|
Post by jeffrose on Nov 16, 2013 16:24:56 GMT -8
As you know, FOTH provides descriptions of grading systems in Appendix A. These include descriptions of the Yosemite Decimal System, terrain classifications (1st through 5th), and Grades (I through VI). Currently, the definitions provided by FOTH are pretty much the exclusive definitions used throughout North America and beyond. Basically, the way FOTH describes things is the accepted definition by climbers, mountaineers, administrators, and land managers. With this fact in mind, I encourage FOTH9 to adjust the Classes of terrain. Basically, the definitions that currently exist include many management assumptions (use of a rope, for instance) and implications of exposure. The current definitions do not support scenarios where the terrain itself might be very mild (Class 2, for instance) but the exposure is huge. In such a scenario, it would seem reasonable to rope up. However, a short, manageable 5th class section may not need a rope because the exposure is manageable for many climbers' comfort levels. I think that FOTH9 needs to better clarify the terrain classifications, enabling climbers to more effectively communicate, be clearer about the terrain to be encountered on a route that she or he hasn't climbed before, and avoid suggestive management techniques. If you have the time and the interest, I've developed these arguments a little more fully in the attachment below. I welcome your feedback and discussion as to whether or not this is an appropriate step for FOTH9. Rose (2013) - Terrain classification.pdf (617.87 KB)
|
|