability. As you spend more time at the mountain, I think you may come to appreciate this shift in philosophy.

 

[jaywbigred]

I'm going to address and perhaps take issue with a few things you said, so see below.

Date(s) Skied: 3-7-2010

Resort or Ski Area: Mount Snow

Conditions: Corn snow; nearly spring conditions

Trip Report: Compared with last week's Killington trip, Mount Snow was bound to be anti-climactic. There is no remaining visible evidence of the three-foot dump that fell in the last week of February.

I Strongly beg to differ here. First of all, there is coverage EVERYWHERE. All the natural trails are open, there were soft, well formed bumps of all types and varieties (man made, seeded, steep, low angle, wide trail, narrow trail, half-trail, and so on) all over the mountain, the trees are skiing great, the terrain parks have a ton of features. All of this is evidence of the dump.

Most trails, if they were not groomed, were covered in coarse corn, which acquired a softer texture as the warm day went on. By the afternoon, the thin layer of snow at the lift boarding areas had turned to slush, and then disappeared entirely.

Thing softened up this weekend at points, but I don't think I felt anything actually turn to corn. I think we need another couple weeks of freeze-thaw before any real corn harvesting is to be had.

There are tough double-diamonds on the North Face, but probably not enough of them to occupy an expert for a whole season.

I could argue with you regarding the greens, though I won't, because I think they are harder than the blues when they have weekend traffic on them. However, I totally disagree regarding the North Face. All these runs have character, and mountain management does a great job switching up which ones they allow to bump up and which ones they groom flat, which keeps it interesting all season long. Fallen Timbers was skiing great as a bump run 2 weeks ago, and on Saturday was flat. Meanwhile Chute, Challenger and Free Fall were all either partially or completely bumped up with great lines, whereas they had primarily been groomed earlier in the year. Ripcord was bumped up in a way that, as I understand it, it hasn't been for years, whereas a month ago it was skiing as a straight steep.

Most trails at Mount Snow are pretty long, owing to the nearly complete absence of mid-mountain lifts. Regardless of difficulty level, whatever path you take down is going to be a long one. My conditioning isn't as good as it should be; sometimes, I simply had to stop at a safe place and catch a breather.

Hmm, I'm not sure Mt. Snow has ever been accused of having long runs before....

Mount Snow has a strange layout, with the two beginner's areas at opposite ends of the resort. A beginning skier would find this irritating, as there is no all-green route from one to the other. The ski school is tucked into a corner, rather far away from any of the main lodges. I signed up for a $45 clinic, which is supposed to be a group lesson, but as I was the only intermediate skier who showed up, I got a one-hour private lesson instead. Not a bad deal.

Granted the two areas are separated, but if you combine green runs with a short walk along the base (or even through it, if you want) you can connect them. I'm not really sure why anyone would need to do this, though, at least not more than once, unless you were going back and forth to check on kids, in which case, I assume you can ski a blue.

The instructor told me that Management has put most of its money into snow-making. The lift system has three high-speed quads, but it could clearly use another, as several of its fixed-grippers are rather long. The Summit Express had big lines most of the day, while you could ski right onto the Summit Local, which takes almost 15 minutes to reach the top.

Where would you put another HSQ? If anything, Summit Express needs replacing due to age. I time the singles line at Summit Express every weekend, and the longest it took this weekend was a touch over 3 minutes, at least when we waited in it. TNF triples were a 2-5 chair wait (about a minute), and Canyon Express we never waited more than 2 minutes. Nitro is the habitually the longest wait, usually around 5 minutes at peak hours. This past weekend was no different. I have yet to find the day where the singles line was so long on Summit Express that it made sense to take the Summit Local. But I'm glad they keep the Summit Local, it is great if there are wind or mechanical issues with Summit Express or Canyon or what have you.

And as far as having no mid-mountain lifts...I have to wonder if you looked for any...Ego Alley, Sundance, Sunbrook, Bear Trap, and both of TNF triples are mid-mountain lifts that are great for avoiding crowds and keeping you from having to go to the base every run.

The lodges are nice, but the rental area—at least at the Sundance Lodge, where I started and ended my day—is overdue for sprucing up. The rental line in the morning moved slowly; the posted trail map appeared to be at least five years old. When I returned, they didn't even seem to have the ability to check whether the skis and boots you returned were the same ones you had rented. The poles had no wrist straps.

I can't speak for the on mountain rentals, but I always take all visitors to my condo to an off mountain rental place for their gear, as the selection, service, and quality of gear is much, much better, imo. That is almost a universal for all ski resorts. Try Sports Odyssey next time.

I'm not sure I agree with you regarding the lodges being nice. Imo, after a new top-to-bottom HSQ to replace Summit Express, this is where management should turn next.

Mount Snow has the worst-designed trail map of any ski area I've been to. Two of its main areas (Sunbrook and North Face) are on separate maps, an arrangement that obscures the connections between them. If Killington, a vastly more complex resort, can get its entire map on one page, Mount Snow ought to be able to do it too.

Not sure what you mean here. The map has insets for different faces, just like Killington (Killington Peak and Sky Peak). Mount Snow basically skis on two peaks, and on all sides of those two peaks, so they have to represent a 3d skiing experience via a 2d medium. I think the trail map is pretty easy to read.

In the last few years, new Management has been re-drawing the trail map — not to good effect, in my humble opinion. Many of the trails have been re-branded, eradicating names that had stood for decades. When you encounter an old trip report mentioning a particular trail, there's a good chance that it no longer exists! The on-mountain signage does not always agree with the ever-changing map.

Not sure why rebranding is such a big issue, other than people hate change. Imo, new management is doing a great job with mountain, what an improvement over the prior owners. They have a master plan and this is part of it, and I, for one trust them. I didn't know the old names, so it doesn't bother me at all. This may help you next time if looking at the new map is too confusing: http://www.skiernet.com/mount-snow.html

In another stupid move, all of the tree-skiing areas have been taken off the map. They still exist, but they no longer have convenient, recognizable names—e.g., if you want to recommend or comment on a particular area, or even to know where they are.

This has been addressed by subsequent posters, but all the woods are open! It would be pretty silly to designate all the tree areas on the map when you can take care of it by simply putting a statement on the map that they are all open (which they have)!

Another fairly recent change (last two years) is that all of the terrain parks have been removed from the main area, and crammed into Carinthia, a side area that was once a separate ski resort. Some of the little trails connecting Carintha to the main area used to have names, and now they don't.

I think "crammed" is not the right word to use. They have been concentrated in one location, and it has had an awesome, manifold effect: new school culture now has a home, with its own shops, skateboard park, and other trimmings in the local lodge; the Dew Tour has the perfect venue for an annual stop; the skiers have a perfect location to learn safe progression in terrain parks, as they can graduate from the XS, S, M, L to XL features of each individual park, which are right next to each other; and, old curmudgeons like myself like the segregating it does taking the young whippersnappers with all their loud music and Red Bulls and putting them together in one spot, out of the way of kids learning, and out of my bump lines.

What little trails connecting Carinthia to the Main base no longer have names? As far as I know, Long John is the only way. Unless you count poling/hiking from the top of the Heavy Metal on Switchback...I'd love to hear about this as my condo is at the base of Carinthia and I have to take one of these trails over to the main base every day I ski at Mt. Snow.

As an example of trail-map silliness, I skied a trail called Rusty Nail, which I would consider a blue. On the map, it's a medium terrain park, but it had no terrain features at all. Two years ago, it was called "Au Natural". It runs out into another trail called The Gulch, which did have terrain features as advertised. Two years ago, this was called The Vermonster. On the map, the path of these two trails doesn't seem to have changed, so re-naming them was merely gratuitous confusion.

Renaming is part of the rebranding that the new owners are doing, and I think the overall effect on the mountain has been very positive, and in the long run, is necessary.

 

[Newpylong]

While I respect your views, this sounds like an aweful lot of undue criticism/whining. Without rebutting everything line by line (much I disagree with entirely) - I would say the changes they have made have been appreciated by the majority of guests. They have really turned the place around since taking over from the ASC. Anyone who has been a regular visitor for the last few years can attest to this.

 

[oakapple]

Thanks to jaywbigred for his response. It is useful to have the perspective of someone who knows the mountain well; at the same time, he may lack the perspective of how the mountain strikes a first-time visitor.

Regarding evidence remaining of the dump at the end of February:

I Strongly beg to differ here. First of all, there is coverage EVERYWHERE. All the natural trails are open, there were soft, well formed bumps of all types and varieties (man made, seeded, steep, low angle, wide trail, narrow trail, half-trail, and so on) all over the mountain, the trees are skiing great, the terrain parks have a ton of features. All of this is evidence of the dump.

I think you're reading me a bit too literally. Obviously the coverage means it has snowed at some point, but from the actual conditions on Sunday, the dump could as well have been a month or two ago (with no intervening thaw), for all that one could see.

Regarding the wide separation between the two main "green" areas:

Granted the two areas are separated, but if you combine green runs with a short walk along the base (or even through it, if you want) you can connect them. I'm not really sure why anyone would need to do this, though, at least not more than once, unless you were going back and forth to check on kids, in which case, I assume you can ski a blue.

Yes, I do ski blues, but I recall when I did not. For those in that position, a resort where the two main green areas are at opposite ends would be annoying. (If you were building it, would you design it that way?) This contrasts, for instance, with Killington, where every chairlift has a green route to the bottom, and you can pretty much navigate the whole resort on greens. Mount Snow is what it is, and it can't change, but it's an unfortunate design feature.

(Mind you, I realize that the distinction between the hardest green and the easiest blue is somewhat arbitrary and dependent on conditions. But skiers generally do rely on this information for a variety of purposes.)

Where would you put another HSQ? If anything, Summit Express needs replacing due to age.

I'm assuming (without checking the history) that most of the fixed-grip chairs at Mount Snow are older than the Summit Express. The obvious candidate for replacement would be the fixed-grip chair with the worst uphill capacity in relation to demand, which I'm guessing is Sunbrook, but you may know better.

I can't speak for the on mountain rentals, but I always take all visitors to my condo to an off mountain rental place for their gear, as the selection, service, and quality of gear is much, much better, imo. That is almost a universal for all ski resorts. Try Sports Odyssey next time.

The benefit of on-mountain rentals, besides convenience, is that if you find yourself with ill-fitting or unsuitable equipment, it's a lot easier to make an exchange. In any case, the point of my comparison was Mount Snow's rental equipment to that of other ski areas, not Mount Snow to off-mountain.

Regarding the trail maps:

Not sure what you mean here. The map has insets for different faces, just like Killington (Killington Peak and Sky Peak). Mount Snow basically skis on two peaks, and on all sides of those two peaks, so they have to represent a 3d skiing experience via a 2d medium. I think the trail map is pretty easy to read.

At Killington, the insets merely give extra detail for areas where the multiple intersecting trails are so dense that they cannot be shown at a reasonable scale. At Mount Snow, the main map basically doesn't show these the North Face or Sunbrook at all, and as a first-time visitor I found this confusing. I am sure that, with experience, one could get used to practically any map arrangement. But the better one knows the mountain, the less likely one is to look at the map.

Regarding the "renaming" of trails.

Not sure why rebranding is such a big issue, other than people hate change. Imo, new management is doing a great job with mountain, what an improvement over the prior owners. They have a master plan and this is part of it, and I, for one trust them. I didn't know the old names, so it doesn't bother me at all. This may help you next time if looking at the new map is too confusing: http://www.skiernet.com/mount-snow.html

Actually, I did read that skiernet.com report, which refers to many of the trails by names they no longer have. In comparing the current map to the old one (at skimap.org), some of the changes do seem helpful, but others seem gratuitous (i.e., the only apparent purpose is "Let's rename this"). Obviously if you personally never used the names, then they could be called Kukla, Fran, and Ollie, and it wouldn't matter to you.

I am certainly not in the "hate change" category, since I never skied there with the old map.

Regarding tree skiing:

This has been addressed by subsequent posters, but all the woods are open! It would be pretty silly to designate all the tree areas on the map when you can take care of it by simply putting a statement on the map that they are all open (which they have)!

There are many trails that are always open. The whole point of giving them names is to provide a common point of reference for discussion and way-finding. I mean, why does any trail have a name?

What little trails connecting Carinthia to the Main base no longer have names?

I think the easiest way to see this is to look at the 2007 map on skimap.org, and I think it will be apparent what is no longer shown.

 

[oakapple]

While I respect your views, this sounds like an aweful lot of undue criticism/whining. Without rebutting everything line by line (much I disagree with entirely) - I would say the changes they have made have been appreciated by the majority of guests. They have really turned the place around since taking over from the ASC. Anyone who has been a regular visitor for the last few years can attest to this.

I guess I neglected to say I had a good time? Well...I did. But when you visit a place for the first time, the fact that it is better than it used to be is not apparent, or relevant. It is, simply, what it is.

It is also worth noting, and I have said this in past write-ups, that probably 95+ percent of those who post here are better skiers than me. I am reading these boards to learn from their experience. At the same time, some may not appreciate the perspective of one whose skills are below the average.

 

[jaywbigred]

Thanks to jaywbigred for his response. It is useful to have the perspective of someone who knows the mountain well; at the same time, he may lack the perspective of how the mountain strikes a first-time visitor.

Well, having had at least a dozen people to our condo this winter (our first year at Mt. Snow), I feel like I have a good perspective on this.

Regarding the wide separation between the two main "green" areas:

Yes, I do ski blues, but I recall when I did not. For those in that position, a resort where the two main green areas are at opposite ends would be annoying. (If you were building it, would you design it that way?) This contrasts, for instance, with Killington, where every chairlift has a green route to the bottom, and you can pretty much navigate the whole resort on greens. Mount Snow is what it is, and it can't change, but it's an unfortunate design feature.

I Still don't see why this is an issue. The first learning center on skier's left (Launch Pad) is for never evers. Once you've graduated from there, you would need to get to Sundance a single time...there would be no point in going BACK to Launch Pad, no reason that I can think of. Ignoring the fact that you can take the Summit Express to the top and take a Long John to Sundance, I don't think the 1 time walk to Sundance is that big a deal, considering you should only have to do it once in your life/season/decade, or what have you. So to me, a 'design flaw' that basically only ever has to be encountered once is not much of a flaw. I'm guessing it resulted from the building of the Grand Summit Hotel in area that used to be able to be traversed on skis, but i'm sure the advantages of having a nice SiSo hotel at the base of the mountain outweighed the huge burdens of a once-in-life-ish walk from the main base area to Sundance.

I'm assuming (without checking the history) that most of the fixed-grip chairs at Mount Snow are older than the Summit Express. The obvious candidate for replacement would be the fixed-grip chair with the worst uphill capacity in relation to demand, which I'm guessing is Sunbrook, but you may know better.

This assumes a couple of things. First, it takes the Killington-ish viewpoint that increased uphill capacity=good. More uphill capacity = higher volume of people on the trails with you on busy days. Second, it assumes that the fixed grip is not desired for other reasons (such as its ability to run during windy periods when HS lifts are on wind hold). To me, its akin to having a Ferrari that you drive around and keeping an old, reliable Jeep in the car. There are times when you want to have the Jeep to fall back on, where having two Ferraris isn't going to do you much good.

Regarding the trail maps:

At Killington, the insets merely give extra detail for areas where the multiple intersecting trails are so dense that they cannot be shown at a reasonable scale. At Mount Snow, the main map basically doesn't show these the North Face or Sunbrook at all, and as a first-time visitor I found this confusing. I am sure that, with experience, one could get used to practically any map arrangement. But the better one knows the mountain, the less likely one is to look at the map.

I'm not sure what map you had, but I really believe your experience is rare, having heard first hand accounts from bunches of first timers this year. If anything, the Mt. Snow map shows the division between the 4 areas better than most maps, allowing a first timer to quickly identify if a particular area is one they should visit or not.

Regarding the "renaming" of trails.

Actually, I did read that skiernet.com report, which refers to many of the trails by names they no longer have. In comparing the current map to the old one (at skimap.org), some of the changes do seem helpful, but others seem gratuitous (i.e., the only apparent purpose is "Let's rename this"). Obviously if you personally never used the names, then they could be called Kukla, Fran, and Ollie, and it wouldn't matter to you.

I am certainly not in the "hate change" category, since I never skied there with the old map.

After comparing the maps side by side, I see that a lot of trails did "disappear," and that many of them are spots that I know of and think of as traverses or parts of other trails. I believe this was done intentionally as part of the anti-Killington-ization of trail maps. In other words, to be more honest about "trail count." The rest of the changes I attribute to rebranding, which I support and, esp. as a new Mt. Snow aficionado, do not have a problem using. I wonder why you have issues with it for the same reason.

Regarding tree skiing: There are many trails that are always open. The whole point of giving them names is to provide a common point of reference for discussion and way-finding. I mean, why does any trail have a name?

What trail do you know that is always open? Trails are generally designated as trails because they are marked for many hazardous objects and monitored for safety by ski patrol. They are opened and closed by said ski patrol. By providing a carte blanche, ski at your own risk "open" status to all woods, the mountain reduces their liability and responsibility while creating a more free-spirited experience for woods skiers: People had been skiing woods in Vermont (and elsewhere) for a long time before mountains started posting signs and delineating "glades" on their trail maps (in the 80s and 90s?). It's part of skiing culture, esp. in the east.

The trails have names, so it is not difficult to refer to an area of woods by using the adjoining trails as reference, as was done for many years before "glades" appeared on trail maps. As stated above, trails need to be named for ski patrol purposes, and as long as they have names, I don't see much value added in naming the woods.

Also, not having names adds(or, perhaps, returns) a bit of soul to treeskiing. For obvious reasons, it is a more natural experience. Certain lines and stashes and areas are coveted because they are not obvious and can hold snow for a long time after trails are skied out. Giving them a name and making them obvious defeats and corporate-izes the treeskiing experience to a certain extent. On fishing forums, the concept of revealing favorite spots where fish are biting is called "spot burning," and to a certain extent, naming good tree areas was effectively spot burning, and also enabled easier spot burning, by reference/word of mouth, to occur. Vermonters, I'm sure, lamented how any idiot, like you or me, from NY or NJ, could now find their coveted, almost sacred tree lines. Taking them back off the map, imo, adds to their preservation and their allure. If you find a good tree shot, you will have found it through your own curiosity and time committed to poking around. You also will be more likely to have the necessary skiing skills to handle it and to ski it with gusto, the way it was, perhaps, "meant" to be skied.

I guess I neglected to say I had a good time? Well...I did.

I would be remiss in adding that I am glad you had a good time at Mt. Snow, and that you took the time to post here about it. Hopefully, we have been able to point out some things you may have missed or overlooked. Maybe you need to give it another shot? Not sure. You missed many of its bright spots, such as its proximity to your home, the amazing snow making, the commitment to bump skiing, the commitment to new school park skiing/riding, the great, accessible mountain ops and admins, and the natural segregation of ability levels by terrain location. I think as you improve as a skier, all mountains, not just Mt. Snow, will open up, and your perspective might reveal more about each place.

But when you visit a place for the first time, the fact that it is better than it used to be is not apparent, or relevant. It is, simply, what it is.

I agree with this statement, which is why I am confused about your negative comments towards the changes made in trail naming and woods delineation...

 

[oakapple]

Thanks to jaywbigred for his thoughtful comments:

After comparing the maps side by side, I see that a lot of trails did "disappear," and that many of them are spots that I know of and think of as traverses or parts of other trails. I believe this was done intentionally as part of the anti-Killington-ization of trail maps. In other words, to be more honest about "trail count." The rest of the changes I attribute to rebranding, which I support and, esp. as a new Mt. Snow aficionado, do not have a problem using. I wonder why you have issues with it for the same reason.

I don't want it to sound like a bigger deal than it is, but I'll try to explain. Oftentimes, you're at Point A on an unfamiliar mountain, and want to get to B. It is helpful if skiable paths have names, so that you can identify them on a map, and then be on the lookout for signs pointing in that direction.

I do realize that some resorts put labels on tiny little traverses and use this to inflate their trail count. The fact that the information can be used dishonestly does not mean that it isn't also useful for some purposes.

I would be remiss in adding that I am glad you had a good time at Mt. Snow, and that you took the time to post here about it. Hopefully, we have been able to point out some things you may have missed or overlooked. Maybe you need to give it another shot? Not sure. You missed many of its bright spots, such as its proximity to your home, the amazing snow making, the commitment to bump skiing, the commitment to new school park skiing/riding, the great, accessible mountain ops and admins, and the natural segregation of ability levels by terrain location. I think as you improve as a skier, all mountains, not just Mt. Snow, will open up, and your perspective might reveal more about each place.

Oh, I do expect to go back to Mount Snow, and I absolutely should have mentioned the commitment to bump skiing. I do not ski bumps comfortably, but I was very impressed with what I saw. Ripcord looked to me more arduous than Outer Limits at Killington.

I agree with this statement, which is why I am confused about your negative comments towards the changes made in trail naming and woods delineation...

Actually, it came about because I was researching the resort before my visit (as I do for most places). It was a bit frustrating to read past reviews, and then find that the trail somebody was recommending could not be found on the map.