For awhile now I have been pondering the star system here on MP and its efficacy as a valid rating system. I have found the system all to vague and under informative. As a community do we base our ratings on the individual crag, state wide, country, or global comparisons?
I for one am for the star system only rating for the individual crags. How often can you compare on location to another? I find the experience of Sedona much different than Winslow Wall, yet they are both sandstone and in Arizona. By focusing the rating system to a local area, they can more accurately guide potential ascensionists to both the quality and experience of a route.
By starting this thread I was hoping to get some insight into others opinion on the system and how we might improve the system to more accurately evaluate the routes we climb.
If I had to guess, most people put the route in a "local area context" when assigning 1-3 stars... but reserve the 4 star rating for truly exceptional routes that would be classic anywhere. At least that's what I do :)
Download Project Stars Sea
Download File 🔥 https://urllie.com/2yGcEy 🔥
I try to go for a little more universal rating, with some bending for regional differences. I don’t base them on just the local crag though. Putting three stars on a crappy route just because it is the best at a choss heap cliff or best in Kansas isn't helpfull. I think the stars should help people decide whether it is worth driving 3 hrs or hiking in 6 miles to a crag. The 4 star ratings are probably over used a lot. They should really make you go 'Wow!' IMO, 3 is really good, 2 pretty good but not super outstanding, 1 OK.
Maybe we need a "World Class" 5 star rating for routes like Astroman.
I think routes on MP tend to get way over starred most of the time. First, I must define how I break places up. It goes World>Area>Crag. For example, Indian Creek is an area and 4x4 wall is a crag. The way my star system works is as follows:
4 stars - World Classic. This is one of the best routes in the world. Few climbs deserve 4 stars. This route is so good that you go to the area just to climb this line. For example, you go to Indian Creek to climb Jolly Rancher, Spaghetti Western, Optimator, and Broken Brain.
3 stars - Area Classic. This is one of the best routes in the area. This route is good enough to merit spending a day a the crag which contains this climb provided that you are already in the area. For example, you go to 2nd Meat Wall to climb Extra Lean or to Optimator Wall to climb Annunaki.
2 stars - Crag Classic. This is one of the best routes at the crag. This route is good enough that you have to do it if you are already at the crag. For example, if you are already at Way Rambo, then you have to do Blue Sun and Fuzz. This is what most great climbs are.
1 star - This is a fun route that is worth doing. Not a classic by any means but not bad. This is what most good climbs are. Wounded Knee at Way Rambo is an example of a 1 star route.
0 stars - This climb is not worth climbing. Most routes at Seneca and Mt. Lemmon fall into this category.
Aren't you kind of reading the MP descriptions to find out about the route though? If you are looking for more adventure by stepping into the unknown, wouldn't you skip the guide or ignore the rating and head out anyway? The ratings are for those who want to know or at least have some idea. I love exploring, but not everybody does. You are always going to get a range of opinions on a route.
True, but giving high stars to an obscure new place can help get fools like myself out there to rate it with world view in mind. Ideally the stars would settle into the role you're talking about. What really gets me is when old, trampled crags have routes with 4 stars that are nowhere near world class, just based on there popular history.
My problem is I love climbing so much half the routes I do are classic to me! Sometimes I'll go back later and change my star ratings after repeating a route or something, but often it's based off my opinion the day I climbed it, and they're always classic right after you do them haha. Overall I'd say I rate on local basis more than a world basis.
I also like the idea of a 'World Class' 5th star.
I look at the words (ok, good, great, classic) associated with each star rating. These are words I would use in a description a route. I, however, also frequently use the phrase 'don't bother' and so I'm a little conflicted sometimes if that translates to a bomb or one star.
I usually try to use a flat distribution of an equal number of routes to each star rating.
I have a problem when someone gives a route four stars because they had a great experience on the route. I had a great experience climbing a route with my girlfriend. The route sucked but the experience was four star. (no details) It really bugs me when someone gives a pile of crap 4 stars because they had a great time climbing it. If I showed up at a crag and went to do one of these things I would be pissed! Oh wait, I did that last year. I have been guilty of over starring routes.
If a crag is mediocre, like some enchanted towers in NM for example, it is okay to have the highest star rating be only two stars. I wouldn't go out of my way to climb there but if I was in the area I would climb there.
Project STAR (Steps to Achieving Resilience) was three-year, federally funded research project which consisted of an intervention with preschoolers enrolled in the Head Start program in Lane County, Oregon, United States. The project was conducted from 1999 to 2003 by the Early Childhood Research Unit of the University of Oregon College of Education. The principal investigators were Dr. Ruth Kaminski, one of the co-authors of the DIBELS early literacy assessment, and Beth Stormshak. The goal of the program was to increase literacy skills of at-risk children by improving their learning environments by increasing the number of planned and focused activities. The curriculum had two components: a classroom ecology component and family-focused intervention activities. The intervention was focused on strengthening children's skills in social ability. In order to help children they increased parenting and family participation in school by working directly with the parents of the students.
The classroom ecology component is designed to help teachers develop the classroom environment in ways that promote the development of important literacy skills in children. The teachers were trained to focus on the overall environment in the classroom focusing on the physical environment (e.g., space and materials), the planning and scheduling of teacher activities and the structuring of a daily schedule, and improving the social environment by teaching social roles and expectations, monitoring students social interactions, and interacting with students regularly. One of the most important parts of the classroom ecology component were the Circle Time Activities which were instructional periods led by the teacher that focused on either sharing or vocabulary that lasted about 10 minutes each. Teachers were instructed to review skills learned previously, integrate new and old knowledge, and practice specific skills.
Another important component of classroom ecology was the Activity-Based Intervention (ABI) that provided an opportunity for children to learn critical skills through play and routine activities that are developmentally-appropriate and interesting to preschoolers. ABI's used here were related to skills learned during Circle Time Activities.
The family-focused intervention encouraged parents to instigate non-directive play with their preschoolers and responsive communication. They were also encouraged to attend to their child's emotions and actively discipline their children. Parents were provided with the skills used in the classroom component each week and instructed to give their children opportunities at home to practice skills learned in the classroom. The intervention also included a STAR Home Visiting curriculum where the initial focus was on parent-child joint storybook reading and the development of language skills. As the child progressed through preschool the focus shifted to phonological awareness skills and knowledge of the alphabet.
VDOT District offices can leverage Statewide Planning and Research funding to help identify, plan, conceptually design, and ultimately program projects that reduce congestion and improve safety. STARS projects typically result in multiple recommended improvements that may be eligible for funding and implementation under maintenance budgets, applications in the SMART SCALE process, applications for the Virginia Highway Safety Improvement Program (VHSIP), State of Good Repair budgets, and/or applications for revenue sharing.
The STARS project development process was created to provide a continuous pipeline of projects prepared for implementation. Many elements of the process are on an annual cycle; however, the conduct study and design phase will follow an appropriate schedule based on the nature and complexity of each STARS project. Advancement of STARS projects will be tracked as a measure of performance.
In 2007, VDOT developed the STARS Program. The goal was to support the development of affordable and short-range projects to address congestion bottlenecks and safety hotspots throughout the state. Recommendations from STARS studies included short- and mid-term operational and safety improvements. Many of these STARS studies were included in the SYIP and have been implemented.
Since 2012, the program has shifted focus to developing studies that can be programmed in the VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program. Adapting to the need to find solutions to more complex congestion and safety challenges, STARS studies now include corridor studies and conceptual design plans. Transportation improvements identified are still targeting cost effective, innovative, and practical solutions, but also focus on ensuring the longevity of those improvements on the transportation network. 152ee80cbc
mini car race legends download