Talk:Grade (slope)

message: The second and third bullet points need to be reversed, for the comment (about "the last two") in the following paragraph to make sense. It would also match them up with the table on the right. In fact, I'm going to make that change right now - if anyone has objections, change it back.
Qseep 05:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of bullet points 

message: After reading the article I still found myself wondering how grades are calculated. The table would suggest a 9% grade is merely 5°, but I was on a 9% road today and it must have been at least 30°. The linked page  offers a much clearer answer, that the grade is simply 100*(rise/run). Perhaps this is not a common standard but it is certainly used in Northern Alberta and BC. :-)
Though, I still don't understand why percentages are used at all. :-/ 142.59.173.240 05:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This doesn't explain much 

message: Surely the "20" on the sign cannot represent a 20% grade. The "Railways" section of the article on railway list four of the steepest grades for a non-rack railroads as ranging between 1 in 40 (2.5%) and 1 in 18 (5.5%). The Czech railroad (which looks pretty flat in the photo) would be 3.5 to 8 times steeper than that if the sign really means 20%.
:If you look closely, you will see that it says "20‰"; see Permille (which ironically features the same photo). So you should be interpreting this number as  or 2%. I've included this on the article, because I'm sure that this confusion is common. +mt 17:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech railway sign 

message: I would fix it if I understood the subject. But I came to read it, justbecause I wanted to learn more.
After reading this I still don't understand the various ways slopes are indicated and I am missing information. Why, for example, is a 45° equal to 100%? My gut feeling is that a vertical (90°) wall would be 100%. And why is there no explanation (perhaps drawing) of 1:10. 1:20, 1:50 etc. slope indication? Why is there no comparison table that is understandable? Why is "sine" mentioned in table but not explained in text? Etc. --VanBurenen (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. My understanding of the subject is increasing. :) --VanBurenen (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed a repetition of information: in the introductory paragraphs information was added that also is mentioned under "Expression". Therefore I edited some. Also added picture and straightened out some other stuff. --VanBurenen (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I might rework the definitions someday, since def'n 2 and 3 are mathematically the same, except that #2 is arbitrarily multiplied by 100, and def'n #3 uses wording described in the ratio article but worth describing here for convenience. Some gradients use per mil (e.g., the photo in this article). Basically I'll merge #2 and #3, and reword it to mention that often the ratio is expressed as a percentage for roads, etc., or worded as 1 in x. The previous version of this article previously stated a "sine" definition, which existed in the table (now removed). Does anyone know who uses this definition for describing gradients of terrain? If it is not used, we could remove this definition, since this can only add to confusion (as expressed above). Otherwise this would be set as the third definition (again). +mt 03:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of making a table, would it not be more illustrative to make a drawing  showing the slope at different angles, %'s, and ratio's? Does any of you have a drawing application to make such? --VanBurenen (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Review the figure :Image:Grade_slope.pdf‎ and add some feedback here (it's a PDF for now and needs to be downloaded, but I'll make it an SVG after it is reviewed). I used angles 0° to 70° since the graph becomes unusable after 70° since the y-axis scales to accommodate the trend to ∞ for 90°. +mt 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All I get is a .pdf-icon. Nothing to review. What do I miss? --VanBurenen (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the PDF icon is the download link (PDFs are quickest for me to make) ... regardless, the SVG version of the same figure is at :Image:Grade slope.svg. However, now I see the referenced figure below and I'm starting to get a a few more ideas ... +mt 03:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I removed the sine column from the table because it is distracting from the primary definition with the tangent function. Although the sine definition is fine within mathematics, I haven't seen it being used in engineering, geology, etc. to describe slopes and grades. It may, however, exist as an obscure surveying definition. Presently, it is mentioned in the article below the main definitions, which is fine, but it shouldn't be up with the other definitions unless it is referenced in the literature as a definition of "grade" (again, because it will only add to any confusion). Anyway, the figure in your website is nice, and I might redo a similar figure for inclusion here (someday). +mt 03:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The graph I see on Wolf's website is something I had in mind. With not as many 'red' markers to make it a little less crowded and easier to read. Maybe Wolf could do a little redesign and upload it? --VanBurenen (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I like the idea that the slope is visual, and shows both the % and 1:# notations side-by-side. Give me a few days to draft a similar figure. My version will probably have fewer divisions so that it isn't too large, but it should still be effective. +mt 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks great .. I've added your image to :Image:Grade_slope.png with your credit, and put in on this article. Change the license if you care (I just chose a compatible one). I've been too busy to draft a figure (you beat me to it), but I might (someday) redo this figure as a vector SVG, since these are generally preferred. +mt 05:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! --VanBurenen (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that certainly made it to the article very quickly. That chart and my rewriting of some of the article are the biggest contributions I've made to Wikipedia (so far). Thanks. Wolf1728 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad article 

message: I'd like to change the current graph with one I just uploaded here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grades_degrees.svg -- Reasons: a) the aspect ratio should display better, and b) it's in SVG format.BW95 (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It does better show what the graph is supposed to show.  But making it fit appropriately into the article seems more challenging.  Once it's scaled to fit, the numbers will be rather hard to read.  —EncMstr (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the text larger. Seems to work OK at 300px wide. BW95 (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a major improvement.  Would it be hard to make the angle text larger too?  Seems like it should be the same size as the other text.  —EncMstr (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about that but decided against it for two reasons: a) The angle text may run into the grade lines and cause confusion, even with the color coding, and b) The main thrust of this graph is to show grades, and angles are secondary information. But anyway, it can be done if you think it's important enough. BW95 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the graph? 

message: From the "Railways" section list:
* 1.66% (1 in 60) Rudgwick platform with non-continuous brakes - too steep.
* 0.77% (1 in 130) Rudgwick platform with non-continuous brakes - not too steep.
That makes no sense at all without some form of explanation. 109.149.143.15 (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grade (slope). 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/20110722040709/http://www.linzag.at/cms/media/en/linzagwebsite/dokumente/mobilittverkehr_1/pstlingbergbahn_1/folder_bergbahn.pdf to http://www.linzag.at/cms/media/en/linzagwebsite/dokumente/mobilittverkehr_1/pstlingbergbahn_1/folder_bergbahn.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For reference and to show the accuracy of the values, some examples of the values in the table of comparative values of gradient slopes are calculated as follows.  The table entries are selected from round numbers in per-mille or ratio or angle along with some documented or reasonably well known examples.  Appropriate rounding is applied for presentation.  Copy, paste and tweak to explore other values. Philh-591 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example slopes comparing the notations