Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mt Buller' started by kirktab, Jun 20, 2017.
46cm. Uh-huh. Good one fellas. Was it smelly & steaming?
And groomed it.
That's what you get when you parse just one of the 5 separate snowdepths available in the feed and define it as the 'base' without qualification.
I just removed the Resort Rating element from our Buller page, I'm annoyed it's still a thing, it's a load of....
Not even 9cm's. Nor 2cm's.
Who rated that as Good?
They do, it comes in with the feed. I've just removed it from view.
I've always been under the impression that that refers to average snow on open trails ie Bourke street. And from my experience 46cm would be generous, they could easily fudge the numbers more than that if they pick the place.
As Crackson pointed out, would be 0cm in those other areas, not 9cm - I've just checked the datatable and they have dropped those values by only 3cm since the 12cm recorded on the 8th - with no changes since Sat morning.
I'm headed up friday for the weekend for some park play, ill let ya know how bad it is
I think it is about time to "bite the bullet(r)" .
We need to move to mm for snow depth. There is 70 mm natural , up there atm.
That sounds so good!
It will help keep our self esteem when compared to the Japanese snow depth numbers.
-meanwhile someone should reinvent the grass ski.
A lot of the Japanese resorts dont even report snow depth, or if they do they take it from a token spot somewhere, because it doesnt matter.
I have been checking what the peoples thoughts are in that prediction thread etc. (fingers crossed for all AU hills you get a season starter dump) and on a couple of occasions have checked the Frogs website to see his forecast and as per above how he was displaying the resort supplied data stood out like dogs balls but for Falls (Buller seemed more reasonable so probably a slightly unfair call of bull(er)5hit but rather a wider issue)
Screen grab from just then
Checking it against ski.com.au just then
and Hotham's figures seem very suspect with that 22 Base (Natural) - although I would have said the 8 and 7 for Falls and Bullers natural base was suspect as well!!!
Guess it pays to be a little bit wary of any resort supplied or automated depth type data because as @Richard said without qualification......hell even with qualification it can be as misleading as hell as a pure number/arbitrary value
Edit: And as per the screen grab of Frogs site going by the values in the expanded data shown by ski.com.au it looks like Frogs site is being inconsistent in how they are handling the supplied data given Falls is 41 and Hotham is 22 which as per ski.com.au would seem to suggest one is Base (snowmaking) and Base (Natural) so cant blame the resorts for that one.
Interestingly Thredbo obviously isn't providing a base value at all as indicated by the 0 in Frogs totals and the fact ski.com.au doesn't have any value/heading but going by the cams (yeah I love the 2 new live cams) its looking alright on the open manmade - except the current crowds of course
If you think it's confusing you should see the nightmare of ridunculous that is the spaghetti of resort xml feeds !! sheesh - talk about inconsistent data, terminology and standards.
After this thread started I added both base and natural to the summary cards (above) so that it was apples to apples for all vic resorts.
If you click into Hotham, you can see that the snow depth measurement has not been updated since the 9th June. It's 100% bollocks.
Hotham snow patrol have always been the least, lets just say.. 'conscientious' in their daily snow report discipline. I once pulled in the data table for several seasons of Hotham and the daily commentary would regularly go 7 to 10 days without change. wtf!? Suspect there is some sort of political nonsense because now they have the 'Bill Barker local report' which is an effort to be arms-length from official reports. Dunno. Daily reporting has always been a can of worms. Way too many competing interests involved.
Thredbo, Charlotte and Perisher have all colluded agreed to not report snow depth other than official Snowy Hydro. For Perisher and particularly Charlottes at least that is somewhat relevant. For Thredbo it is complete nonsense and so I choose to not publish it in the Summary cards even though it is supplied in their feed. It's simply not a real thing for Thredbo - but I do have the Snowy Hydro table on the Thredbo report so as to be consistent across NSW resorts.
I can't begin to describe how much sifting and filtering it takes to get a consistent 'apples 2 apples' snow report for each resort on a site like ours. I didn't put the energy in during 2015 & 2016 but have put in a lot of late nights this year and it's barely worth it.
Rather you than me @Richard - appreciate your efforts to collate and present the data as best you can. That's going to mean different things to different people - personally love reading about peoples experiences as per threads like the Perisher one etc. so for me the values in the Forums as opposed to resort numbers so thanks for providing them
Actually if any resort rep wants consistent and accurate/objective snow reporting I'm available for a food/board and a nominal fee - just get in touch
Ages ago I stumbled upon this short doco about a guy in CO that had been taking detailed observations/recordings of snow/snowpack etc. for over 40 years. Well worth the watch if you hadn't stumbled across it
Ski Patrol do all the ratings and depth measurements.
Note the runs open were rated fair to good, but some of our systems only allow one of the ratings (not x "to" x) so we 'round up' to good.
The terms (fair, good, etc) are
Highly objective (see http://www.mtbuller.com.au/Winter/snow-weather/snow-report/snow-reporting-definitions)
Agreed upon as standard terminology by all resorts
And far more useful and reliable than looking at centimetres. You can easily have 40cm in the gauges and on Bourke St in June and the skiing will be amazing. You can also easily have 40cm in the gauges in September and rocks poking through everywhere and barely get down a run without a scratch. The gauges aren't skied on. The terms represent real conditions on real runs. Centimetres mean very little to guests compared with the terms outside of measuring fresh snowfall.
To be fair to Mt Buller they do give the conditions for each run served by the different lifts.
Pretty aggresive opening post. Have all the facts, do we?
everyone is an expert !!