New CAIC Website - What ya think?

[Micol]

http://avalanche.state.co.us/
http://avalanche.state.co.us/forecas...summit-county/

[MakersTeleMark]

I think they really need to incorporate color into the rose. The black and grey is misleading.

[Hacksaw]

I like it so far. It is a lot like the CAA, forecast bulletins.

[admx]

X2 - they need to put color back in the rose. Not sure about anyone else but I also have seemed to have spotty luck loading the page on my iPhone.

[adrenalated]

X2 - they need to put color back in the rose. Not sure about anyone else but I also have seemed to have spotty luck loading the page on my iPhone.

Email them with the bugs. I've been experiencing some issues loading content when using Chrome due to some security/authentication issues and they were very appreciative when I emailed them about it.

At first I didn't mind the lack of color in the rose as most of the information is still there in the "likelihood" slider, but since Extreme danger is black I agree that making all the roses black isn't a good idea. The way that the Utah Avalanche Center marks their roses for each individual problem is great.

Overall I think the new site is much better.

[sklar]

the forecasts aren't loading at all for me mac/firefox

[Telemarketeer]

I like the focus on different avalanche problems and where they might exist. Overall, much more informative and easier to use. Still some bugs but they're working on it. Anyone know if they'll be offering a mobile site or app?

[simplypow]

I think they really need to incorporate color into the rose. The black and grey is misleading.

i second the color idea. And just eliminate green for fucks sake.

[whipski]

I usu start my day with the statewide weather forecast and now 3 times out of four it doesn't even load

[simplypow]

[QUOTE=whipski;4141274]I usu start my day with the statewide weather forecast and now 3 times out of four it doesn't even load[/QUOTE

what's your O/S?

[Sawtell]

As an avalanche educator and a past forecaster, I like it.
As an educator, I feel like it makes my job easier. The bulletin clearly states what the avalanche problem is and where to locate it. The bulletin also states what the avalanche danger is and what aspects and elevations have the highest danger...in grey. While being subjective, it is quite intuitive. The danger is stated, where (elevation and aspect) and you get the bonus of what the avalanche problem is. Each problem needs to be handled differently. Travels recommendations are described by the danger rating.
I think it is long overdue. Try to think of the new danger rose as an avalanche problem rose.

[spindrift]

I live in NWAC land. But it looks like everyone is moving to the same system.

I'm not a fan. I know the claim is it makes the info more approachable. I think it makes it a less comprehensible PITA to dig through. Maybe it's just me.

[whipski]

PC Win7 IE

[goldenboy]

I live in NWAC land. But it looks like everyone is moving to the same system.

I'm not a fan. I know the claim is it makes the info more approachable. I think it makes it a less comprehensible PITA to dig through. Maybe it's just me.

I agree. It's just kind of messy, you need to click to get more info like the detailed weather report, etc. Glad it's my secondary source on top of my local avy center. The CBAC does the same things but in a much clearer format.

[Telemarketeer]

I agree. It's just kind of messy, you need to click to get more info like the detailed weather report, etc. Glad it's my secondary source on top of my local avy center. The CBAC does the same things but in a much clearer format.

Yeah, I think that the format is the biggest complaint I've heard. Too much wasted space and too many clicks to get more info. I think that it'll evolve. From what I understand, it was roughly based on the CBAC site. I like the way the avalanche problems are discussed separately and with a rose for each.

[whipski]

Seems to work better with chrome

[snowaddict91]

I like that the problems are listed with a separate rose for each, but I am not a fan of the grey/black coloring. I also found it less intuitive, but like several above it is my secondary source to CBAC. With some refinement it could be pretty good.

[simplypow]

PC Win7 IE

Not sure why you've had issues. My older laptop running XP had some difficulty on the first day following the changeover, but seems fine now. Office PC's running something corporate and also problem free. Browsers are Chrome and Safari respectively. Perhaps it's a browser problem?

[simplypow]

I like the new approach the CAIC uses to separately address problems within a specified set of categories. Very straight forward... and thorough enough. If however the future has arrived, and people are regularly triggering slabs buried in the snowpack, @ moderate danger what the hell happens when the forecast hit's considerable? And before anyone goes caveman here, I'm not suggesting that the forecasters used early season tragedy and chaos to prove their worth and save more lives moving forward. I will also point out that the huge red special advisory issued ahead of the LP solo burial was about as close to an apology as on should expect. What should be addressed is how the single word/ color rating is applied. Is it applied based on frequency and magnitude, or just one or the other. Personally I think it should be based exclusively on frequency because getting caught in a survivable slide just doesn't apply to the decision making process of most people. And if it applies to the forecasting I'd like to know more about how that's being done So otherwise stated there is no such thing as taking a small risk in avalanche terrain, just extremely lucky outcomes.

[Lindahl]

I like the new approach the CAIC uses to separately address problems within a specified set of categories. Very straight forward... and thorough enough. If however the future has arrived, and people are regularly triggering slabs buried in the snowpack, @ moderate danger what the hell happens when the forecast hit's considerable? And before anyone goes caveman here, I'm not suggesting that the forecasters used early season tragedy and chaos to prove their worth and save more lives moving forward. I will also point out that the huge red special advisory issued ahead of the LP solo burial was about as close to an apology as on should expect. What should be addressed is how the single word/ color rating is applied. Is it applied based on frequency and magnitude, or just one or the other. Personally I think it should be based exclusively on frequency because getting caught in a survivable slide just doesn't apply to the decision making process of most people. And if it applies to the forecasting I'd like to know more about how that's being done So otherwise stated there is no such thing as taking a small risk in avalanche terrain, just extremely lucky outcomes.

I pretty much agree. Copied the below from my post in another thread (thanks for suggesting this thread):

I haven't seen the CAIC use pockets of considerable, moderate, etc. for a couple of years now. I think it is important to read the danger scale and understand the conditions currently happening in the snowpack. The scale is based on a combination of the expected likelihood, size, and distribution of avalanches. We have a different snowpack right now than we had last year and it is totally different in the Front range zone vs. the Aspen zone, vs. the steamboat zone.

I dunno, if I weigh rating versus number of incidents and level of activity I've been hearing about (currently injured), I feel like last year, considerable was thrown around a lot more than moderate, for pretty much the same level of activity. I know conditions are better this year, but that's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Sorry if I'm not doing a good job of explaining it.

Sure, it's not as bad as last years December in terms of likelihood, but after so much snowfall and seeing and hearing about so much damn activity, it really seems the rating should be considerable for the usual suspects of aspects/elevations - human triggered avalanches are likely. Activity seems similar to last couple years Jan/Feb after a large snowfall, where the rating was often considerable for a huge chunk of the time.

Maybe I'm the only one feeling that way though? Speaking only about Summit/Vail - not as in touch with other zones to make these kinds of speculations/observations.

Would love it if a forecaster could weigh in on this, but not counting on it. Maybe I should just ask Scott next time I see him - I do bump into him from time to time.

[newbreak]

Like any new website most people will love and hate it simultaneously. The old forecasts were far too text-heavy, now it segregated avalanche problems from terrain ratings in a visual format. I like it.

In regards to the moderate rating, it does seem noticeable that moderate is hanging around longer than normal in these parts, but note the change yesterday and 31st to considerable in a few zones that got significant snow and heavy winds. Seems about right.

[GoldenBear]

I know conditions are better this year

This. Conditions are better this year and a little different to be honest. The CAIC issued a special advisory when the forecast was at moderate as there was activity happening. The CAIC is providing a public safety message. They are not telling you where and where not to ski.

The NA Avalanche Danger Scale is one that was collaborated on by the heavy hitters in the avalanche forecasting field. It would be impossible to develop a scale that covers every scenario. Instead, they have created 5 levels in an effort to get the information across. The danger scale is only one portion of the avalanche forecast though. It is important to understand the current avalanche problem, what slopes that problem is affecting, what the trend is telling us, and how that will effect our decision making it the field. A slope meter, IMO, is probably one of the best tools a person can have and use in the backcountry.

[bendtheski]

If it gets more people to read and understand the forecasts, reports, etc., I'm for it.

[Telemarketeer]

The moderate rating is dependent on the likelihood of causing an avalanche. When persistent slabs are your avalanche problem, the likelihood of causing an avalanche is lower than, for instance, now, when we also have a rather significant windslab problem. Remember that persistent slab avalanches are often referred to as "low probability, high consequence events". So when the probability is lower but the problem is there, the danger is moderate. You can still trigger them, even when there hasn't been a storm or wind event in weeks, but it is less likely than right after they have received a new burden of snow weight.

Likelihood: "Likelihood is a description of the chance of encountering a particular avalanche problem. It combines the spatial distribution of the problem and the sensitivity or ease of triggering avalanche. The spatial distribution indicates how likely you are to encounter the problem in the highlighted avalanche terrain. The sensitivity indicates how easy it is to trigger avalanches when you do encounter them. Sensitivity includes both natural or spontaneous release and human triggered avalanches."

Moderate: "Heightened avalanche conditions on specific terrain features. Evaluate snow and terrain carefully."
I think of it as the danger being in more obvious areas that you would expect to slide.

Considerable: "Dangerous avalanche conditions. Cautious route-finding and conservative decision-making essential."
I actually like this more as the problems are more easily identified and therefore easier to avoid.

What I do agree with is that the word "moderate" is misleading. The description above is accurate, but the word should be changed to something more ominous, or split into two different ratings. However, then it starts to get to a point where it is getting a little too convoluted.

The CAIC has different "tiers" of users depending on how far they progress into the website and what information they access. Some people, are just looking at the overall danger rating of their zone, some click further and look at the danger rose, some people go so far as to actually read the report and some go even further to read obs. They have to cater to each of these user groups and determine the most effective way to communicate to them. I just thought that was pretty interesting.

Just my 2 cents.

[bendtheski]

I guess it's the persistent slab issue that I think should push the rating to considerable, at least based on my jong-assed assessment, and the definition posted above. Maybe doesn't grab your attention as much as shooting cracks, but maybe if it carried the caveat of "low probability, high consequence", more people would take heed?