Bogley

[rcwild]

Is it time to revisit the ACA Canyon Rating system?

http://www.canyoneering.net/content/index.php?categoryid=23

The ACA Canyon Rating System was developed over a period of time in 2000 and 2001. At it's foundation was a rating system used by Stefan Hofmann in his book, "Canyoning". We posted it on an internet forum and asked for input from the community. From the input we posted another system and asked for more input. This process continued until we felt we reached a consensus.

The system has been in place for six years and seems to be working well, but I have heard some suggestions for improvements. I started a thread on the ACA forums to solicit input to determine if the system should be modified and if so how. Please share your comments and suggestions at:

http://www.canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1855

[Iceaxe]

Rich,

I believe the current rating system is really good, at least from a guidebook author's perspective. I've noticed over the years that those suggesting changes are not the ones who actually have to implement the system into actual use. 99% of the suggested improvements I hear actually belong in the detailed route description and not the rough outline a rating provides.

Anyhoo.... I know the current big bitch concerns serious mae west type slots. I believe that concern is easily covered with a minor tweak as noted below. I believe many of the current sprayers of beta have already implement wording of a similar type to one degree or anther.

Advanced Canyoneering
Route may involve any combination of the following: 1) Advanced free climbing. difficult and exposed free climbing and/or down-climbing, 2) climbing using direct aid, 3) multi-pitch rappels, 4) complex rope work (i.e. guided rappels, deviations, rebelays), 5) obscure or indistinct natural anchors, 6) advanced problem-solving and anchor-building skills. 7) Advanced pothole escape techniques. See route description for more information.

ONE BIG SUGGESTION for those commenting on improvements, before making a suggestion ask yourself "Does this really belong in the ratings or is it betterer suited for the route description?"

Also.... I'm not a fan of changing horses in the middle of the race. Most of the current guidebooks and authors are using some variation of the original ACA rating. Changing it will result in chaos for the next 10 years.

Thanks for playing....

:cool2:

[rcwild]

In the ACA forums thread I posted some examples of suggestions people have submitted. One of the issues is the number of canyons in Utah that are rated 3B, 3B, 3B, 3B ...

If any changes are made, it will be very important not to totally change things and rendering existing guidebooks instantly out-of-date. For example, a 3B canyon should remain a 3B canyon, but perhaps that rating could be broken down further like YDS does with Class 5 climbs. Maybe 3.1, 3.2, etc.

Also important that the system doesn't become excessively cumbersome. I wouldn't be a fan of adding .0 through .15 for example. It would take much too long for people to reach consensus regarding the difference between .8 and .9. Maybe limited it to 3.1 through 3.5. ??

[Iceaxe]

Not an exact science but I currently use the R as a type of plus/minus system....

A canyon rated 3B R is a step up.... A canyon rated 2B R would mean advanced hikers can do it without tech gear but noob's are going to get in big trouble.

But this still brings back the old problem of when exactly does a canyon go from being a 3 to a 4? And with the ever changing canyon conditions of the CP I see a major problem in attempting to rate the canyons precisely. I've always considered the wide variance that the current system allows to actually be one of it's strong points....

A guess a good extreme example might be the Black Hole.... that has recently gone from 2B to 4B R and back to 2B all in a very short time... a second example might be Choprock, that canyon has the potential to go anywhere from 3B to 4B R/X depending on water conditions and current logjams. And its highly possiable you will see both ends of the spectrum over the course of a single year in some of these canyons.

Heck.... many of the current guidebook authors already have a major problem pin pointing the borderline canyons, is Subway a 2B, 2B R or 3B? it's listed at all three depending on where you get your intel.... trying to refine the numbers further just creates a quagmire. If you are hell bent on trying to refine the numbers I suggest a plus/minus would be the best option for what I think is a bad idea.

YMMV

[nat]

Iceaxe wrote: Not an exact science but I currently use the R as a type of plus/minus system....

A canyon rated 3B R is a step up.... A canyon rated 2B R would mean advanced hikers can do it without tech gear but noob's are going to get in big trouble.

But this still brings back the old problem of when exactly does a canyon go from being a 3 to a 4? And with the ever changing canyon conditions of the CP I see a major problem in attempting to rate the canyons precisely. .... trying to refine the numbers further just creates a quagmire. If you are hell bent on trying to refine the numbers I suggest a plus/minus would be the best option for what I think is a bad idea.

YMMV

I have to say that I disagree with Shane. Even with changing conditions in canyons, the present rating system is inadequate in differentiating difficulties. Especially in the 3 grade there is such an enormous range. For example consider Hard Day Harvey and Keyhole. Even if HDH is a 3B R (and the R is debatable) and Keyhole is a 3B, the difference in difficulty, and overall seriousness is enormous. One is a short jaunt in a National Park, with a 20min drive from SAR, an easy rap or two, virtually no hard squeezing or downclimbing, and 10 minutes from a paved highway. The other is way out in the middle of nowhere, has interesting natural anchor problems, lots of hard squeezing/stemming, possibilities of getting stuck, is physically tiring, long, and has some routefinding issues on the return. I think that the idea of a 3.1 thru 3.5 idea is excellent, and would give people a better warning about what's in store, relative to other canyons they have done. A couple of beginning canyoneers with a little training could safely do Keyhole on their own. HDH, I don't think so. Not even close.

[CarpeyBiggs]

I agree with the 3.1 or 3.2 adaptation. This would preserve the original 3BIII ratings, but newer publications could have the decimals added.

I also like increasing the rating to a 4 more often. If there is ever advanced canyoneering, I think the 4 should be applied. Tom has done this with certain canyons, such as Choprock or even Shimrock, when there are dangers that don't exist in some of the easier canyons. Someone who is large and inexperienced could be in trouble in a seemingly easy slot like Shimrock. Just a quick read through the route descriptions could leave them woefully under prepared.

[Iceaxe]

nat wrote: Especially in the 3 grade there is such an enormous range. For example consider Hard Day Harvey and Keyhole.

The classification has nothing to do with the length of the difficulty, length of the canyon or the remotest of the canyon. The classification is the hardest more, just as in climbing. Say the hardest move to reach the top of The Grand is 5.6, and the hardest move to climb The Slicks in BCC is 5.6.... same classification, it doesn't matter that one is a bolted sport climb next to a paved road and requires only 5 minutes and the other is a major undertaking....

:cool2:

[Iceaxe]

CarpeyBiggs wrote: I also like increasing the rating to a 4 more often. If there is ever advanced canyoneering, I think the 4 should be applied. Tom has done this with certain canyons, such as Choprock or even Shimrock,

Just going to play devil's advocate on this one.... If you cheapen the 4 classification then you get bitching from the other side of the deal..... So you rate Shimrock as 4 and Sandthrax is rated 4.... and then you get someone in trouble because Sandthrax is way more difficult then Shimrock. There is nothing advanced about Shimrock, but it does have an added danger in fat guys could get stuck.... so you cover your butt on Shimrock by adding the R. I'd say a skinny slot you could get stuck in slot meets the "One or more extraordinary risk factors" criteria

I'm all for a better rating system if you guys can actually come up with one.... but I've been playing this ratings game a long time and usually every idea to solve one problem opens up two other problems..... Heck I've notice MK doesn't even restrict canyons to 3 or 4. His description often reads something like "This canyon is a 3, or maybe a 4."

:cool2:

[nat]

Iceaxe wrote: nat wrote: Especially in the 3 grade there is such an enormous range. For example consider Hard Day Harvey and Keyhole.

The classification has nothing to do with the length of the difficulty, length of the canyon or the remotest of the canyon. The classification is the hardest more, just as in climbing. Say the hardest move to reach the top of The Grand is 5.6, and the hardest move to climb The Slicks in BCC is 5.6.... same classification, it doesn't matter that one is a bolted sport climb next to a paved road and requires only 5 minutes and the other is a major undertaking....

:cool2:

Perhaps, but even if the classification is the "hardest move" the "hardest move" of HDH is way harder thatn the "hardest move" of Keyhole. Certainly enough, in my opinion, to be reflected in the rating.

[Iceaxe]

nat wrote: Perhaps, but even if the classification is the "hardest move" the "hardest move" of HDH is way harder thatn the "hardest move" of Keyhole. Certainly enough, in my opinion, to be reflected in the rating.

FWIW: I consider HDH one of those "borderline" canyons, and they are always the most difficult to rate.

Take The Subway for example because almost everyone has done The Subway. Dang that is a bordeline canyon.... and no matter how you adjust the ratings it's still a borderline canyon.... is it a 2 or 3? or maybe a 2.5 or a 3.1? Maybe a 2+ or a 3-......

:ne_nau:

And you did pick the two extremes as an example.... Keyhole might be the easiest 3 on the planet and HDH might be the hardest 3... And I tag HDH with a R because it does have some places you don't want to fall and it does have some places fat guys would get stuck, which does meet the "One or more extraordinary risk factors" criteria. So they really are not really rated the same.

Just more food for thought....

[CarpeyBiggs]

Iceaxe wrote: Take The Subway for example because almost everyone has done The Subway. Dang that is a bordeline canyon.... and no matter how you adjust the ratings it's still a borderline canyon.... is it a 2 or 3? or maybe a 2.5 or a 3.1? Maybe a 2+ or a 3-......
I think Subway is easy to rate. 3.1. Basic rope skills necessary, for the the rap or handline into the bottom part of the subway.

Iceaxe wrote:
And you did pick the two extremes as an example.... Keyhole might be the easiest 3 on the planet and HDH might be the hardest 3... And I tag HDH with a R because it does have some places you don't want to fall and it does have some places fat guys would get stuck, which does meet the "One or more extraordinary risk factors" criteria. So they really are not rated the same.
Right, you rate those two differently, but how would a casual reader know this? An "R" simply means "risk" or "runout" or "don't fall." It doesn't explain difficult route finding, possible keepers, etc... All that could be resembled in the decimal system. And even if there is debate on what part of the scale it falls on, at least it will force the reader to find out exactly what the different obstacles are, from the beta.

If it says anything other than 3.1, I am sure they would be wondering "oh, I wonder what makes this unusual."

[ratagonia]

Iceaxe wrote: CarpeyBiggs wrote: I also like increasing the rating to a 4 more often. If there is ever advanced canyoneering, I think the 4 should be applied. Tom has done this with certain canyons, such as Choprock or even Shimrock,

Just going to play devil's advocate on this one.... If you cheapen the 4 classification then you get bitching from the other side of the deal..... So you rate Shimrock as 4 and Sandthrax is rated 4.... and then you get someone in trouble because Sandthrax is way more difficult then Shimrock. There is nothing advanced about Shimrock, but it does have an added danger in fat guys could get stuck.... so you cover your butt on Shimrock by adding the R. I'd say a skinny slot you could get stuck in slot meets the "One or more extraordinary risk factors" criteria

I'm all for a better rating system if you guys can actually come up with one.... but I've been playing this ratings game a long time and usually every idea to solve one problem opens up two other problems..... Heck I've notice MK doesn't even restrict canyons to 3 or 4. His description often reads something like "This canyon is a 3, or maybe a 4."

:cool2:

Hmmm. Yeah, the 4 on Shimrock seems a little much, but...

I'm more in favor of adding a SLOT- rating to the canyons that have slot-canyon climbing problems (ie, Mae-Westing).

Also, I think HDH has or can have some difficult pothole exits or avoids, which means it earns a 4 in my book, er, website, if it was on there. Drumroll please...

Shimrock 3A III SLOT-PG (>200lbs, SLOT-R)
Sandthrax 4A III SLOT-X- 5.10 A2
Hard Day, Harv? 4A or B SLOT-PG+

YES, the "3" rating covers a lot of ground, but subdividing? Based on what? People going through the Subway for the first time should still carry a rope. "3 raps to 30 feet" kinda gives it away that there's not much in the way of ropework.

Tom

[Iceaxe]

For What It's Worth.... I consider rating routes to be the most difficult part of writing a guide.... It's usually the last thing I do and I always try to poll a broad base of canyoneers to get a well rounded rating. It's easy to rate one or two canyons, they always fit nicely into whatever category you create, and if they don't you slide your scale so they do fit nicely..... but try rating 100 canyons and you lose the ability to slide your scale, and no matter what you do you have borderline routes and you always have an extreme at both ends of whatever category you create.

:cool2:

[CarpeyBiggs]

ratagonia wrote: Hmmm. Yeah, the 4 on Shimrock seems a little much, but...

I'm more in favor of adding a SLOT- rating to the canyons that have slot-canyon climbing problems (ie, Mae-Westing).

Also, I think HDH has or can have some difficult pothole exits or avoids, which means it earns a 4 in my book, er, website, if it was on there. Drumroll please...

Shimrock 3A III SLOT-PG (>200lbs, SLOT-R)
Sandthrax 4A III SLOT-X- 5.10 A2
Hard Day, Harv? 4A or B SLOT-PG+

YES, the "3" rating covers a lot of ground, but subdividing? Based on what? People going through the Subway for the first time should still carry a rope. "3 raps to 30 feet" kinda gives it away that there's not much in the way of ropework.

Tom

Those ratings could work too, just a different way of categorizing different obstacles. Perhaps better though, because it doesn't imply linear progression of difficulties based on a numerical scale. Instead it is based on categories. Is there a PG-13 rating to? Because that is as comfortable as most of us utah boys feel comfortable going to... :lol8:

[rcwild]

A.J. posted a suggestion on the ACA forum to start using G and PG in addition to the R and X. Currently, R and X are supposed to represent risk. If people started thinking in terms of both risk and experience required, this could be a simple and effective solution.

Keyhole and Subway become 3B G. Pine Creek and Mystery become 3B PG. Etc.

Personally not a fan of long, multi-variable ratings. Some of that information simply needs to be in the description.