High Sierra Topix

Talus is so dependent on your past experience and route-finding. In large talus, there usually is a detour around hard parts, although they may be much longer. North side of Alpine Col is a good example. It is very expedient to be able to jump from the top of one large block to another (I do this). Yet, with a bit more work, you can divert. An example of a tight squeeze is a chockstone in a gully. Most tight restrictions are in large talus. Talus is also incredibly dependent on micro-route finding. I have hiked through many talus fields. On some routes that Secor describes as "endless talus" I have been able to find hidden paths. Regardless of how each of us has certain abilities or equipment advantages, I think we have to be careful about projecting our personal strengths or weaknesses on a rating system.

Just my opinion, but I feel any rating system should be aimed at the average (but experienced) off-trail backpacker; neither the hot-shot climber or novice. You are correct in that not everyone has the means to acquire the latest UL gear. I am not UL, but not traditional either; 30-pound pack at the start of a 10-day trip. I would say there are number of us out there like this. The bulkiest item in my pack is the bear can. I weigh about 105-110 pounds mid-season. (Yup- I plump up off season ). A 30-pound pack with a bear can makes some class 2 unbalanced for me, unless I can do the short section it without wearing my pack. So, sorry, I cannot relate to how your "partner" handles class 3 easily with a backpack.

There are some passes that are more prone to seasonal instability after rainstorms or spring melt than normal. It takes a combination of moisture, slope and size/shape of the dirt/scree. I recall that a number of years ago, a fellow was buried when he triggered a slide somewhere above Ruby Lake. Cannot remember the name, but I was on the pass above Wahoo Lakes (on the SHR) when it was in that condition. I will never do that pass again! I do not think anyone who has done this pass under more normal conditions would even think of that. Not sure how this case should be handled with respect to rating.

i'm a fan of this idea and have very little to add technically but from a communication perspective, i think 2/2.5/3 and PG/R/X are the way to go.

erutan's description of the difference between 2 and 2.5 makes intuitive sense to me. i'm not sure i've been over a purely 3 pass in my brief xc sierra career, but plenty of 2 and 2.5 ones, and i could probably look back and tell you which was which now.

PG/R/X are intuitively understandable from movies. it feels like R and X could be defined in such a way that held meaning? as someone who doesn't love exposure, "a little bit" and "a lot" are indeed worthy distinctions!

foreign acronyms like L, CL, etc feel too cute or complex to my ear, as do + and -, where the onion is getting sliced so thinly it becomes less universal and more subjective.

take it or leave it, just my little thoughts.

Lumbergh21

I was thinking of the terminus of Lamarck Col as Lake 4, not down Darwin Benches or the JMPCT. I agree that the talus alongside the middle lakes is the worst part if you include them! I've never had any issues with the snow on the eastside of the col in the half dozen or more time I've been over it (it's either been bootpacked or I've been able to easily kick in steps) but I agree that if it is icy it'd be an issue. There was hardly any snow on the col last July (the pond below it was completely dry), so that might be something of the past. There are some routes that regularly hold snow year round (vs in a heavy winter in June this will have snow)... I'm not sure that'd be worth breaking out a qualifier for.



I agree the ambigous Valor photo is technically class 3 in the current system, but it was one of those other things piling up in the back of my head - why am I describing something as "actual class 3" and then something else as "technically class 3 that might not be experienced as class 3".

I sympathize with things being different with a pack and without, and there's definitely time when I deliberately step slowly on talus (force = mass x acceleration) but I'm not sure how to qualify that. I think if something is stable without a pack and loose with one, the loose takes precedence, but that's probably the only area where it's impacted. Class 3 is still Class 3 even if it's harder with a pack - or one would choose not to go up it!

Wandering Daisy

It's definitely valuable getting different perspectives - I guess I just routefind around tight spots in Talus. I can imagine them quite easily but don't remember really hitting them in the Sierra, vs maybe doing so every 2-3 dayhikes in the southwest with a ~10L shoulder sling pack with smartwater bottles on the outside of it. Sometimes I can hop from little grassy spot to little grassy spot in talus fields, or I'll kick myself later when seeing a far better route than the one I took (the east side of north glacier pass comes to mind). There are some spots where realistically you're moving over large gaps in talus and that should be differentiated.

Aiming for an average experienced backpacker is what I'm trying for, and why aimed this system for HST vs global aspirations (though a more inclusive YDS would be a good thing). I can fully understand why a guidebook for the general public you chose the movie system rating - there's no interaction between readers or easy alternate context handy like on this forum.

I think some sort of explicit "standard conditions" disclaimer is warranted. One of my partner's friend's had their fiancé die a few years back in Colorado due to a loose boulder in snow soaked ground that rolled over them. I don't think that's something that can be broken down into every single situation, but perhaps a sentence in Class 2 or Loose regarding terrain heavily saturated by recent storms, early season snow melt, or in recent burn scars. I see the class ratings and overview as an educational opportunity, but if one tries to mention every hazard possible it'll just be a wall of text.

I will admit that I have a few pants that only fit either pre or post backpacking season... ^^ When I was in my early 30s I'd drop from 32" to 30" from June to Septmber, now it's more like 33-34" to 32-33".

frozenintime

Yeah, the +- was me trying to find that spot between 2 and 3 which stymies backpackers - just calling it 2.5 and being explicit about it vs "well it's 2 for some but 3 for others, be aware of this fact every time you're on something that feels marginally at the upper or lower bounds" feels a lot better. It helped clarify some things for myself as well.

I agree consequentially loose is a mouthful, but I think "loose" and "sliding" are about as important as exposure. An exposed class 2 slab above a cliff out is different from ball bearings above a cliff out, even if they're the same exposure - I'm not sure I want to have separate exposure ratings for stable ground above exposure and loose ground above exposure,

Terrain that collapses on itself can be as dangerous as exposure, and for some people less preferable. Huh, I might have "collapsing" as my replacement term for "sliding" which in turn replaced "consequentially loose".

I agree that if someone just came across the system without knowing anything about it, it wouldn't be naturally intuitive like PG/R/X - but then again L/S/X or L/C/X isn't -that- much to remember.

General thoughts

Should there be two exposure ratings? I honestly don't really know where a fall would be fatal or just result in serious injuries (or people that would be cool being busted up enough for a heli out but balk at death on impact), and I feel like "exposure which won't result in a serious injury or death" would be hard to quantify or judge. In introducing 2.5 I used the example of someone feeling exposed on a 3-4 foot Class 2.5 drop/scooch. Maybe just bake this into the Class system? I'll take a stab at this below.

I'm liking Collapsing and then using "sliding" instead of what I had as "loose" before - it feels a bit more impactful?

We could also just "unpack" the shorthand and just say "loose/sliding, collapsing, fatally exposed, exposed, holds snow" etc.

Ok, second draft. It could probably use a little editing to cut down the length, but I'm aiming to be overly explicit.

Overview:

The Yosemite Decimal System has been in use for decades and is the default way of rating off-trail terrain. It was created and used by technically skilled mountaineers and most of the attention was spent on the top of the scale (Class 5) leaving gaps in describing Class 2 and 3 terrain that are significant for backpackers. This is a proposal for a more inclusive system which builds on it’s historical roots while being useful for a wider range of individuals.

The largest change is the addition of a “Class 2.5” which clarifies an ambiguous grey area between Class 2 and 3. Existing 2.5 terrain would most likely be rated Class 2 by climbers or mountaineers who didn’t consider it “easy climbing”, and Class 3 by backpackers who weren’t expecting to have to use both hands to pull or drop themselves and their heavy packs down what was promised to just be uneven ground.

The second change is the addition of some suffixes/modifiers that describe key aspects of terrain - it’s still worth noting that a lot is left out, these are only some of the more pressing aspects and further research of routes is encouraged. The main advantage of this system isn't having a rating that perfectly describes reality (it doesn't), but creating a clearly defined shared vocabulary so descriptions of terrain are (not as) subjective and can be more universally understood.

Classes:

Classes are used to break down the ‘mode of travel’ over terrain and the general level of technique required and do not always directly map to difficulty. They are meant to be a basic check on your perceived limits and comfort level as well as set expectations for what is considered "on route".

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.

Occasionally one side of a pass or slope of a peak is actually all Class 1, but generally speaking it’s used when are large sections of Class 1 that still contain some Class 2 terrain (the band between 13,200 and 13,400 feet on the south slopes of Langley) - this is generally written as 1/2 to show it’s on the simpler side of things while not being a cakewalk.

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.

Backpacker Note: Carrying a heavy and/or unbalanced pack can greatly impact traversal on Class 2 terrain. Packs that are suspended off of your back are nice on trail, but shift your center of gravity more than sweat inducing ones directly on your back. While packs are generally expected to be carried through Class 2 terrain, there can be spots where one needs to squeeze through large blocks of talus or under a chockstone or fallen tree where they’d be taken off and passed through. There’s a LOT of variety in Class 2 terrain, if you’re new to moving over Class 2 it’s highly recommended to do further research on your route and passes on it vs just relying on a rating system which is a useful as a shorthand to experienced mountain folk.

Class 2.5: You are using your hands to pull yourself up some terrain, but you're not quite "climbing". 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 of something and pull yourself up, etc falls into 2.5. It is the least photogenic class to ascend or descend. Clambering onto and then off deadfall would be non-rock 2.5. People extremely sensitive to exposure may find 2.5 uncomfortable.

Backpacker Note: 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. While even novices are very unlikely to want to be roped in, carrying a length of 10ft static rope can be useful for lowering your pack down 2.5 terrain so you can drop unencumbered.

Class 3: Simple climbing where 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 for those sensitive to heights there is mostly likely awareness of a fall. Class 3 is possible on flat slopes given large (appliance to room sized) talus on it that one would have to climb around on. Going though the middle of the slide in Slide Canyon is Class 3.

Backpacker Note: It’s “simple” climbing, but carrying a fully loaded pack up Class 3 can be VERY different from doing it unladen. The extra weight makes vertical moves more difficult - more critically your center of balance may be further away from the rock pulling you away from it and pack itself can become a physical obstacle if going up a crack or relatively tight space. If using trekking poles, they’d generally be tucked away. It’s not fun having one get stuck in a 15 foot crack halfway up it and having to downclimb and try and work it out while hanging onto rock.

If you aren’t experienced carrying a loaded pack up Class 3, it’s highly recommended to travel with someone more experienced who can shuttle your pack up, explain and demonstrate the route, and if necessary wait at the top to grasp your wrist or stay at the bottom to spot you and or push your feet onto holds and call out moves. Trip leaders - it’s on you to make sure novices make it safely up Class 3 with minimal risk and psychological damage.

Climber Note: There is no limit to the height of such terrain, and risk can be involved - if novices are along it can be a good idea to provide a rope and requisite gear to belay them if they feel uncomfortable.

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 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, and many boots and shoes will fail on such subtle terrain. You'll generally want either more traditional boots with "structure" to the toe box & sole or a lightweight shoe that forms to the foot and for better groundfeel and independent use of foot muscles for control. In between boots/shoes with comfortable roomy sloppy toe boxes that are comfortable on trail won't hold on smaller holds. Rope is advised to be be in use though very experienced individuals will 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 been modified throughout the years as a living document so has been kept more "up to date". Expect overlap in the very low numbers of Class 5 and what's considered Class 4.

Backpacker note: Having some basic skill in Class 5 makes Class 2.5 and 3 more manageable (you'll have some techniques and ways of thinking that translate over) - it could be worth signing up for an introductory course at a local climbing gym if one is available.

Class Terrain Modifiers:

Terrain Modifiers - these are used to point out consequential aspects of the terrain itself (as opposed to how you would move over it) that it could pose a significant risk of death or serious injury or enough discomfort to cause someone to turn around that would otherwise be comfortable moving on the class of terrain they are otherwise on.

S - Sliding:

This is talus which shifts, or ground which either moves when stepped on or on which feet slide when stepping onto. It self-brakes within a foot and will not cause a major landslide, but impacts traction. Probably the least popular form is this terrain is sand or pebbles on top of otherwise hard packed dirt or rock, which is often explained as walking on ball bearings. Not seriously dangerous in and of itself, but can be very unnerving and uncomfortable to move on. Loose terrain which is also exposed should be avoided if possible.

While technically loose, easy sandy slogs are easy (if tiring) and considered a standard part of Class 2.

C - Collapsing:

Talus, scree, or gravel that will go into a lengthy landslide that can either crash into or bury someone (Rodger & Clinch Passes) or gravel that contains loosely held talus in it that can be dislodged onto people (Junction Pass). This Terrain which is generally stable can be fatal when saturated with early season snow melt, or during or immediately after after a major rainstorm leading to mudslides or loosening large talus which would normally be stable.

Class Exposure Modifiers:

R - Exposed:

While one would likely be able to walk away from an accident on this terrain it could result in moderate to serious injuries as it is significantly more exposed than average terrain of the class. People not overly sensitive to exposure may feel uncomfortable or unwilling to continue. This will likely be the most disputed terrain modifier.

X - Fatally exposed:

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 injury requiring evacuation. This can be “indirect” in the sense that there’s a short distance to bounce or slide down before the drop - your toes don’t have to be hanging over into the void for something to be exposed. Large deep gaps between talus that one could fall into and be unable to reasonably exit that cannot be safely bypassed would fall into this level of exposure (North Dragon Pass).

Examples:




King Col:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2 SX.

CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2 Sliding & Fatally Exposed.

This pass should not be taken due to uncomfortably slippery terrain over fatal exposure.

The technique required is 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 fatally exposed. The fact that your feet will slide when you step above that fatal exposure makes it sliding. This is why people say King Col feels like Class 4 - the proximity to the drop makes it ‘feel’ like you're on a more technical climbing mode of travel because near vertical terrain has a lot more high cliffs than terrain 5-30 degrees in slope. 2 SX ‘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 require some climbing techniques.

Cirque:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2.5

North side: Straightforward class 2 with some 2.5 near the top. South side: 2.5 ledges near the top with routefinding (or more directly short class 3) on the south side followed by significant routefinding that can mean the difference between straightforward class 2 & 2.5 and wet class 4 near the bottom.

Rodgers:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2 C

CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2 Collapsing

The upper west side of the pass is composed of talus that require significant routefinding and situational awareness to stay safe on - landslides can occur 30 feet upslope of where a step is taken and sweep down onto the hiker.

Valor:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 3.

Straightforward mix of slab, broken slab, and very occasional talus with brief Class 2.5 and Class 3 sections to gain/drop from the ridge from the east.

Vernon:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2S, Class 2R, 2.5.

CLASS/DIFFICULTY: West: Class 2 Sliding. East: Class 2 Exposed, 2.5.

East: Straightforward mixed 2 until the last two hundred feet which are a mix of occasionally somewhat wobbly talus and optional stable 2.5/3 sections to an exposed feeling wide talus ledge then some routefinding for a 2.5 path through 4. West: Mix of generally stable talus and rolling slab, and varying amounts of 2S depending on routefinding.

Note: the sliding and exposed sections for this are in different sections, so it’s not really 2 SR but 2S & 2R. Kind of awkward.

Lamarck Col:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2.5

East: Well worn use trail until the base of the col, which generally holds snow (or ice) mixed with stable talus year round. West: Straightforward Class 2 mix of stable talus and a sandy slope, with almost certainly some 2.5 moments near the top. Worth noting that the large talus along Darwin lakes 2&3 is more of an obstacle than the pass itself!

North Col
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2.5

Class 2 from the east with either 2.5 or straightforward 3 at the top depending on time and effort spent on routefinding. West side is 1/2.

Existing ones I wrote before formally considering any of this (trying to inject context in a haphazard manner).

Dragon
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2, with a couple hundred feet of Class 3 the top.

North Col
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2, with some stable ledgey Class 3 the top that one can mostly avoid.

Ursula
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 3, some (indirectish) exposure near the top (2X).

Vernon
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Advanced class 2. We added in some optional easy class 3 (slab vs semi-stable talus).

Erutan...For somewhat of a 'pass novice' this detail and system described above looks really good to me. Yes it takes reading it all to understand the nomenclature but that should be par for the course for anyone serious enough to want to know the "facts".
The additions for instance make it really clear that I am not going to put King Col on my route! No more wondering about that: "But it says Class 2 so maybe it's OK?!" Nope. The S and X there are a very no-no combo for me!

One puzzle sentence is this one:
"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."
Not sure what this means??? (I figure it is linking to some pass but not sure which, plus likely one I have not done so would be less meaningful).

Thanks for so much staying power with this topic as is well overdue ref. a "backpackers" passes revamp. Hopefully the end result will be put into the permanent record for passes here on HST.

Best ~ Michaelzim

This was shared via PM - I asked for it to be shared here as I thought it was useful, he deferred but said I could share what I wanted, so I'll repost here to add to the conversation.

Gogd wrote:Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:54 am My biggest desire is moving away from code speak, and using plain English. My examples, below, may be little more than just using long form nomenclature.

We'll address three criteria affecting travel over rustic terrain:

• Motion
• Footing
• Exposure

With regards to Motion:

1. Walk up - Simular to following a rustic, albeit mapped trail; hands do not contact terrain.
2. Ascending - Hands may contact terrain primarily to steady one's balance, but posture remains essentially upright. The mechanics are similar to walking up stairs.
3. Scrambling - Both hands contact terrain, posture no longer upright. The mechanics are similar to crawling up stairs.
4. Climbing - Very difficult with a trail pack. The mechanics are similar to climbing a tree. Qualifier:
   • Requires rock skills

Regarding Footing:

1. Good - A slip not likely, terrain underfoot is stable.
2. Fair - Has Qualifiers:
   • sloping surfaces
   • shifting of terrain underfoot (deep sand, small scree)
   • sandy on hard surfaces
3. Poor - footing a significant issue. Has Qualifiers:
   • outward sloping surfaces
   • unstable terrain (cobbles & larger rocks)
   • sandy on outward sloping hard surfaces
   • slippery when wet

Regarding Exposure:

1. Non-issue.
2. Not for acrophobes.
3. Fall injury likely.
4. Fall you die.

The concept behind these criteria:

We are rating a XC hiking route, not a climb. The lingo should be flat lander terminology, as that is the universal language, both experientially as well as internationally. Most XC trekkers do not have any formal rock climbing education. They are campers, not climbers. I know because I was a former climber and have XC trekked with both climbers and sundry backpackers. Code-speak just bedazzles most campers.

We should attempt to advise both the day hiker and backpacker the effort the route requires. When steps are tall they require a third or fourth point of contact to negotiate. And if the effort takes the trekker out of an upright position this places additional physical demand on the trekker. It is one thing to hike upright, but once we are not upright the effort increases significantly, regardless of terrain slope. Even more so with a pack on. I recall the NE approach to Gendarme Peak in the Inconsolable Range required a relatively low slope scramble several miles up the canyon over desk and car sized boulders. Nothing technical but it was like doing hundreds of 4-count burpees. Totally exhausting, and all of this before things even started to get interesting. Thus the distinction between Ascending and Scrambling. At some point controlling the effects our packs have on balance while assuming different stances becomes an issue, as we transition into the realm of climbing motions. The Climbing distinction advises of that effort. Some are willing to continue only up to the point where climbing techniques come into play, and will appreciate knowing if the route requires these skills. Thus the requires rock skills qualifier. It has been my experience no further distinction is necessary, as exposure issues supercede at that juncture.

Everyone wants to remain on their feet. This is affected by the combination of terrain stability and traction issues. Hikers want to know the likelihood these concerns will be a problem, and the nature of the threat. On this note I reserved wet slips for the poor traction category because slippery wet surfaces are a significant risk wherever they are encountered. The only accident I've had in my 50+ years in the backcountry was breaking a forearm, resulting from a slip on a wet log while fetching water along the sandy beach shoreline of Fourth Recess Lake. There was a stiff breeze the preceding afternoon, that splashed the small logs lining the shore line. When I went to get water, late morning of the next day, the logs looked dry; nevertheless I took what I thought to be adequate precautions as I stepped onto the logs. They were stable, resting on the lake bottom. But all of a sudden I was ass over tea kettle, and landed on my arm. SNAP! It was just like slipping on ice in a parking lot. The top sides of the logs were not dry! So no matter where you encounter wet slip hazards, they instantly qualify as a poor traction hazard. We do not need to address ice or snow - only Darwin Award candidates don't understand the risk inherent in those conditions.

Exposure is an issue to most backpackers and day hikers. And it is highly subjective. On the minimal end there is the universal comfort zone of "no exposure". There there is the pathological fear of exposure that people experience, regardless of any actual danger. They panic at the thought of climbing a ladder or peering over a balcony rail. We need to let those folks know this route is not for them. Otherwise most of us evaluate exposure based on the potential outcome of a fall event. Pretty simple.

I think the combination of these criteria, with minimal qualifiers, can tell a fairly nuanced description of the risks and challenges that await the trekker considering a given XC route. We could add comments on objective risk factors of rock fall, ice and snow, but these considerations are dynamic conditions of any XC route where the aforementioned concerns are present.

[...]

Folks seem OK with repurposing and duck taping mods onto YDS, for use as a XC trail rating system, regardless everyone considers it a significantly flawed solution, even for its original intended purpose. IMO we are fooling ourselves thinking that dressing a pig up in a tux and bow tie somehow makes it more fit to serve as the Prom Prince!

This makes sense to me - it's essentially labeling the proposal here: Class 1 (walking), Class 2 (ascending), Class 2.5 (scrambling), Class 3 (easy climbing), Class 4/5 (don't with a pack) with human readable names and translating the original G/PG/R/X exposure ratings taken from Class 5. I was trying to keep as light a touch as possible and only mention exposure and traction when they were consequential, but there's some value in just listing everything up front. Novices would appreciate the distinction between good and fair traction vs just being concerned with the more extreme cases.

I considered labeling Class 2.5 scrambling, but felt like it didn't describe out a significant amount of the use cases (going up one of those horrid horse steps on the east side of Piute Pass, dropping/gaining a short ledge, etc). Using arms to push/pull while not having feet leave the ground for more than a step or two (if at all), seemed the best way to describe it even if that doesn't pack down neatly to a word. This is an opinion, but I feel like keeping things to a more clinical "Class x YZ" helps keep it a bit more focused on the system criteria vs someone that sees ascending and puts that as the class rating as they were going uphill etc. It looks less unfriendly, but keeping all the criteria consistent between reports means grasping and understanding a similar amount of information is arguably the most important aspect along with defining things clear enough that there's not too much room for interpretation based on perceived difficulty (Secor and his peers would rate something as Class 2 that many backpackers would rate as Class 3 due to imprecision in current YDS).

Having a more inclusive YDS also makes transitions from backpacking to peak bagging or climbing easier than essentially renaming it and divorcing/forking it from YDS - nothing in my proposal is incompatible with existing Class 3/4/5 aside from lopping off the very low end of Class 3 that many people comfortable with 4/5 don't notice anyways and allowing Class 4 to be unexposed (which is currently common practice) but with the assumption it would be. Most backpackers aren't climbers, but most backpackers aren't off trail for days at a time and many of the backpackers do occasionally bag an easy peak or two for the view.

I experimented with unpacking the suffixes in my previous post. I actually think it's useful to put both a packed and unpacked version at the top of a pass entry here and then using shorthand in tables of passes or map previews etc where space is more critical. It'd also help educate people that google up a pass entry and don't take the time to read some sort of HST YDS guide. Once there's some consensus here I'll do a proper guide with picture examples, breaking out the tips into a different styling to make things less a wall of text etc.

King Col:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2 SX - Uneven sliding fatally exposed ground

Cirque:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2.5 - Short mantles/drops over rock / scrambling

Rodgers:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2 C - Collapsing uneven ground

Rae Col:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2 - Uneven ground

Valor:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 3 - Simple climbing

Vernon:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2S, 2R, 2.5 - Uneven ground, sometimes sliding or exposed with some short mantles/drops over rock

From there you have either multiple paragraphs and photos or some Secoresque brief overview of the pass (or both).

I feel like it's really coming together.

Remaining questions:

1) Are we good on sliding and collapsing for traction or would having 3-4 labels for the entire range make sense?

2) Do we want just X, R & X, or just the whole movie spectrum rating for exposure? I lean X or R & X but could go back to the originally proposed Class 5 movie rating system. I feel like PG and R are going to be messy but there's definitely some desire for them.

3) Any more modifiers? I feel like a routefinding modifier would require a written description of the routefinding, so don't mind not adding it. Holds snow/ice year round seems valid - a couple passes are labeled ice ax / crampon and I avoid them because I don't want to haul an extra 3lbs for 10 days. Not sure it's worth breaking out, especially as a lot of snow will turn into sliding if these winters keep up.

4) Any better short human readable / flatlander name for 2.5?

Michael - Slope angle shading is non-existent here but the talus is mostly appliance to room sized and moving on it falls often falls into solid Class 3.



I enjoyed the jungle gym aspect of it... for the first half or third of it. Then it just went on forever and I got tired of it lol.

Reworded it to "Class 3 is possible on flat slopes given large (appliance to room sized) talus on it that one would have to climb around on. Going though the middle of the slide in Slide Canyon is Class 3." Is that clearer?

We were actually going to through it at the beginning of summer 2020 and my partner didn't feel comfortable given her lack of experience on large talus, shorter wingspan, and having a pack pulling her weight around. We backtracked out and cut through the upper fringes of to the east that were more traditional class 2.

Even if you think you have some sort of consensus, what are you going to do with the input?
In other words, what is your end game?

Fair point!

I'll write it up and update my pass entries here (and add it to my comments on others as I fill in blanks) - it seems there's enough people with a positive reaction after it's been refined that it will get some traction. I've been over the majority of named XC passes in the range, though it's been a while for many of them and some of the finer points might be a bit off - I'd note that.

I doubt it'll become a worldwide phenemona, but we already had one attempt at a HST specific rating system (Maverick's B/Cx-x) so I don't see the harm in it being a "here" thing that either spreads or doesn't. You can take the fact that the B/C system never took off as proof this won't either - but there's been a few of these threads that have fizzled out over the years which shows there's some genuine long term interest in a system that suits backpackers better. I think keeping it a compatible "add-on" to existing YDS makes it a bit easier to adopt than something completely novel.

It being localized is another reason to show the unpacked rating in write ups:

King Col:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2 SX - Uneven sliding fatally exposed ground

Cirque:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2.5 - Short mantles/drops over rock / scrambling

Rodgers:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2 C - Collapsing uneven ground

Rae Col:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2 - Uneven ground

Valor:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 3 - Simple climbing

Vernon:
CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2S, 2R, 2.5 - Uneven ground, sometimes sliding or exposed with some short mantles/drops over rock

If people think it's stupid and they'd rather just use existing YDS they can ignore the extra information.

Still, the ratings aren't really the be all/end all. It was your description of the passes and the pictures that mean more than anything like a 2.5...