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

[Gogd]

Glad we are back to addressing the POVs, and not each other.
I don't think anyone was ganging up on you, @erutan , they each said their own piece as individuals, taking sides on talking points, not personalities. When I read the reference to Secor's passing I gave it a Hmmm, that's news to me, and wondered why they brought it up. And the Wat? comment I think was how a few of us reacted to your comments preceding that post. Rightfully so. But I did not see these remarks as intentional slights. Other people voiced alarm over your reactions, too, but their comments didn't appear as digs to me either. People may have lamented the rancorous tone of the debate, but I don't think people were beating up on you. Some of us do adamantly disagree with your opinion about rating systems, including myself. On that note, I apologize if my panty scale and tax code satire came across as mean spirited. I was trying to use comic relief and satire to get my point across and meant no disrespect. (Apparently everyone is OK with the dig on IT techno babble. And for the record I was an IT guy for 20 years, so I know what I am talking about. Then again, do IT guys ever know what they are talking about?) My comments and admiration to WD were sincere, addressing her manners and decorum, here, as well as beyond this thread. She's one cool cat. I didn't intend to provoke anyone with those remarks. I've been bullied half my life. I am disinclined to perpetrate such abuse on others, or stand by, idle, as someone else gets bullied. I understand it can be intimidating when blowback comes from multiple directions. Everyone was discouraged things took a personal turn. I am gratified we seem to be exiting that corner.

As for the topic of this thread: I think WD has the best idea, and rlown gets credit for the wisest observation.

So a bit off topic: what are your suggestions for simplifying IRS tax code!

Ed

[erutan]

To get back on topic - I'd propose dropping the +/- and adding in a class 2.5 (and mildly redefining 3). Since there was no one here willing to brainstorm about it with me I chatted about this with my partner on a long dayhike yesterday. I'm not sold on calling it 2.5, but I can't go lower than 3 and it's in between the two. It's more dramatic than my last change, but we're already on version 3 of this system, might as well make it more inclusive.

This v4 system loses easy backwards compatibility with existing YDS, but focuses on the core reason why I chose it, to have something in between class 2 and 3. Class 1 doesn't need them, a 3+ began to get problematic to define, and a 2- is useful in a handful of situations but not critical. This will also reduce the "tax code" esque quality by only having one modifier - risk, and 2.5 is at least recognizable as being between 2 and 3. By adding on the risk rating it also points at this "version".

Setup:

As an exercise, imagine a group of people rating the following images Class 2 or 3, all taken from Valor Pass:

from the bottom right corner angling up at 45deg angle to a bit past mid frame nearly all would say class 2 (no shots lower than this, sorry it's not the best example of 2 for this pass)

I'm pretty sure this would get a unanimous Class 3

But this would likely be split between 2 and 3, leaning 3. If you asked someone that wasn't thinking about it a few weeks after they did it, the answers would likely vary more.

As I've been adding pass entries to the forum over the past few years as a new hobby, I've been running into situations where it was hard to draw a clear line between 2 and 3, and I'd sometimes put a risk rating on a pass because it seemed like the right way to do things without ever thinking of trying to make it a "thing".

1) On the final eastern "ledge" of Vernon "this is class 2. if you're short you might have a move or two of class 3 as it pops up in height once or twice, drops a little and traverses at others." I mean, C'mon. I wouldn't say it's Class 3, but it sure as hell not what I was looking for when trying to spot a "class 2 ledge". I wrote up the description as advanced class 2 with some optional 3.

class 2-/3+

2) I got PMed about Valor by someone leading a group up there after reading my update on the pass, discussion edited slightly for clarity and heavily condensed:

Me: The way we went had two real stretches of 3, the first one pictured is more scrambly. The second is actual 3, if short. I'll add another shot on my entry that gives a bit more context. My partner is relatively conservative about exposure, and went up it without a second thought carrying a week of food, but we're obviously experienced. I would -think- that if you carried up someone's pack and showed them how to do it, they'd be fine, but who knows.

Them: in re-reading your initial reply, i find myself curious what "actual 3" means to you, at least in this context?

Me: This is sort of borderline 2+/3-. It's technically class 3 but could feel class 2 if you're experienced.

[third picture above]

This is undeniably class 3. Chunky footholds, a beginner probably wouldn't be super happy about the handholds. I honestly don't remember much about it aside from the fact it was the most technical (but easy IMO) part of the route.

[second picture above]

3) On Finger Col:

"One thing to note, this is technically a class 2-3 pass. On the west side there's a boulder jammed near the top of the chute that is a simple move or two of class 3 to get up, and I think another spot like that. If I wasn't thinking of Valor Pass where people mentioned not noticing class 3 if it was simple I probably wouldn't have noticed (and honestly if you're comfortable getting to that point it shouldn't phase you) but it's worth mentioning."

So... I've been thinking about this blurry line that class 2 sort of fails to capture and class 3 sort of fails to capture in the back of my head for a while.

As an aside - my position was never that the YDS as currently exists works well enough (which should be obvious), or how it used historically is sufficient (which should flow naturally from the previous position, but needs to be said I suppose), or again how it is being used currently. Otherwise I wouldn't be proposing to modify it. Back on track.

Wandering Daisy's example of how people perceive and experience class disparity was on the more extreme side of things, but provided the key to a small epiphany that I think will help clear things up. The first ascent of south slope of Langley was in 1864 - the Class 1 used there was almost certainly the 1936 Sierra Club Class 1 which covers both modern Class 1 and Class 2. I haven't done it, so can't truly comment (when I'm on one of the army passes I'm either excited to drop into more interesting terrain or tired coming out to slog up a peak, though I should just for the view sometime!) but doing a quick check on map layers from 13,200 to 13,400 the trail goes through two significant patches of ~35deg angle slope, so I imagine when most people are saying Class 1 they're blindly repeating a guidebook without digging into the dates and history of rating systems within it. Even for someone over 6 feet high a waist high ledge on a shorter person is not "even walking" and shouldn't be Class 1 even if outside of that 200 ft vertical band it's all just slogging up sand. Her example of Class 3 is about as mild as you can get and still be considered "climbing" - but that got me thinking about how it both could be called Class 3, and how it could not be, and they'd both be correct. I mentioned that would fall into my 2+/3- category rather than 3 - it's likely more of a shift of opinion between Class 2 and what I was calling Class 2+/3- at the time than two entire classes.

A single (or very few) knee / thigh /waist, high obstacle(s) probably won't have someone call a route Class 3, even if it's technically not "walking on uneven ground, sometimes using a hand for balance" - one expects something a bit more dramatic to warrant that bump. It's not "climbing" - but it is using both hands to pull yourself up an an obstacle. Me trying to fit that spot where the system fails and people disagree on what a rating is, is what drove me to come up with 2+/3-. But that is still ambiguous, and my main case here is that the Class rating can be used fairly objectively, paired with risk to give information at a glance.

So here's a quick stab with a mix of Secor, my general understanding of how they're used, and some of my own thoughts. I'm sure this isn't perfect, so actual feedback is appreciated.

YDSv4 Classes:

Class 1: Walking. You're on relatively even ground which is flat or on a low to moderate angle. If you need to heelbrake, crabwalk, sidestep or use other advanced forms of "walking" that one wouldn't use on an idealized single track compacted dirt trail - it isn't walking.

Class 2: Moving over uneven and/or steep enough ground generally requiring occasional use of hands (or trekking poles) for balance. All talus falls into (at least) this category, as well as steep enough slopes of any surface. If you need to "read" the ridges in a slab to safely ascend or descend it, if scree is sliding out under your boot, if you're sliding down duff due to slope angle, or you need to dig in with poles not to slip due to loose terrain it would fall into Class 2. There's no "hard" slope angle where it starts, but if you're on a 25-30 degree slope it's generally not Class 1.

Class 2.5: You are using your hands to pull yourself up some terrain, but you're not quite "climbing" and novices would generally not require a rope given an average level of fitness and health. Obstacles thigh high to chest high that can't be stepped over, but you can get a leg over in one or two moves fall into this category. Moving on terrain where your feet are on the ground, but where you are holding onto the sides of a chute or pieces of talus to help pull yourself up but are still walking up it would fall into this category. You generally don't have both feet off the ground for more than a few seconds, if at all.

Having to butt scoot down something, mantle onto a rock, awkwardly flop a knee or leg on top and pull yourself up, etc falls into 2.5. It is the least photogenic class to ascend or descend. Hopping onto and over deadfall would be an easy to visualize non-rock 2.5 Travel with a backpack may be awkward or uncomfortable, but generally won't have someone turn back due to terrain and there is (assuming adequate upper body strength, heavy packs, an injured arm, etc) a chance to lift your pack over the obstacle and go up it unencumbered.

Class 3: Simple climbing, you are using both hands to hang and hold onto the rock and climb up with your feet needing to find footholds to continue ascending. Novices may feel uncomfortable, but the holds are large and easy to locate. Class 3 is generally at least head height to a few body lengths going up passes, and is usually used to gain a new Class 2 ledge after one runs out or to gain the ridge itself. Your feet may be off the ground and supporting your weight as you climb for extended periods of time, and there is some awareness of a fall being possible. There is no limit to the height of such terrain, and risk can be involved - it's recommended to have an experience trip leader who can run up packs and talk someone through such moves, and in longer cases provide a rope to belay.

Class 3 is possible on even relatively flat terrain given large enough talus - if anyone has gone though the middle of the slide vs the eastern bypass that's a clear example of "horizontal class 3."

Secor's favorite description was given by Steve Roper: “Imagine climbing a steep, narrow staircase outside of a tall building without benefit of a railing: scary but easy.”

Class 4: Complex climbing, a drastic step up from class 3 in terms of technique required, on steep rock, with smaller holds and likely exposed. A classic example of unexposed Class 4 (as told to me by people that went down it) would be the wet steep walls that people downclimb on the southern side of Cirque Pass if they don't stay east of the pond below. This generally should not be done with a pack unless it is a short run and the person is very experienced in Class 4/5 climbing. Rope is advised to be be in use though very experienced individuals will often go without at their own risk.

Class 5: Advanced/technical climbing. I don't do enough of this to really have an opinion, it's already been modified throughout the years as a living document anyways so has been kept more "up to date".

Coupled with some photo examples I don't think someone would have to be a Class 5 climber to understand the distinctions.

Add risk ratings:

PG - the default state of backcountry travel. Serious injury would be unlikely on terrain, but mild to moderate injuries can happen when least expected, and there's always some chance of something worse happening.
R - sections where there is either enough exposure that a fall would result in serious injury, or terrain is loose enough - generally large talus loosely held in san or smaller talus that will move in small landslides that one could be seriously injured by it.
X - sections with either enough exposure or consequentially loose terrain that either a mistake or failure in terrain would most likely result in death.

In one of the threads on this topic in the past, I found it was interesting where Wandering Daisy said that she had never found a Class 2 pass that was technically challenging, but there were some she found unsafe or unsettling and wouldn't do again. Adding a risk factor seems appropriate and really helps clear up the perception that a class 2 pass is always better!

Conclusion:

Off the top of my head, Vernon & Lamarck Col (scooching around boulders on the top) fall into perfect class 2.5 passes, as does Finger Col (the boulder jammed near the top that has to be bypassed really doesn't deserve a Class 3 rating, but it's certainly not Class 2 and does need to be negotiated. I'm pretty sure you can do Cirque as 2.5 if you route find conservatively, though it'd be easier to keep it Class 3 - that'd really be the only Class 3 pass I can think of that doesn't have some "actual" Class 3 on it, and even then it's been 5 years and I wasn't really thinking about it at the time (just surprised at how easy it was given it's reputation).

So you'd have more informative shorthand descriptions on the map or other places that are (relatively, as close as you can reasonably get while keeping it simple, caveat caveat) un-subjective. The worst that would likely to happen is that the more trivial class 2.5 get described as class 2, slightly longer very easy class 3 gets labeled 2.5, or someone spooked by a tricky 2.5 gets labeled 3.

One of the benefits of Class 2.5 is that helps break up the jump between Class 2 and 3, hopefully making both of them more accurate. It also helps people have an expectation of what type of terrain limits they'll encounter given solid routefinding. Finally, but not least, it helps with safety and expectations - there's people physically unable to do 2.5 that I'm sure will still encounter it in class 2 terrain, but hopefully less so. Likewise people that are spooked doing "actual 3" won't have passes or routes labeled 3 when they are really 2.5 which while not necessarily varying greatly in terms of technique required would psychologically be a lot easier for them go up.

In '16 I took an experienced dayhiker and weekend with the friends at a lake level backpacker from BC on her first XC. The 2 PG from Vogelsang > Evelyn / Ireland ridge > Amelia Earhart pass > Lyell Canyon went fine (basecampjng @ Vogelsang with various dayhikes then doing that is a pleasant yet adventurous trip for a novice). The 2 R from Cecile > Iceberg was less popular which is completely understandable (classic minaret > Cecile > iceberg > Ediza > garnet > 100k lake bagging trip). Surprisingly enough by far the worst moment for her was the unburdened 2.5 PG dropping down the use trail up Vogelsang peak - what I would have considered a simple 3 foot scooch/drop down onto soft dirt was something she froze up on and had to be guided into doing. Given rangers regularly lead the public up it on high camp loop tours that wasn't something I was particularly concerned about given their general fitness and experience.

There's really nothing about "difficulty" as that's too subjective (some people will find class 4 simpler than someone else will 2.5), but at a glance there's an expectation of the technique required to move over terrain with along with risk. The first time I did the XC from upper turret lakes to three island lake the ground was covered in an inch or so of hail, which preceded to melt. The PG terrain was still PG (I was unlikely to die from slipping on medium sized stable talus or short ledges), but I did lose traction a few times and get an uncomfortable landing once.

A lot of old Class 2 will contain 2.5, but not a lot of Class 3 will drop to 2.5, which makes thinking about historical ratings somewhat useful.

Off the top of my head ratings for the named xc passes I did last summer that are fresh in my mind (DIY ones not helpful). The directions may be off as I'm not looking at a map here obviously the two sides would be condensed in some displays but this is just meant to be a thought exercise:

Virginia 2 PG south, 1/2 PG north

Vernon 2.5 PG east, 2 PG east
Sluggo 2 PG east, 2 R/X west (if going high, there's a spot or two that's fairly tight and a large drop - I'm not sure where the line for being exposed should be in terms of width/room before a drop)
North Glacier 2 PG east 3 PG west

Lamarck Col 1/2 PG east, 2.5 PG west
Valor 3 PG south, 2 PG north
Finger Col 2.5 R south, 2 PG north
Black Giant 2/2.5 PG

Ursula 3 X west, 2.5 PG east (amusingly the X was on the 2 easy near the top, but it's IMO better than the 2 R garbage on the side)
White Bear 2 PG
Italy 1 PG south, 2 PG north

Junction Pass 1 PG?R? north, 2 R south (north is all class 1, but a few sections are washed out and narrower than single track width)

Bighorn 2 PG
Grinnel Hopkins Divide (HST) 2 PG
Hopkins Peak 2.5 PG south, 2 PG north (alternate to Crocker Pass)

Hearsay:

King Col 2 X
Sky Pilot Col 2 X

Obviously movement type over terrain and risk aren't the only factors, as people have pointed out, but they do a decent job of painting a rough expectation for what lies ahead while being easily parsable.

This is on my mind because I do a lot of write-ups in the forum and YDS rating is a requirement on a pass, and a common way to describe them - I do try to be thoughtful and consider how other people would handle terrain and point out ambiguous class 2/3 terrain... then realized I was ending up doing that a lot.

[erutan]

The all ratings are useless just get a map take sounds like a solo hiker.

In 2011 I reconfigured my career for work/life balance. From 2011 to 2017 I spent anywhere from 2-3.5 months backpacking in the range, mostly off trail solo. From 2011 to July 2016 I relied solely on topo and word of mouth, in 2016 I bought Secor's High Sierra and added that to my arsenal as I started doing more trips south of Bishop. Non-intuitive stuff like North Col was great to have pointed out. I did a Bishop > Knapsack > Potluck > Cirque > Mather > Cartridge > Dumbell > Cataract Creek > Bishop pass loop in 2017 with no routefinding issues and found Secor's terseness perfect, enough to get me on the right route and what to expect, but not holding my hand. I've never used google earth, and consider it and trip reports cheating - if I'm trying for a hard pass and come across a trip report that mentions it I try to skip everything aside from the specific area I'm looking for. In 2017 I used HST for the first time when I was concerned about Lucy/Milly/Harrison due to snow levels and someone mentioned Little Joe Pass and the entry here was really helpful - I chatted with someone who thought they might die on the N side of Harrison on the trip (brought my ice axe & crampons, never used, so much weight). I didn't get out much in 2018 just some small trips.

I don't say all this to try and make myself out to be some peer of any of the early mountaineers mentioned - I'm just some guy that's competent on Class 2/3, passable on 4, and mediocre on 5 that's good at routefinding. It's context for me trying to theorycraft this stuff out. I don't think anyone in the wider community even knows my last name (it's nothing that'd ring bells) aside from the handful of people I've exchanged emails with so I'm not trying for any legacy.

From 2019 on I've no longer been solo and while there are upsides to that, my planning overheard has skyrocketed. My partner has far better form than me on rock, far more experience on ice and snow (led wilderness winter work trips in MT & the east coast), but has far less experience on loose and is less comfortable with me than exposure (though still far above average, when necessary she handles it competently and confidently). She had a PG-13 experience of a chute collapsing on top of her and ended up with a bloodied face where a piece of talus hit it, bruises up and down the upslope leg, and luckily had the presence of mind to maintain her single handhold keeping her from getting swept down into an even worse situation. I went up the gully with my pack, dropped it off, grabbed hers and shuttled it up, and then talked her up. Day 2 of 8 day trip that continued, but we dropped an XC basin and had a few slow days after that!nFrom then on she's VERY sensitive (like physiological PTSD responses) to consequentially loose terrain. I try to avoid it while doing some practice runs down less consequential stuff when the opportunity presents.

By far the hardest trip I've ever planned (and only one of two I've asked for advice here on, the latter coming up blank aside from suggestions to just do something else or people looking at google earth and guessing) was a simple rush creek to happy isles via North Glacier > Vernon > Sluggo. That area is notoriously loose, we had a 10 day trip cut short by weather, and I was able to grab a rush creek permit a few days out on the trail down (lol thanks covid) and I'd been wanting to check out Hutchings Creek & Lyell Fork of the Merced. Clinch would be a no go, Rodger's would be a no go - I got enough little fragments that Vernon seemed like it'd work so we gave it a shot and went in relatively blind and it was fine. So thinking of risk is something I do a lot more now - the class stuff I actually don't really care about so much for my use (the only time I've really felt lead astray was Ursula - generally if a pass is just class 2 without notes that's an indication it's trivial, we re-routed mid trip and expected some 3 looking at it from afar, but it was one of the rare occasions where it looks better flattened out from a distance), but it's interesting doing something as a 5'10" person and then watching a 5'4" person do its so I'm actually a lot more aware of it than most!

So how'd I end up doing many of the recent pass entries here?

In 2019 I did a trip with my usual Secor + Topo (Lamarck > Davis > Martha > HFS > Hutton Col (bypass) > Bench Traverse > Mosquito > MTR > Piute Pass) with mixed results. After an unexpected zero day at Martha due to a pulled/strained muscle we were eyeballing Valor and decided to pass as it was a bit snowy and we weren't sure where the top was (and didn't want to go up and down not being 100%), so decided to skip Blackcap and loop through Bench Valley, stumbling across the Hutton Col Bypass & Bench Traverse along the way. We bumped into an older solo hiker and chatted for a while - he rerouted his trip due to thinking Mosquito Pass would be corniced in but the pass was fine when we got there. I checked here after and noticed that there was... a pretty original interpretation for Mosquito that led him to that conclusion. I'd been meaning to add to Cirque just because so many people end up on that Class 4 (I swear it's like a third to half the people I met). From there it seemed only fair to add onto Little Joe because that was useful to me, and then it somehow became a bit of a hobby. It can take an afternoon to really write up a pass, but I've come to enjoy it. If people want the beta it's there and depending on the pass more or less spelled out depending on how attention I feel it needs, if not they don't have to check the forum.

It's a shame Secor's family isn't (to the best of my knowledge) sharing his notes with someone he knew and trusted for a fourth edition - it'd be interesting to see what got added and changed. I've had a few people that have told me that north col isn't a thing, or quoted me that dragon & Gould are the same pass then I pull out the third edition. A large omission is Little Joe Pass, and there's definitely a few pass descriptions that could use a little more attention.

My dad was one of those mountaineers that a few times said he was surprised to still be alive.

He told me (another pissing on climbers story) about how he was free soloing 5.7 or something with a 300 foot drop with some "climbers from the valley" and they turned a face and it was 1,200 foot drop and they wanted to rope in.

His take was that climbers are stupid because both are fatal exposure and it's all in your head, mine was that he could have died. He seemed a little surprised, thought about it for a few seconds, then had a little "yeah".

As far as I know he never got a permit and felt bear cans are stupid because rangers never get out behind their desks and don't understand the backcountry "if you're too high to hang a bag, sleep next to a pile of rocks to toss at a bear". That doesn't sound like a great night's sleep to me. There was a story when him and my mother baked a currant pie in the backcountry and a bear ate it when it was cooling. :/

[michaelzim]

This is quite a thread!...I will sum that up by saying the topic is 100% valid to me and knowing a little of the writers c/o their HST posts over some years am glad to see that civility remained and the topic continued. Good stuff!

So, an example as to why this X-country - especially Class 2 and Class 3 distinction - is needed IMHO is that I tend to balk when I just hear Class 3...yet on reading this post, find out that I may actually be OK with some Class 3 - depends how it is defined.

To me it is all about exposure. If I can scramble and pull myself up some rock channel/obstacle/whatever, but there is no yawing drop off behind me, then it is not that scary. Either I can get up it or I can't. Simple. However, there may be another place where the technical rock scramble may be much easier but the exposure is open and tightening up my gut receptors big time. I will back off. I call this the "Don't look down" situation. If I do look I am done for.
This is what I thought was Class 3...As Daisy puts it, you slip you die. My "experience" of the terrain is not necessarily rated to the close-at-hand physical aspects of the terrain. The bigger picture comes into it.

Yes this exposure stuff is very subjective, as everyone has different risk tolerance, though maybe the common denominator is the degree of damage one would experience if one did slip and fall...The thing is, experienced mountaineer types may have zero feeling of exposure because they have none of that "suction into the void" feeling, so are inherently stable on that terrain...ergo, won't fall. Whereas, if fear comes into a scramble then it becomes inherently much more risky and solid 'contact points' may give little sense of security.
Goodness knows how to classify this "feeling of exposure" (and the degree of its effects on climbing ability!) and it may just be too subjective of a task.

That said, as a low key X-country pass backpacker I throw my support behind a simple system (for here at HST at least) using the YDS system (as we are used to it at least) and just dividing Classes with an extra 0.5 where needed. I was not brought up with movie recommendations so all those letters just confuse the picture...for me. I would far prefer verbal description in the text to elaborate on the finer points. Like looseness, crux places, length of difficult Class 3 or 3.5 sections, etc. That way I can click on a pass and see 2, or 2.5, or 3, and go from there for more detail.

Last up an example.
I have wanted to try a loop out of Gardiner Basin, but the only 'common' route out of it to the north is King Col...and man does that one stir up the hornets. I have done quite a lot of research on it online (other forums and blog posts), plus talked at length with a friend who has lots of long term X-country and mountaineering experience. This was his comment:
"North Dragon is another sketchy 3 class pass. I'd happily do it again over King Col though. I love the cl 4 mountaineers route on Whitney. Done it 2 times with a full pack."
On further inquiry he re-emphasized the difficulty of the north side of K C and Rogue Photonic gave it a very florid description about potential death. Yet others were not phased by it. So ??? It's listed as Class 2 but some far more experienced folks than me make it sound like a Class 4 experience....not technically a 4, but "experientially" a Class 4...So how on earth do we classify that degree of divergence?
I'm still not sure if I am up for King Kong...er Col.
I intend to check it out on a day hike if ever in Gardiner basin though - just to see for myself.

Thanks to all for the extensive contributions to this topic. Hopefully the "0.5" additions will at least be made by new entries or corrections to the HST "Passes" list.

Best ~ Michaelzim

[erutan]

@michealzim Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, it's very helpful and appreciated!

Class 3 historically has not been "slip and die" - though some Class 3 can fall into that category if it goes on long enough. The western ridge of Lyell comes to mind, though it's been ages. "Scary but easy" implies exposure on a peak or knife edge ridge, but historically exposure has been baked into Class 4 and 5... which felt too compressed to me. If someone hits an unexposed 10ft section of Class 4 difficulty rock they might not be able to go up it based on experience, technical skill, weight of pack, type of footwear, etc. That's a significant difference from Class 3! One of the groups that said got into Class 4 had ice axes, rope, and helmets on their packs - and while it wasn't exposed it was still sketchy.

The last photo here is what a number of people have have identified as Class 4 even though it's not exposed or airy, but a series of relatively short cliff-outs - what makes it class 4 is there's no easy handholds or footholds and it's longer than a 2.5 drop - someone might want to say it's 5.2 or something, idk: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=13571&start=10#p109511

Actually on Cirque Pass the top post at the top of the page is pretty much talking about my 2.5!

Part of the problem with talking about class 2 and 3 is that in recent decades I've noticed fair numbers of descriptions by people saying they were on a class 3 route that from my earlier era understanding decades ago would have been upper class 2. There has always been discussion by hikers and backpackers claiming some of Roper and Secor's class labels were more difficult than labeled so when they labeled a route as class 3 it is usually dangerous. What some here describe as class [3 ed] or class 2-3 is probably just class 2 as I look at routes.

The link below describes the way I view class 3. Class 3 is where one MUST use their hands. If one falls one is PROBABLY not going to die but could well become seriously injured. However one certainly could die in class 3 if one hits say their head against a boulder. With class 4 one is LIKELY to die. With more difficult class 2 although one may get by without using hands, a lot of times it is better to use one hands. With class 3 there isn't that choice. I am quite talented at climbing up stuff without using my hands where most others would and part of that comes from my long history of hand carrying tripods and cameras while moving through terrain where one doesn't have that option.

Climbing up steep class 3 small to medium sized talus with a heavy pack is particularly scary and dangerous because the tendency is for pack weight to pull one off away from rock holds. Any longer distance of Class 3 slabs with a heavy pack is likewise asking for eventual trouble much like skiing in steeps. If one doesn't self arrest at the first instant hitting a slope, your probably going to slide a long ways.

As myself and others have repeatedly brought up, YDS was designed by mountaineers that regularly bagged peaks - I don't think that means the system is somehow broken beyond repair, but it's definitely weighted towards a technical climber. They get the difference between 5.10a R II and 5.10b PG III and we get "well class 3 could be hopping over a fallen log or doing a couple hundred feet of easy climbing, it's all using your hands, it's fine". That gap which they wouldn't notice - but someone without that knowledge or carrying a heavy pack would, is what causes most of the issues with the system IMO.

I dislike Secor's wording of Class 2 as difficult travel - I've jogged down the boulders from the peak of vogelsang to the slabby 2 ascent to check it out for someone and found it fun. That doesn't make it Class 1!!!

I know I'm comfortable with exposure, but I -know- that. Sluggo was getting a little close for comfort - I was never concerned for my safety but I stepped up my routefinding as I felt I might have been off track and there were a few steps I took very carefully. Likewise on the top of Ursula it was as difficult as walking up pothole dome, but a steep drop off to a significant cliff out - I know I can do it, but you bet I was staring at my feet and making sure not to slip! I know if I feel I need to pay that much attention it's exposed, even if I don't have the same visceral flight or fight self-defense response I had over a decade ago. I agree that keeping a calm head is key - on class 4 I can start to feel over my head a bit and the adrenaline kicks in and I am thinking "oh great, what I reaaaally need now is to become jittery, thanks body >:("

I honestly have no issue with something being 1X. A lot of trails in the southwest have sections that are single track or smaller with a sheer drop on the side, as does Glacier.

The whole "it's technically class 2 but feels like 4" is why I think modifiers are useful - the technique required is the technique to move over steep and/or unstable ground using hands (or poles!) for balance. That's Class 2. The fact that if you slip you die or get medivaced out instead of just falling on your ass is because it's exposed, and why people say it feels like Class 4.

It’s a way to disambiguate things - the class system talks about the ‘mode of travel’ that you use to move over the terrain. Class 2 on a gentle slope is the same mode as Class 2 a foot away from a thousand foot drop. The proximity to the drop makes it ‘feel’ like your on a more technical climbing mode of travel because that’s generally where things are that exposed. Near vertical or vertical terrain has a lot more cliffs than terrain 5-30 degrees in slope - 2 X ‘feels’ like 4 because it’s exposed, not because you need to have good shoes and know how to move on rock with small holds that can require some technique to use.

Adding some suffixes is recognizing that mode of transit and technique required is important, but it alone can tell a misleading picture.

Some similar thoughts in the past here (which was linked up at the top of my first post): viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10224

another thing rock climbers do is to add an R or an X to a rating to indicate loose rock.

I think attatching a class 2 rating to a pass that doesnt use hands or minimal hands, but requires route finding is apropriate.

I'm not the first one to think of R & X.

Yes, I believe there needs to be something more than the Yosemite decimal system when it comes to ratings of pass crossings. Perhaps there is a combination of factors that can be used. As noted previously the grade system takes into the account the duration of the climb and number of difficult pitches. Perhaps there are ways of incorporating a somewhat different overall difficulty rating into off trail passes. A class 1 approach with a short, easy 3rd class move of 10 feet can be way easier than 1500' of loose class 2 scree and talus with a full pack on. 10 feet of easy class 3 can also be much less dangerous than 200' of loose, steep, large talus (see below).

As noted by WD much of the difficulty here comes with the huge variation in class 2. Class 2 can be rather pleasant scrambling on slabs with big benches, or solid talus blocks, but it can also be very dangerous loose talus where there is a genuine threat of having a damaging rockfall (ie crushing the hiker): Kaweah Pass comes to mind instantly and many would put the upper northern side of Lucy's Foot in that category, too. Having barely escaped from being killed traversing the toe of a rock glacier (very foolish move, yes), I am particularly sensitive to "lethal class 2". In addition to hazard, there is a big difference between gaining 1000' on nice firm talus or slabs, versus 1000' on treadmill scree. The latter is not dangerous but it takes far more energy than the more pleasant solid stuff. The loose kind of stuff, be it scree or the scary big stuff, is much more of a problem for a backpacker than a dayhiker owing to the reduction of agility for a loaded-down backpacker. Also much more of an issue for a backpacker than dayhiker is climbing over giant talus boulders (mostly non-moving variety) which is also class 2 terrain.

I think elevation is easily grokked by looking at a map, so don't think that needs to be stated in shorthand (though would be useful as a bolded field on the top of the pass page like name, location, quadrant, rating, etc). A combination of factors I obviously agree with. A lot of the second paragraph is talking about exposure, looseness, and consequential looseness (as I call it).

I agree that the most useful thing to do would be to further break down the class 2 designation. Not sure you would need a decimal system, but at least 3-4 categories.

Ironically in the past there was a desire to make it even more complicated than adding in a 2.5, though with modifying suffixes we get into 3-4 categories.

Her first post in the thread breaks things down into easy, moderate, difficult, and very difficult - which are logical buckets and the idea is well thought out, but I think get overly complicated and hard to define as they'd be more subjective as compared to adding in a new 2.5 class and then having some modifiers you can stick onto 1, 2, 2.5, or 3.

Excellent discussion, and I completely agree that it would be great to break down the class-2 group into more precise grades.

I don't think my system is 100% baked - I essentially was pondering it on and off during a dayhike then wrote it up in one go late in the evening, but I think it's a solid first draft.

I don't think we need a 3.5 - that gets into "difficulty" and I think just keeping that between 3 and 4 is fine. The only thing I could think of for a 3+ back when I was being more cautious on this was for length, but length would really be exposure, and that should be a modifier. That said if someone comes up with something useful I'd love to hear it and see if it fits! The only thing I could think of would be length, maybe angle, but it seems extremely hard to keep that consistent vs mode of travel.

Pondered Changes

Thinking things over, I'm not sure the R & X distinction makes a ton of sense - if you're gonna get flown out or dead it's exposed enough! We're not counting length between bolts of places to put protection. At risk of further enraging the community, I'd like to change my PG/R/X to include some of my stability suffixes before. Again a bit off the cuff of my head and some terms might need to be unpacked etc.

L - loose terrain. This is talus which shifts, ground which either moves or in which feet move (two up, one down) or slide once placed. It self-brakes within a foot and will not cause a landslide, but impacts traction. Not massively dangerous in and of itself, but can be very unnerving and uncomfortable to move on.

Slab, talus which doesn't shift or move (may wobble slightly occasionally), dirt or duff on which feet do not slide significantly or slide itself, etc would not fall into this category.

CL - consequentially loose. Talus, scree, or gravel that will go into a lengthy landslide (Rodger's, Clinch) or gravel that contains loosely held talus in it that can be dislodged onto people (Junction pass is a good example and well documented in the passes forum).

X - exposed (**** it, it makes sense). sections with enough of an immediate drop that either a mistake in movement or a failure in terrain would most likely result in death or serious injury. Backcountry travel is inherently dangerous, but generally only mild or moderate injuries would be expected.

Only three modifiers, though two can be active at a time. Hopefully that level of complexity isn’t too much - or if it’s missing something I’d be interested. There could be an R for hard routefinding or something.

Again a quick stab on passes in my recent memory from above:

Vernon 2.5 east, 2 L east
Sluggo 2 east, 2 X west
North Glacier 2 east 3 / 2 L west

Lamarck Col 1/2 east, 2 L / 2.5 west
Valor 3 south, 2 north
Finger Col 2.5 X south, 2 north
Black Giant 2 L / 2.5

Ursula 2 X / 3 west, 2.5 L east (amusingly the X was on the 2 easy near the top, but it's IMO better than the 2 CL X garbage on the side)
White Bear 2 PG
Italy 1 PG south, 2 PG north

Junction Pass 1 X north, 2 CL south (north is all class 1, but a few sections are washed out and narrower than single track width)

Bighorn 2
Grinnel Hopkins Divide (HST) 2 L
Hopkins Peak 2 L / 2.5 south, 2 L north (alternate to Crocker Pass)

Hearsay:

King Col 2 X L
Sky Pilot Col 2 X L
Rodgers 2 CL
Clinch 2 CL
Milly's Footpass 3 X

The one downside of this method is that loose and consequentially loose can come at different times, so it requires (IMO) two ratings to show with qualifiers go with what. Overall it looks cleaner - since PG and S are assumed as default states they don't need to be written out.

What I really like is the interplay between L, CL, and X:

Urusla has some exposure, but it's stable and on Class 2, while the Class 3 is stable and unexposed.

Vernon has some loose class 2 and sections of 2.5, but none of it is particularly dangerous, even if it's a bit more than a novice would feel comfortable biting off.

Valor - it has some 3, but nothing really loose or exposed. That 3 ain't so bad as long as you feel comfortable hauling a pack up 3!

The north side of Junction pass has exposure, but it should be comfortable for anyone that is fine on a narrow trail with a sheer drop on one side. The south side is consequetially loose, so you might eat talus to your face, but it's not exposed. Not awesome, but manageable for experienced folks with a certain psychological tolerance.

Vernon has some loose bits, but they're not exposed.

Finger Col has some exposure (at least as I did it) on some slabs, but they're stable - do you trust yourself and your soles?

King Col - it is exposed and loose - a terrible combination. I would not do anything X L unless it was a life and death situation or a single move or two.

Milly's footpass is described as being a hundred+ feet of Class 3? I'm guessing it's something like a 45-70deg slope, so not technically pure vertical exposure, but essentially exposed you'd probably just bounce down 50-100 feet down skinny ledges to the bottom which would be unpleasant. I could very well be wrong I didn't research this as it's late, but it's an example of why (IMO) a 3.5 isn't needed as 3 X covers it without requiring yet another structural change.

A mountaineer that regularly does class 4/5 could very well prefer 3 X over 2 L! Little Joe Pass is simple and low risk, but something like 2k+ of gain slogging up a chute and isn’t really ‘fun’.

I’ve personally carried my pack up short bits of Class 4 terrain - chimneying up a crack on the pass between upper McCabe and saddlebag (took an easy direct route up, knew if the cliff band above me didn’t work that I could traverse N where it’s easier and find something that worked). Shortly thereafter is where I learned about the SHR - a group of people asked if I was doing it and told me I was on secret pass (iirc). To me it was just something that looked good on topo I checked out heh. I’ve hit numerous other little semi-technical patches wandering off trail that required more technique than class 3 but were not slip and die exposed.

[erutan]

Potluck Pass isn’t too obscure (it’s on the SHR) and is a great example of 2 L on the southern side with the sandy steep paths.

There’s a steep sandy drop. If you try to fight your foot ever sliding after you step you’ll go insane. It wouldn’t be surprising to lose traction at some point - but you’d most likely fall on your ass, tip to the side, bang your shin and cuss a bit. If you’re really unlucky you might slide down a bit and get some skin scraped off. Some people can’t stand loose terrain - they wouldn’t be happy campers. The overall risk however is fairly low. I don’t think anyone really loves the pass, but it’s probably not high on the ‘never again’ list.

The upper SEKI side of Dragon falls into this category - I think I lost traction twice and fell once but wasn’t concerned about it and was fine. I could have taken my time and avoided that, but was honestly sort of hamming it up as to how safe it was "look my feet stop sliding on their own! I just fell down on the back of my pack and nothing bad happened!". Poles as extra points of contact help brake momentum when following. They also break occasionally, but better them than me!

Now 2 CL

Now imagine instead of your foot sliding a bit then either skidding out or braking in a pile of sand, you could trigger the slope above you collapsing on you - forcing you to move cautiously in a zig zag pattern. If this is just some sand washing up to your calf that’s not too bad - but what if there’s football sized talus mixed in? Could get a bruise! What about refrigerator sized…?

For examples where it’s not sand with embedded talus but talus itself collapsing down it’s worth looking up clinch and rodger’s pass entries. If you know what you’re doing you can minimize risk pretty effectively, but it’s not going to be a casual class 2 experience.

Now 2 X L

It’s still a steep sandy slope - except right below the steep sandy slope is a 50 foot vertical cliff. It’s just as hard as the 2 L pass - but if you slip and tumble it’s not just some cuts and scrapes - you’re going over the edge.

Now just 2 X

That 50 ft drop is still there, but instead of being on steep loose slippery terrain, you’re on a nice slab where you can read flatter ridges and lines to follow. Still don’t want to go over the side, but there’s a lot less sphincter clenching.

2 X CL

I don’t know if there’s a pass like this. I hope not.

Now 3

Valor pass: There’s a lot of nice slab, some scattered talus and ledges that could get you into some 2.5 here or there, and you have to wiggle your way up using your hands to pull yourself up a move here or there until you reach a fat chunky 10-12’ crack (that’s not even entirely vertical) with giant footholds you have to climb up, then it’s back to a nice slabby drop.

If you fall off that crack in a specific way you could split your head open on landing - but you could trip in the parking lot and have that happen too. If I had to choose between this and 2 X L, the 3 isn’t so scary anymore. But that’s also because I’m comfortable climbing 3, and will choose to do so if it looks simple, fun, or saves me time or avoids some garbage 2 CL chute.

Of course a 3 X pass could be a lot scarier than a 2 CL - I didn’t mind the Junction drop and would take that over falling off a cliff heh. My partner is a hard nope on CL and would tolerate 3 X if it was that or CL.

It gives a more accurate/specific picture of terrain encountered than a ‘difficulty’ system while avoiding the fact that such a system makes things even more prone to being subjective. Routefinding is obviously still necessary, but it’s easier to see you’re wildly off route IMO. I bet there’s a number of people that think I give too much information in the passes forum, so I’m not taking an elitist “everyone should just backpack with terse secor level data” stance - just trying to help fix a system that isn’t working well which complements long form write ups with photos.

Someone with a heavy pack might not want to do 2.5 terrain on a 12 day trip with a bunch of fishing gear, but be fine with class 3 on a 4 day trip where it wouldn’t impact their center of balance as much.

[michaelzim]

Just a small addendum from the your last posts Erutan, as I am no way experienced enough to comment much more.

~ This is a fine summary of the "exposure" v. "technicality" aspect for me:
"Class 2 on a gentle slope is the same mode as Class 2 a foot away from a thousand foot drop. The proximity to the drop makes it ‘feel’ like your on a more technical climbing mode of travel because that’s generally where things are that exposed."

~ This is also how it works with my style of base camping in an area for some days and doing day hikes. The "technical terrain" may be the same, but it is quite different without my heavy main pack. Something that may give me an "Ummmmmmmm.....maybe not" feeling, becomes doable and a bit of a rush instead with a small day-pack.
"Someone with a heavy pack might not want to do 2.5 terrain on a 12 day trip with a bunch of fishing gear, but be fine with class 3 on a 4 day trip where it wouldn’t impact their center of balance as much."
However, classifying passes and such in term of pack v. no pack would be really confusing - hence for us backpackers I would make classification standardized for use with a main pack.

~ I don't get the "Consequentially" wording for the second category in "Loose"...it is not a clear term to me. How about "S" for "Sliding" instead. That has different connotations to just "Loose" and is more graphic.
I do like the added extra though of this "Exposure" stuff and L/S/X would be my suggestion.

Best ~ Michaelzim

[Wandering Daisy]

For Class 3 or some upper Class 2 terrain, the real objective difficulty increases when carrying a pack. For example, the pack often forces you to face into a slope downclimbing, and seeing footholds becomes very difficult. Going up I may be able to "mantle" up without a pack, but not with. Some class 2-3 requires tight spots easy to squeeze through without a pack, not so with. Also, if going solo, you do not have a helpful partner to help lower and raise packs or spot you or put your feet on unseen footholds. And there is more danger of accidently bumping a wall while walking narrow ledges with a backpack. This could have dire consequences.

I always take some cord to lower or raise my pack if I am anticipating these situations. Even if the pass is largely easy class 2, a description of any "class 3" parts, however short, gives me a heads-up so I can bring the equipment I need.

[erutan]

Michael

1) Glad I explained the exposure vs technique well enough.

2) I’ll clarify my comment on pack weight - this system doesn’t explicitly take it into account when rating terrain. Here's why:

My partner and I are in our early 40s and have gear that’s light or ultralight. We both regularly do < 15' stretches of class 3 with packs carrying up to 7-9 nights of food if it's at the beginning of a trip. Someone with a ‘traditional’ pack that weighs twice as much and much bulkier would have a different experience, or someone older or younger than us, or something with a pack that is further from their center of gravity, etc. How do you rate doing a pass on the first vs last night of a trip when you've eaten a quarter to half the weight? How does one even try and quantify that?

I tried to put explicit disclaimers in the class ratings about carrying a full pack and can revisit and expand on them - Class 3 is Class 3 no matter what pack you are carrying up it. I do think there should be some sort of paragraph or two before the YDS listings that condenses some of the conversation here about using the system, so this is useful stuff!

3) "Consequentially loose" is something I made up afaik - if I stole it from someone and forgot let me know. To me loose is "this is annoying, I might slip, I'm moving slower, but whatever'. Loose isn't so much an issue unless it's combined with exposure IMO. Ball bearings on a slope suck, ball bearings near a cliff is life threatening. Consequentially loose is when the looseness in and of itself is a danger. It's a mouthful and probably not entirely intuitive. Agreed that being able to have L, X, CL/S and LX is pretty descriptive for risk in Class 2/3 terrain while keeping things relatively simple.

Sliding makes sense, though it could get mistaken with someone's foot sliding a few inches on loose. Unstable doesn't quite get there either. I think I like sliding more, and keeping it to a single word is good, but I'm not quite sure that's it. L/S/X is better than L/CL/X. Something to spend a little more time on.

Wandering Daisy

Agreed on how having a pack impacts Class 2.5 and 3 - one of the benefits of breaking out 2.5 into its own thing is that it gives a space for "you'll likely have to use your hands to get up this, but can reasonably expect to be able to raise your pack and climb up after it" vs "welp have fun climbing your pack up this". Capping it at shoulder height (iirc?) should mean that for taller people making that call a shorter person could still lift a pack up, though that could be hard if it was heavy enough. I originally was thinking sternum or chest height.

My description of Class 3 lacks the impacts that carrying a large pack up it can have - it's something we've both talked about here earlier but was left out (it was a stream of consciousness post) and definitely needs to be addressed explicitly. My partner and I can go 10-11 days with 60l packs, but that's not a universal setup (if nothing else it'd be a classist take as good gear ain't cheap, even if the daily cost ends up being low if you use it enough, but having that much time itself is due to the privilege of education and career skillset etc). I'm not sure how to break that out, as it'd be hard for me to imagine the impact of a larger pack than the one I have - even my 60l does bump into things at times and I don't have much if anything hanging off of it (the wide tent/pads can be a real issue IMO).

On Class 2 if I have to squeeze through talus or something I can hold my pack in front of me or have it on my chest briefly, but I can’t off the top of my head remember of the last time I did that in the Sierra. In JTree and the southwest it’s common with even a daypack. Is there a pass that comes to mind for you? My partner can’t remember a situation like that in her 3 summers in the range either. Crawling under a fallen log I suppose? A short sentence under class 2 should cover the possibility.

Similar to the point above with Michael I think having a clear "hey if it's Class 3 you're going to be doing some actual climbing, even if obvious and straightforward" gets closer to the original intent of Class 3 and someone should be aware of the implications of bringing a pack up it. I do think at least a "don't try class 3 with a pack deep in the backcountry if you haven't done it before" would be necessary and/or don't do it solo - emphasizing the role of an experienced trip leader beyond belaying if you're getting into exposure would be appropriate.

We carry some p-cord that's usually tied to our fish creel but could be used to lower/raise packs (not as nice as static line, but light and works in a pinch) - that's something I'll also add into the Class description as well later tonight or tomorrow - we're going to head out on a quick dayhike soon.

PS: Large talus with big drops between pieces is still a missing point here. I honestly don't have a problem just labeling that exposure as X, but there should be some general rule around it. Maybe if it's ~10+ feet deep and you can't take a "normal" Class 1 walking step across it?

[Lumbergh21]

I'll toss in two cents about my experiences which echo bits and pieces from other comments. From your photos at the top of Page 4, I would say that the second photo is technically class 3 but none of them would stop me from climbing with a full pack because there doesn't appear to be the type of exposure that guarantees serious injury or death. Exposure is the thing that makes me tense up or even turn around. Probably a more helpful system for me would be class ratings with an exposure rating added in.

Something else that caught my eye was the rating that you gave Lamark Col. I found the icy east side to be much more difficult than the scree and rock on the west side. I found the travel along the Darwin Lakes to be more time consuming and tedious than the west side as far as that goes. I've also experienced this in my younger days when climbing mountains at different times of the year. Crampons on ice was invariably preferable than scree and talus later in the year, but that is assuming you have crampons and an ice axe. So time of year and equipment can really play into the difficulty and risk of a particular pass or peak. If I'm using crampons and an ice axe to climb a chute, does that make it Class 3? Maybe, but it feels - and I think it is - safer than some Class 2 hiking where a slip could mean a serious injury, and since I am solo, that probably means death.

Finally, I agree that the assumption must be made that the person is carrying at least an average sized pack and not packless or with a day pack. I have experienced the feeling of descending with a full (or at least weekend) pack and basically hoping that I am putting my foot on something solid because I can't see it, where I would have been fine without a pack.

So my vote is for keeping the YDS but with an exosure rating of some sort, knowing that I am fine with anything upto Class 3, but am uncomfortable with anything above the lowest of Class 2 with exposure.