Talk:Berkshire East Ski Resort

Vertical Drop

Alpine ski areas are known to do some generous rounding with vertical drop - Berkshire East (and for that matter, Thunder Mountain) is no exception. While the true topographic vertical drop is not 1,180 feet, the US topographic map is not accurate. There are hundreds of ski area entries and almost all state advertised vertical drop, not US topographic map vertical. I would suggest taking any disagreements to mountain management or ski area publications - the 1,180 feet, as well as the advertised vertical drops of every other ski area, are all over. Jrclark (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If one wants to add a "real" vertical drop (the 888 number is NOT accurate nor citable), they should take it up with the WikiProject Ski and do so on all alpine ski areas. It is unfair to single out one ski area due to some sort of grudge. It is also unfair to use a number that is significantly below the number even seen in topographic maps, nevermind actuals (the US topographic map measurements on Mt. Institute are inaccurate, I have seen actual engineering plans). Jrclark (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is accurate and has been cited correctly. In this very talk session JRclark has admitted that the true vertical is not 1180.

A formal complaint has been lodged against (talk) in regard to removing cited material and repeated efforts to stifle reasonable and prudent editing measurements.

I would like to see all ski areas have a standardized advertised VS real statistic in their box. This keeps readers better informed. However with the fierce resistance that this sort of issue raises with people emotionally attached to the ski areas is seems like a very difficult goal. Wikipedia is here to inform, not mislead. I trust there is no disagreement with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NHguardian (talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The link "cited" in the "real" vertical does not give any sort of vertical drop. No summit or base elevation is given, nor is the map even in feet. 888 is not a real measurement, even with a generous conversion with rounded contour intervals. If you want to nit pick with ski area vertical drops, I would suggest you consult with the WikiProject Ski group, as there are many instances in which ski areas round their vertical. It is suspicious in the last as to why NHguardian is singling out Berkshire East and not going after any other ski areas. If a formal complaint has been indeed filed, I look forward to discussing this matter further. In the meantime, I will continue to keep the InfoBox consistent with all other alpine ski area infoboxes. Jrclark (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The map cited is a valid source. Anyone who is skilled in reading or understanding topographical maps should be able to successfully extract this information. If you are struggling to comprehend this map then here is a guide on how to read it [1] if you are struggling with the metric conversions a guide to understanding them is here [2].

The base map has 6 meter invervals per line. The base of the ski area is slightly above 196 meters, but for you benefit I will round down to 196. that is 643 FT. The summit is 462m or 1515ft. 1515-643 is 872ft Even if we assume that the summit is at the next contour (468m or 1535 ft) the drop is still only 892. 892 is the most liberal number one can come up with using the reliable government issued maps. even with generous assumptions in favor of the ski area the best I can come up with is 892 feet (or 4 feet off my original measurements)

I challenge JRclark to come up with a real true measurement cite-able vertical (which he has yet to do interestingly enough) or explain what he means by "even with a generous conversion with rounded contour intervals" given my explanation above.

I don't think there is really anything left to argue on this case. I have been more than patient with JRclark and have given ample sources to support my statistics. I have provided him with a guide as to how to handle metric conversion and a guide explaining how to read topographic maps as it seems this may be a confusing topic for him. I do look forward to his reply >:)

I will be reverting the box back to show the true vertical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NHguardian (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, NHguardian continues edit wars. Removing vertical drop (as advertised for decades, under multiple ownership groups and published in countless publications) seems to be a fair step until WikiProject Ski decides how to approach this subject. It appears clear that, using smilies and only signling out one ski area, NHguardian sees this as a game. What next, debating trail counts? Jrclark (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note It seems that there is uncertainty in each claim, as the advertisements for vertical drop (as far as I can see) originate with the ski area, and the USGS maps are 10-15 years out of date. As Google Earth (0-3 years out of date) shows some expansion activity beyond the areas shown on the USGS maps, all sources seem suspect. I've annotated the article to reflect this uncertainty; until someone comes up with an unrefutable reference, I suggest that it be left alone.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The USGS topographical maps are reliable, please reconsider your stance. Do you really believe topographical maps made in the 90s are that inaccurate? As I ahve stated before. The summit and base altitudes have not changed due to expansion.

I am glad we are setting a precedent for real VS advertised vertical drop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NHguardian (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This will be a much more broad discussion than just summit and base. There is also the question of non-lift served vertical, which is often grouped into the vertical drop number for many areas. Other groups have tried to tackle this with little success, thus almost all publications use the long-time advertised vertical for ski areas. Jrclark (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

NHguardian, the USGS elevations are accurate, however, the mountain ridge does not stop at 880 feet; it continues south to higher elevations. Please refer to the topographic map you referenced yourself. And check Google Earth and you will see clear expansion; under way as a cut ring around the back of the older ski area. For all anyone knows, that expansion may have continued. And Jrclark's comments above are worth considering.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pgagnon999,

I have skiied and enjoyed this peak before so I am familiar with the outback trail. If you check the google earth imagry which appears to be the most current and accurate data you will see (if using the terrain feature) that the lift goes to the highest point, and although there is a trail that goes further back it goes downhill. There is no evidence in the aerial photography, or even the ski area website to suggest that any trail reach an altitude higher than (according to google earth) 1533 ft. this is consistent with my prior measurements in previous messages.

My hope is this measurement, along with the USGS topos (terraserver) and the docs.unh.edu archives [3] all agree the summit is approximately 1535 feet (all 3 sources were surveyed at different times and come to the same conclusion within single digits)

I do not think there is any question what the highest point of this ski area is. Lift serviced or not. it is clear from google earth and there is no mention of any trails further up the ridge on the resort website.

Is there disagreement with this?

Next the base of the ski area

I will use the most generous number available and that is with Google earth which shows the parking lot at 590' This is a very generous number but I will give it to them. Even with this number 1535-590 that is still only 945'.

If you want to go with 945 as a true vertical that is fine with me. it is the most generous, and most likely to be agreed upon with all the squabbling that I can come up with. If someone wants to argue that there may be more terrain further up tahts fine. But they should show some proof before yakking away.

Does this satisfy you Pgagnon999? it is still far more accurate than the advertised 1180'.

Thanks, NHguardian —Preceding unsigned comment added by NHguardian (talk • contribs) 17:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, I would like to suggest that you not assume that those of us who may disagree with you are merely "yakking away" and assume some intelligence on the part of other editors. Disagreement does not necessarily equal stupidity or malevolence. And although I respect your personal history of skiing, as you know, personal experience is not a referenceable. As I said, the Google Earth sat. images show that there may be active expansion going on on this ski area. The USGS maps clearly do not show new trails that have been added since those maps have been last updated, which brings them into question as an accurate, up-to-date resource. Just how far that expansion extends, I have no idea. That is problem #1. Problem #2 is the fact that it seems that ski areas either exaggerate vertical drop or use different criteria to evaluate vertical drop. Which? I don't know. Maybe both. If criteria and not hyperbole, I have no idea what such criteria might be; Wikiproject ski is where you should bring this discussion to so that concensus can be achieved about what exactly vertical drop means here in Wikipedia--what cireterion are used here to measure it within the context of an article. In the mean time, perhaps the best thing to do would be to exclude vertical drop from the template in this article entirely until its paremeters can be resolved by concensus, rather than single-editor POV.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comments, Pgagnon999, the vertical drop should just be excluded until there is a ruling from Wikiproject ski. One area shouldn't be singled out with measurements that aren't used for any other ski area on Wikipedia. Jrclark (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

With regard to expansion this is an irrelevant point in this case and i'm not even sure why its being brought up. The Google imagry matches the maps on the ski resort website.[4] even if they were expanding the point is moot, we can update the stats once it becomes open, and that is simply not the case right now. There is no proof anywhere they are expanding so why even consider it?

My suggestion is to keep with with the Advertised VS Real format. This keeps the reader better informed. I struggle to understand why there is resistance to providing accurate information. Honestly, I've made a strong case, neither of you can deny that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NHguardian (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is consistency and rules. I don't understand the urgency to do a one-off personal measurement and call it fact. Let the WikiProject Ski group discuss it, they built the Infobox and have not specified the source data. The industry standard is to go with the published vertical drop. It is unfair to target one ski area seemingly for a personal grudge. Let the group discuss the matter. Until then, I think a fair compromise is to remove the vertical stat altogether, until the group has had time to review the parameters of the ski area Infoboxes. Jrclark (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfair attack, Personal grudge? I love Berkshire east. I've skiied it more than any other area. However I do not like the vertical being misrepresented. I want this article to represent fact, not fabrications.

Furthermore, the addition of True vertical VS advertised does not seem to violate any of the template options. I am in favor of employing this method for all ski areas. I'm not sure where this singling out nonsense comes from. I have made efforts already with the ski group to employ this method and they are aware of it. I see no reason to exclude it just because an ex worker [5] see copyright, then look at whois entry for franklinsites.com and you will see the website was maintained by Jrclark wants to make his home ski area seem bigger than it is. (Conflict of interest).--NHguardian (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your words lead us to believe you are some sort of ski expert...how many ski areas have you skied? How many times have you skied Berkshire East? What is your ski industry experience. Berkshire East is not my home ski area - in fact, it is over 3 hours away from me. I am not on the Berkshire East payroll, nor do I have any sort of financial gain from their statistics. I have started and/or contributed to dozens of ski area articles, and most of them have rounded off vertical drop figures, yet no one has had any issue with that - nor has anyone else had issue with this entry.

By taking the liberty of coming up with your own criteria and only doing this to Berkshire East, you are indeed singling them out. Let WikiProject Ski discuss it - it needs to be consistent across the ski area articles to be fair to the ski areas as well as readers. To say, for instance, Berkshire East has a vertical drop of 888' (which is incorrect) but to not do anything to nearby Jiminy Peak's advertised vertical drop of 1,150' (which can also be debated) is unfair to the areas involved and any readers. I'm going to remove the vertical drop figure from the Infobox until WikiProject Ski discusses the matter. Jrclark (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nhguardian, there is no "resistance to providing accurate information"; there is disagreement about how information is presented, and which information is most accurate. Arguing that others are being difficult because they do not hold the same viewpoint as you is not helpful. We can argue about the USGS maps vs. the Google Earth Maps (my eyes tell me they are, in fact quite different) vs. the validity of ski area reviews that claim certain vertical drop stats (which are the most recent and up-to-date claims, factual accuracy debatable as the criteria are not defined), but none of this gets us anywhere. Again, I suggest that you bring this issue to the Wikiproject ski page where it can be resolved by concensus of editors familiar with the project. At the very bottom of this argument is the need for the Wiki ski project to come up with concensus criteria for vertical drop stats. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pgagnon,

I respectfully disagree with your statement. If you look at the course of the discussion Jrclarks went from first admitting the vertical was wrong, then to denying it, then when he could no longer defend himself on that topic he resorted to claiming it was a wikipedia standards issue. I do believe he wants to obscure the true vertical and not have it posted. That is why he continues to push for removing all references of vertical drop. I simply want accurate numbers shown, which as I've said countless times is a reasonable request and it has been backed up by statistics.

I encourage that this information be posted in the box where it belongs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NHguardian (talk • contribs) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not backed off from my previous statements. It's well known that the ski area vertical drops do not match up perfectly with various measurements. It is standard, however, to use the advertised vertical drop in publications - newspapers, books, brochures, web sites, magazines, etc. Across the WikiProject Ski infobox spectrum, the advertised vertical drop is used. It is only fair to let the discussion take place as to whether or not a 'real' vertical drop should be used - and if so, how to come up with a consistent number, and a way to get it done across all ski areas, not just one that you have targetted. I'd like to see vertical drops published - I have put advertised vertical drops in other ski area articles I have created - as a regular skier, it is relevant number. I feel it is a decent compromise to simply take out the number until WikiProjects Ski group discusses the issue - I don't think it's an unreasonable action. Jrclark (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we all need to take a step back and look at the big picture. I have stated that (and I should hope that everyone here agrees) that wikipedia is not an advertising tool. It is an encyclopedia of best effort factual information. Jrclark has unfortunately determined by his own statements that this is now how he sees this resource. This is evident by him claiming it is unfair to state the true vertical of a ski area. "he if the others get to lie, why not let Berkshire east do the same". Why would someone be so concerned about showing advertised vs real vertical if they were not concerned with the impact on the resort as a business? I have established a precedent for measuring the vertical of a ski area. It is very simple. Subtract the base altitude from the summit.

I will be changing the box back.

User Jrclark

-- Personal information removed by Jrclark (talk) --

Who was on the payroll at Berkshire east for a number of years as was just verified by

Roy Schaefer, Owner of Berkshire east

Does indeed have a conflict of interest and should be disallowed or show some restraint in editing wikipedia entries on this topic.

Hopefully this will put this topic to rest? I guess we can see why he was so hell bent on making the numbers out to be 1180 instead of 945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.80.203 (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, posting personal information is a Wikipedia violation. Secondly, I am not on the Berkshire East payroll. I once was employed by Berkshire East, however I am not on their payroll or part of their ownership, therefore I have no financial gain in relation to the vertical drop of Berkshire East. Thirdly, I don't have my Wikipedia rules handy, but posting fake quotes I think is probably a violation of something as well. Cease and desist. Jrclark (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Masquerading around while having a vested financial interest in the success of this ski mountain and pretending you don is a conflict of interest (and is thus against the rules). Second of all admit it Jeremy, you got backed up in a corner and couldn't argue your way out of it and it really got under your skin didn't it?

The Box should stay the same unless pgagnon wants to change it or some other third party has a reasonable say. Until then you are skating on thin ice with the 3RR rule Jeremy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NHguardian (talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, all information about vertical drop have been removed until true WP:Consensus is achieved on the Wiki ski project page (or via a community dispute resolution process) regarding how vertical drop will be handled. Both of you, please cease WP:sockpuppeting or your blocks will be extended, this page protected, and your IP's and sock accounts blocked as well. This is not the way to do things here. Thanks,--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Terrain Park

There have been numerous attempts to include a section of sentence regarding terrain parks. The last few attempts have been:

"Berkshire East has never maintained a serious terrain park."

This is purely opinion-based. While Berkshire East's attempts at building terrain parks have been criticized by some in recent years, there have been some substantial parks in the past 10 years. I would suggest either omitting mention of it altogether. If others feel something to the extent of the quote above should be used, it should be cited from a reputable source, such as a magazine, newspaper, or credible web site. In the meantime, I will remove the uncited quote above from the article. Jrclark (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could add onto the section in the article about terrain parks so that it is a bit more informative. Freeskier328 (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"While Berkshire East's attempts at building terrain parks have been criticized by some in recent years, there have been some substantial parks in the past 10 years." I put that statment in the acticle as sarcasm, but it was deleted. Im sorry for the act of vandalism on the page.

But, this is undeniably just as much an opinion as "Berkshire East has never maintained a serious terrain park."

All I would like is for there to be a statment on the page that honestly reflects the terrain park at Berkshire East, which in the eyes of anyone who cares about newschool skiing and snowboarding, always been poor.

Freeskier328 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC) ps. I am not sockpuppeting. This is my first account. I did however, edit before I created an account. Sorry for any confusion, if this could have cause it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeskier328 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your rhetoric, interest, and presistance in edit warring on this topic are a dead giveaway. The administrator who blocked you already noted the relationship of these accounts (sockpuppet or meatpuppet). You're not fooling anyone. I'm not sure what your objection to using the processes for dispute resolution that the rest of us use. . .had you followed the appropriate procedure, you would likely have had better results by this point. Again, please cease and desist. Sorry, but this is the last time I will attempt to reason with you. Please work within Wiki guidelines and stop attempting to game the system. Thank you.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively" This is the only account I have ever created. To my knowledge I have never been blocked. I am ultra an ultra noob and Im sorry I dont really know what I'm doing, so fuck you. Ban me please. Freeskier328 (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Cited material from JRclarks own website which confirms the range of vertical on Berkshire east.

Pgagnon999, I highly suggest you reconsider this dispute especially considering I have just cited JRclark's own material.. Strange that he disputes this yet agrees at the same time.

I tell you, if nothing else this is egg in the face of his credibility!!

Ski area vertical data

Sockpupetry is a violation of Wikipedia rules. My hiking site is not a source of ski area vertical drop information, nor does it claim to be. Cease and desist. Jrclark (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read your contribs JRclark and I have read this debate I have seen the way you've treated anyone who goes against your grain, you have attacked other pages I have edited and cited advertised vertical while there has been no final verdict issued from the skiwiki folks (there has been discussion however). Yet you gripe if I make changes to your inaccurate data (which you agree in this talk is inaccurate?) (pgagnon999 a little help here? see jrclark's contribs)

And to reply to your hiking website...

"This site started in 2002 as part of the ski photo archive and log. Once my outdoors activity picked up and branched out beyond just ski areas, I split the hiking photos and data to form this site."

I am confused, your hiking website is sourced from your skiing website? but you just claimed the two were once one and the same? Are you saying your ski area website is filled with inaccuracies too? I hope nobody tries to cite it on this page if that is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdakunta (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpupetry is a violation of Wikipedia rules. I am not the only person who has reversed your recent edits (nor the edits under your other sockpuppets). I don't know why you're bringing my hiking web site into this, but perhaps if you read the page that explains the measurements used on it, you would see "not perfect but certainly an estimate." Nowhere on the skiing photos site do I state vertical drop, so I do not know why someone would cite that.

Vertical drop is something that can only be calculated by a certified survey. As such, any estimations based upon 7.5 minute topographic maps or Google Earth are original research and not citable for this purpose. People criticize ski area measurements every day - vertical drop, trail counts, prices, etc. Wikipedia is not here to wage wars against the ski areas. As such, it seems best to simply find a national source - SnoCountry is the top source for ski area statistics in North America - and use the figure there.

Since there has been edit warring on this article, it was decided to simply leave the vertical drop measurement out for now. Jrclark (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here about template criterion might be best carried out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ski. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Berkshire East Ski Resort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501115148/http://www.berkshirezip.com:80/ to http://www.berkshirezip.com
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501115148/http://www.berkshirezip.com:80/ to http://www.berkshirezip.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Advertised vs. True Vertical

Hello all- We need to clarify the true vertical drop. I created a new discussion, as the other one was from 2008 and some of the comments said in that discussion led to bans- overall, not a discussion to go back to.

However, the vertical drop of Berkshire East is still in question (as of recently). The resort advertises a vertical drop of 1,180. However, Google’s topographic maps say differently.

First measured vertical drop: From the parking lot to the very top of Mt. Institute (in theory, the very most one could ski): 950 feet.

Second measured vertical drop: From the base of the first lift to the top of the highest lift (most lift-served vertical): 920 feet.

Third measured vertical drop: From the base of the main lift (quad) to the summit of the main lift: 900 feet.

However, while this is not an advertisement, Berkshire East is competing with many larger ski areas in New England, and while the 1,180ft they advertise may add 200 feet, they have advertised that for many years, and changing that on Wikipedia may confuse many people. Wikipedia NOT here for misleading people, however, most people who read this Wikipedia page may be confused if the vertical drop goes against what Berkshire East says.

A previous edit by another user changed the vertical drop to 885 feet, which is less than any of the measured vertical drop.

Overall, I will be changing the vertical back to 1,180ft, as to not confuse anybody. BUT- in the “Terrain” section, I will put “950 feet of non- inflated vertical drop.” That way, those who are on the page to learn more than just the quick facts of Berkshire East will learn the true vertical.

Please use this discussion if you have any comments. NutmegSki (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)