Cross Country Passes - Polls for Difficulty?

[copeg]

Discussions in a recent thread caught my eye and made me think of a feature we could add to the Cross Country Pass.

Do you think it would be worthwhile to add polls to each pass entry that rates the pass difficulty? I do understand the difficulty in boiling down something complex like a x-country pass into a single ranked number, but thinking having a poll that captures a distribution rather than a discrete point might at least be a small improvement. I attached a poll to this thread in case folks are unfamiliar with what polls are - in each x-country pass thread the poll could have the typically class 1-5 options, with an 'other' option as well that would prompt one to add more details in a response to the thread? Or maybe there are other ideas floating out there?
This is a bit of work to do, so I'd only include it if the overall feelings are positive.

[rlown]

I think how people see a pass is subjective based on their own experience and capability, and the season/weather when attempted.
The poll won't help when you stare up at what you are about to try.
The descriptions and pictures should be enough with thoughtful narratives.

[TurboHike]

I think a poll would be informative, but not in the way it is intended. For example, consider a class 2 pass. The class 2 rating means that a class 2 route exists to get over the pass. Experienced hikers, when polled, will likely rate it class 2. However, inexperienced hikers with poor route finding will likely rate it class 3 or higher since they were unable to find a class 2 route. So the poll will not reflect the true difficulty of the pass. Instead it reflects the average route finding ability of those polled. It is still informative, but informative about average route finding, not the pass itself.

[c9h13no3]

People come here seeking experienced opinions. A poll implies that everyone's vote is equal (which obviously isn't the case), and makes it harder to achieve the goal of reading reliable information, since everyone's opinion is just mixed together.

Put another way: I don't ask 100 people on the internet how I should repair my car, I go to a mechanic.

[erutan]

It's probably more useful than just letting the guide author (regardless of their experience and judgement) be the only input and it's useful to see if there's a consensus or divergence of opinion.

If you go to https://hikearizona.com/decoder.php?ZTN=2071 and click on >View 10< under canyoneering consensus you get the following:

This lets you see that everyone agrees it has some sections that require rope, it usually has a good amount of water in it, and it's relatively short between a few hours to a half day with most people on the longer side of that spectrum.

I have some follow up thoughts on the YDS thread I just posted in. If we go with the "consensus" rating system it could be useful to have a class(es) rating, exposure, and stability as separate fields.

I do think we need more than just a single YDS rating - Valor is mostly class 2 with one to two simple class 3 sections near the top - saying it's class 3 ala Lucy's footpass or something is missing info (maybe some differentiation of crux length? maybe the exposure modifier takes that into account, a few sections of class 3 vs a hundred feet or something would jump from PG to R). Let's say Cirque had:

2+ S PG

3- S PG

3- S G

4 S R

3 S PG

2+ L PG

2 S PG

4 S R

Like Turbohike pointed out, this would show differing routefinding etc, but it's still objectively useful (at the very least it's more informative than just one person's guide post).

From this we'd be able to see that most people consider it really bordering between class 2 & 3, stable, and not very dangerous (which could be down to routefinding, or just different perceptions, experience, technical ability, limb size, conditions, energy/morale levels, etc), while two people felt they were in class 4 and could have gotten busted up. That's different enough that they were probably off route... but common enough to know to watch your routefinding on this one! One person thought it was loose, but not consequentially loose, which you could just chalk up to personal opinion or counting anything which isn't slab or vegetation as loose etc even if it doesn't move much.

[rlown]

yeah. no. You look at a pass and decide and take pictures and record your experience.

[erutan]

Eh, I've done a few obscure passes - Vernon & Ursula had zero to little information anywhere on the internet, and there's been plenty of times I've just looked at topo and terrain and made my own somewhere. I don't mind going in blind and navigating by features & topo (I actively dislike trip reports that go into detail about basins etc which are in vogue), but having detailed info on passes connecting regions, especially south of Bishop, feels fine to me. You'll still need to read terrain and I often end up deviating from what's written here anyways when there isn't a needle to thread, but it's nice to have.

People have different tolerance levels for various things - there's a pass or two I haven't done that I might trip lead with a friend on over the summer (who is fit but hasn't really done any XC) that I wouldn't mind having a consensus view of just to see what people thought, and there's time when a guide author is newish to things but wants to contribute so their view stands as the authoritative one because they had the first post.

The larger issue is probably that people most likely just won't participate - the number of people that contribute to the xc passes forum is relatively small compared to the rest of the site, which IMO is the most useful section here. The info on Little Joe Pass was what had me join in - Milly & Lucy looked somewhat spicy with potential snow up high in '17 and Harrison was an icy mess that year.

[JayOtheMountains]

Difficulty ratings are entirely subjective in nature. We've found this out in the climbing world and while consensual rating systems work in some settings, they tend to skew when weighed on by others with significantly less experience. My comfort in a class 2 setting is entirely different from someone else, just like I am comfortable climbing easy 5th class ropeless. I know people who are quite unsettled on class 2 passes and others who see a casual 5.4 as easy-peasy. Rating difficulties change based on experience and perspective. Explorers have worked off of guidelines and their own experience on similar rated terrain to assess and establish terrain difficulty. For example a pass that Fred Becky called 2nd or 3rd may feel like 4th to others. Fred had tons of experience in the mountains and identified the general rating based on his exposure to the terrain. (just one example)

Again, your feeling of difficulty may be skewed by either or both experience or inexperience. The more we're exposed to terrain of certain risk the more we become adept to navigating it and having self-actualization of the objective hazards along with the subjective difficulty. We already describe trails and passes using the standard class 1- 5 ratings it's been well thought out and standardized the world over through the years.

Perhaps the real answer is getting more training and exposure in said terrain with someone experienced in that terrain? I can read a guidebook and know exactly what hazards are present in class 1-5 terrain. Unfortunately most people won't have time to develop themselves in class 2-4 terrain. People tend to read a description, and using their own skewed and biased view of ourselves, take off for the terrain. Upper 3 and all of 4 can be intimidating if you don't have some experience, complicate that more if it's on tall unstable terrain with sweeping exposure. Whereas the same terrain could be considered real easy to an accomplished rock or alpine climber.

Two parties across Harrison pass on the same day, within 20 minutes of each other had a vastly different opinion of difficulty. One party was in trail runners with sub-30 lb packs and had years of rock climbing and alpine climbing experience under their belts. The other party was carrying 65lb packs and only had groomed trail experience; they took Harrison pass because on old maps there was a clearly defined trail - that was still intact in areas on the approach. The first party was nimble and agile in the lower bouldery terrain, cut trail, and at the top looked back down where they came from and generally thought it not too bad. The second party crawled up on hands and knees the top 1/3 of the pass, terrified as the terrain swept away from them opened up the exposure; the loose sandy soil was nerve-wracking and did not instill confidence in the party.

True story. Harrison Pass is firmly class 2 terrain. I've seen similar situations on passes in elsewhere. Areas in the Whitney Zone seem to have this attitude as well. Its a people problem not a terrain problem.

Ultimately, the ratings are the ratings. Should the first party through, who documented it, be the ones to grade a pass? Perhaps. Though, the infrequency of travel to these areas also makes it a bit prohibitive to quickly and easily come to a rating. If you don't have the experience you probably shouldn't call it class xx and instead just humble-brag that you went through xx pass on the map and it was easy/hard.

My $0.02.I don't find value in a mountainproject-esque style of group rating. We've already seen unnecessary grade creep in the climbing areas from the MP style of communal rating. The climbs aren't getting harder, but people with less and less experience coming to the areas have been overstating grades. I love hearing the phrase "this would be x.xx if it were in the gym.." I've heard similar on the trails in the Sierras... are today's outdoors people softer or more risk-adverse? I think there are much more people recreating that don't have the same level of experience as others, and conversely their perception is only adapted to the terrain that they've ever been in.

Think of a New England east-coast skier coming out west for the first time. They're usually reserved as the terrain in Sierra resorts is larger than anything readily available in New England resorts. Now, if that same skier has backcountry experience on Mt Washington, they may feel more comfortable in the larger environment due to exposure of similar terrain in Tuckerman's Ravine. YMMV.

[Wandering Daisy]

I am all for more input, as long as it is objective. I think our write ups work well- someone posts, others comment and add more photos- often the same pass in different conditions. Not all our members are climbers or were climbers in the past. Having a climbing-based rating system for a backpack forum is a bit lacking. We all need to be aware of our own subjectivity when writing up descriptions for others. But I am not in favor of "crowd sourcing" information. "Polls" are just another form. It is too subjective.

As for exposure, there is 1) getting used to it, 2) one's ingrained risk acceptance and 3) probability of death if a mistake is made. I can get used to exposure, but probably am more risk-adverse than some. Everyone's "red-line" is different. I can still get queasy looking over the rail down Yosemite Falls, but the exposure is risk-acceptable because of the rail. The tunnel portion of the trail above Hamiton Lake has exposure, but the trail is wide enough for me that it is OK. I have gone up Harrison Pass in tennis shoes wearing crampons (long story-foot injury that preclude boots) and had an ice axe to stab into the dirt. Helpful equipment. Carrying a very heavy pack (14-day trip). Slow and miserable but not scary. But I had done this type of terrain many times before. Add rain, wind or snow and it all changes. If constant and lengthy, I often reach a mental limit. And going down can feel very different than going up! Also, the same pass done in your 20's may feel very different in your 70's!

[frozenintime]

to my mind, exposure is somewhat objective while ones reaction to that exposure is wildly subjective.

it's easy to conflate the two, but i think they're different.

in the harrison pass example, if the experienced trail runners paused and took a moment to realistically assess what might happen if they fell, i'd imagine their rating of the exposure in the PG/R/X nomenclature would be roughly similar to the 65 lb folks.

it's possible that an inexperienced hiker would call it X no matter what, and it's possible that a seasoned climber will call everything PG because their amygdala doesn't fire anymore. but i'd bet that *most people*, upon reflection, would call it R. (i've not been up harrison, so this is not my rating of that pass in particular!)

to that end, i think adding something *simple* to class 2 and 3 ratings to account for exposure is a decent idea that could hopefully be implemented without too much consternation.