Mount Snow's NEW snowreporting policy!

[hiroto]

Is this wise?

How will tree skiing be affected?
From now on, glades will be open AT ALL TIMES – from opening day to closing day. Please use caution and sound judgment.

 

[millerm277]

Is this wise?

Sure. What's the difference between that and areas with a "boundary to boundary" policy?

 

[SundayRiver Yeti]

Very interesting, thanks for posting. What will be more interesting is the state of snow reporting in the east in say, 5 years. Will this be a failed marketing gimick? Will Mt Snow be the only one using this system, or will it catch on?

I like the 3 classification of grooming for trails, I like that the trees are always open, and I find the concept of breaking through the marketing hype that is inflated trail counts refreshing.

 

[Beetlenut]

There were a bunch of days last year when the cover was fine, but the trees were closed for whatever reason. I love Mt. Snow, but having the trees open makes a huuuuge difference to me in how interesting the mountain is. I love trees.

+1 for me Too!!!

 

[roark]

How will tree skiing be affected?
From now on, glades will be open AT ALL TIMES – from opening day to closing day. Please use caution and sound judgment. Tree skiing will not be included in overall acreage statistics.

Great to see management doing pretty much everything right

 

[Newpylong]

Well this is certainly an interesting move. It might definitely take some time to get used to. At least they aren't dropping the list of what is open and closed.

 

[soundofsilence]

Interesting idea. I don't know if I like it. It is hard to visualize how much terrain 5 acres is but I could definitely visualize exactly what is open when ski areas list what trails are open on a map. I think this is the better way to go. I do appreciation the honesty of saying "hey, trail counts are artificially inflated and they are junk numbers" but skiers have gotten used to reading between the lines.

Just so you know, it says in the description in the original post's quote that they're still going to name what trails are open. So if you're really stuck in your ways, you can sit and count the check marks next to the trail name.

"No trail count? How will I know what’s open?

As we say bye bye to trail count, we welcome a new mountain measurement: acreage. We’ll let you know how many acres are open, and what percentage of the whole mountain is open. Don’t worry, we’ll still let you know exactly which trails are open, and if they’ve been groomed or if they saw overnight snowmaking. Everything else – like snowfall tallies, snow conditions, base depth, etc. – will be reported as usual."

It seems to be the most honest way to report what's open. Some mountains boast 10 trails, when we all know it's just a glorified WROD. Those concerned with not understanding acres over miles... do a google search and let that convert it for you if it's that big of a deal.

 

[Big Game]

Well I think after at 19 year absence, I'll be heading to Snow this season.

 

[riverc0il]

Is this wise?

Sure. What's the difference between that and areas with a "boundary to boundary" policy?

Interestingly enough, as a hardcore tree skier, I do not think it is wise. Areas with boundary to boundary policies still open and close their on map glade trails. Most skiers without good trail skiing fundamentals and tree skiing experience won't just enter the woods any where but stick to the trails so there is a big difference between boundary to boundary and having an on map glade without a rope. Very likely skiers will go into the woods long before they really should and hurt themselves.

While it is true that many areas keep glades closed longer than they need to be closed and are over cautious... there are definitely times when glades should absolutely be roped to not tempt those with less experience.

As an example, a foot of fresh falls covering essentially bare glades with what looks like incredible untracked powder. Someone could really hurt themselves in those conditions and I think it would more likely be an inexperienced advanced skier trying to push themselves than your typical expert tree skier that goes boundary to boundary.

Given Mount Snow's location, not putting the glades on the official open statistics seems like a way to artificially increase their percentage of open terrain higher than it actually is. Glades open later and close early in SoVT than their northern competition. This is a cheap way for them to get to 100% open a lot faster. So I think there is mixed intent in the policy. Despite being a lover of trees and freedom on the slopes and a hater of ropes when conditions are acceptable to the beater crowd, I think this is overall a dangerous policy for the general population, especially those just starting to dabble in glades.

 

[Geoff]

Interestingly enough, as a hardcore tree skier, I do not think it is wise. Areas with boundary to boundary policies still open and close their on map glade trails. Most skiers without good trail skiing fundamentals and tree skiing experience won't just enter the woods any where but stick to the trails so there is a big difference between boundary to boundary and having an on map glade without a rope. Very likely skiers will go into the woods long before they really should and hurt themselves.

While it is true that many areas keep glades closed longer than they need to be closed and are over cautious... there are definitely times when glades should absolutely be roped to not tempt those with less experience.

As an example, a foot of fresh falls covering essentially bare glades with what looks like incredible untracked powder. Someone could really hurt themselves in those conditions and I think it would more likely be an inexperienced advanced skier trying to push themselves than your typical expert tree skier that goes boundary to boundary.

Given Mount Snow's location, not putting the glades on the official open statistics seems like a way to artificially increase their percentage of open terrain higher than it actually is. Glades open later and close early in SoVT than their northern competition. This is a cheap way for them to get to 100% open a lot faster. So I think there is mixed intent in the policy. Despite being a lover of trees and freedom on the slopes and a hater of ropes when conditions are acceptable to the beater crowd, I think this is overall a dangerous policy for the general population, especially those just starting to dabble in glades.

I also think it's tough for the Sled Dogs. If a moron gets hurt in thin cover in the woods, some poor underpaid ski patroller is going to have to trash his skis getting the tool out.

 

[soundofsilence]

Interestingly enough, as a hardcore tree skier, I do not think it is wise. Areas with boundary to boundary policies still open and close their on map glade trails. Most skiers without good trail skiing fundamentals and tree skiing experience won't just enter the woods any where but stick to the trails so there is a big difference between boundary to boundary and having an on map glade without a rope. Very likely skiers will go into the woods long before they really should and hurt themselves.

While it is true that many areas keep glades closed longer than they need to be closed and are over cautious... there are definitely times when glades should absolutely be roped to not tempt those with less experience.

As an example, a foot of fresh falls covering essentially bare glades with what looks like incredible untracked powder. Someone could really hurt themselves in those conditions and I think it would more likely be an inexperienced advanced skier trying to push themselves than your typical expert tree skier that goes boundary to boundary.

Given Mount Snow's location, not putting the glades on the official open statistics seems like a way to artificially increase their percentage of open terrain higher than it actually is. Glades open later and close early in SoVT than their northern competition. This is a cheap way for them to get to 100% open a lot faster. So I think there is mixed intent in the policy. Despite being a lover of trees and freedom on the slopes and a hater of ropes when conditions are acceptable to the beater crowd, I think this is overall a dangerous policy for the general population, especially those just starting to dabble in glades.

On the contrary, the glades are not included in the percentage of open/closed trails due to the fact that they'll always be open.

As far as the glades always being open, it's the same as an inexperienced skier going down a trail marked for advanced skiers only. It happens. Whether you're on a circle, square, diamond, double black or glades... the whole "natural and man-made terrain may vary, use your discretion" is the same everywhere at every mountain. If the glades look shitty, common sense would indicate not to go in them. If you're an inexperienced skier that can't navigate a foot of fresh in some glades, you probably shouldn't be near them in the first place, no?

 

[riverc0il]

On the contrary, the glades are not included in the percentage of open/closed trails due to the fact that they'll always be open.

Right. So next weekend when Mount Snow opens for the season, all the glade skiers in New England are going to descend upon Mount Snow because their glades are open? In this case, open does not mean "open". Your reply to my post has essentially proven my point... that since the glades are always "open" even when they are not skiable, then it has boasted the "open percentage" that Mount Snow reports on the vast majority of days when the glades are not really skiable during the season.

 

[riverc0il]

As far as the glades always being open, it's the same as an inexperienced skier going down a trail marked for advanced skiers only. It happens. Whether you're on a circle, square, diamond, double black or glades... the whole "natural and man-made terrain may vary, use your discretion" is the same everywhere at every mountain. If the glades look shitty, common sense would indicate not to go in them. If you're an inexperienced skier that can't navigate a foot of fresh in some glades, you probably shouldn't be near them in the first place, no?

But it doesn't happen usually when the expert trails are roped, so we are not talking about the same thing here.

And YES, an inexperienced skier probably shouldn't be near them in the first place but reference the first part of your post... "it happens." And it will happen a lot more frequently if the glade isn't roped when the base doesn't justify even the best tree skier from entering the woods.

Not sure if you are new to the site or only just registered, but if you reference my history of posts here and else where, it will stand as a testament that I hate ropes when trails are in the "questionable to open" phase and I do duck when I think my judgment and knowledge of the mountain is sound and almost never have I mis-judged when to duck except when I was first dabbling into the trees. No one hates a rope more than me. But I understand they need to be there for less experienced skiers that can't read the terrain and conditions and rely on patrol drawing a line and saying "this is too dangerous for you to ski". Never thought I would be defending ropes but permanently opening glades from the start to the end of the season seems a bit much on the freedom scale.

 

[awf170]

If the glades look shitty, common sense would indicate not to go in them. If you're an inexperienced skier that can't navigate a foot of fresh in some glades, you probably shouldn't be near them in the first place, no?

A foot of fresh powder over no base might look good though. But then you get in, and it is a complete boneyard. Also, sometimes the entrance to a glade looks very good, but if it gets narrower and steeper it can get nasty very quickly.

Personally, I think it is a very bad idea. And this is coming from someone that would go into their woods with a foot of snow over no base, and routinely skis rocky trails with like 6 inches of snow.

 

[deadheadskier]

I noticed your trails are now categorized into Premium, Classic, and Natural. What’s that?
That’s our new trail designation system. Every trail on the mountain falls into one of these categories:
Premium –The kings of the hill. They are long, wide runs that are flanked by new-technology fan guns. They are groomed nearly every day, if not every day, and feature the best snow conditions. Try: Snowdance, Standard, Exhibition, Ridge, Deer Run, Long John
Classic – Classic trails feature traditional air/water snowmaking. They are groomed 1 to 3 times a week and are generally geared toward the more advanced skier and rider. Try: Free Fall, Ego Alley, Fallen Timbers, South Bowl, Thanks Walt
Natural – For the hardcore skiers and riders. Natural trails feature no manmade snow and are groomed only after certain weather events. Try: Olympic, Big Dipper, One More Time, Jaws, Uncle’s, Hop

Personally, I think their marketing department needs some new projects to work on as the amount of thought put into this suggests to me that they clearly have too much time on their hands. :lol:

Just give me an interactive trail map that shows what is open, where snow was made, what was groomed, temperature fluctuations in the past 24 hours and new snow. I'll have a good idea from that.

As for the trail designations, again a bit too much fluff, but that's just me.

For the record, I think trails should fall into two categories; groomed and moguls. This excluding gladed terrain and all terrain following a natural snow event. If there hasn't been any significant natural snowfall in a couple days, anything a mountain does not intend on having moguls on, should be groomed nightly in the east.

 

[Newpylong]

I'm still on the fence versus a boundary to boundary policy or not...but I don't find this last paragraph to be true at all. There are many natural runs at Mount Snow that require large amounts of snow to open - when those "on piste" runs are open, there is usually enough to open the trees up. 100% of open trails = 100% on piste plus the tree runs. There are a couple low angled natural runs that do not require much natural to drop the ropes, but it is nowhere near enough to make a significant impact on the trail report. They usually are either 70% open (the # of trails covered by snowmaking, or 100%) So I really don't think there is any double or hidden intent.

Interestingly enough, as a hardcore tree skier, I do not think it is wise. Areas with boundary to boundary policies still open and close their on map glade trails. Most skiers without good trail skiing fundamentals and tree skiing experience won't just enter the woods any where but stick to the trails so there is a big difference between boundary to boundary and having an on map glade without a rope. Very likely skiers will go into the woods long before they really should and hurt themselves.

While it is true that many areas keep glades closed longer than they need to be closed and are over cautious... there are definitely times when glades should absolutely be roped to not tempt those with less experience.

As an example, a foot of fresh falls covering essentially bare glades with what looks like incredible untracked powder. Someone could really hurt themselves in those conditions and I think it would more likely be an inexperienced advanced skier trying to push themselves than your typical expert tree skier that goes boundary to boundary.

Given Mount Snow's location, not putting the glades on the official open statistics seems like a way to artificially increase their percentage of open terrain higher than it actually is. Glades open later and close early in SoVT than their northern competition. This is a cheap way for them to get to 100% open a lot faster. So I think there is mixed intent in the policy. Despite being a lover of trees and freedom on the slopes and a hater of ropes when conditions are acceptable to the beater crowd, I think this is overall a dangerous policy for the general population, especially those just starting to dabble in glades.

 

[skizilla]

Horrible Idea

This is a horrible Idea. It especially benefits hills like my snow and stratton that have really wide trails and will make them seem more open than they are. If everyone did this small resorts or classic resorts would proportionally seem barely open for business when my snow or stratton had only four trails open because of their sheer size and width of trails.
Seriously when I ski i want multiple trails I don not want to ski 4 trails no matter how wide they are or how many different paths I could find down one really wide trail. It is still the same trail. When I ski I rarely ski the same trail more than twice in a day except for navigational purposes. So this does nothing for me. Some one earlier mentioned measuring openness by mileage, this would be a far better way than by acreage which really tells nothing unless you also include a trail count and name.
Under this system could you blow half a trail open and count it. Horizontally or vertically I think so.
I like the old system best list all your trails open and definitely count glades that are official. I have been down many glades and when I pay 60-85 for a lift ticket i expect the mountain to have preskied everything that is open and give me an honest assessment of it open terrain. THher is nothing worse than having to walk out of a glade or getting injured in one that the company could have checked and seen was not openable for most skiers. Come on folks we pay big money for skiing these days expect service, honesty and accountability.

 

[soundofsilence]

I guess this is just another example of "you can't please everyone." Some people will love it, some will definitely have their complaints. That's to be expected with everything.

But like I said before, Mt Snow is not including the trees in their open percentage. Therefore, it's not padding or taking away anything to the percentage or the report. If it were included, then I would agree with you in that it's an attempt to pad their stats... but again, the trees aren't, so when you look at that percentage open, it's that.. PLUS the trees.

On a brighter note, I think we're in for a killer season... so I'm hoping the lack of ropes won't even matter.

 

[rachelv]

I guess this is just another example of "you can't please everyone." Some people will love it, some will definitely have their complaints. That's to be expected with everything.

But like I said before, Mt Snow is not including the trees in their open percentage. Therefore, it's not padding or taking away anything to the percentage or the report. If it were included, then I would agree with you in that it's an attempt to pad their stats... but again, the trees aren't, so when you look at that percentage open, it's that.. PLUS the trees.

I still think the policy is a good idea, but it totally does pad the open percentage.

Before: all trails open, trees closed = 90% open (or whatever, assuming trees are 10% here)
Now: all trails open, trees bare and totally unskiable = 100% open, whereas before the trees would have been closed and it would have been 90%

I mean, I don't really care, and I don't think this is just an attempt to pad their numbers, but take the trees out the equation in southern VT and it's much much easier to get to 100% open.

 

[SnowRider]

Open glade policy is interesting...

I think this could pose a problem because I thought Mount Snow gets a lot of family skiiers or people who don't quite know what there doing and will duck in with 6 inches of snow...Maybe I'm wrong.

Will they still say whether or not they recommend using a glade?