Discussion: renaming the colored courses

We need names for these course categories for our BAOC club marketing efforts. Perhaps other clubs can try this too and we will share what comes out of this. Actually you'll see it right here on AP.

There are 4 types of courses we want:

1. Beginner (like White)
2. Advanced Beginner (like Yellow)
3. Intermediate (like Orange)
4. Advanced (like Brown, Green, Red, Blue)

So a submission from you could look like this:

1. The Trail Selector
2. The Shortcutter
3. The Explorer
4. The Master

If these were the course names, then they would be offered in different lengths. For example, a Brown course could be "Master - 3.5 km" and a Blue course could be "Master - 9.0 km." Orange could be "Explorer - 4.0 km" for kids and "Explorer - 10.0 km" for Adventure Racers.

Please submit a list of four numbered names that represent these 4 navigational difficulty levels. You can second someone's nominations by +1'ing them, and you can resubmit or tweak in the hopes of getting a +1. Submission and +1 deadline is Friday.

I will then create a poll and we can vote to see what is most popular for each course level.

Happy naming,
Rex

Sensible. Other countries distinguish navigational level from length. Around here there are 4 levels. UK defines 5 I think. Sweden may have more. It's a pity there is no international convention for the number of steps or the labels.

As mentioned above we have a lot of different levels in Sweden. They are actually color coded - something that has been introduced not too many years ago - inspired I guess by how other countries have done it.

Colors are seldom used for promotion though. The closest we come to this would be our Open Courses that are 'packaged ' in three levels: Beginner (course 1-3, White/Yellow), Intermediate (course 4-6, Yellow/Orange/Red) and Advanced (course 5-7, Blue/Black). Names for the levels are not used that way - I just made them up to explain the difference. Within each level are offered short, medium and long courses.

Courses and course planning for regular age classes are supposed to be following the color scheme in terms of course length and difficulty too, but as I said the colors are not used in naming the courses.

So, to answer the original question above - I don´t really have any good names for you...

For local promotion, I like the concept. I'd prefer a more creative set of names (than mine), but here is an attempt:

1. Trail Runner (or Hiker since nearly all 'hikers' stay on trails)
2. Explorer
3. Navigator
4. Adventure Racer (borrowed term, so what, it is a known; some AR's "should" be running Orange, but they all run Red or Blue anyway)

Just for fun

1. On Leash
2. Unleashed
3. Off Leash
4. Off the Chain!

1. Trailblazer
2. Adventurer
3. Expert
4. Ninja

Trail runner
Bushwalker/Tramper (whatever is colloquially used)
Adventure Racer/Rogainer
Orienteer
;-)

@Backstreet, with all apologies...

Drop the "The." Just "Master." It's cleaner

We've recently changed from:

Very Easy
Easy
Moderate
Hard (1, 2, 3, 4, etc)

to

Starter (1, 2)
Active
Expert (1, 2, 3, etc)

I am not suggesting you use these names but seriously, WA rocks (or WA granite if you prefer).

We used to have a LOT of trouble with consistency of difficulty. We traced it back to differing interpretations of labels which "sort of" described it. For example "easy" means something quite different to a planner with no young kids, compared to parents who are in touch with what happens. The use of labels with no connection in ordinary language did a lot to improve things. The planner has to look up the requirements.

1 Wayfarer
2 Motion
3 Sport
4 Challenge

It really is time to ditch the colour coding folks. There's a rambling post by carlch on this thread which says it all really. tRicky - yeah, WA Rocks!

1) Beginner
2) Novice
3) Intermediate
4) Advanced

Oh J-J, you're so darn subtle.

Hey, if your objective is to avoid having to explain the labels...

Ottawa uses Beginner, Intermediate, Short Advanced and Long Advanced. Everyone seems to know what they mean.

In Florida as part of the Suncoast Series I used Leisure, Intermediate, Advanced and Adventure. I don't recall ever having to explain those labels. However I dropped those names in favour (favor) of the colour (color) codes to make it easier for the JROTC teams who compete based on the colors.

I have to agree with J-J, even if his labels aren't as exciting or entertaining as some of the others.

Here in NSW Australia we've gone from Blue:Green:Orange:Red to Very-Easy:Easy:Moderate:Hard respectively.

At club level we can have Long, Medium and Short versions of the Hard courses.
Adding a gender distinction and you could have classes like "Very Easy Women" and "Long Hard Men", a rather interesting combination to say the least.

You could combine those courses most effectively.

the expected winning times would probably be too short for some ....

I also agree with J-J's proposed labels. If we're trying to make course designations clearer than they are now with colors, let's pick very simple, descriptive labels, not creative labels that people are going to have to think about and then try to come up with their own interpretation of what they might actually mean.

A number of years ago, one of our college clubs organised an event using Disney character names which I thought was very good at giving an impression of the difficulty of the courses. I can't remember the exact names but they were something like:

1. Bambi
2. Jasmine
3. Aladdin
4. Hercules

1. Charming
2. Civil
3. Crude
4. Crass
(I can trust you not to use these)

@O-ing, you'd probably need to include Wayfarer in the glossary, not sure it's used much any more.

If you want Disney references, how about:

1. Baby Simba
2. Simba after he's found by Timon and Pumbaa
3. Simba when he's about to eat Pumbaa
4. Simba after he's told off Scar

The problem with "Beginner" and "Novice" labels is you won't get any of the mudderfolk. Why beginner yourself when you can have finished the world's toughest mudder in less time? How about "Tough", "Very Tough", "Excruciatingly Tough", and "Impossibly Tough", translated into badass? But that may scare off the under-8-year-olds... you just can't win!

That's easy. You can have a list with "Tough", "Very Tough", "Excruciatingly Tough", and "Impossibly Tough" and then another that says, "Newbie", "Trailblazer", "Intermediate" or whatever. Just don't tell your audience that the 2.3km "Tough" course is exactly the same as the 2.3km "newbie" course.

We sometimes use:
beginner (white)
intermediate (yellow)
advanced (orange)
skilled (brown and above)

rationale: Phrasing and Image is important. Newbies almost always want to take on tougher courses than they are ready for. Calling yellow "intermediate" and orange "advanced" makes it easier to persuade them that those courses are appropriate for them. They all want to go straight to advanced.

Of course it is a little problematic what to call the traditional "advanced" courses - there is probably a better name than "skilled"

ninja!

Cristina +1

Bunny
Squirrel
Badger
Goat

Bunny
Squirrel
Goat
Honey Badger

I'm with Mike, but tweaked. I once heard a suggestion that I really liked which was:

Novice
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert

I especially like calling the typical Orange level course "advanced." Because to anyone who isn't already an orienteer, going off trail much at all is an advanced navigational skill level.

How about

Not lost
Sorta lost
Probably lost
Really lost

For the mudder crowd:

Mild
Tough
Tougher
Toughest

young grasshopper
lone wolf
brave tiger
dragon warrior

If there is serious, long term intent here, another second for JJ' list, perhaps with a modification for "2) Novice", since I don't get the difference from "1) Beginner".
Actually Backstreet's original list sounds fine.

Doesn't make for an interesting thread, but I think that is the point.

Marketing can play with other things, like event names, and other hype.

"This past weekend, I went to Amazing Mud Spartan Dash. There were 6200 people. I finished my first Tough Warrior course in just under an hour, got a medal, couple beers, and to hang out with some cool gals and dudes!"

"This past weekend, I went to Slow Orienteering Club's 'local meet' at Bunny Park. I did a Novice course, got lost three times, and barely made it out of the woods before they had to pack everything up. All the snacks were eaten, but I'm not even sure there were any. On the positive side, it only cost $3."

Which one screams YOU IS SO STOOPID?

Orienteering is just well-positioned for extreme couponers.

T/D you forgot: "I came second"

"which one screams:..."

IMHO, the Tough Guy course, because you only need brawn, no brains. You don't have to "think." And keep thinking until the end. Is there any way to market the "problem solving" aspect of O?

Yes, the thing about calling a course beginner is that would turn a lot of people off. I think naming the courses based on the techniques involved is more accurate to what they are and less stigmatizing.

Why turn away people who want a long course with route choice but don't want to go bushwhacking?

1. The Trailmaster
2. The Shortcutter
3. The Adventurer
4. The Tracker

Why so enamored with the "the"s?

Channel your inner Sean Parker, Bay Area Boy.

Anyway, not that I am advocating it, but how about:

green circle (easiest)
blue square (intermediate)
black diamond (advanced)
double black diamond (expert only)

But really, I'm sympathetic to Eric and J-J here. Sometimes clear communication beats cute obfuscation. Are they really going to decide to attend your meet or not based on the names of the courses? I think the problem orienteering is having (alluded to by T/D) is bigger and different.

Sometimes there are benefits to inventing your own vocabulary and nomenclature, but sometimes you just need to communicate.

Anyway, I'd like to invoke Randy and his semiotics. This is where we need that wisdom to be applied.

How about.....

Challenge
Sport
Advanced
Expert

And then occasionally have the mystical “elite” course.

Or how about credit card style, so that everyone sounds classy:
Select
Elite
Gold
Platinum

"Yeah, I did elite, it has 4.0k on it.... and no annual fee!"

I'm in with it...

How about:

Kids
Teens
Adventure
Advanced Brown/Green/Red/Blue

IMHO, the Tough Guy course

Well, 6200 to a couple dozen seems to be the answer. The couple dozen are free to IMHO.

ccsteve, that is exactly the inspiration for Run Black Diamond (the event).

we have until Friday y'all. Keep the names coming. Lovin' it.

1. Smooth Sailing
2. Bumpy Spots
3. Rough Going
4. Extreme Roughage

this one is also JFF. Just for fun. But you can +1 it anyway...

we have
1. A
2. B
3. C
4. D

The naming convention of our "standard" events is really a different animal than appealing to the Mudders. We just can't change Beginner to Trailmaster and all of a sudden people will show up.

If we want to get the Mudder crowd, we have to build a bridge. They aren't just going to cross the river into orienteering on their own. There needs to be something in between, and that's where we're all missing the point.

People like Mudders because it's an experience. It's fun, it's "tough", it's social, and a lot of people participate, which multiplies that effect. Millennials like being a part of something big, and that's why races like the Mudders and the Colors are doing so well.

Another big difference between us and them is that, in any given market, there's only one big Tough Mudder, and there's a series of many club-sponsored, smaller orienteering events. For a lot of Mudders, they like that once-a-year, spectacularly epic race. We just can't compete with that with our current product.

-----

Ok, back to the task at hand. I agree that the ski slope difficulty is more familar with the average joe, but now we're just replacing one color system with another. Here at CascadeOC, our most popular season uses a number system:
Course 1: Beginner
Course 2: Beginner Advanced
Course 3/4: Intermediate
Course 5/6: Intermediate Advanced
Course 7: Advanced
(Courses 3 and 5 are public only, 4 and 6 are school-league only)

We had a big problem last year at Salmon La Sac, because we had a huge number of DNF because the course/terrain for Advanced was waaaaaaaaay tougher than the usual Advanced course during our winter season (which uses much tamer venues). We decided to add "Expert" and "Elite" to our menu after that, and only occasionally use them. I think I would prefer a word other than Beginner or Novice, but I'm not sure what.

Patrick, the point isn't that you call things a different way and all of a sudden people show up. The point is that you don't shoot yourself in the foot by doing inside cliquish things that only appeal to the clique, which is too narrow-minded to understand how the greatest thing on earth can be of little value to 99.999% of the population. Don't do stupid things. Retain relevance.

Also, there are at least a dozen mudders in the Bay Area, by about nine companies, some have multiple ones in different seasons, not countiing weekend doubleheaders.

from what I see...

XS (White)
S (Yellow)
M (Orange)
XXXL, XXL, XL, L (Brown, Green, Red, Blue,)

@T/D: Yes, and the implication is to shy away from made up names for courses (e.g., "orange" or "motion" or "ninja") and communicate relative difficulty without contrivance. A la J-J. Focus energies on communicating what the sport is or making it more relevant.

Difficulty for whom?

Also, there are at least a dozen mudders in the Bay Area, by about nine companies, some have multiple ones in different seasons, not countiing weekend doubleheaders.

I understand that. How many of the participants run in multiple/most of them, though?

For the folks I know who have done them, it's just one, and it's spectacular.

ninja!

@T/D: Clearly that is a rhetorical question. I can only say unless we want to make everyone here read Saul Kripke, I'd think common sense is sufficient.

It is the same reason that a black diamond ski run in Pennsylvania may be slightly different than one in Jackson Hole.

Sure, in either place, Linsey Vonn would experience things differently than you or I. But, using common terminology, that has correspondence to common reality, allows us to communicate sufficiently clearly.

Inventing our own languages does not.

Raid the Sanctuary had Barbarian and Viking courses. The Highlander is the Highlander. Put a few more of those on and keep simple names for the standard event courses. Just get more social, more training, more regular.

"more social, more training, more regular" should be every club's obejective!

How many of the participants run in multiple/most of them, though?

A lot. Most mudderfolk I talked to, have done multiple. You are simply a year behind us in Seattle-land: first year they do one and are hooked, second year, they seek out more. (Perhaps third year they run into a cluster and reconsider, but the Bay Area hasn't had these, last I heard.)

So, are you saying that it's better to have one big event or many smaller events to attract the Mudders?

I think the trailrunning model works great; use it. Many midsize, mid-oomph events. Every two to three weeks. If you shoot for "the thing of the year", many clubs will find out they can't pull it off (unless they are GHO and have/contract with professional staff), because hardcore members will only volunteer for "the thing" if it's an A event, and A events don't attract the uninitiated.

On the other hand, "local meets" waste the volunteer resources of the club in favor of serving the clique at a steep discount. If you insist on doing "local meets", figure out a format that's sustainable and low-overhead. Trying to do 7-course events every week to two weeks seems to me the surest way to wear out the club's volunteer base (and bank account, if niceties like new/updated maps are insisted upon along with low entry fees).

What BAOC is trying to do with its Wilderness Scramble and TrailCross series, and MerGeo with Street Scramble, is exactly the model of midsize, honestly accessorized events. I hope these models work as well as they do for trailrunning, and many O-club members around North America see the light.

"Local meets" wear out bank account? Could you elaborate.

Only if niceties are insisted upon, and fees are low. Here in the Bay Area the situation is somewhat unique because park permits are pay-for-play, market-priced to the higher bidders (like mudders), so local events have the potential to drain the bank even with constant reuse of old maps (figure $500 for a permit, perhaps $200 for a portable toilet rental, $100 to Orienteering USA, and $100 for map printing, and all "profits" are gone).

In other parts of the hemisphere, with <$150 permits, you'll be OK until you try to support mapping with local event fees. Of course, you can go farther with volunteer mappers, but then as a famous quote goes, bottles can also be opened with teeth.

Ah, $500 permit would do it.

Well, why should a public jurisdiction subsidize organized recreation of the members of a small group? Most park departments have a mission to serve the public as a whole, but I don't know of any who explicitly agree to serve a special, if charitable nonprofit, interest. (Not that this doesn't de-facto happen... think of the horsies.)

If you add up what it costs to run a park, and what the costs are to serve a special event in a park, you'll see that $100 permits are taxpayer-subsidized recreation. Not that there's anything wrong with subsidized recreation, I love Vancouver's rec center in each neighborhood, but in the United States, expect more pay-for-play, especially on the state levels. California's situation will soon be the norm.

I know Vlad is just riding a well-ridden hobby horse and I will regret opting in, but there are very good reasons not to tax organized recreation in parks. It's probably quite price-elastic (it's easy to substitute away to other forms of recreation, like running by yourself instead of going orienteering), so the standard Ramsey optimal tax formula would tell you to tax it lightly.

And this apart from any positive externalities (to public health, for example) of having organized recreation, which would tell you to subsidize rather than tax it.

Assuming parks are valuable to everybody, their operating costs are best paid for through general taxation (income or property taxes). And if that's politically infeasible, it would at least be better to charge people to enter the park at all rather than tax organized recreation only.

California's dysfunctional political economy doesn't need to be exported across state lines, thanks very much.

No, I'm actually not strongly in support of the point of view I expressed two posts above, but it can certainly be taken to extreme. Suppose you hold a mudder with 10k participants and $100 entry fees (realistic numbers), and do $200k worth of damage to the park (also realistic). Where's the benefit to public health that would outweigh taxing TMHQ, Inc. proportionally? I'd say there are no benefits, given the number of deaths and near-deaths at mudders. You can go even more extreme and throw in a motorized sport.

Parks out here have started to crack down on fatass runs this year. At least in California, the tendency is strongly pay to play.

Incidentally, the names that I threw out there are taken directly from the rating system for hang-glider pilots used by the USHPGA (pilots earn ratings, and some sites require a certain minimum rating to fly there). But nobody uses the names, they just use H1, H2, etc. (pronounced Hang-1, Hang-2...).

People often suggest using numbers instead of colors (as is done in Canada), but my objection to that is that different events have different numbers of courses, so it's not comparable. At a small meet, Course 5 may be the long elite course, while at the national championship there may be 12 courses and Course 5 is fairly short and easy.

Badger
Badger
Badger
Mushroom
Snaaaaaaaaake

1. iOS
2. Android
3. Blackberry
4. Windows Live-Tiles

1. Peach
2. Luigi
3. Mario
4. Toad

Any prospective orienteers who are fans of Super Mario Bros. 2 will be all upons.

GirlDrinkDrunky inspired me...

1. Buzzed
2. Bombed
3. Blitzed
4. Blackout

But I still agree with J-J and j-man.

Insipid
Tame
Rugged
Hard core

For fun:
Stay on paths
Find a shortcuts
No man's land
Run, simplify & die

1. Trail-O
2. Skipping Trail-O
3. Who needs Trail-O
4. What's a Trail-O

Remember - when brain-storming there are no bad suggestions - only suggestions that get you to think of something else;-)

I liked the ski symbol tie - because some other organization has already created, promoted, and brought about a general understanding of similar ratings.

I'm certain that the first ski area to post those signs was faced with "what does that mean" sorts of questions.

And way back as a novice skier who has carried his skis down the slope he couldn't ski, it happens... (and nobody really has to offer post-advice in that situation;-)

The alternative is creating something that nobody yet knows and publicizing and promoting it - so that people get it.

Even the most "obvious" rating system needs planned followup so that people do get it....

I recall, after coming back from the events around WOC 1993 in the US, one of the kids I was coaching at the time in Canberra saw one of my maps and said "you went all that way to run a blue course?" (a blue course having exactly the opposite meaning in the US to what it does, or did, in Australia).

Basic
Aerobic
Cross-fit*
Boot Camp*

*barring copyright issues

ccsteve: Ski slope symbols are nice, except that europe uses a slightly different system. Green = beginner, blue = easy, red = intermediate, black = difficult. Double black is just confusing.

At the moment I'm in the process of designing difficulty ratings for off-trail-ski-orientering. They need to take into account physical difficulty, skiing-skills and O-skills in a 3D-matrix and I'm aiming for at least 27 different descriptive names for these. Animals could work, pretty obvious what the difference between snowleopard and polarbear is right? :)

Are there more than 27 people who ski-orienteer?

1. First base
2. Second base
3. Third base
4. Home run

Shakespeare's Seven Courses of Man:

Infant
School-boy
Lover
Soldier
Justice
Pantaloon
Second Childhood

Hey - nothing about dating here...-)

Eriol - thanks - I've never skied in europe, so yes - dueling systems - interesting... (Of course if Americans have the most difficult slope rated black diamond, somebody's going to start using double-black-diamonds to suggest that their slope is even more difficult;-)

But let me offer - you're combining three scales - so you need three designations.

One might be color.
One might be shape.
One might be texture. (And I'm meaning shading, not physical texture;-)

The simplest could be a solid green circle.

The most complex might be a black diamond with white cross-hatched lines...

(BTW - obligatory reference to gaming - if you've never played the card game "Set", and you're reading this, you probably might like to try it - at least once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(game)

Completely match or unmatch three cards that have:
Color (red, green, purple)
Shading (open, striped, solid)
Symbol Shape (diamond, oval, squiggle)
Number of Symbols (one, two, three)

Some people can see similarities, other people see mis-matches, it's interesting who sees what first...)

1. The White
2. The Yellow
3. The Orange
4. The Red, with subcategories
The Reddish-pink
The Reddish-blue
The Infra-red.

Which one was about dating? I saw baseball and literature...

First base...

pretty obvious what the difference between snowleopard and polarbear is right?

Well, Snowleopard is an operating system while Polarbear is not (to my knowledge...)

eriol>> Does your rating of ski-O difficulty include snow conditions? Then you could use an unlimited number of eskimo names for different types of snow (or use the color coded ski waxing system).

I kindoff like this hardness scale: Talc, Gypsum, Calcite, Fluorite, Apatite, Feldspar, Quartz, Topaz, Corundum, Diamond.

1. American
2. Australian
3. Swedish
4. Canadian

Hammer, shouldn't the best countries correspond to the hardest courses?

When we put in the permanent orienteering courses at Canmore Nordic Centre they insisted on the Green/Blue/Black designations - familiar to their core users. It seems to be working well.

But, on the other hand, I just went skiing in Europe and of course they have different color codes ;-(

How about the goldilocks approach ... for first-time cross-over mudders:

1. Too soft
2. Just right
3. Too hard
4. Really, really too hard

I can see people getting very confused by "Norwegian" and "Costa Rican".

1. Simply Red
2. Green Day
3. Deep Purple
4. Black Sabbath

A question about naming concept. What do people think about naming sprint courses? They are typically easy enough that absolutely anyone can finish, but they are still targeted for advanced people. What to do?

The term 'sprint' still immediately conjures up the wrong impression for both newcomers and new orienteers. I fought some time ago to change long-standing organisers' perceptions here in Western Australia to drop the term in all our promotion. After some 8 years or so the name I coined 14 years ago (long before even Short Distance Orienteering existed!) 'NavDash' is being used. Not ideal by anymeans, but wayyy better than trying to promote (in typical orienteers' style) 'Sprint Distance Orienteering'. The latter brings up instant thoughts of (a) sprinting (fail for percived fast runners only) and (b) an extrememly short event (fail for perceived value for money).

bubo, on snow leopards and related animals: http://xkcd.com/1056/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Leopard_award

Jagge +1

1. Shorts
2. Jeans
3. Hiking pants
4. Pajamas

1. Long johns
2. Boxers
3. Briefs
4. Thong
Thong, of course, being the knarliest of all the courses.

1-Lost
2-Confused
3-Found
4-Sure

Maybe we should just use the colors of the rainbow. Everyone knows them: RYOGBIV
The easiest would be Red and hardest Violet.
We would keep yellow through green the same.
Have to change White so that it is now RED and Red so it is now Blue and Blue so it is Indigo. This leaves Violet which could be an ultrablue or Billygoat type event. Will be fun in the changeover as we send beginners out on the RED course......

1. James
2. Clem
3. j-man
4. Balter!
Exclamation point is mandatory.

There is of course a standard for this, which have existed for many decades:

(E)ABCN for orienteering difficulty (Elite is actually the same as A)

with pretty good descriptions (in the course setter handbook):

N(ovice): Possible to follow leading lines from control to control

C: Either leading lines or big features just in front of the control.

B: Big features (to catch you) behind the controls.

A: No big features close to the controls.

Most A/E courses will of course have some controls at the B or even C level!

RYOGBIV

Well, you got Yellow and Orange switched...

Yeah, then it has to be:
White = Red
Yellow = Orange
Orange = Yellow
Green = Brown
Blue = Green
Indigo = Red
Violet = Blue
Seems simple to me..... probably won't confuse anyone.

Perhaps these might appeal to some:
Hedwig
Buckbeak
Aragog
Voldemort

Or to keep with non humans - Nagini.

Maybe I should phrase my sprint question different.

Sometimes I want to market things as "recreational vs elite" and sometimes I want to split things up "easy vs hard." For classic, elite and hard are generally synonyms. For sprints, maybe not. Seems like almost every sprint event would be a "shortcutter" in rex's scheme.

BTW Rex, the only suggestion I've seen that really has the potential to improve on a straightforward beginner-intermediate-advanced type of scheme (or maybe a black diamond type thing) is the first one you submitted to BAOC.

Trail - Shortcut - Off Trail - Advanced

I just like that it explains HOW and WHY the easy course is easy. And I think that it pulls people away from the way of thinking where "orange" designates a length and a difficulty. (Which doesn't hold up very well in today's short-middle-long world).

1. Trail runner
2. Trail jumper
3. Trail blazer
4. Trails are for losers.

I do not understand this obsession with trails. Trails can be very confusing.

Yes, about a third of trail runners manage to get lost on a fully marked course.

This has been a trip. It's officially the last day. So, time to get serious! And come up with the crispest names that in brief nail the concept of each course level.

So, here's the last silly one from me:

1. The Shire
2. Moria
3. Mirkwood
4. Mordor

Didn't Gandalf die in Moria? Course 2 should be something 'just a little' tougher than the Shire. Bree perhaps?

The hobbit thing seems to work for me though. Pretty much all of our courses are "there and back again." And Gandalf would lay down the law on uncrossable features. You shall not pass!

Angband.

guskov:

1. Path runner
2. Path jumper
3. Path blazer
4. Paths are for bloody wankers.

Ha! Love the LOTR version. But I agree that Moria would be pretty hard to navigate, what with the dark and the orcs and the balrog.... Lothlorien, maybe?

Arthurd and I have often remarked that Aragorn and Legolas would be the ultimate ROGAINE team.

Need to come up with a Hunger Games version...

Abiz: I'd like to be on a Rogaine team with Vigg...I mean Aragorn!

Hunger Games version

Katniss would have to be the toughest level, of course.

Cowardly lion
Tinman
Scarecrow
Witch

JanetT > wouldn't it go by district?

Smittyo, I assume you are suggesting names for Trail-O? You know, just stay on the yellow brick road...

I feel like there ought to be an author scale. Seuss to Tolstoy.

And sprints could be known as pOetry.

G
PG
PG-13
R

Now I'm really confused. Surely PG would be the most difficult course ; )

And who are G and R?

missing NC-17

Sure, let’s relabel the courses, and hordes of rednecks would abandon NASCAR and mudder races and line up to do orienteering. That would be about time when beach volleyball will spread to Greenland, and ice hockey will gain popularity in Africa. Somehow, in Finland or Sweden they do not need to dumb it down to get folks attracted. Just proves my point.

@Canadian: My initial thought was also districts -- with 12 the toughest...

Or, maybe, sections of the "clock' arena...

If you read up the discussion, colors are not used in Finland or Sweden (or Ukraine, for that matter).

It was about relative popularity of certain activities, not about colors

1 - Arithmatic
2 - Algebra
3 - Geometry
4 - Triganometry
5 - Calculus
(with thanks to the Euclid Hall, Denver bar menu for the idea)

The thread was about getting rid of colors and replacing them with something more appropriate.

It is good that now you see it. Wait, colors are not appropriate? Like for color-blind ? Here is my take:

1. Death of a Virgin
2. Bloody Mary
3. Kamikaze
4. Gladiator

1. I'm too young to die
2. Hey, not too rough
3. Hurt me plenty
4. Ultra violence
5. Nightmare!

tRicky: Yes! Not to late to steer this thread in the direction of pseudo-3D computer games from the early nineties!

@johncrowther: Brilliant idea! But I would rank them this way:

1. Calculus
2. Algebra
3. Geometry
4. Algebraic Geometry

1. Slope
2. Derivative
3. Differential
4. Operator

1D
2D
3D
4D

1. C
2. B
3. A
4. E

Note, N is not the real thing, really.