High Sierra Topix

I'll expand upon & add on to my remaining questions from 3 days ago (feel free to refer to the numbers when replying):

1) Are we good on sliding and collapsing for traction (focusing only on what's most consequential or troubling) or would having 3-4 labels for the entire range make sense? Traction: good, fair, poor, deadly, etc. I feel like this is going to be messy though I can understand the appeal of it.

There could be an explanation that stable to slightly loose to wobbly is the default state and then focus on sliding and collapsing.

2) Do we want just X, R & X, or just the whole movie spectrum rating for exposure? I lean fatally exposed and exposed but could go back to the originally proposed Class 5 movie rating system. I feel like PG and R are going to be messy. If do stick with the upper two levels, do R and X still make sense without G and PG? Options:

exposed: some probable injury and uneasy
fatally expoed: death or evac

R > X
XR > X
X > FX
X > XF
X > F

It feels a little weird to have X as the bottom option, as that's the highest in the informal Class 5 movie rating system, but if we tack fatal onto it that makes sense. EX > FX?

Update: what about something like heights & exposed?

H - heights? - accidents could result in serious injury, in general some uneasiness associated with heights maybe be felt even if route is fairly safe.
X - exposed - accidents would likely result in death or evac

I'm probably overthinking this. Just keeping it R and X and then explaining PG is the default state seems fine?

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? I was a bit uneasy when I introduced this, but it gets the point of "a new class" while slotting into the existing system. Currently Class 5 is the only class with minor/sub classes in it, which is a slightly different usage than this. Its honestly more like 2.8 than 2.5, but at least .5 is in the middle and feels a bit more obvious. 2+/3- felt more precise, but is a mouthful.

If I didn't have a sliding for terrain we could call it 2S for scrambling. 2M? 2+? Just keep it 2.5?

5) I feel like unpacking the acronyms is a good thing, should that be formalized or left to "just use all the pieces". I'd go "motion > terrain > exposure" as the order for shorthand - so 2 SX etc as uneven ground that's sliding and exposed makes sense to me. I'm not sure I'd want to write out all the unpacked sentences that can come out and expect others to follow that. IMO as long as the Class 2S, 2R, 2.5 & Class 2X, 3R etc is consistent I'm not worried about the rest.

Does it matter if somewhere there's a

Ursula:
Class 2X, 3R - Some fatally exposed uneven ground and exposed simple climbing
Class 2X, 3R - uneven ground fatally exposed and simple climbing exposed

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

6) On that note, there should be some common long form terms used (even if we don't try to map out every precise unpacked combination).

Class 1:

Walking

Class 2:

Uneven and/or steep ground with occasional use of hands or poles for balance
Uneven and/or steep ground

Class 2.5:

Short mantles/drops over rock and/or scrambling

Class 3:

Simple Climbing

Class 4:

Complex Climbing

Class 5:

Technical Climbing

S - Sliding
C - Collapsing
? - Exposed
? - Fatally Exposed

First up on this = Attention Mods...or whoever is in charge of updating the Cross Country Passes plus Map.
I sure hope the results of this thread and discussion end up being a new format for Cross-Country as it sure needs the revision. If indeed no-one is particularly in charge of changes, maybe you @erutan could take that on, at least for the introductory description and terminology splurb? That way at least new additions may get to be 'updated' and perhaps an informal working group of more experienced members could take on say 5 or 10 passes each one winter and fine tune/upgrade them.

As for feedback on your last post Erutan, here are my few cents:

1) For more detailed traction I would leave that for English descriptors and keep the single letters for the "Heading"...However, I do find "Collapsing" a bit obtuse and wish there was a better word.

2) For exposure I am all for X being just "Exposed" and then XF for "Fatally Exposed"...that way it keeps it simple and the added letter "F" is secondary to the base X so to speak, making it a "more" statement. Again, I am not into the movie definitions as is too vague for me.

3) Any more modifiers I would leave for English print description in the written text.

4) I think Class 2.5 is fine and makes it clear there is more to it than just 2 or 3. Scrambling could be in the written part.

5) Your format makes sense to me too: I'd go "motion > terrain > exposure" as the order for shorthand - so 2 SX etc as uneven ground that's sliding and exposed makes sense to me.
Not sure what the question really is re the Ursula and Vernon examples? Just sequence, or English...if so, as it's word descriptive so any way author puts it is probably fine.

6) For description of Classes I liked your longhand of some many posts back much better. This one: Post by erutan » Sun Mar 27, 2022 1:56 pm

Lastly, for clarity of format on the shorthand here are some options for a "Sliding, Fatally Exposed Class 2.5" hop;
Class 2.5SXF
Class 2.5/S/XF
Class 2.5-S-XF
Personally I like the middle version best for clarity and division.

Hope this helps! Best ~ Michaelzim

If there is a consensus to rename passes it'd be less of a winter project to redo them and more of a rewrite them after someone goes over it again. I know there's a lot of passes I went over where I probably don't remember 2.5 existing where it did, or ones I thought of as 3 technically but am unsure whether they'd be 3 or 2.5 iirc the last time I was over "Don't be a smart pass" between Roosevelt and upper mccabe was back in '13 - I remember it as Class 2, but wouldn't put a ton of money against there not being a 2.5 move or two.

Thanks for the feedback on 1 to 4.

3) For clarities sake we could break 2.5 up into two different grades - one is the typically thigh to shoulder high mantles/drops 1-2 moves, and another could be the earlier example of the "technically class 3" section going up valor that could be described as scrambling. I'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction in terms of skill or comfort level, but it'd make things potentially cleaner if more complex.

5) motion would be class, terrain would be S/C, exposure would be R/X or X/XF. They'd be applied in that order, so S comes before X if both exist to keep things consistent. You could have a 2 S a 2 X a 2 SX but not a 2 XS.

The question there was whether the long form unpacking of the letters and numbers should also be standardized, or if it's fine if there's some variation as long as people stick to the wording in 6. I lean towards not bothering to formalize the structure as long as the general terms are used.

6) The long write ups on classes @ viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22124&start=40#p171090 aren't meant to be replaced by what I wrote in the post above, they're two different uses. The former is a stab at a "guide" of the system, the latter showing a consistent way to unpack it (for people that aren't aware of it and won't look it up but stumble across it on a google search) while using the system.

Someone just seeing Class 2X, 3R on a pass entry would be confused, so adding something like "Some fatally exposed neven and/or steep ground with occasional use of hands or poles for balance, and exposed simple climbing" next to it to unpack those terms seems like a thoughtful thing to do.

Do what you want. I'll stick with personal narrative, pictures.

michaelzim

I’m going to stick with PG/R/X for exposure - it’s already in use (more or less) for class 5 and it makes more sense to keep things internally consistent and there’s some people that find it intuitive. There’s only really four modifiers to remember.

rlown

You’ve already said that here a number of times, I’m not sure you need to come back and make that point every few days.

Someone from the OSM Trails Working Group linked me this and it's gorgeous:

https://www.summitpost.org/class-four-i ... yds/891794

I honestly have been ignoring Class 4 because it's not a battle I really want to fight, but I'd be down for dropping it. It's somewhat useful in that it's "harder than Class 3" but I couldn't honestly point out the difference between 4 and 5.0. That said it isn't really a huge concern given the focus of this group - most people visualize Class 5 as ~5.5/5.6 and higher and so having Class 4 overlap with 5 easy isn't that impactful for backpackers.

Some excerpts elsewhere I made last summer, mostly pushing back on someone that said "if you smeared it was class 5" that descended into bashing Class 4, but you can see some of the genesis for this thread.

1, 2, 3, & 5 all seem to be pretty clear, but 4 is a sort of weird place IMO. If there’s an easy fat vertical crack that’s only 10ft is that class 3 due to lack of exposure though it’s a bit beyond the sort of mantling / scrambling one assumes with that rating? Secor & Roper include hold size & quality along with exposure.

If I’m doing non-exposed class 3 and have to smear, is that class 5? I’ve smeared a few feet up the side of a piece of talus in the middle of class 2 terrain, but I don’t think anyone would consider that talus class 5.

The attached photo [slab on Ursula] isn’t knife edge exposure, but it’s a short steep slope to a cliff out and an uncontrolled fall would be likely be fatal or at least result in serious injury. I’d still classify it as easy class 2 with exposure (the grassy section in the photo in particular would be class 1, but that upper area of the pass in general was 2) - anyone used to doing class 2 can walk across that little grassy ledge, but they might not be comfortable doing it!

[...]

I do jams, smearing, edging, etc on unexposed terrain pretty regularly, but a move or two of that would fall into what I'd call 3+ or 3 hard, if it progresses to a short chimney or going up a crack more than a move or two long regardless of exposure I'd probablty call short class 4 just to differentiate it from what people expect from class 3.

The staircase isn't that much less exposed than a ladder (and both have equally fatal consequences) - you just have a higher chance of falling off of it. Secor's suggestion that beginners being able to be belayed on class 3 doesn't suddenly turn into class 5 terrain if they are belayed.

Class 4 annoys me. I consider it more technical class 3 that isn't quite class 5 regardless of exposure. But that's just my take on it, and someone else can make a case for class 4 rather persuasively, as opposed to the other classes in most circumstances.

[...]

I like the addition of X onto a technique rating to indicate exposure - the photo above would be 2X as the 2 indicates the rough level of technique involved, and the X indicates exposure.

If I was emperor I’d probably just get rid of class 4 altogether due to it being problematic lol. I have a hard time spotting the real difference between 4 and 5.0. 4 is when you should be roped in but 5 is when you should be roped in for reals? 4 requires more technique than 3, but not as much as 5?

I can think of a few situations where I’ve done something that feels like ‘ok this is 4’ - some not quite vertical cracks along the north wall of the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne or something, but most of the time it’s kinda... well it’s harder than 3 but… not that hard to be 5 I guess? 5.0 is pretty easy. Most people can get up small pitches up to 5.6 or so without any real training if they’re somewhat athletic.

I’ve done some small unexposed pitches of 5easy in hiking boots with a pack on, whereas some crumbly 3/4 sketched me out not carrying weight. /shrug

I try and break down 2 and 3 into easy, moderate, and difficult (3-, 3, 3+ for short) in my own mind which helps when giving beta. The class 2 dropping down junction pass isn’t the same as the class 2 of some nicely sized stable granite talus.

I do feel automatically bumping up the technique rating due to exposure isn’t the best way to do it. Someone might be fine doing what most consider class 3 but unwilling to go up a class 4 or 5.easy crack due to technique even if it’s only 10ft high and doesn’t have any real exposure.

The description above seems to assume you are a climber. How many of us in this forum have technical climbing training/experience? "smear" on Class 2? How many really know what that means?

If you are going to rate passes, most of which are class 2, a few more class 3, a lot of folks going over these passes probably are not familiar with "smear", "off-width", "chimney", "layback", "mantle", etc. And if they have heard the word, they are not likely to have had training on how to do these moves. IF the above-mentioned climbing techniques, MUST be used to proceed (not just handy to do), then it is more than class 2, maybe even more than class 3. Some of the techniques are difficult to do with a pack on your back (like chimney).

IF we are trying to rate passes FOR BACKPACKERS, not climbers, we are mostly talking about class 2, which is an incredibly broad category. Perhaps a class 5 climber feels class 2 is pretty much the same; typical backpackers will find some "red line" in the difficulty of class 2 that they cannot do and feel safe.

Class 4 is a holdover from the early 1900's, pre-Yosemite classification. It goes up to about 5.4 or 5.6. If Norman Clyde called it class 4, it probably is lower class 5. For a while class 4 was considered climbing with a rope and belay, without putting in protection (except to anchor the belayer). This is a holdover of days when a lot of people used professional guides. The guide did not "need" the rope; the client did! If you put in protection, it was class 5. Climbing has evolved a lot since that time. Mt Humphreys is class 4. I took a fellow up that and we used a rope and I put in a few pieces. We rappelled down. Class 4 is difficult to down-climb. The rope is more needed for descent as ascent. So, yes, I think class 4 still has its usefulness. But is not very applicable to passes. More for climbs.

The quotes above were in response to climbers talking about ratings in a trip report elsewhere last summer (someone took issue that someone using a friction grip on what they called Class 4, people chimed in with their own thoughts on how to define / use the system, it was an interesting useful conversation and could be the first times I used 2X publicly I think). I mostly included it for historical purposes and because the summit post write up amused me (and got into some of the historical overlap issues you brought up). As I said above the quotes, it's not that impactful for backpackers.

I agree that a pass won't be rated Class 4. My descriptions of 3-5 in my second draft are geared towards non-climbers while basically disregarding Class 5 - the vast majority of the focus here has been on Class 2, my proposed 2.5, and adding in the four modifiers as last outlined previously that would apply on Class 2-3 terrain: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22124&start=40#p171090

Hi @erutan, thank you for your informative posts. For the route you followed from Vogelsang to Lyell Canyon (Vogelsang > Evelyn / Ireland ridge > Amelia Earhart pass > Lyell Canyon) is the Amelia Earhart Pass you refer to south of the peak at UTM982834 or are you referring to a pass north of the peak? Secor mentions climbing Amelia Earhart from the northeast ridge (class 2) and west fast couloir (class 4) but doesn't mention climbing from the south ridge UTM982834 which looks like it should be class 2.

Howdy, @TheFool I didn't see this earlier, sorry.

The pass I used was SE of Ireland lake, south of Amelia Earhart Peak, and almost due east of Parson's Peak, around 11,600ft. Easy up following more or less an inlet of Ireland lake to pass, and then a loose but not bad at all drop (I led someone who was VERY uncomfortable on loose terrain down this) to the ponds around 11,240+ where delightful ramps lead down to the area around the lower McClure Lakes ~10,480.