Yet another thread on the Yosemite Decimal System & rating backpacking passes

[erutan]

Wandering Daisy, you've mentioned the guidebook a few times on the forum. Keeping things on topic, YDS plus some lightly adapted C5 existing modifiers (with potentially a new basic traction rating) makes more sense to me for the XC Passes section here than your guidebook movie rating system. Anyone familiar with YDS should be able to grok the meaning of it and there's more specific information on hand. Your average weekend backpacker will be mystified, but if nothing else the narrative and photos following would be informative. We'd probably have 70-80% of the XC Passes as PG just like they're Class 2 now. Easy / moderate / strenuous just based on distance and AEG is weird to me because it assumes more of a fitness level vs experience/technique.

Your excel database is intriguing, but it's private so I can't really comment on it.

I haven't been over Sky Pilot Col though it looked like a loose talus slog down to Shepherd Lake, but wouldn't something like 2+ X be more descriptive than PG or R? It tells you someone thought that while you didn't need to "climb" it was on the more difficult side of class 2 (due to traction though that's obviously ambiguous in this case!) and there was fatal exposure of some sort. Both of those modifiers are currently in use with the same meanings for Class 5. G and PG would need to be recategorized a bit due to there not being "protection" but would still be fairly intuitive.

While not in my original post, your point on traction (and it coming up repeatedly in other threads) had me come up with an off the cuff proposal for a novel modifier: Stable, Loose, & Consequentially Loose are distinctions I make in my XC pass entries here. We could add a S, L and CL onto things. The lack of differentiation between something that's loose but self-brakes or wobbles vs sustained slides of Rodgers Pass seems important IMO, and more important than just loose vs stable which was the crux of the HST rating system that never really caught on earlier.

While it becomes a bit of a jargon mouthful (and perhaps that's a decent enough reason to not bother with it), Sky Pilot Col could be 2 X CL at that section or 2+ X CL. That's short but pretty informative!

Putting a slash could allow for a two modifiers to show the range of conditions. Off the top of my head for recent memorable passes:

Black Giant Pass 2 PG S/L
Valor Pass 2 G S with a brief 3- PG S bit at the top.
Finger Col 2+ R S/L with a technically a move or two of 3- G at the top.
Dragon Pass 2 G S up to either 2+ R CL or 3 PG S for the final stretch to gain the ridge. The western drop would be 2+ PG L.
Ursula Pass 2 G > 2/3 PG > 2- X on the west, 2/3- PG on the east.
Vernon 2- PG > 2+ R S/L on the east, to 2 PG L > 2 G S on the west.

At the end of the day it's still a subjective take, but at a glance there's quite a bit of information. I suppose we could add in a routefinding modifer as well, but that seems to be getting truly overboard. If I saw a 2 R CL (Rodgers perhaps) I'd quickly look at alternatives in the area!

Also, to be perfectly clear I have never made the case that this would eliminate the need for verbal descriptions, write ups, or photos for the route cruxes - I've added a fair number of new passes to the forum here (Vernon is an example where the vast majority of attention is on the crux) and added in more info for existing cruxes (see Finger Col, Valor, Cirque, etc) as well as giving my general take or filling in the gaps for existing ones if it seemed there was something meaningful to add.

This could end up in the campfire section as it's a bit more meta I suppose, it doensn't really matter to me.

In a nutshell what I'd propose:

1) Keep the YDS.
2) Use the existing +- modifiers for class 5 for 2-4
3) Use existing G, PG, R, X with only slight modifications to account for lack of technical protection for 2-4
4) Drop exposure as part of the criteria for class 4 as that'd be covered by X, and having 15 feet of class 4 regardless of exposure can be an issue depending on shoe/boot choice and pack weight regardless of technical ability.
5) Potentially add a traction modifier as well.

[Gogd]

..Black Giant Pass 2 PG S/L
Valor Pass 2 G S with a brief 3- PG S bit at the top.
Finger Col 2+ R S/L with a technically a move or two of 3- G at the top.
Dragon Pass 2 G S up to either 2+ R CL or 3 PG S for the final stretch to gain the ridge. The western drop would be 2+ PG L.
Ursula Pass 2 G > 2/3 PG > 2- X on the west, 2/3- PG on the east.
Vernon 2- PG > 2+ R S/L on the east, to 2 PG L > 2 G S on the west...

..In a nutshell what I'd propose:

1) Keep the YDS.
2) Use the existing +- modifiers for class 5 for 2-4
3) Use existing G, PG, R, X with only slight modifications to account for lack of technical protection for 2-4
4) Drop exposure as part of the criteria for class 4 as that'd be covered by X, and having 15 feet of class 4 regardless of exposure can be an issue depending on shoe/boot choice and pack weight regardless of technical ability.
5) Potentially add a traction modifier as well.

That's a pretty thick nut shell to crack. The qualifiers read like IRS tax code.

My eyes glaze over just trying to decipher route rating code-speak, and I used to be a rock climber! It reminds me more of what one hears in a conference room full of IT guys describing enterprise network topographies, than a conversation between buddies planning a hike in the mountains over a map, pizza and beers.

One word: KISS.

So I am for Daisy's movie rating based system. It is simple, you don't need to be able to tie a figure-8 with one hand to understand its connotations. The movie rating system doesn't eliminate footnotes to clarify specific route nuances, but this is true of all existing systems. Daisy's system, on the other hand, is widely comprehensible at a superficial level. Each level requires just a brief description, and is easy to remember. Any qualifications are relegated to the route footnotes - where they belong. Works for the masses.

Ed

[Silky Smooth]

Hahhahaaah, blackout and I like to joke about this exact thing when playing in the mtns, is this a yosemite class 4 or a regular one. There are class 3 and 4's in yosemite that will make you wish you had a rope. Lol its all relative i guess, just wear your approach shoes. Secor keeps it exciting, same with Roper, a little more old school approach to grading. In my book, if it's a yosemite 5.6 its probably a 5.8 or 5.9 in another places. Or we just say it's just yosemite 5th class, no biggie Passes and cross country passes are a whole different discussion, unless your doing rock moves. Navigation and route finding are mainly the crux as well as the talus/scree. Good one, i enjoyed the laughs.

[erutan]

I'm an on/off climber, more off than on, but I get the system so that's a bonus. The impulse for thinking about this was when someone disagreed with me backing them up on a YDS interpreation, then going over past threads where people on this forum have complained for over a decade that the YDS isn't precise enough for XC travel. This was my take on making it so, based in actual feedback that people have left on other threads about wanting information on traction, etc while not making yet another system.

Funnily, I find Yosemite a lot easier to get around in than many other spots, and looking at topo and feeling confident it'll work as expected, though that's 2/3 than 4/5.

Secor is somewhat annoying (as his introduction admits) he'll use ratings from different time periods that meant different things without differentiating. I personally often find class 3 more enjoyable than 2, but it makes his ratings a bit meaningless at times. Some passes are extremely vauge (Ursula), others overly verbose (Mosquito), and some just right (Cirque).

[ironmike]

“Secor is…”

You are aware he passed in 2017, right?

[Wandering Daisy]

I climbed with Secor in his day. He actually did a lot of the passes he wrote about. But did not do everything and relied on other climber's reports. Regardless of what you think of his guidebook, simply putting all that together was a huge project. I think he had a degree in English too. RJ was a very proficient class 3-4 climber- similar to the original pioneers of Sierra routes. Class 5 climbing was not his thing. He also was a "traditionalist". Early ratings took class 4 up to what now is rated 5.4. He was not inclined to adjust historical ratings. Ratings developed in Yosemite and the Sierra in general are a harder than similar difficulties in other mountain ranges. But then, the Sierra has pretty good weather compared to other ranges. If you are always climbing on mixed snow and rock, with lots of wind, foul weather, etc., you would likely rate routes harder than if that route were set in the Sierra.

All the old-time (and current) SPS climbers (RJ was one) were amazing on class 3 to lower class 4. They did stuff without a rope that I would not; they were very skilled at advanced down-climbing. And they did it every weekend and all summer. The guidebook is a "climbers" guide, not a backpacking guide. Pass ratings are generally based on not carrying a full pack. They also are based on the difficulty as seen by an experienced and frequent climber. The more you do the more comfortable you become with exposure, narrow ledges, etc.

The Yosemite decimal system is not at its most accurate when talking of class 2, 3 and easy class 4 climbing. Experienced climbers are really not good rating class 2-3 stuff. They just fly over it, not giving it much thought. Exposure is not considered much in class 5, because class 5 is ALL exposed!

[ironmike]

Good summary WD. My days with RJ were during his affiliation with the old (or maybe ancient) Sierra Club RCS which was forced to disband in the mid-eighties. He definitely had the climbers/mountaineers mindset, without necessarily being an elite one. That and he was fairly eccentric, so I’ll always agree that his ratings require “interpretation”.

[erutan]

I'm aware he passed, sorry I messed up a verb tense - I was referring to the book itself when I started the sentence then switched to talking to his approach to it.

I find his book quite useful and did not mean to knock the vast effort put into it (I carry a digital version of it on my phone at all times and for years it was my only reference aside from topo for planning trips), just stating that the numbers given have historical variation to them as well as whatever variation in terms of subjective experience which makes them more suspect. I've read the introduction, enjoy his dry yet informative tone, and am aware most of it is first hand, some of it second, and a handful of items (4 iirc) vague hearsay as well as how ratings have changed over time (which is why I brought it up). Most of the time I find his descriptions and ratings extremely useful & accurate (I didn't need anything else to safely routefind Cirque Pass).

I'm also aware that class 5 is exposed @Wandering Daisy - as you would know if you'd bother to read the posts you're responding to. Please quit talking down to me. I get your ego is a bit bruised after you attacked my position agreeing with you on the Hopkins pass thread and tried to educate me on how occasional use of hands makes something class 3, but let it go. It's pretty clear you didn't even bother to read my original post here (even the summaries at the top or the two sentence tl;dr) before you posted multiple paragraphs in response to it, bringing up arguments like they were novel points that I had explicitly brought up and considered after reading previous threads. After that you just basically repeated a previous post about your guidebook, and again didn't engage with anything I wrote directly. You mention the fact that you wrote a guide book every few posts here, I’m pretty sure you don’t need a coy “I don’t know if you’re aware, but…” as I’ve probably come across that fact around 20 times.

If you disagree that’s fine, but at least bother to argue in good faith.

Anyways, I still think there's utility in using YDS as a backpacker, if not blindly treating what Secor says as gospel, and most of the issues that people have on this forum relate to looseness of terrain and exposure. I personally use 2X and 3- when describing things or taking notes, and it seems like a natural contextual extension that makes up for a lot of the flaws in the system. Adding the S/L/CL is admittedly unweildy, but would address some of the repeated concerns here. If people think it's too much effort that's fine, but I'll still make shorthand notes to myself and then unpack them when writing up passes.

Dropping packweight from a "traditional" pack helps a lot - in 2011 my packs were in the mid-upper 40 lbs, now they're in the low-mid 30s when starting. I don't find packweight a major issue on class 3 (though it is one reason to point out it's there as you need to be aware of bulk and balance), I'm not a UL gram counting nerd, but have some /r/ultralight gear where it makes sense and a conservative sleep system that's heavier than they'd choose and am usually out for a week and a half or so (so decent food weight). My partner is 5.4 and hauls a similar pack up class 3 fine. Narrow gaps are obviously an issue, as well as needing to be aware of your center of gravity, but my partner is 5' 4" and has no issues on any of the passes or xc terrain we've done and will seek out class 3 when it's available if the 2 is loose. Granted there's not a ton of times I'm carrying a full pack up hundreds of feet of class 3, but most "class 3" passes only have short sections of it. Class 4 is still useful to me as it's very much a "think hard about whether you really want to commit to it" especially with boots and a pack and is something I try to avoid unless there's little to no exposure for a short section of it.

My dad used to freeclimb peaks (up to 5.9 I think), he was a classic mountaineer who scorned rope whereas I'm more of a semi-technical backpacker that tries not to get into situations that would warrant rope heh. I'm familiar with the skillset and mindset (I was doing XC dayhikes with him in Tuolumne when I was 7).

Some jokes he used to tell:

"what's the difference between a climber and a mountaineer?"

"a climber uses rope"

then

"what's the difference between a climber and a mountaineer?"

"the climber's not dead"

Which was actually a decent advertisement for not being a mountaineer, he had a lot of dead friends.

There's also a lot of experienced climbers that can't do class 2/3 worth **** - I've been with some solid 5.11 climbers that could barely move over class 2 terrain in AZ.

A less dramatic but interesting example I did a 6 day trip with a guy that set routes in Amsterdam, climbed in the alps, and had traveled the world to climbing spots who wanted to slow down and appreciate scenery vs staring at rock (an interesting sort of "downgrade" I don't see often and deeply respected). He kicked my ass doing ~1500m of gain the first day of the season on trail and can obviously climb circles around me in class 5. The second day of the trip required some straightforward class 2 traversal on a rolling terrain to the next arm over - I was moving a lot faster and was surprised he was really concerned about being lost.

[Wandering Daisy]

I apologize if my words made you think I was "talking down" to you. That was not intended. The reference to exposure on all class 5 was aimed at those in this forum who do not climb at all. And yes, I did read your original post. And thanks for bringing up this subject. It is a worthwhile conversation. I think there will always be different opinions on this subject since the difficulty any one person "feels" has more to do with their perception than the physical conditions. But I agree it is good to have said conditions defined. I like your Dad's jokes. Paul Petzold would always say " there are bold climbers; and then there are old climbers". I suspect your Dad was similar to Petzoldt.

ironmike- Yes, Secor had a unique personality! On every trip he would do side-hikes just to take a photo to put in his book update. It is too bad he never got to complete his last update. Whether out of necessity or eccentricity, he had the worst equipment. Once, benighted on a climb I gave him my elephant's foot bivy bag rather than listen to his chattering teeth. He was graciously grateful. His practice of UL was simply to bring very little of anything. Twice I have climbed a bit with Fred Beckey, and RJ reminded me of him. For those unfamiliar with the PNW, Beckey wrote a guide to the North Cascades.

[Lumbergh21]

WD I really appreciate your last two posts. Well said. I can't imagine spending time climbing/hiking with two giants like Secor and Beckey.