First, screw all the obtuse definitions and BS by both AW and people who never run any whitewater...Hence:
Class III - Turbulent. Be very adept in your canoe/kayak skills--Or be very lucky.
Class IV - More turbulent but WITH DROPS(ledges)of 4 feet or (more usually)higher. Personally, I use only a ducky for these, cause I'm older and reflexes have slowed.
Class V - Potential for After-Life. I don't go there.
And formerly, what used to be known as Class VI--
Drum roll, please...
You get to find out if there's life after death.
The hyphen, I’m thinking … A class 2-3 I would interpret as somewhere between 2 and 3. As in 2.5. A rating of 2+ might be similar, closer to 2 than to 3. A rating of 3- would be a step above a 2-3 rating, closer to 3 than to 2. A class 3 would have very few (if any) lower ranked sections.
In reality, there are very few runs that one can rate as a single class for the entire run. For example, is the Lower Yough at 2’ a class 2, 3, or 2-3? None of the above. It has class 1, class 2, and class 3 sections as well as sections in-between classes. So I would say the rating applies to specific sections rather than to the entire run, in the general case. Following this logic, I think your hyphen simply means “between classes”.
Of course, the ratings apply to a given section under given conditions (any or a combination of flow of water, fallen trees, etc. can change these ratings).
As to what any one rating means is open for debate and I won’t go there.
That said … You probably need to know who has classified the run with a hyphen, and figure out if they meant “some 2 and some 3” or “2.5” I’d err on the side of caution and assume “some 3” even though in such cases it should just be rated as 3, IMO.
I never run Class IV down the middle.
I always run either far right, or far left.
So far right or left; I'm on shore, pulling or carrying my canoe.
I've even stretched my legs past some Class III.
Frank Bell rapid on the French Broad comes to mind; I've walked it 3 times. Always looked like a boat eater to me.
A lot of it is open to the interpretation of the individual paddler doing the rating, in my opinion.
It is a wise paddler who makes a well reasoned decision, and takes into consideration, the "possible" natural consequences of each rapid; based on their training, experience, and skill level.
I also take into consideration who I have along as paddling partners when making those go/no go decisions. Do they have the expertise & the equipment to assist me if I get into trouble, and will they try to help me?
Lots of variables.
You probably need to check with local WW folks whenever possible. Some of the above comments got me thinking about the stuff around here, where the most important part of the dash may be how easily you can portage around the tougher parts.
Case in point, the Fife Brook section of the Deerfield is a class II to III if you describe it from the put-ins below the dryway to the takeout below Zoar Gap. But it is only Zoar Gap that catches a rating of class III, about a hundred feet of sudden change in difficulty, and there is a take-out just before the Gap. I'd say that more than half of the folks running the Fife Brook use that take-out, then go to the roadside above to watch their braver friends run the Gap. So these folks have only run a class II.
We have the opposite situation in one stretch along (I think) the Hudson River, where it is officially class III according to many people, but it is a looong stretch with no way to get out of the water or get around on land. I have never had the skills to think about this one myself - the hundred feet of Zoar Gap is about the best I've managed and that on a day when my roll seemed unable to fail. But people I know who have run this long stretch feel that it is harder than its rated class because there is no way out for so long. Even if the obstacles merit a III rating, avoiding obstacles in the latter half of the run increases due to tiredness.
The guidelines are likely clear enough. But the actual experience on the water can be mitigated by stuff that no one could capture 100%.
One thing I have always found is that among friends you develop a common rating system so that if your friend says the river has a class three rapid you have a good idea what he/she means. But, I have also found that kayak and open tripping canoe paddlers do not have the same understanding. If you are a open canoe tripping paddler and a kayak paddler tells you that a rapid is class 3 you may well find that when you get into the rapid with your tripping boat it actually fits your idea of a class 4. I have learned that the hard way. I think the best way to do this is to try to compare the river to another river that is familiar to the others so they have a concrete example. But you also have to include water level variations in the description.
Comparing a probability-based forecast to what actually happens later is not a way of "determining" that the the forecast was wrong, let alone coming to the conclusion that the people involved in the science haven't even figured out what their parameters are. Same goes for your recently stated idea that when they state that they have an expectation that there's a greater risk of hurricanes in the coming year (normally including a statement regarding the magnitude of that risk, even though you like to leave that part out) and it doesn't happen, it means they were wrong. You can't analyze the accuracy of probability estimation based on individual outcomes. That would be like flipping a coin several times in a row and having it come up heads each time, and then concluding that the normal idea that there's a 50-percent chance of having the coin turn up "heads" must therefore be wrong. Probability assessment doesn't work that way.
yep, consider the experience level of the paddler who is giving the advice is key. Class V paddlers tend to downgrade rapids while class I paddlers may overestimate or be inaccurate in their assessment. I recently purchased the “Soggy Sneakers” guide to Oregon boating. One of the knocks on that guidebook, is that the descriptions and ratings are done by a conglomeration of boaters of varying boat type and skill. So its not necessarily consistant when comparing one river to another. I guess I’ll find out when I head west this summer and paddle a few. Overall it looks like a good guidebook and great resource.
Multiple sources about a particular stream is always better in my book. I think of the ww rating system a bit like how you would rate ski slopes- green (beginners) is class I-II, blue is class III (intermediate), black is class iv and v and class vi means you’re ready to star in a Warren Miller production. Use the rating system as a general guide but appproach each rapid as an individual challenge.
Paddling self evaulation surveys have been around a long time. If your willing to answer the questions honestly and consider the conditions that your paddling in, ex. cold water, water level, and experience of the group, then I think that paddler self evaluations are great tools. Keelhaulers has one online. You come up with a point total for yourself and then compare that to what others have rated a particular stream to determine if it is suitable.
Interesting test Puts me squarely in the middle of Class IV territory, which I think overestimates my abilities even though I answered the questions truthfully. Close enough though. I consider myself a low-level Class IV paddler, with some solid class 4 skills and some that need work and a lot more finesse (keeping a perfect line, reading water on the fly in class 3+/4, boofing, staying upright in big pushy diagonal waves, catching must-get eddies - are all areas for improvement).
sounds like you know what you need to work on. Which is probably the best thing about the test. It gets you thinking about your strengths and weaknesses as a paddler.
I’d err on the side of caution and assume “some 3” even though in such cases it should just be rated as 3, IMO.