High Sierra Topix

New(ish)member here, been stalking in the shadows a bit after moving here to CA from CO. Any thoughts on putting two separate ratings for routes? Utilizing a scale of 1-5 for the route difficulty as always, but the addition of 1-5 for exposure (1 an easy stroll with a fall resulting in laughter and embarrassment, 2 some easy exposure with a fall resulting in mostly minor injury, 3 a fall is injury, 4 a fall is serious injury/death, 5 a fall is certain death).
Two ratings will allow people to make a judgement call based on not only physical ability but also taking into account the mental side of things. For instance when I had company visit the Rockies from sea level hikes could be tailored to the guests physical condition as well as how much risk they seek/can handle.
Just an idea from a fresh perspective....

**side note, I realized this is a mixed board with climbing as well as hiking, so it may be a complete different world in terms of ratings. I'm not a climber and haven't any idea (that goes for most things as well!)

Welcome to the HST!

Here's a link to some established definitions: http://www.climber.org/data/decimal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Russ

Wandering Daisy wrote:. Whenever I find that the "route description" does not at all match the terrain in front of me, guess what- I am not on the same route. It is VERY easy to get off route from what the guide book is describing. I take all guide route with a grain of salt, and then go where I deem is the best route.

Bingo!

Also, although the Secor guide is indispensable, i've found that some of his class ratings are inaccurate.