ACA Canyon Rating System

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.



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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.




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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.



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.

[Iceaxe]

I noticed the ACA has a revised rating system posted.... not sure if this is just a suggestion or the way they are headed....

ACA Ratings
http://www.canyoneering.net/content/index.php?categoryid=136

Anyhoo..... here is my thoughts on this clusterXXXX.... with MK's new Tech guidebook only weeks from being released I'd say this is a day late and a dollar short... unless MK has signed off on the dotted line and already adopted the system.

:cool2:

[ratagonia]

I noticed the ACA has a revised rating system posted.... not sure if this is just a suggestion or the way they are headed....

ACA Ratings
http://www.canyoneering.net/content/index.php?categoryid=136

Anyhoo..... here is my thoughts on this clusterXXXX.... with MK's new Tech guidebook only weeks from being released I'd say this is a day late and a dollar short... unless MK has signed off on the dotted line and already adopted the system.

:cool2:

What he said, so say us all.

Tom :2thumbs: