Bogley

[neumannbruce]

I think the current canyon rating system is working fine. The route description is the best place to explain detail of the R or X or additional obstacles or technical skills required since the variety of these are many in any given canyon.

A possible solution may be to change the beta format v.s. changing the canyon rating system. To quickly help a canyoneer determine what special skill sets or hazards may be in the canyon, the beta publisher could briefly summarize in a short paragraph below the rating before going into the route description. This would be potentially duplicating beta within beta on a particular canyon, however it would allow a canyoneer to quickly determine whether it is within their ability without reading the whole route.

Bruce

[Canyonbug]

I think that this is a great topic to discuss, but I see a long and argumentative road ahead if this system is to be changed.

Every time we teach a canyoneering course at North Wash Outfitters and discuss canyon ratings it is shown how subjective the ratings can be, as has already been discussed in this forum. We give the students the understanding of what the ratings mean, but also the understanding that the ratings are going to mean different things to people with different skill levels.

I would entertain the idea of revamping the ratings to a point. As mentioned already, I would agree that some more description is needed to clarify the difficulty rating in the 3 category. I also agree that we should not lower the standards of 4 ratings by turning 3's into 4's.

I do like the idea of adding in a decimal system, but that begs the question as to how difficult is a 3.1 over a 3.0? Where do the differences come from? What is the difference with a 3.5 and a 4? It still leaves some ambiguity in the ratings.

I'm not too big on the idea of the G, PG etc. rating. It makes me feel like I am going to the movies and to me the feeling of going to a movie isn't as dangerous as a Mae west stem 60' off the deck. I think it diminishes the risk involved.

I think that a lot of the responsibility is still going to lie with the providers of beta and guide books. They should not feel that it is the ratings sole responsibility to give their readers an understanding of every obstacle there is. They should be describing the canyon in enough detail as to provide their reader's with the understanding of what that canyon holds. This means discussing the pot holes, rappel situations, anchors, swims etc. Even with those descriptions, canyons change and claims have been made in beta that got people into trouble in canyons because the layout had changed due to a recent storm that flashed the canyon. I don't feel that this is something that a re-vamp on the rating system would be able to fix.

My .04

[nat]

Iceaxe wrote: For What It's Worth.... I consider rating routes to be the most difficult part of writing a guide....
:cool2:

Yeah, it must be hard, especially with the current rating system. I can imagine going thru the difficult mental debates: "Let's see, John Doe Canyon, hmm... that's a tough one to rate, thought about it all night. Finally decided on 3B. Now how about John Deere Canyon. That's really a hard one to judge. After much discussion with members of the community, decided...3B. Jane Doe canyon, now that one's different, had to really rack my brains on that one. Finally concluded...3B". :haha:

[stefan]

:lol8: :lol8: :lol8:

[Iceaxe]

Or you can use the MK approach.... the canyon is a 3 or maybe a 4, but sometimes a 2.

:lol8:

All I'm really saying is if you think you have a bright idea lets see you first apply it to a long list of canyons and see how it works out.... if after that little test you still think it's a bright idea lets chat.

:cool2:

[cilantro13]

Speaking only from my own perspective, I am wary of putting too much info into a rating that might cause people to avoid reading the actual description, which is the best place for each canyon's unique challenges to be described.

I use the ratings as a filter. Everybody in the community knows there is a ton of variation in 3 rated canyons, and to a lesser extent in 4 rated canyons. Everybody knows there are borderline canyons (e.g., Kolob). The ratings for me are used to filter for which canyons may not provide the challenge I want and which will provide too much challenge for my wife's comfort level. After narrowing with the ratings, I read the betas to decide whether I have the skill to descend the canyon.

I wouldn't be opposed to a letter system to accompany or replace X and R, as those are already squishy as it is and should clearly be indicative of a particular type of challenge, as well as a figure for the length of rope needed.

Perhaps:
S - for challenging stemming problems,
N - for challenging "narrow" slot problems,
P - for challenging keeper pothole problems,
B - for big wall rappels,
E - for seriously exposed anchors/down climbing,
? - for misc. risk factors that must be considered (reservoir release in Kolob),
etc.

In other words, I am not opposed to more categories of data that is used to improve the ability to filter canyons, which helps people choose the canyons in their skill/comfort level. But to the extent possible, let's leave the overly subjective elements out of it (+/-; G, PG, etc. - what do these really mean -- they don't eliminate the borderline canyon problem, only exacerbate it). There are already enough subjective elements as is.

In any event, the criteria should be spelled out clearly (why I am against X and R generally as catch-all classifications which don't really convey any info other than !!Danger!! - does anybody really differentiate between them?) and convey only facts to the extent possible (the existence of narrow slots, mae west slots, keeper potholes, etc.).

[Scott Card]

My 1 cent worth of comment is that if you try to precisely and tightly define a canyon that is in a constant state of change (ie, every time it flashes) it seems you may do more harm than good. Seems the best source of precise info is the internet from those you trust who have just gone through. If you start adding too much detail to printed texts, you better be prepared to re-print often. I do however like the PG, R, X thing but even that addition to the system is still subject to random change depending on conditions. Canyons are so incredibly condition specific. Frankly, any rating is meaningless unless you have point of reference. I am not a climber so I wouldn't know what a 5.4 or 5.14 is unless you stick me on the wall and said have at it. Same seems to be true with canyons. Unless you have done a few, the rating system may not mean much.

[stefan]

Scott Card wrote: I am not a climber so I wouldn't know what a 5.4 or 5.14 is unless you stick me on the wall and said have at it. Same seems to be true with canyons. Unless you have done a few, the rating system may not mean much.

but then once you've done a few, then you have an inkling (obviously not full impression) of where on the difficulty scale a canyon sits. or if you're taking folks though, you can give them an impression of what canyons are similar in the difficulty scale (though this can be subjective, clearly).

i don't believe it's necessary to have more than 3-5 subclasses for the class rating. more would be confusing and difficult to rate.

i mean, when someone sees a 3.1 and 3.5 they'll know IMMEDIATELY the 3.5 means more business. i think it's important to give that impression immediately. i think the R/X does this to some extent already, but this would be a more refined system.

if they wish to climb the ladder, then this type of information gives them an idea of what shape that ladder may take.

... or with the -, , + system or PG, R,X system ... or even SLOT PG/R/X ... just something that indicates the relative difficulties within class 3 and class 4 (and any class) is clearly going to be helpful to the reader.

i think a more refined and graded system is necessary.



Quote: if you try to precisely and tightly define a canyon that is in a constant state of change (ie, every time it flashes) it seems you may do more harm than good.


there is a good point here. i think it's useful in the description to indicate why the canyon is deserving of the rating. that is what features cause this rating. but if some of these features change, it'll create incongruities.

hence the need for a warning explaining how ratings are subjective and may differ depending on changes to the canyon.

i think it's better to rate higher (to err on the side of precaution) and explain in the description that a certain feature can induce different ratings depending on changes or perhaps a person's size

[rcwild]

I went ahead and posted a poll at:

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

Just curious how people will respond at this point in the dialogue.

[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.

After reading some of these posts again it appears that some of you don't have a clear understanding of the current ratings.... it's a lot more then the 3 or 4....

Climb-Utah rates Hard Day Harvey 3A R III, and Keyhole at 3B I... these are no where near the same thing.....

So lets examine classification.... the 3 is the hardest move. So basically the hardest move in HDH and Keyhole are about the same. Which to me means your average canyoneer with a reasonable amount of experience and/or schooling should be able to do the route.... and I hear folks say "well under the present system most canyons are rated a 3". Well that makes perfect sense to me, since most canyons can be done by your Joe average canyoneer who has a reasonable amount of experience and/or schooling.

The grade tells you how much time is required. HDH is a III while Keyhole is a I. This means that HDH will require most of a day to complete while Keyhole requires a couple of hours. So I'm not sure how anyone can confuse the time commitment required if the grade is included. Please don't confuse classification with grade, they are different animals.

HDH is also rated with a A, which means you might get wet. Keyhole is rated with a B, which means you will be swimming. That's pretty dang simple.

HDH is also tagged with an R (because it's narrow), anytime I see a tag I believe it should be taken as a warning that additional risk factors are involved and you better find out what they are. What I see a lot of you trying to do is modify the risk factor with a designation to describe the particular risk (ie: narrow slot, high stemming, keeper potholes). The problem with trying to note every possible risk factor with it's own identifier is that you would need a couple hundred identifiers because the special risks are never the same.

The rating should be considered a guideline to help you narrow your search for a canyon in a particular area that meets my requirements. Sometimes I only have 1/2 a day, so immediately I eliminate anything beyond a grade of I or II. Sometimes I have noob's with me, so I eliminate anything with a 4. Anything with a tag I take to mean you better do a little more research because something is out of the ordinary......

I've always considerd the ratings to be a rough guideline that is meant to help you shift through the reams of beta and locate a couple of routes that might meet you requirements..... and the description is meant to help you refine your search and locate the exact route.

:cool2:

[stefan]

Iceaxe wrote: 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.
So lets examine classification.... the 3 is the hardest move. So basically the hardest move in HDH and Keyhole are about the same

so what you're saying is you disagree with nat?

well, i agree with nat ... the hardest move in HDH is harder than the hardest move in keyhole

what's it been since you've been in hdh? 4 and a half years?

[Iceaxe]

stefan wrote: so what you're saying is you disagree with nat?

Nope that's not what I'm saying.... I'll try to type slower for those of you at home who are having a hard time keeping up.....

What I'm saying is that attempting to add detail information into a short rating is assinine. The rating should only be used to get the canyoneer pointed in the correct direction and should not be used as a substitute for a proper route description.

Bottom line is you still need to read the route description, the rating just stops you from wasting time looking at routes that don't meet your initial criteria.

:cool2:

[Canyonbug]

Iceaxe wrote:
Bottom line is you still need to read the route description, the rating just stops you from wasting time looking at routes that don't meet your initial criteria.

I agree with Shane to the point that one should read the route descriptions. However the ratings need to be improved to make that initial glance a bit more useful and less subjective.

[Iceaxe]

Canyonbug wrote: more useful and less subjective.

I think that is the big problem.... ratings are subjective by nature..... those dispensing beta currently can't agree on the rating of many routes.... and you guys want it refined more? I do agree it would be nice if it could happen.... I'm just saying I don't think it's practical. Maybe the first step is to get the community as a whole to rate those routes that are currently in dispute between the different websites and guidebooks.

:cool2:

[stefan]

Iceaxe wrote: stefan wrote: so what you're saying is you disagree with nat?
Nope that's not what I'm saying.... I'll try to type slower for those of you at home who are having a hard time keeping up.....


i'll ignore this comment.

iceaxe wrote:
What I'm saying is that attempting to add detail information into a short rating is assinine. The rating should only be used to get the canyoneer pointed in the correct direction and should not be used as a substitute for a proper route description.


first my comment was that in an obvious way you contradicted nat by saying that the hardest move in keyhole and hdh are the same, but didn't explain what you meant by that? by direct comparison they are not. if you call both 3s then they could be. but if hdh is closer (by some amount) to the hardest move in a solid 4 or "4R" than keyhole, then you've just lost all meaning of the comparison with keyhole.

on the otherhand if you truly do believe that the hardest move in keyhole is the same as hdh, then this perception needs to be reevaluated.


yes, many feel there needs to be more refinement. something that provides further measure of the technical class of the canyon.

whether this is restricted to colorado plateau canyoneering or not is something i think worth getting into, and how the standard could be applied more generally. but it's at least clear in colorado plateau canyoneering that the difficulty in moves and discerning the appropriate trajectories of movement, for example, while stemming or downclimbing, is EXTREMELY varied.

it seems crucially apparent to me that a more graded system to reflect these difficulties is necessary. tom jones proposes something specific to CP slots ... the SLOT rating and modifying this rating by the elements PG, R, X, for example or numbers or whatever. however, it could be more general that you apply the refinement to the technical class, in which case the description indicates why a 3.5 (or 3.3, or 3+) is more "technical" than a 3.1, that is based on downclimbing/stemming or ropework or whatever. since water flow changes so much in wet canyons, i can see that using this type of rating may be very difficult.

but in many people's minds, who do tight slot canyons, a natural sense of scale of "difficulty" or "more business" does emerge. and it seems relatively clear that when a 3 can apply to keyhole and hdh, that something really needs to be added to the rating to indicate that there is a difference there. You use the R, but a single modifier is not enough and in this case may have more specific meaning with regards to risk rather than difficulty or extended lengths of difficulty.

you say, get it all from the description. but, i think if you give someone an a priori hint that there is something there, it focuses their interpretation of the description and starts them off on the right foot. it may also serve to prevent the misinterpretation that all 3s are roughly the same (which they're clearly not) or the potential misinterpretation of how difficult a particular 3 is, say in the case of hdh or pandoras box.

it's subjective as you say ... yes everything is subjective. on the other hand, subjectivity isn't necessarily a bad or detrimental thing. the question is whether subjectivity trumps the lack of information. it's about, as you like to say, "this ain't no pine creek."

i agree that how and who should do the rating is an important issue. it makes sense that it should be done by people who have done the various canyons often and feel that they have a good sense of where they canyons lie relative to each other and relative to the spectrum of the 3 and the 4 class ratings. though within the context of a guidebook/site it's relative and allows someone to gauge it with respect to other canyons of the guidebook/site.

the ideal would be a general consensus on the canyons, of course. on the other hand, you gotta start somewhere with something and let it mature.