so for now we are just biting our way through, poles at the ready to poke away bigger ice!"
Exactly as one would expect. In the Arctic. No? If I sailed through the NWP and never had to slow down, I'd be really, really disappointed. The thrill comes from the location, certainly, but more so from the danger element. I'd want to spend hours or days having to pick through ice, or else why go?
Merriam-Webster says:
Definition of navigable
1a : deep enough and wide enough to afford passage to ships navigable waterways
b : capable of being navigated
Don't say nuttin' 'bout no ice!
;-)
Navigable is navigable. Can be gotten through or not - and need not be safe for every vessel, either, nor successful. That's a risk assessment issue, not a definition issue. I think maybe a series of benchmarks might be an interesting approach:
When icebreaker navigable - irrelevant at this point?
When double-hulled, Arctic-rated navigable.
When single-hulled, Arctic-rated navigable.
When double-hulled freight/oil navigable.
When single-hull freight/oil navigable.
When cruise ship navigable.
When yacht/pleasure craft/fishing boat navigable.
Or whatever. Maybe there's not enough difference to attempt a distinction...