# Eddyflower back up, and looks good.



## jtnc (Aug 9, 2004)

Though their webpage is not mobile friendly. Does not scale well.

The 'load more' button on the rivers page is annoying too. Wish it would just show all rivers.

Ok, and inability to sort by river name is annoying. Default sort by water level is useless for me.

john


----------



## Flying_Spaghetti_Monster (Jun 3, 2010)

Honestly eddyflower is a decent source, but american whitewater is more reliable. They have their share of issues though one of them being when you hit the down button it takes you to the next page.


----------



## miker (Jan 26, 2006)

On my first surf through the site it looks like there are still a lot of bugs to be worked out.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

Just took a brief look at it. I like the the new interface a lot and the fact that you can add rapids, photos, and runs. The Eddyflower database also fills in some gaps on runs that currently don't have any good info anywhere else. It looks like it's not quite dialed in yet, but looks promising.

However, I'm definitely sticking with River Brain for now. I've dialed in all kinds of key information on the runs I normally I do on there. Flow formulas, secondary gauge info, flow estimate flags, etc. have proved very useful for me. Their flows list and and custom flows lists are working great for me. The mapping integration is awesome and will prove increasingly useful as more data gets entered. The site seems to be very stable. And most of all, Dan who runs the site seems to have the time, energy, flexibility, and motivation to continue to improve it.

Competition is good though.


----------



## rockinRio (Jul 3, 2006)

Yeah php Yeah!!!

no more .net!

Yeah!


----------



## TheWhiskyThief (Mar 4, 2009)

Is it just me or are the flows broken?

Rivers and Flows - EddyFlower


----------



## coloclimber512 (Aug 29, 2009)

Flows do not work for me either.


----------



## eklars (Mar 28, 2006)

I loved eddyflower, but in their absence I found better options. American Whitewater frankly sucks. New Eddyflower is an incremental improvement.

Riverbrain.com is where its at now-a-days. Wiki style changes to any and all runs at all levels not least flow formula's.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

This new Eddyflower set up sucks. There are runs missing. I was hoping to look at Yeti's write-up for the Taylor Park run and take a quick glimpse at the description for the Canyon again and neither one is even on the river list anymore.... lame.


----------



## turtle (Aug 22, 2010)

Whoever is in charge please make river brain available on iPhone.


----------



## TheWhiskyThief (Mar 4, 2009)

It says on their website that their app is not being accepted by apple in the app store... 

Blame apple.


----------



## rbrain (Aug 30, 2010)

turtle said:


> Whoever is in charge please make river brain available on iPhone.


Ya my last go at it Apple rejected it for various reasons. I'm setting aside some time this fall to try a stab at it again. For now you can hit the site directly from iphone and it should show a fairly decent responsive view of the site for smaller screens.

Congrats to Eddyflower. I hope the new changes work out well for them.


----------



## SummitAP (Jun 23, 2007)

Eddyflower... why do I have to keep clicking load more to see all the runs in my state? That is annoying as hell


----------



## Skillkilla (Mar 29, 2011)

you guys are all missen out ! riverbrain.com is the best source for levels. run by run breakdowns and easy to navigate. go to rivers -rivers/runs and put in Colorado. your welcome.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Riverbrain is good, but not everything is there yet. I could spend a week uploading all the information I have to the site, or I could bitch about the fact it was already on Eddyflower, but now is inaccessible and/or gone..... 

I really do like Riverbrain, just need more time to update/add stuff.

and if you want just flows, go to the DWR site. It has all the gauges for every drainage in the state....just doesn't tell you if it's low, medium or high.

http://www.dwr.state.co.us/SurfaceWater/data/division.aspx?div=2


----------



## FastFXR (May 22, 2012)

Guess I'll have to check out EF again. I liked it at first, but when it turned 404 too often I quit visiting.

FWIW, I prefer RB because it doesn't make me dig up river gauges--it simply says "Buena Vista" or "Golden Whitewater Park". The lameness of RB is the descriptions and info--for that, AW is FAR superior (though dated). RB needs better descriptions and photos.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

I agree with you Fast, but that's what attracted me to River Brain to begin with. I wiki style format, and well laid out interface allows the potential to create an amazing database of information. I think Colorado is actually is actually starting to get pretty respectable, though other regions are light. 

Bear in mind that people River Brain has been getting legitimate use for a year, maybe two and AW has been around for a long time. AW data, as you note, is dated, and the gauge links are notoriously inaccurate. Compare that with River Brain. I just noticed this morning that the Boulder Creek Near Orodell gauge isn't working correctly, so took 2 minutes (a lot less time than I'm taking to write this) to use the gauge below it for the Boulder Creek runs and put the Orodell as a secondary gauge. That format makes it so easy to keep up with every changing river conditions as long as a few people keep their locals runs updated.

Personally, I tend to plug in a quick with little descriptive info when I see it missing so I can get it on my flows list, and then later as I'm checking out a run or after I do it or have some free time, fill out a more detailed run description. 

For your example, the Golden Whitewater Park, I noticed earlier this year that it had only a terse description and filled in some information along with, I think, more useful info on flows and the one good hole than you'll find other places. Someone should upload a good photo - I don't have any - except the photo of me in there in Denver Post, but that seemed a tad too megalomaniacal. 

I also think there's great value is getting some independent descriptions of runs out there to offer another perspective. We have WWSR and CRC, which are pretty awesome in terms of run info, but if the run info is thin in there, or you're looking for somebody else's perspective on the run, it can be hard to find. Eddyflower populated much of it's database with verbatim descriptions from the CRC, which is useful to have online, but doesn't offer you anything new.

The point I keep making, is if everyone just put in a good description of their local run on River Brain, we'd have a kick ass database of info exceeding anything else out there, almost overnight. In fact, sense it's unlikely anyone's going to listen to me, I should have spent this time filling in info about another run.

I can save you trouble looking up flows on River Brain, or anywhere else right now. The answer is, it's running, and it's awesome!


----------



## skipowpow (Mar 1, 2011)

I am not so confident in RiverBrain right now. I signed the log (private) in two places and it still doesn't show. Also some of the data is corrupt. This in on the Colorado, I believe.

Saint Vrain River - October Hole - 2 Bridges - River Brain


----------



## coloclimber512 (Aug 29, 2009)

skipowpow said:


> I am not so confident in RiverBrain right now. I signed the log (private) in two places and it still doesn't show. Also some of the data is corrupt. This in on the Colorado, I believe.
> 
> Saint Vrain River - October Hole - 2 Bridges - River Brain


I have been using the river log feature for the entire 2012 season and every day on the water this year. I haven't had any problems with it. Have you checked your river log through your account to see if it shows up there? You might have accidentally checked the box for private which will only show up in your log.

Edit: I did a test entry and it showed up correctly. I did both private and public for October hole no problems.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

skipowpow said:


> I am not so confident in RiverBrain right now. I signed the log (private) in two places and it still doesn't show. Also some of the data is corrupt. This in on the Colorado, I believe.
> 
> Saint Vrain River - October Hole - 2 Bridges - River Brain


I'm fairly certain what happened, because I've done the same thing, is when you spot a point on the map and try to add an access point, the default run is the October Hole, so if you forget to change it to the run you want to add, it goes there. When you see something like this, just report the problem to the site contact and it's usually cleaned up the same day. 

On the flip side, I don't know anywhere else where you can find the access point for the October Hole (the first entry is correct) or info about the gauge calculation.


----------



## rbrain (Aug 30, 2010)

skipowpow said:


> I am not so confident in RiverBrain right now. I signed the log (private) in two places and it still doesn't show. Also some of the data is corrupt. This in on the Colorado, I believe.
> 
> Saint Vrain River - October Hole - 2 Bridges - River Brain


Private logs only show on your personal account.

2 bridges has been removed from the Oct. hole run. Thanks for letting me know.


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

Kevin, your endless posts about River Brain have finally made me cave and register. I've even already corrected one of the runs you entered, minimum for the Big T Gnar is 200 not 100. Now there can be a check to KCS's megalomaniacal ways. Next up is changing the minimum flow for Steven's down to 4 feet.


----------



## skipowpow (Mar 1, 2011)

rbrain said:


> Private logs only show on your personal account.
> 
> 2 bridges has been removed from the Oct. hole run. Thanks for letting me know.


Got it. Navigation on the site takes a bit of learning. Thanks for the site though. I agree with others that it has a whole lot of potential.


----------

