Talk:Cross country skiing
Alternatives to deleting
I started to put this up for VFD, then reconsidered, on the grounds that it might be a potential travel topic in much the same way as Alpine skiing or Scuba diving are. However, I have doubts as to whether this topic could ever produce as viable an article as those two, for a number of reasons, chiefly the anarchic, go-it-alone nature of XC. So what's the right way to proceed? Options I can see are:
- Try to develop it as a travel topic;
- Merge content into a trailer on the Alpine skiing article;
- Try to find some way to refer this article to WikiOutdoors, with which we are trying to craft a collaboration (note that I recently created an article there on XC skiing at Bandelier National Monument);
- Just delete the durn thing.
Discuss. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:27, 6 January 2007 (EST)
- I think it could be a stand-alone travel topic in the spirit of Wilderness backpacking. I am not sure, however, how well we should try to cover such topics. Should this be just an introduction giving some ideas of what cross country skiing is about (which it is now), with mainly some pointers to good resources added, should it list destinations etc. (like Scuba diving) or should it grow to cover everything a cross country skier needs to know? --LPfi (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
3 meter long skis?
The article mentions 3 m long skis for deep and loose snow. I cant imagine that is feasible for BC or XC skiing. My skis are some 210 cm, and I am a big man. --Erik den yngre (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK, those may be extreme. What is BC or XC? 210 cm sounds like normal skis of my childhood (have your skis raised and you can touch the top with your fingers, that used to be the measure when choosing skis). I had some friends that often went backcountry skiing in Finnish Lapland, and my 210 cm skis looked really short in that company. Most of northern Finnish Lapland is rolling fell heath, mires and sparse fell birch forest. You do not have to turn sharply very often, so not sinking deep in powder snow is much more important than easy maneuvers. I suppose the typical terrain in Norway (except Finnsmarksvidda) gives you quite different concerns – and nowadays going downhill is probably important but for a small minority also in Finland. --LPfi (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- BC is "back-country" or what a Norwegian would call "fjell" or "tur" (tour) as opposed to skiing in groomed tracks. Skating skis are only slightly longer than the person (some 5-10 cm), classic a bit more perhaps 15-20 cm. My 210 cm skis are fine for both (I am 198 cm cm and 100 kg). I cant imagine that 300 cm skis are fine for "ski hiking" in varied terrain, perhaps OK for downhill/alpine slopes. Erik den yngre (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)