Discussion: Steep Terrain

USOF has been asked to provide 1 or 2 sample maps of our "steepest terrain" for an exhibition at this years WOC.

So, what maps should we send - what's your vote for "steepest terrain" in the USA?

Clare Durand
USOF VP Competition

BAOC terrain.

It was a forest of poison oak with a few redwood sticks thrown in, and simply glancing uphill was enough to cause miniature landslides. With apologies to Swampfox whose page I had to quote from memory.

Ha, ha--anyone who votes for any map other than one of our local BAOC maps has never run here! (To the untrained eye, they might not seem that steep at first glance, but that's only because of the 7.5 meter contour interval!)

Vlad (and Swampfox) are of course correct that Nisene Marks is our very steepest area, but that map is so old and so visually unappealing that I wouldn't want to present it as an example of US mapping standards! But any of our other 7.5 meter maps would be fine (Las Trampas, maybe? What do you other BAOCers lurking here think?)

The main Huddart canyon is ~50% grade on most of it, and the whole map probably averages >25% grade.

I hear the new (Northern) Joe Grant is a bit steep.

Although I'd have to agree with Vlad & Steve G. that Nisene is probably the steepest average grade across the map.

And you can't forget China Camp, where 10% climb is typical course setting...

I guess since WOC Japan is aiming for as much as 8% climb, they want to see what others in the world have to deal with...

Speaking of which - the China Camp race is this Sunday. :)

I suppose one needs to make a distinction between maximum steepness (which would be a cliff and can be found on many maps) and maximum steepness on optimal routes. To find the former, any canyon area would do. To find the latter requires locating a ridge and valley area where the hillsides are at just the angle that you can still use them.

SLOC has lots of this type of terrain, the best example is West Tyson, where the only way to keep climb down is to set a course entirely on top of the ridges (David did this quite well last winter) or to use the flood plain to the north (which gives a section with 10% climb and a section with 0%).

Scale note: the map is 1:10,000 with 5m contour. The slope just west of #6 is 80m in 160 or 50% grade.

"I guess since WOC Japan is aiming for as much as 8% climb, they want to see what others in the world have to deal with..."

Or to try to justify their almost doubling of the previous IOF rule for max % climb on a course.

For those people that aren't mountain goats.... climb at next year's NAOC may be below 1.5% ;-) Here is the sample map
from the net (1:10,000 2.5m contours).

I propose that "steepness" be interpreted as terrain where a course setter was sadistic enough to run you *up* it, as opposed to just the steepest terrain on the map. One could argue that downhill steepness is in-bounds, but I can descend a lot steeper than I can climb, usually.

Map Steepness (ala Wyatt): For _every_ point on the map, calculate the slope (e.g. % grade). Take the average of all the slopes.

By that measure, I think a few BAOC maps may break 25%...

Courses typically have 5-10% climb, but that includes a lot of side hill running (or walking or hanging on for dear...) If a map is super steep everywhere, it's still possible to set a low climb course, but putting in enough controls to get people to contour every leg. That doesn't make the map particularly pleasant though, as contouring along a 25%+ slope is a challenge in itself.

While trying to get an official way to measure this, I Googled "terrain steepness map usgs". Item # 4 is BAOC's list of maps... Any questions?

Here is great link on slope characterization...

Also very cool!

Was any of that used to make the Willows Map? :)

I once ran a championship course that had 1.2K first leg and 800 m climb on it :) The rest 13.2K had only 400 m climb on plato up there. Consider it 66% grade. Most of the competitors selected to run on the ski jump hill part of this first leg because it had artificial surface not trees and bushes that covered the slope. I wish I could save that map!

Steep terrain should be embraced. Viva la difference! The 4% climb rule is a good example of something that is plain stupid. (Ditto for the WOC rule about altitude, if it still exists.) But it's nice to have some more gently sloping terrains from time to time as well. I once ran a race on a large map that was essentially pan flat--in the Rhein Valley in Germany. You might think that would be great--no contours to climb, no poison oak to send shivers down your spine--but then you would have had to experience the stinging nettles firsthand to properly guage the attractiveness of the area.

BAOC Blue course at Las Trampas in November 2003 was 7km and ~880m climb on the optimal route. Not speaking about 160 m climb to the start from registration area.

No question in my mind that the steepest maps are on BAOC turf (and Nisene Marks was the first that came to mind). Beyond that, where else is steep stuff found? Lake George, Mt. Falcon, and a couple of other RMOC maps are reasonably steep, there are some steep sections in Harriman and West Point, and the slopes at Oak Mountain in Alabama are fairly steep. I also recall some very steep terrain in Ohio, specifically... umm... it's in Cleveland, but the name escapes me. Flat on top, flat on the bottom, and a very sudden transition between the two. The Rogaine Champs in Indiana a couple of years ago had one section that was impressively steep.

JJ, I think the area near Cleveland you're thinking of Richie's Ledges. Vasquez Rocks near Los Angeles also has some pretty dramatic changes in elevation, although overall neither this map nor the Richie's Ledges map are particularly steep.
Another area which does have some very steep slopes (that most attackpoint readers probably won't have been to) is Sid Richardson Scout Ranch, near Decatur, Texas.

No, the area near Cleveland is Brecksville Reservation. (I think.)

I am very glad to see the criticism of the IOF climb rule/ guideline. It is an absolutely mindless rule, unrelated to reality. 4% climb is frequently violated with great courses, including plenty of WOC courses, *if you count the clinb correctly and honestly*.

For the recent Swiss WOC, O Sport magazine (or whatever the current name) did proper counts of the climb in their leg by leg analysis. On the other hand, the organizers seemed to have a different version of math. I don't think the Swiss classic courses were 8%, but I think they were closer to 8% than 4%. If there is any doubt, I thought they were fantastic courses, at least on paper.

* I was at a Sid Richardson B-meet in 1997, and the terrain didn't seem too steep then, but I know there is much more terrain there than I saw.

* Regarding how to count course climb: I use the guideline "elevation gain of the shortest reasonable route". This gives higher numbers, of course, than the "let's assume the competitors go three times the leg distance and are perfect contouring machines" method.

* Hammer, that NAOC terrain looks sweet! Did you have to import all that bare rock from Finland?

The idea of a max % climb is useful for people when they are setting up their training. If you know that climb over 4% isn't allowed - you train for just that. But when climb exceeds it then it is unfair because locals may know that 4% is often exceeded in that terrain type.

Instead course planners and host clubs should announce well in advance what the expected climb is going to be. This allows people to train for a specific terrain type.

*Ebone: That isn't open rock at the NAOC terrain but limestone pavement which is exposed bedrock but it isn't smooth like the open rock of Finland. Since the time that map was placed on the web we have changed the symbol. However, Ontario has lots of open rock terrain (like Finland) near Parry Sound, Sudbury and in Muskoka but only a small amount of it has been mapped (and not very well).

For local and regional events, I compare the 4% restriction to the 55 mph speed limit which does keep most drivers around 65 mph and 80 mph drivers face the risk of penalties. Without the 4% guideline, some course setters (out of negligence or sadism) would 'casually' set courses over 6% - which many of us don't enjoy as much. With the guideline, most course setters can set equally challenging courses with 3-5% climb instead of 8% - often by simply avoiding 1-2 gratuitous climbs.

About 10 years ago, a veteran SLOC member and a fellow math teacher set an extremely hilly Red course at Rockwoods Range but claimed only 1-2% climb. When challenged, it turned out that he measured 'net climb' (up-down) and missed the contradiction that the start and finish were at the same picnic shelter. I guess it could depend on 'optimal route'!

Eric: Re Sid Richardson: I was specifically thinking of the slopes leading down to the Lake to the west of the Boy Scout Dining Hall. I'll admit the slopes in the rest of the area are fairly gentle.