Canyon Rating System

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ratagonia

Sorry, meant to say "rating" information. Got carried away with my diatribe...

---

Oh, come on. You're not gettin' off that easy...

Ha ha.

I find the "ratings" on especially the skinny stuff kinda interesting. Always curious to see what the kids rate these bombay chimney and offwidth things, and then compared to their experience in what might be considered classic climbs at that grade. Its a tough thing to do, given that most folks these days it seems can kinda rate a sports climb, but, have a really difficult time rating a wide crack and the like. Although, I think there's been fair interest in that stuff as of late, for sure, at least 'round here.

Watched "Mountain of Storms" last night with some of the said kids. Wild stuff, watchin' Yvon and the crew on Fitzroy in '68. When they got in a bit of the wide, you should a heard the hoots from the crew. Pretty funny.

http://www.patagonia.com/web/us/prod...-0-000&src=fcd

That flick was followed by Green's footage and film on the first ascent of Luxary Liner (aka Supercrack of the Desert). Interesting to hear the kids thoughts on it. Not even much of a warm up for them anymore, but, they seem to get the history thing a bit, sorta. Although they didn't understand that the term "3rd classing" was the same as free soloing.

Fun stuff.

Quality ratings and difficulty ratings. When worlds collide...

-Brian in SLC

I took the easy way out. Emailed the publisher and removed anything to do with canyon ratings at all.

:mrgreen:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

B2?!?!?

---

My bad. There was consideration to split B into two groups. one with water to waist deep and or swims up to 10 meters. Another was for canyons with much longer swims. looks like that was dropped. sorry for adding confusion I looked at one of the old proposed ratings that were skipped over.

So Tanya the ratings in Zion would still be the same. You shouldn't have a problem including it.

Personally I like splitting the class C. Maybe not in Utah but in other areas not all class C are the same and require more skill and consideration.

Given a choice.... I'd probably relax the ratings and make them simpler. "Back in the day", before the ACA developed it's orginial rating system canyons were rated "nothing, R or X", and that worked well enough.... and everyone understood exactly what you were taking about.... the R and X were more of a warning that it was a difficult and/or serious canyon more that anything else.

The biggest problem I see with the newer rating systems floating around is that somewhere along the line some folks began to confuse "Rating" with "Route Description"....

YMMV
:cool2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

some folks began to confuse "Rating" with "Route Description"....

YMMV
:cool2:

---

I may agree. I've heard one person complain about a canyon being too hard at 3B III. When asked what the problems were they were all problems available in public beta route description that was not read.

I'm guessing you guys saw Rich's ACA email today about the revisions?

I do like simplicity, like Ice does, but at the same time their should be completeness (if that makes any sense) when it comes to this sport, right? Basically I mean canyoneers should be fully prepared - gear and knowledge wise. So any system (that is standardized I would think) that helps the canyoneer understand the canyon - the better right? Yes, they can read the route descriptions and find out there, but in a lot of aspects in life - there should be redudancy. Ergo, the canyon rating and full route description.

/my thoughts anyways

So with the above said, basically I am in most favor of the new ACA revisions.

The ACA Canyon Rating System - Revised

The ACA's Canyon Rating System is the only widely-used rating system in America. The system has served the canyoneering community well, but does have some minor short-comings. Individuals who primarily descend Class C canyons suggested the original system served well for Colorado Plateau slot canyons, but didn't provide enough precision for Class C. Interestingly, individuals who primarily descend Colorado Plateau slot canyons suggested the original system served well for Class C canyons, but didn't provide enough precision for slot canyons.

The original rating system was developed over a period of months between 2000 and 2001. We posted ideas on an internet forum and asked for input from the community. From the input we posted a revised system and asked for more input. The process continued until we felt we reached a consensus. We used the same process to develop the revisions, but this time over a period of years - between 2005 and 2009 - and from input solicited from many more canyoneers through several forums and direct contact.

The revision ideas we received included:

-Expand the current 1-2-3-4 terrain-ropework ratings to 1 through 7, prefaced with a T for Terrain or V for Vertical, with more detailed descriptions at each level. Expand the current A-B-C water ratings to 1 through 7, prefaced with W for Water or A for Aquatic, with more detailed descriptions at each level.
-Keep the current 1-2-3-4 and A-B-C ratings, but add + or - to provide more precision. Example: 3+B
-Keep the current 1-2-3-4, but add decimals for more precision. Example: 3.4B
-Add the rock climbing YDS rating for climbing moves. Example: 3B 5.8
-Add identifiers for specific problems. PH for pothole problems, NA for natural anchors, A for aid climbing, S for stemming problems, B for big rappels, etc.

All ideas were considered and posted for comment. The final decision was made based on three primary concerns:

1.Avoid making current ratings in guidebooks and websites obsolete.
2.Avoid confusion between original and revised versions. We didn't want people wondering if a rating is based on the old 3B or the new 3B.
3.Avoid including so many elements and definitions that they would be hard to remember.

The revised ACA Canyon Rating System meets all three criteria. We left the core rating system as it was, but fine-tuned some definitions. A 3B canyon under the original rating system is still a 3B canyon under the revised system. 3C is still 3C. 4A is still 4A. We added options for additional precision for Class C and slot canyons.

Class C
Normally has water with current. Waterfalls. Expect to do some deep wading and/or swimming in current. Wetsuit or drysuit may be required depending on water and air temperatures.

The definition of Class C did not change, but Class C canyons may be rated more precisely using the following OPTIONAL system:

-C1 - Normally has water with light to moderate current. Easy water hazards.
-C2 - Normally has water with strong current. Water hazards like hydraulics and siphons require advanced skills and special care.
-C3 - Normally has water with very strong current. Dangerous water hazards. Experts only.
-C4 - Extreme problems and hazards will be difficult to overcome, even for experienced experts with strong swimming skills.

Slot Canyons
Tight slot canyons are in a class of their own. Slots can be so narrow that it is necessary to stem above the floor of the canyon to move horizontally. An "S" may be appended to the rating to indicate some sections of the canyon are extremely narrow. A Class 2 canyon with an appended S will serve as a warning to those with greater-than-average girth that they may have to stem more than their skinny partners. A Class 4 canyon with an appended S will serve as a warning that there may be a need to execute difficult climbing/stemming moves that are likely to be high above the canyon floor.

While the discussion about a slot canyon rating was underway, Michael Kelsey published the current edition of his Technical Slot Canyon Guide. As a result, we decided to use the same basic system he used: S or SLOT, followed by a risk-seriousness rating.

Risk-Seriousness Rating
The original rating system used only R and X, which denoted extraordinary risk. Using the full "movie" rating system -- G, PG, R, X and XX -- provides more precise options. Keyhole and Pine Creek canyons in Zion National Park are both 3B, but perhaps Keyhole should be rated 3B G and Pine Creek rated 3B PG.

Using the Rating System
From all of the input we received one point was very clear; the overwhelming majority of canyoneers want a rating system that provides a quick-glance summary of difficulty, risk-seriousness and time. Additional detail should come from reading the route description.

3B III - The rating tells you there will be rappelling involved, it has water with no or very little current and will require most of the day for an average group. Read the route description to find out how much rope you need, how long the swims will be and whether or not a wetsuit is recommended.

4A S X IV - Because it includes a terrain-ropework rating of 4 and an S for Slot, the canyon will probably include: "difficult and exposed free climbing and/or down-climbing". The X tells you "multiple risk factors exist that will complicate the descent. Errors in technique or judgment will likely result in serious injury or death. Descent should only be attempted by expert canyoneers". The risks are likely related to falling. The IV tells you the canyon will require a very long day to complete. If anything goes wrong, you will likely spend the night. Read the route description to find out how much rope you need (if any) and just how difficult the difficult climbing moves really are.

4-C3 X II - Because it includes a terrain-ropework rating of 4 along with a C3, the canyon will probably include: "complex rope work (i.e. guided rappels, deviations, rebelays)" to deal with the water hazards. The X tells you "multiple risk factors exist that will complicate the descent. Errors in technique or judgment will likely result in serious injury or death. Descent should only be attempted by expert canyoneers". The risks are likely related to water hazards. The II tells you the canyon will require a half day to complete. Read the route description to find out how much rope you need, the normal water volume, what types of water hazards might be present, how long the swims will be and whether or not a wetsuit is recommended.

The ACA Canyon Rating System provides a simple core. Guidebook authors, website publishers and other users are able to use it as is and add details to route descriptions or they can add +/- or decimals, append additional elements for rope length, climbing difficulty and more. Something like 4A S X IV 80' 5.10 180lb could mean 4th class terrain, basically dry, slot with extraordinary risk, very long day, 80' rope required, 5.10 climbing moves, not suitable for anyone over 180 lbs. Too much information for some; not enough for others.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tanya

I took the easy way out. Emailed the publisher and removed anything to do with canyon ratings at all.

:mrgreen:

---

I notice that no one has commented on this statement.

Question: Is this a good idea or a bad idea?

I'd rather see the yea and nays now - when they may be construed as constructive - then later when they may be received as destructive.

:popcorn:

I got the ACA email and did not want to sift through all that -- why new stuff. This is not school!

Bo never did like the rating thing any way so he seemed happy I got rid of it.

Following this thread should give people an insight into the challenges of running an association ...

Tom wanted his slot canyon system included. Others didn't.

Mike and Brian liked the FFME system. Others didn't.

Ram liked listing a weight limit for tight slots. Others didn't.

Some liked adding +/- Others didn't. Some liked adding decimals. Others didn't.

Some wanted more detail in the rating system. Some wanted less.

Bo and Tanya and others don't like ratings at all.

What to do? Create 100 different rating systems so everyone can choose the one they like? No rating system at all?

It's like this on every issue. We make decisions based on serving the majority -- usually the overwhelming majority. Then listen to the out-spoken minority complain because they didn't get it their way.

Organizing canyoneers is like herding cats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcwild

Organizing canyoneers is like herding cats.

---

Now that's funny. :roflol:

Just an observation from my own personal experience.... Canyoneers are only difficult to herd when you are herding them in an unpopular direction or in a direction where they find little merit.

Canyoneers by nature are intelligent, self reliant and individualistic. They will quickly adopt items\products\techniques they find value in..... Just a few examples.

- Switch to earth colored webbing.
- Extend anchors to avoid rope grooves.
- Taking responsibility for Sandthrax campground.
- Pack toss and throw bags (replaced hooking)
- Alter existing routes (Dragonfly comes to mind) to lessen environmental impact.
- adopt quality products (Imlay Gear)
- adopt productive gear (5-10 canyoneers)
- particiapte in fests and rondies
- wear helmets
- yada, yada

:blahblah:

I liked the rating system, it is Bo that does not, but probably just because he has "hiked with a rope" so long and never used them. I just don't want to read anything new. I was happy with how they are. I just look at the list and think.. dang.. I just don't want to read it.

Put me on the Lazy list! :mrgreen:

New people will like whatever. Those that have used things one way hate change. That is to be assumed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FOX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcwild

Organizing canyoneers is like herding cats.

---

Now that's funny. :roflol:

---

Of course I think it would be more accurate to read: Organizing canyoneers is like hearding cats in a rain storm.



:mrgreen:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tanya

I liked the rating system, it is Bo that does not, but probably just because he has "hiked with a rope" so long and never used them. I just don't want to read anything new. I was happy with how they are. I just look at the list and think.. dang.. I just don't want to read it.

Put me on the Lazy list! :mrgreen:

New people will like whatever. Those that have used things one way hate change. That is to be assumed.

---

No Tanya....I do not dislike the Canyon Rating System, it's just that it seems like something so simple is looked at in such a complex way? A canyon is just like anything else. There are always problems that need to be addressed and overcome. When I drive north and there is snow on the road....I slow down. When it's cold outside I wear a jacket. If it's hot and the street is very hot I wear shoes. Canyons are very much like "rock climbs". One persons conquer is another persons nemesis. What you call 5.9 I call 5.12. What you call exhausting I call a warm-up. Subjectivity fits every opinion. I don't see how a rating system can be any less subjective than one persons brief description? I also don't see how a rating system can be any less confusing than someones description? It's a 4CIVS1-XX? Or dang that canyon is fun, but watch for some swirling pools, and some of those desert tanks can be a bitch to squirm out of. That one upclimb in that loose offwidth corner scared the be-jesus out of me, but after humping for 16 hours we made it back in time to have a cold one at the local hotspot!

You are spot on, Bo, except ... anytime someone wants to argue that the rating system is complex, they throw out an example like: 4CIVS1-XX

Using the core rating system your example is simply 4C. Nobody expects anyone to do any canyon based on only that information. The idea behind a rating system is to give people a quick glance summary. It's a 4. That's expert-advanced canyoneering. If you don't have the skills, keep scrolling down the index until you find a 3. It's a C. That's water with current. If you're not a strong swimmer, keep scrolling down the index until you find a B.

Everything else about the rating system is OPTIONAL.

Personally, I think the grade (adopted from climbing) is also useful for a quick glance, but it is an optional element. A guidebook author could list a 3B rating next to the name of the canyon and add time as 1-2 hours somewhere in the route description or he could list 3B I next to the name of the canyon.

Think of the core rating like a climbing rating. A person who knows he is a 5.10 climber will scan the guidebook for 5.9s and 5.10s to cruise and 5.11s and 5.12s to push himself. Climbers will also approach climbs differently based on ratings. He might lead 5.9s, but prefer a top rope when he tries his first 5.11. He will also be looking for information beyond the basic YDS rating. Is it a face climb or a crack? Is it single- or multi-pitch? Is it trad, bolted or top-rope?

It should be similar with a canyon rating. A person who knows he is a 3B canyoneer will scan the guidebook for 3B canyons. He should not be looking at 4Bs unless he has a skilled partner or has received advanced instruction. Finding a 3B rating should cause a canyoneer to look for more information. It's a 3 - there will be rappelling. How many rappels? How much rope will I need? Are the anchors obvious? It's a B - there will be pools. How long are the swims? What's the water temperature? Should I bring a wetsuit?

Whether the additional information is included in complex add-ons to the core rating or relegated to the route description doesn't matter. The ACA certainly doesn't care. To each his own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

Just an observation from my own personal experience.... Canyoneers are only difficult to herd when you are herding them in an unpopular direction or in a direction where they find little merit. :blahblah:

---

But all very subjective. What is unpopular to some is popular with others. What has merit to some seems worthless to others.

Probably explains why there are different herds on each of the canyoneering forums, plus many more cats out there who won't join any of the herds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcwild

Probably explains why there are different herds on each of the canyoneering forums

---

touche'

:2thumbs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcwild

Probably explains why there are different herds on each of the canyoneering forums

---

touche'

:2thumbs:

---

AWWWWWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

Shane and Rich being nice. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!!!!!!

:2thumbs: :five: :rockon: :popcorn: :haha: :nod: :cool2: