New CAIC Website - What ya think?

[icelanticskier]

A slope meter, IMO, is probably one of the best tools a person can have and use in the backcountry.

While its good to have to learn whats under and over about 30 during times of stability, its not something you wanna be running around with in avy terrain checking how steep a slope is and exposing yerself and potentially others. If you spend time in avy terrain you should know what is over under 30 just by looking at it based on visual clues and features.

Rog

[Lindahl]

The CAIC issued a special advisory when the forecast was at moderate as there was activity happening.

Can anyone provide a link or description of the special advisory? I haven't been following closely enough to have seen it (since I'm not skiing right now). There should be a forecast history, or at least there was on the old site.

[Name Redacted]

Can anyone provide a link or description of the special advisory? I haven't been following closely enough to have seen it (since I'm not skiing right now). There should be a forecast history, or at least there was on the old site.

It was right around the time that you were bitching about Breck bombing their terrain too much. Funny, seems like you would have checked that out.

[miahw2828]

Most of my comments have already been made above.

- I like the segregation of key issues (wind loading section, persistant slab section, etc.) I like how it gives them the opportunity to tie the recent weather and activity comments in as to how they pertain to the issue above, rather than one long narative covering all topics.

- had issues loading on iphone, but those seem to be fixed

- missed the color at first, but now that i've gotten used to the new format i personally don't mind the black and white.

I like it

[miahw2828]

I do miss the five day historical trend of the rose for the previous days, but like their projection towards the expected levels for the next day. Although I'm a little suprised they added that.

[adrenalated]

I think the roses should not be black only because black is a color that corresponds to a danger rating (extreme) and therefore could be misleading, especially to novice backcountry travelers. Most other sites that use this format use blue for their roses which eliminates that possibility for confusions since blue doesn't correspond to any particular danger rating.

[Lindahl]

I think the roses should not be black only because black is a color that corresponds to a danger rating (extreme) and therefore could be misleading, especially to novice backcountry travelers. Most other sites that use this format use blue for their roses which eliminates that possibility for confusions since blue doesn't correspond to any particular danger rating.

Good suggestion +1

[GoldenBear]

Can anyone provide a link or description of the special advisory? I haven't been following closely enough to have seen it (since I'm not skiing right now). There should be a forecast history, or at least there was on the old site.

The special advisories sit under the Watches and Warnings section: http://avalanche.state.co.us/forecas...-and-warnings/

This is just a summary of what was posted. Following this was a list of avalanches.
SPECIAL AVALANCHE ADVISORY
FRONT RANGE, VAIL/SUMMIT, SAWATCH ZONES:

Several avalanches have been reported from Berthoud Pass southward to Loveland Pass and Hoosier pass and then west to the Vail Pass area over the last several days.
The snowpack in these areas is still recovering from a storm that ripped along the Continental Divide on December 24th. This storm cycle brought on an impressive avalanche cycle. The avalanche danger is easing, but the snowpack is proving stubbornly reactive.

[GoldenBear]

While its good to have to learn whats under and over about 30 during times of stability, its not something you wanna be running around with in avy terrain checking how steep a slope is and exposing yerself and potentially others. If you spend time in avy terrain you should know what is over under 30 just by looking at it based on visual clues and features.

Rog

Exactly and a great way to learn that is by carrying and using a slope meter.

[summit]

Long awaited... ah... bask in its glory.

It is what other avalanche centers have been doing for years to good effect. I think CAIC did a great job with it too.

If you are having website issues, disable your adblocker for the site. It was causing me issues at first.

[covert]

sssslllloooooowww

[Foggy_Goggles]

I like the site and I'm sure some of my issues are user based.

Too many clicks. Weather, Avi Forecast, commentary are all is separate sections, takes about seven clicks to look at a reported avalanche.

I'm not sure why they went away from the old rose, I liked that format

[eshed]

PSA: Chrome Autopopup blocker thinks that the forecast is an ad...

[MakersTeleMark]

Why don't they include the forecast discussion in the morning e-mail?

The only way to access it is to go to the site and click another tab.

[adrenalated]

Why don't they include the forecast discussion in the morning e-mail?

The only way to access it is to go to the site and click another tab.

The discussion is generally not updated until midday or so.

[MakersTeleMark]

The discussion is generally not updated until midday or so.

Gotcha. I'm usually running out the door and don't power up the computer.

Another tiff: putting location descriptions on pictures.

Digging Becs voice on the hotline though. Makes me feel cheery, even when the forecast is bleary.

[GeoMatt]

I really don't care for the new format. It has become too graphic heavy, and you have to stitch together several discussions to make a coherent assessment of the observed conditions, weather and forecast.

It is also rediculously slow.

Overall it feels more like a large step backward, than a step forward.

[Foggy_Goggles]

Honestly, I having used it for a bit. I think it's pretty poor.

The format has duplicate locations for data all over the places that isn't consistently cross populated. ex: the Front Range Backcountry Avalanche Forecast is reporting an "avalanche near winter park". This data is not available if you look under Observations>Avalanches

I wonder you is actually responsible for the tech side of the website. I'm guessing it is not any of the CAIC forecasters.

[Scotty1974]

I guess no news is good news, but my emails seem to be mostly cut and paste. I don't read them or refer to the site as much as I used to. The accidents page only has deaths listed, but if you look back to past years it was any accident which I found to be informational. I've heard about a ton of people taking "a ride" this year and none are listed. I think the submissions were getting a bit lazy too, such as the Winter Park link which was minimal at best, and the links often don't work. That being said their accident assessments when posted are extremely thorough and informative and I appreciate the relative condition warnings.

I really appreciate what the CAIC does, and you can't blame them for what people are submitting; however at the moment it doesn't seem as useful as it was previously.

[adrenalated]

There are multiple non-fatality incidents listed under the "Accidents" page. Six of them, in fact. Here is a link to the Accidents page as well as links to all of the non-fatal incidents listed there.
http://avalanche.state.co.us/accidents/colorado/
http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ac...=507&accfm=rep
http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ac...=508&accfm=rep
http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ac...=516&accfm=inv
http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ac...=512&accfm=inv
http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ac...=517&accfm=inv
http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ac...=542&accfm=rep

As for things like the WP avy not listed under "avalanches," that is because the person submitting the observation did not fill out the "avalanches" section of the obs form. I've noticed this happens a lot. It still appears under Field Reports. I'd be in favor of them removing the avalanches section since most of the time the submission forms aren't filled out correctly and just having everything under field reports.

[Scotty1974]

There are multiple non-fatality incidents listed under the "Accidents" page. Six of them, in fact. Here is a link to the Accidents page as well as links to all of the non-fatal incidents listed there.

Sorry I should have been more specific. I meant since the site changed, not since the season started. I might be wrong but I don't think it changed till the end of the calendar year which would only show one.

And of course if people aren't submitting that these accidents are happening, you can't add them. There should be 3-6 more accident that I've heard of, and my finger isn't exactly on the pulse. )

[thepowderhound]

Now that were a few months into it, i'm also not a huge fan of the new site and don't see it as much of an improvement. less convenient. less easy to find what you want and just not super user friendly. does anyone else notice less field obs and av reports being posted now? kinda get the feeling the concept was to make the site more basic and easily digest-able for those new to the BC, CAIC and Avy forecasts, but the end result is a less effective site.