For the sake of clarity for the readers of the website, I decided to create a special page dedicated to the questions that everyone can ask themselves by browsing the suggested itineraries. If a question does not appear in the list below, you can contact me by email, I will be happy to answer you and add the question to the list.<\/p>\n
Why did you rank hikes by difficulty?<\/strong><\/p>\n This is, in my opinion, the best way to account for the range of possible routes in the region while having an indication of feasibility , especially for beginners<\/strong>.<\/p>\n I could have adopted a taxonomy based solely on the cumulative positive gain, the time or the distance, but these components are not very clear for novices who, without experience in the field, can not rely on theoretical data.<\/p>\n Moreover, it seems irrelevant to consider only one component at a time, since the difficulty of a hike is measured according to the combination of these three variables.<\/p>\n How is the level of difficulty of a hike evaluated?<\/strong><\/p>\n The classification in each of the difficulty levels is based on the combination of three variables displayed on each route card: cumulative positive gain<\/strong>, time<\/strong>, and total distance (round-trip)<\/strong>. To this set is added an additional technical component<\/strong>, that is to say the presence or not of exposed and \/ or technical passages on the course.<\/p>\n For example, two hikes with the same cumulative gain, time, and distance might be classified in two different levels (often Easy and Intermediate) because of a technical or exposed passage in one of them. Practically, the Lac de Pormenaz<\/a>, although having a climbing time, a cumulative gain and distance of an easy hike, ranks amongst “Intermediate” hikes due to a small technical passage slightly exposed to heights. If, for some, this is absolutely not a problem, for others it may seem more delicate, hence this level of difficulty.<\/p>\n