You would. You should go.I this means I'd love Sugarloaf.
This is quite skewed, Killington for example has tons of trees to ski that are not showing up in this “ratio” and really only about 10 percent can ski those trees, so maybe this is good for people who can’t ski the trees?
The reason I like to do ski safaris, or even check the base of a small mountain in person during the off-season is because then the trail map makes more sense. Then when I read comments or a trip report about a given ski area, it's much easier to have a sense of the terrain that people who like trees or powder consider fun.Clearly the arbitrary nature of ski area acreage is the weakness. Is acreage merely the area of open trails? Does it include trees? Is it boundary-to-boundary?
Skip all of the arithmetic and follow the midweek storms.
Have no idea what that might mean.ETA: Are you saying that measuring acreage using local standards makes the most sense?