I add it in my Favorites.
No, Borut, I was looking for it in all my magazine numbers and on the web, but I couldn't find it. I will try again.
Borut, as each country in Alps has its own system for grading, I prefer not to rely on the Slovenian one. The other reason that I don't like it is its stupidity. Information on many signposts in Slovenian mountains is completely misleading. If the Bergsteiger's system will not become a standard (and it looks that it will not), I am ready to adopt any other, reasonable standard grading system which the hiking community in Europe adopts. And I am willing to bet with you that it will not be the Slovenian system.
Regarding the word "power" I mostly agree with you. That is why the additional definition and description of it is added to the scale. It still looks better to me than the "technical aspect" of a route.
I did a little research on the web and although there is one similar system, I believe that DAV and SAC are both using the same 6-point scale. I think that would be worth of a forum discussion. After holidays.
People (foreigners) turn around when they see "Zelo zahtevna zavarovana pot". Someone decided for such criteria, hoping that there will be less accidents. Which is nonsense. That's called inflation and the effect is the opposite. The same as on our roads. There's a speed limit of 40 where all could normally drive 80. And it doesn't help to reduce accidents. And Alpine Association is something wich operates on a dynasty principle, far from being a collective content community. At least those who make decisions. But I don't care, I've not been a member for 35 years.
I like this proposed system very much. It captures all the different dimensions of difficulty. I recognize the complications in getting it accepted (and signed).
megla's point about English "psyche" is right -- the term makes sense but it's not idiomatic to me (a native speaker). You could say "psychological factors," "subjective danger," or something like that.
Well, Arthur, my current dilemma is whether to switch on SummitPost (my routes) from an analytical grading to something like the Swiss 6 grade scale. So, which proposed system would you prefer?
Regarding the term psyche there's no doubt. Borut (megla) is right and should be changed to something else.
What about "endurance" and "power"?
I joined SP recently, and started doing Alpine hikes this year. I have to say I liked your grading logic excellent and useful.
As I see, the two scales (yours and Swiss) don't have to be mutually exclusive. The SAC grade is compact: just one number gives a rough idea about the difficulty. For those interested, further details can be unraveled, as your scale does.
So, as a composite score, the SAC scale is useful. At a greater detail, your scale is useful.
I think "endurance" is more appropriate than "effort" because even higher power demands as in the crux can require more "effort" in normal English.
So I would say, leave "power" as it is; replace "effort" with "endurance"
Thank you, LoneRanger! I did the correction you suggested.
Yes, I was also thinking of introducing the term "scrambling". To my understanding, it would be better: T1 and T2= Hiking, T3 and T4=Mountain hiking, T5=Scrambling, T6=Alpine Climbing.
But, on the other hand, we are dealing only with hiking - all levels, T1 to T6 are hiking. T6 could be climbing (and usually is), but could also be only hiking/scrambling on a very tricky terrain, with big exposure, difficult orientation etc. So, I would avoid the term climbing in the title. I don't know...