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

[Silky Smooth]

I second that, Wandering Daisy thank you so much for your insights! and whoaa! super cool that you climbed with RJ and Beckey, but you seem to roll with a pretty badass crew

I heard about Secor's passion for documentation, I call it the bible to High Sierra personally. What did you climb with Beckey? the curiosity is just eating away at me, was it something in the domelands? whitney area? Personally i didn't like the focus he got as a "dirtbag", i felt it took away attention from all his climbs and his contributions. His climbs are everywhere and his lines are iconic.

[Gogd]

Wow, WD! You have lead quite the adventurer's life. You share your exploits, as if tagging along with some very accomplished folks, but reading between the lines, me thinks your modesty is the only reason you aren't widely considered right up there with the best. You show wisdom in your way of dealing with adversity, be it bad weather, terrain, or man-splaining, and your love of life and the mountains is an inspiration! Write a book - not another trail guide - but a book on life as a trekker. You have much to share.

Ed

[erutan]

I missed a previous post here for context, so am getting rid of a hastily written wall of text.

[c9h13no3]

Wat?

[Lumbergh21]

Wat?

Looks like we have a couple of people, who contribute to this site, caught up in a misunderstanding. Sometimes we don't say what we are intending to say and sometimes we don't read posts as they were intended. I've done it a few times, even firing back at SSSDave once after I felt attacked by him. What I try to do - and suggest others do as well - is believe that the people on here are genuinely good, helpful people (unlike most on-line environments). When I feel attacked, I try to figure out A) how I was wrong and/or B) how I could have communicated my thoughts better, and then make a follow-up post trying to provide a better explanation or changing my position. (I don't always succeed in keeping this attitude and putting it into practice.) I don't know if WD or erutan will see this, but hopefully they won't take offense at me suggesting a deep breath and a re-examination of what they have said and what the other person has said. They may even find that they don't really disagree that much, but even if they do have a difference of opinion that's ok, too. I'm not going to disect this entire string of posts, but hopefully if there were any personal attacks, the person(s) who launched them can apologize and all parties can move on, realizing what a great environment and community this is even when we don't agree. This type of generally productive and supportive environment seems to be a very rare thing on the internet or even in real life today.

[rlown]

Remember when we were walking into REI or USGS to pick up a map and a book?
Then just head out and look at the route and make adjustments as we go?
Good Times!! Don't really need rating. If you look at it and can't do it, go another route.

[Gogd]

@Lumbergh21 's comments on forum etiquette are spot on. I'd let his wisdom resonate in our minds, except I feel compelled to respond to Erutan, because he has addressed me directly.

@Gogd re mansplaining, I think you're missing the context.

Hey @erutan !
So these exchanges got me looking into you previous posts on the HST forums. I like knowing where people are coming from. I like your posts, elsewhere on the forums. You are generally thorough and thoughtful. But for some reason you are taking the responses on this thread too personally. WD already explained her comments are posted with a larger audience in mind, than solely those active in a topic thread. She stated her comments were not directed at you, personally. (It is at this point the wise man pleads mea culpa.) Yet you persist. I also ascribe to posting comments with a larger audience in mind, mindful of the other eyes tuning in. If one wishes to direct a personal comment to an individual, they should consider availing to a PM, no reason for neighborhood to be privy to a private issue. I chose to post this response publically, herein, as several members are involved, and I plea for all to keep perspective, and refrain from second guessing and commenting on the motives and character of fellow HST members. Sorry to all, if I mansplain!

I could have perceived WD's remark to my initial, satiric post to this thread as patronizing, but I chose to have a different take. I looked up her prior forum contributions for context. I saw no reason to perceive her remark as anything other than a wry understatement. It was definitely a more diplomatic, respectful response than my juvenile post warranted. She made me chuckle! Likewise I never got the impression WD was condescending or talking down to you. Her comments did not imply a lack of knowledge on your part, they were instead meant to elucidate the larger audience silently monitoring the topic. At the risk of being presumptuous, I would say that was the takeaway of most folks following this thread. She may disagree with the content of your comments, but there is nothing disrespectful in stating one disagrees with what someone else expresses. If you are carrying baggage from an old thread involving another HST member, you need to burry it. It just taints your perspective and becomes extra weight you carry up hill into the future. Directly stating someone's wrong is judged as antisocial and un-empathetic in today's overly PC society. I and many others who came of age before the helicopter parent era value candor, however; it leaves no room for misunderstandings. Too bad we now need emojies to clarify the intent of any comment that can be remotely misconstrued. Again I invite you to check out the body of posts from WD, she is a model forum member, and generously shares a lifetime of experience with us.

As for my mansplaining comment - It addressed both of us - my gusty screeds over various rating systems, as well as your gusty explanations and quick judgment of other's intentions. We all get what you are saying about rating systems, some of us just see things differently, no need to rehash all the points unless you think we are missing something. And that is the crux of the biscuit. A lot of mansplaining springs from erroneously assuming people just don't get it. The rest is due to jerks like myself getting pissy over trivial issues. Ergo the full context of my mansplaining remark. Participating on a forum requires checking one's ego at the door, and assuming the best of intentions in others interactions. Well I am done with mansplainations about mansplaining.

Time to kiss and make up!

Ed

[Gogd]

Remember when we were walking into REI or USGS to pick up a map and a book?
Then just head out and look at the route and make adjustments as we go?
Good Times!! Don't really need rating. If you look at it and can't do it, go another route.

A lot of truth in them thar words. It certainly felt more adventurous. Still, it's nice to have more resources when planning a trip.

Yea I remember when the USGS had an office in the Federal Building a mile from my house. Convenient. The on-line USGS is satisfactory, though it may take some digging to turn up a specific map. I am not a GPS camper. My map library of the Sierra includes several National Forest wall map products and scores of 7.5' maps, and a handful of Harrison maps, all with lots of notation made in the field.

The 1991 edition of Sierra North and 1980 edition of Sierra South, both by the Winnett family, remain my primary trail guides.

Ed

[rlown]

The 1991 edition of Sierra North and 1980 edition of Sierra South, both by the Winnett family, remain my primary trail guides.

Ed

Pretty much bibles backed up with maps.

[erutan]

I had missed her original response somehow in the comments after, so that's the context for my long one last night (which I'll strike from the record), mostly spurred on by the frustration of someone saying that I was an adverse condition heh.

Wandering Daisy - I missed your clarification post earlier, sorry about that and my earlier response. I'm guessing that your style of responding to an argument is to a bit academic? A sort of holistic response on the general topic which threw me off. The timing of it with your follow up to the "don't you know secor is dead" post is what made me feel there was something personal going on from your side from just a sense of frustration at how the dialogue was going as we'd never had any tension on the site before. Thanks for handling my previous post with grace.

It felt like you didn't read the post because you never directly addressed specific points that I brought up despite being the first person to respond (and very vehemently against it). It didn't feel like a conversation, in that I would read what you wrote, respond to points and suggest ways of getting around flaws, and then there'd be an semi-related post after that didn’t refer to the points I made. I got a clear sense of why you don't think vanilla YDS is good for backpacking (which was never a position I advocated in this thread), but not why you felt using some modifiers (similar to canyoneering or Class 5 YDS) wouldn't at least get things to a more useful if still imperfect place.

I agree the class of terrain can vary based on an individual - that was a point I had specifically brought up and addressed to some extent, in that say a case where there's ambiguity between 2 or 3 one could do 2+/3- which gets across that it's on the border of those. I do notice terrain that’s technically class 2 for me at 5’10” is technically class 3 for my partner who is 5’4” - but that’s not ‘put away your trekking poles and climb up something class 3. Having to pass a pack up something simple in otherwise class 1 terrain isn't going to spur the same response in someone that'd look for an hour or two for a class 2 bypass up Valor or make a significant detour to avoid class 3 on the side of Dumbbell lake, etc. Obviously being in G risk terrain during a blizzard or massive lightning storm can make it an X, but at that point we can't really rate or describe anything - there is some assumption of normalized conditions for a rating or description and it's up to others to extrapolate the effects of local conditions.

I’d actually argue this thread is actually relatively meaningless, most people are either making jokes or talking about semi-related things - the only real feedback of use is that people don’t think it’s worth changing from the status quo.

To respond to your bit on the subjectivity of difficulty, that’s why I wanted to take "difficulty" out. Plenty of "moderate" hikes I find easy, and difficult ones "moderate" - some boulder problems of the same rating I found easy while a friend found them impossible and vice versa so it goes beyond just fitness and average skill etc.

So YDS classes with some extra (existing) plus/minus suffixes for the conditions (in normal weather, season, etc) and then the existing movie ratings (with references to protection removed) for risk. There’s class 2 which is riskier than class 3 etc - yet there’s some people refuse to go up any class 3, others would prefer it over loose 2. By trying to be more precise on the conditions, while including the risk, it allows for a quick "at a glance" way of evaluating passes for someone to come up with their own difficulty. It’s obviously not 100% standardized, but it’s better.

I think it’s fairly safe to say that class 2 is only a problem (assuming basic competence) if there’s an R or X risk involved due to either exposure or consequentially loose talus. Otherwise whether it’s slab or duff or scree or stable talus or whatever isn’t a huge deal - obviously some are more pleasant and less tedious than others. Vanilla YDS as someone put it is geared for moving on rock, but without R/X risk rock is the only thing that makes something difficult in the Sierra (aside from the very few bushwhacks). No dense underbrush of the NW, or common cliffouts & pourovers of the SW.

Class 3 I personally find fun even with a full pack if it isn’t exposed - but I wouldn’t want to do hundreds of feet of it carrying a week+ of food unless it was really chunky. If one is up 30 feet of steep class 3 that’s pretty exposed for all intents and purposes of risk even if it’s simple.

I originally didn't want to add a modifier for stability as it shows up indirectly in the risk factor if it's consequential, but with a lot of emphasis on that felt like I could give it a shot - which proved more unpopular.

At the end of the day we both agree that the narrative write ups are more critical, but using modified YDS for sections of a pass or something IMO can give a decent quick snapshot of desirability. Just 3 or 2 doesn’t say much. 2 with 3- PG at the top seems great - unless there’s some really tricky routefinding (unusual) that and topo would be all I’d need.

Lumbergh2- thanks, that's a very good take. It seems we just have very different takes on how to discuss the merits of an issue and I misread into that along with coincidental patterns of behavior. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt and just let things slide, but a lot of things piled up at the same time here.

Gogd - here’s why I "chose" to take this personally instead of your jokes like it looking like the tax code, people saying it was too complex to pronounce over a beer, or other comments that were dismissive of it. And again for whatever reason I only saw others responses after her post and missed hers last night (it was a long day for me).

1) I agreed with her on another thread where she pointed out someone saying what looked and sounded like class 2 terrain was class 1 by adding an additional argument out that not needing "occasional use of hands for balance" (Secor's wording) if you're using poles for doesn't make it Class 1, as they can take the place of hands in that instance. A follow up to me states that "Use of hands is the distinction between class 2 and class 3." No big deal - but in view of a larger audience I don't want misleading information as the last thing on a pass entry, so I bring out multiple sources including Secor why that's not a common interpretation of Class 2/3. That earns a quick admin response telling me to stop, take the discussion elsewhere, and find some way to make everyone happy. I admitted in that post I was verging on off-topic, but didn't expect such a heavy response. I shrug, edit my posts and move on.

2) My post wasn't "hey we should all use YDS", but "hey, adding on a few existing modifiers and only lightly changing their context gets around a lot of the different shortcomings, and while it's not perfect it still provides some useful information at a glance which is better than what exists now". I have no issue with someone disagreeing with me, I asked for that in the original post, but she wasn't really interacting with what I wrote. I -want- people to question it and point out flaws in it to make it better, it was never meant to be a final answer to all things!

Something like "huh using class 5 risk for 2/3 is sort of interesting, but why bother with G or PG if it's XC, it's assumed everything would be PG and G isn't critical. just keep it to R and X" was more what I was hoping for at least once.

3) The point where it began to feel personal was where someone chimed in with a derisive "hey don't you know Secor is dead..?" (yes, thanks) after bringing up some of the shortcomings in Secor [the book]. WD continues on that note by saying how she knew him, explains what mountaineers actually are, and that there's no exposure considered in Class 5 which sure felt like a "let's educate this newbie that took his name in vain and didn't even know he was dead". This is then followed up with responses of how she is so great and that's the way things were and people totally agree with everything she said.

The thing is, there is an X rating in Class 5, it'd been brought up by me a few times and you quoted it a post or two above that. According to Secor and in general else it's the risk related to how exposed you are in relation to protection. At that point it sure looked like the second time I'd been 'corrected' recently vs a very high level overview of YDS for random people that come here via google. I generally think it’s a pretty safe assumption that if someone continues off of a comment addressed to me, it’s also addressed to me.

Thanks for looking into more posts for context.