Yet another thread on the Yosemite Decimal System & rating backpacking passes

[erutan]

I agree - but I think it's also useful to have a standardized language / mental model to describe things. Anyone working alone can do whatever they want as long as it's consistent- working as a community it's important to think about how consistent information is without knowing that Cameron is more comfortable with exposure than Nancy and using that to parse their writing.

"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."

"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)."

I'm not expecting to get 100% consensus here - but there's been a lot of really useful feedback that's made this better than it would have been just theorycrafting on my own even if the general idea has stayed true to itself. Part of getting feedback is that it makes for a better system.

People use YDS to describe terrain, and also as a mental model to help them understand it - with such a large gap between 2 and 3 that leads to a lot of confusion and frustration. I'm sure that won't go away entirely, but it should be greatly minimized.

It will also make it a bit easier when looking at a number of passes on a route - if they're all 2.5 or 2, with no X or C then it can be worth digging into and reading each one. If I could see that Rodgers and Clinch are 2 C but Vernon is 2.5 with just some S & R I'll take that knowing my partner's hard line on terrain, though I'd still want to read a writeup. Honestly a lot of the time I'll look up something like Black Giant, then just come away with "ok I don't need to think about it" - so in this case if I see a plain 2 I know I can do it. Cirque you really don't want to do blind but most of the time just knowing what class and risk to expect can keep me on route, or close enough to it.

It'd honestly be more useful (to me) in an off-line format - sometimes I'll reroute a trip over a pass I haven't done yet and just have Secor & Topo while in the backcountry. In my dream world there'd be a fourth edition of his book using this system, which would largely make up for the lack of photos and longer descriptions. That seems.... incredibly unlikely. But it's a useful way to think of the potential utility.

[michaelzim]

Wow! - The more I read of this "impressive" thread (as in impressive amount of thought and input) the more I believe we need it! The old system was just way too vague for the amount of divergence out there if using the HST Passes descriptions for route planning - if not having been up them oneself that is.

My two cents in no order:
~ I do not gravitate towards the movie grading letters as just not distinct enough or familiar enough for me.
~ Prefer the mix that Erutan has assembled so far, though the verbal descriptions like "scrambling" are great add ons.
~ Shortfalls and idiosyncrasies are going to be hard to resolve for all situations. This is where plain English descriptors are best.
~ King Col again, is a classic WT*...Class 2 on paper but apparently more like a Class 4 "No way!" venture in experiential reality.
~ Talus is also very broad. No idea how to rate the "terrain" aspect v. when have to do so much of it for so long adds to danger of a fall?! English words best for this?!
~ Gearing the whole shebang to "general backpackers not super familiar with mountaineering" makes the most sense to me for HST purposes.

Erutan...You have made me think more about talus for sure. I guess I had not considered most of what I have been on as near Class 3 purely because the "X" factor of exposure had not been there. Yet for sure a broken leg or arm would have been possible with a miss-stepped jump or a sudden mover that caught me off balance! So not sure how to address that in the ratings, except to maybe describe the pitfalls in detailed English. Big house-sized rocks can be like a cliff out, but 9 out of 10 they are easy to find a way around. When I have encountered movers they tended to have been in swarms so I went on high alert and cooled my jets...Please note though that my experience base is limited on this stuff.

You long time rock rabbits out there should be the ones to put all the fine print together on this as have the range of possibilities more dialed in. No matter what, it is hard for me to imagine that this is not going to be a super helpful upgrade for aging map-and-info route planners like me!

Thanks much ~ Michaelzim

[Wandering Daisy]

rlown- I thought the end game was to improve our HST x-c pass part of the forum. I think it would be useful. A lot of passes have no written description, only a short text with a somewhat meaningless "class 2".

[rlown]

So, If someone new comes here and sees a 2.5, and doesn't read the definition, it means nothing.
A few pictures and a meaningful narrative goes a lot further. Most new HST members only (maybe) search and read what they are looking for.
If there are a lot of passes don't have a written description it means that no one has taken the time to write them up.

[erutan]

Micheal

In "The Slide" I needed more technique than 2.5 to move. I'd be chimneying between pieces above drops, upclimbing out something etc - it'd be at least R exposure, probably X with some of the "keeper" gaps in there. There's a similar really fun (IMO) optional drop with some fun Class 3 jungle gym type stuff from the upper SW lake in Wright basin if I recall correctly that doesn't go on for hours I did with a lightly loaded backpack on a dayhike.

The end of my X in the second draft is "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)."

I haven't done North Dragon Pass but it's been described to me as train car sized talus with large gaps in between them you have to jump. If you fall in you might not be getting out unless someone has rope unless you could chimney out. That'd probably be 2 X in and of itself, though I think the pass also has some proper Class 3.

Wandering Daisy

Yup. It's not like just using this system magically fixes everything - but it'd be a positive aspect for improving it.

In doing research for this thread, I came across this list you made of 'under-rated' passes in the past:

Sky Pilot Col (steep ball bearing footing)
Frozen Lake Pass (very steep, can get into some loose large talus on end of lower moraine)
Snow Tongue Pass (prone to rock slides when saturated after rain or end of snowmelt)
Pyra Queen col (seasonally hard ice and some steep loose talus)
Ruskie Pass (I thought there was some class 3 on it)
Horn Col (class 1 but builds a big cornice some years)
Longly (Class 1 but can get really messed up between pass and Reflection Lake)
Minaret Lake to Lake Ediza (steep snow- bad runout-into lake)
Sluggo Pass (seasonally steep snow - ledge detour very exposed)

Aside from the snow aspect (I don't want to make it too complicated and there has to a line drawn somewhere - but if it's to be done it should be done right) do you feel like these would fit into the new system? Longely being a mess below it doesn't quite fit - trying to rate everything near a pass seems impossible!

I'd like to hear your thoughts on some of the long posts on the previous page when you get a chance.

rlown

I'll just copy/paste another recent response to you:

"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"

The paragraph above where I first introduced that idea:

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.

---

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

Doesn't magically explain everything about a pass. But it's more meaningful than:

CLASS/DIFFICULTY: Class 2

When people mention sections of a pass in their write ups they can also use standardized language in sections as well as their subjective takes. Stable/wobbly Class 2 talus is a different feeling than sliding talus, than collapsing talus, than 2.5 than 3 and having that 2.5 model can help them describe it in a consistent way. It's not everything, but it's a useful step. If casual backpackers won't read anything but a pass entry they probably don't have any idea of what any of the existing classes that people refer to mean either.

Frozen said something like "2.5 makes intuitive sense to me - looking back I can see a lot of passes I've done were either 2 or 2.5, but I haven't actually been over any 3". That's useful IMO.

[Wandering Daisy]

On some passes the pass itself is easier than the approach, like Longley from Reflection Lake. I was off-route but even when on route, I would not call it class 1 - perhaps easy 2. From other's reports, I have not been the only one who was off route. That can indicate a more detailed route description is needed. Secor often neglected the approach and only rated the pass. The question is where does the "pass" begin?

On Frozen Lake Pass, some descriptions make a big issue of the steep snow up top. But nothing has been said about the fact that there are very unstable parts of the moraine. More detail needed on exactly where to get on and off the moraine. The moraine is the "approach".

Blackcap Pass Cl 2 (the one between Blackcap Basin and Bench Valley) is also under-rated IMO. I have now done it twice. The west side is a series of cliffs and ledges. Someone has put up cairns. Even following the cairned route, I had to lower my pack two times. I nearly fell off one of the cliffs this summer. Perhaps the long legged have an easier time. The first time I did it I thought I was off route. This time I followed the cairns. Both times I down climbed. It would be amazingly easier if I just had a partner to guide my foot placement. I really think you cannot rate a pass unless you have gone both directions.

Cl 1-2-3 ratings, no matter how subdivided, should still use the climbing rule that rates the most difficult "move" even if it is only one short section but enough to stop you cold if you cannot safely do it or detour around. In fact, one exposed class 3 move on an otherwise class 2 pass is more dangerous than an actual class 3 pass because most people anticipating no more than class 2 may risk the fall instead of retreating. However, they would not even be on a solid class 3 pass because they know it is above their comfort zone or skill level.

I have enough experience to take all pass ratings with a grain of salt. And I have no problem retreating if needed. But for those just starting out on x-c travel, they deserve a rating system for passes that will keep them from getting in over their heads. Most of us who have done a lot off-trail in the Sierra probably do not "need" a revised system; but it would benefit everyone.

[erutan]

Where a pass begins and ends can be a hard one for XC that doesn't just pop off a trail. Many tend to have a relatively flat or low angle basin/canyon they're coming in and out and I tend to think of it where you start really heading "up" the side of that. For Lamarck Col I'd say it's from Lake 4/5 on the west side - that's where it stops being "I'm heading up canyon" and "I'm heading out of it to get somewhere else" to me vs Darwin Benches or the JMPCT. I guess the east side would be... where the maintained trail officially ends I guess. For Cameron's Grinnel/Hopkins Divide I'd say the pass is from the bottom of the basin floor to bottom of basin floor. No one is going halfway up that for kicks.

For Rae Col it'd be the lake to the north, the south would be the base of where the drop ends I suppose rather than the JMPCT. Some passes are very gradual - the east side of Parker Pass (trailed, but still) and could be harder to pinpoint. I think any dangerous or difficult approaches would come out in the pass write up even if they wouldn't be part of the pass itself - I'm not sure someone needs to detail routefinding the entire way from Reflection to Longely as part of Longely pass but it'd be good to mention it's rough and Class 2.5 or whatever and mention any critical spots as that'd be a common approach - I’d give it at least a paragraph and give it a sort of loquacious level of Secor at least. Passes with multiple approaches on a side should at least get some outlining.

The crux of Vernon Pass is the last 200 feet or so, but I included a brief walkthrough of how to get there from the basin below. I'd consider it starting from 10,120+ on the east (though I spent all but a paragraph on 11,815 to ridge!) and lasting until WL10999 on the west.

I haven't done Blackcap Pass but that sounds like either 2.5 or 3 for sure. If you had to lower your pack off a ledge someone would need to be an NBA player or something for that to be Class 2. I tend to assume that Class 2 will have some of what we now call 2.5, and possibly some very easy 3. I pretty much always translate Class 1 to easier 2.

Even Class 3 passes are generally not more than a hundred feet of Class 3 and are mostly 2 - I think including the hardest section makes sense but the wrinkle is where that's not necessarily the loosest or most exposed. Ursula (as we did it - I hesitate to say we were on route but it's a usefully complex example) has a lot of 3 but it's in short stable bursts - the only heavy exposure is on a slab walk at the top. So it'd have to be Ursula: 2X, 3 - saying it's 3X would be misleading as the exposure is on a technically simpler part of the pass.

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

download/file.php?id=34460&mode=view - I guess that'd be R despite the wide ledges below. If I think about writing it up in that way as I went up I'm sure I'd be better, but the "I can't miss a footing here" moment for me came later.

download/file.php?id=34462&mode=view - the X is much simpler but very much a stop and consider moment.

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

download/file.php?id=34801&mode=view this is solid 2.5

download/file.php?id=34801&mode=view this was sliding 2

download/file.php?id=36707&mode=view this is some exposed 2

[erutan]

Been thinking of this in the back of my head - one could define a pass as the highest point of the ridge it's on and be correct, but that's not going to give you any reasonable information. The hardest part is often the last 50-200 feet, but this isn't always the case - one could define Lamarck Col from the east as the snowed in talus from the pond just below the base, the west side is far more ambiguous as to where there's an "end" to the pass.

Even Secor will often give directions up from the nearest lake, specificying a shoreline to start from or some reasonably easy(ish) to reach point in a basin - that feels fair to me. Having Valor Pass go from Valor Lake to Martha Lake in the context of a write up feels right - there's an assumption that people can make it from trail to Ambition and then up to Valor even if that contains class 2 and some routefinding which seems fair and reasonable. Someone could traverse over to Valor Pass from Reinstein Pass if they wanted to, but that would be a "do your own homework" sort of situation and shouldn't be expected to be covered.

Passes with drastically different approaches are more complex.

The east side of Longley looks like it would usually be used either to connect with Thunder Ridge (and then Casper/Rainbow canyon) or a drop down to Lake Reflection - if those approaches have radically different terrain then how do you incorporate them? In terms of a guide you could say 2 to Thunder Ridge, 2.5 on a drop to lake reflection etc but as a pure label it's an odd case. Longely (via Reflection) and Longley (via Thunder Ridge) could work I guess. In that case just having the pass be the top 200 feet or whatever keeps things simpler, but if there's say an easy sandy low angle pass with an unavoidable Class 3 band 500 feet below it on the way to it that band needs to be addressed.

[michaelzim]

Just a few brief comments and question Erutan:

~ Even after following this thread without any long time gaps, I already had to stop and go back to see what "R" meant for your Ursula note and photos ref. "I guess that'd be R despite the wide ledges below."
Yeah, maybe just me but I realized that an "X" notation for Exposed is very intuitive and may be a better than "R"...with maybe "FX" for Fatally Exposed?! That does add a second letter, but that might not be a bad thing for such a condition. Emphasizes the severity of that hazard.
Likewise in the header description of: "Class 2X, 3R - Some fatally exposed uneven ground and exposed simple climbing." Would change that to "Class 2X, 3XR - Some fatally exposed uneven ground and exposed simple climbing"...Again, just my preference for shorthand option.

~ Same Ursula synopsis from your prior post..."I guess that'd be R despite the wide ledges below. If I think about writing it up in that way as I went up I'm sure I'd be better, but the "I can't miss a footing here" moment for me came later."
Ummmmm, knowing that downfacing photos mostly do not seem to show the severity or "feeling" of the slope (worse for me than the photos exhibit!) I would say there is no doubt in my mind that your top photo download/file.php?id=34460&mode=view in the Ursula list is "Exposed"!!! Indeed, it appears to me like a slip, fall and tumble in some sections perhaps could end up in that lake below.

~ Question...If the very last photo of your last post on Vernon download/file.php?id=36707&mode=view is some "exposed Class 2", what do you call the top section of that pass behind you??? When I zoom in on your photo the slope seems to increase significantly up there with similar 'terrain'. Photos are deceiving but that looks more hair-raising than where you? are in the photo which you describe as Class 2 Exposed.
Not meaning to nit pick, but the whole idea here is to make the descriptors clearer for exactly people like me, who have some X-country experience but not the cojones for the hair-raising stuff.

Getting there! Best ~ Zimichael

[erutan]

Nitpicking feels completely appropriate at this stage, and I appreciate the specific suggestions. I agree that R doesn't make as much sense with G/PG there to complete the movie ratings - it was what I used because it was there. I was actually pondering this a little earlier and was thinking X and XX - though I guess then we don't want to add another level. XR seems like it should be higher than just X. X and FX or XF might work better than R & X. I actually sort of like XF as it leads with the X from exposed and seems more "connected" to it than FX, so "exposure" and "exposure - fatal", though "fatally exposed" rolls off the tongue (and the mountain) better. Or just use F: X for exposed, F for you'd be #$%@ed?

In the Class 3 Ursula pic where my partner is climbing (I'm generally the one taking photos and documenting waypoints) there's a very wide ledge less 6 feet below her, and another below that. Neither of us felt exposed there unlike the easy slabwalk after (I wasn't thinking of this system when we did it, just trying to find a way up the thing - it was looking back at photos that made me realize that some of the 3 deserved an exposure rating, even if it was less severe than the 2 up top). I was originally going to just do X/S/C - the R is more of an afterthought I added back for people to evaluate as I think it's useful to have two grades for exposure. I put it at risk of an injury you could walk away from or some psychological discomfort for people not especially sensitive to exposure iirc. I also stated that R is going to be the most disputed aspect of this in my second draft heh. Maybe I should add in a note to check slope angle and note that many people will think anything above 35-40 degrees will feel exposed?

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=21789 here's all the shots for context - it was mostly walking up wide ledges with short bursts of 3 to move between them before it opened up at the top. I think we could just go up more directly and just have more 2.5 & 3 instead of trying to ledge hop and ending up exposed. Honestly I wrote up the pass mostly because there's zero detailed information online with the expectation that no one would ever want to go up and it take White Bear Pass instead! When it was fresher in my mind I did say "Routefinding up some moderately challenging class 3 that begins to get a little consequential, but is super solid granite with nice holds." - that'd be an R. In my defense we went up it 8 months ago.

I suppose the last 2.5 on Vernon should deserve an R as well - it was a fairly wide stable "ledge" that I did a few times without issue (went up it to scout, came back, told my partner, did it again and she followed) that did a fairly gentle traverse across otherwise steep and inhospitable terrain. If I wasn't thinking about it I'd have just called it 2, but I think I had one short ~thigh high 2.5 and my partner might have had two? TBH I can't actually follow it on any of my photos, but it made sense when I saw it in person! I do think calling it a "ledge" without scare quotes is overly generous and misleading. It certainly felt far less exposed than the top of Ursula which was a "slide off a cliff band that you can't see the ground below". I never felt exposed on Vernon and hence am adding in an R retroactively trying to think of others! On the exposed 2 video my partner is actually taking a little more direct route than the easy parabolic 2 band below to get further from the edge, so it's a bit misleading but what I have for that section - there's arguably a 2.5 move she's coming onto but given it's shortly before the final 2.5 "ledge" and it's the only shot I have of that section I used it.

I said earlier that I'm probably only going to be solid on hard exposure retroactively as I don't really register anything below that as long as the terrain doesn't bother me so I'd have to be looking for it. The terrain that is easy 3 filed into 2, or would be 2 vs 3 based on experience or limb size that prompted my 2+/3- and later 2.5 was something that was in the back of my head on a few trips this summer - one more example of where having some kind of system in mind when doing things can lead to more objective reporting on it!

IMO one advantage of trying to keep to two exposure modifiers and two terrain modifiers vs good / fair / bad is it's a lot easier to describe varieties of bad than the fine line between good and fair etc. PG exposure seems nearly impossible for me - anything above a 30deg slope or with a 6 foot drop nearby?