ACA Canyon Rating System

[rcwild]

5 Feb 10, Note: the first link points to an edited page that reflects the revised rating system. The proposed rating system in the second link was not adopted.

The original rating system is described at:
http://www.canyoneering.net/content/index.php?categoryid=146

The proposed rating system is described at:
http://www.canyoneering.net/content/index.php?categoryid=147

[rcwild]

The following was posted on one of the canyoneering chat groups by Stevee B. I'm posting it here to ask for input.



For awhile now our friends have been discussing the inadequacies of the ACA rating system. It's a pretty good system for rating wet Euro-style or Cali-style canyons, but fails to inform about most Colorado Plateau canyons. The previous generation of CP canyoneers used the Yosemite Decimal System, an alpine grade, and verbal descriptions like "very tight", in association with exposure heights to rate canyons (i.e. 5.6 III 40' difficult) to rate canyons. Could we come up with a better system?

I've toyed around with the idea of a stemming scale and a narrows scale. Below is a stab at a 5-level S-scale. Not a serious proposal, but perhaps it will spark some thought.

S1 Similar to walking over a crack in the sidewalk.

S2 Somewhat challenging stemming, physical, but easy for fit individuals. Unfit individuals or novices may be challenged but can achieve. Can be done without hands by the skilled.

S3 Hands come into play, but all holds are present. Flares & widths accommodate athletic climbing ability. The limit for the unfit. Moves may require planning or forethought. Sticky rubber shoes recommended.

S4 Hard stemming, difficult flares, inconvenient widths. Strenuous - usually requires hanging a pack or removing entirely. May require complicated longitudinal movement higher and lower in the slot. Descent to the floor is only occasionally possible. Sticky rubber shoes are now essential.

S5 Game Face. Moves require complete attention & focus and an expert level of strength, experience, and technique. Falls are very likely and normal protection is not available. Virtually impossible while wearing a pack.

"Why not just keep using the YDS?" most will say (I ask this too).

The short answer is I find it hard to apply it. If a canyon says "5.6", does that mean I should be able to climb 5.6 face while wearing a wetsuit, pack, and canyoneering shoes? I have no idea what that feels like. Hard to say if it's actually 5.6 unless you've done it without a pack and in rock shoes.

Furthermore, I've taken 5.13+ climbers down canyons that I thought were fairly easy (I'd have rated 5.4-5.6 stemming); afterwards, they declared it the most difficult thing they'd ever done. Confusing!

In the end, simple = better.

Maybe "4A II 5.6 R 50' " provides all the information we need?

What does the ACA have to say about this?

[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. Goal of this thread is to solicit more input to determine if the system should be modified and if so how.

To get a dialogue started, here are some ideas suggested so far:

1. Water rating should be expanded to include A through D. The current C rating represents canyons with current, but some canyons with current have no real hazards while others do. For example, many of the canyons in the San Gabriel Mountains in California have current, but rappels end in knee-deep or waist-deep water. C rating should be revised to represent water with current, but no serious hazards. D should be added to represent water with current and significant hazards such as hydraulics, siphons, strainers, undercuts, etc.

2. Many of the canyons in Utah are rated 3B, 3B, 3B. There are subtle differences between various 3B rated canyons. Perhaps class 3 canyons should be broken down further. Perhaps a decimal system like YDS ratings for class 5 climbs. 3.1, 3.2, etc. could be adopted.

3. The current technical/terrain ratings (1, 2, 3, 4) relate primarily to rope work. However, some canyons present serious technical challenges without any significant rope work. For example, tight slot canyons that involve long stretches of horizontal stemming. Under the current system, if there is no rappelling involved, these canyons will be considered class 2. Yet, they are much more challenging that the rating would suggest.

Your thoughts?

[tj_wetherell]

Rich,

Whatever you do, be conscious of the many books and resources which have rated canyons using the current system. It would be appropriate not to change the methodology so that a canyon would appear "easier" or less committing than it was under the original classification.

-tom (w)

[rcwild]

Rich,

Whatever you do, be conscious of the many books and resources which have rated canyons using the current system. It would be appropriate not to change the methodology so that a canyon would appear "easier" or less committing than it was under the original classification.

-tom (w)

Understood. I don't envision a complete change, but perhaps some tweaking. 3B should still be 3B so any existing guidebook is not immediately rendered out-of-date. Perhaps the same idea should be considered with Class C. Maybe something as simple as adding an R or X directly after the C if there are hazards. ???

[moab mark]

Rich,
As you stated most of the canyons in Zion have the same rating 3B lll. Having had the opportunity to take my Scout troop down Subway and Orderville several times over the last few years. I Had the chance to do Pine Creek and Mystery recently with some qualified friends, the difference in technical ability between Sub and Pine etc. are quite different. So this summer we are coming back with our Scouts and I loaned Tom's books to one of our new leader to let him get a feel for Zion. He came to the next meeting and stated lets do Pine Creek it has the same rating as Subway and looks more fun. So as Newbies people could get in over there heads easily following the rating system. So yes if there was a little more detail it would help keep newbies like me out of trouble.

On another matter, when posting a thread how do you pull in a quote from another thread?
Mark

[rcwild]

On another matter, when posting a thread how do you pull in a quote from another thread?

When you read a post you should see a button directly under it that says "Quote Post". Click on it instead of clicking on the reply button.

[rcwild]

Oops! I just realized you asked about quoting from another thread, not another post in the same thread.

Go to the thread you want to quote, highlight the text you want to quote and copy it. Come to the thread where you want the quote to appear and paste it. At the beginning of the quoted text add a start quote tag – the word quote within brackets [ ]. At the end of the quoted text add an end quote tag – /quote within brackets.

[A.J.]

You could consider adding a category or class in the middle of the ratings. That way, the main ACA rating would remain the same; which would not cause a change. However, another classification could be added, or a difficulty level, or something else. There have been several discussions (on the canyons group, and with Kelsey) about extending the R and X classification to G, PG, R and X; to give an idea on difficulty. There could also be another character/identifier for certain scenarios - potholes, natural anchors, high stemming, etc. Again, by adding an additional classification, or by extending the R and X difficulty rating; it gives more info about the canyon as well as keeps the compatibility with the existing system.

Of course, we could just add the challenges to the canyon description as well....

[rcwild]

Posted for Ram:

Rich, this rating sytem works pretty darn well.

I would like to see + and - ratings added to numbers where applicable. 3+, 3- etc. The use of grade is not recognized enough for its ability to explain commitment and length of day which adds fatigue and difficulty to the experience.

I am glad to see more people who are making the ratings recognizing "water holding capacity" of some canyons. All to often in the past, ssomeone would descend a canyon, find it dry and fail to note how many dry potholes they passed through and were surprised to here others using their beta got hammered by deep water and lots of it.

The utilizing of YDS rating for difficult moves is helpful. It seems so much of lateral stemming in canyons is 5.6 climbing, but it still sends a message.

I am a believer in making certain climbing canyons 4's. Canyons like Psycho Damage (Bunfodder) or Foxhole (Raven) don't require a rope, yet they can't be called 2's and better not be called 3's

I like adding the length of the longest rap to the ratings.

The use of SLOT and some kind of rating about size would be nice but am not sure what form it should take yet. I know Tom is working on this.

Rich, post this to your site if you like. I can't figure out how to.
Ram

PS Which eastern Utah canyon do I mean by.....
3A/B III R- 5.3 50' Slot <180lb
Anybody else wanna play?

[rcwild]

There have been several discussions (on the canyons group, and with Kelsey) about extending the R and X classification to G, PG, R and X; to give an idea on difficulty.

This could be a very simple solution. Subway and Keyhole become 3B G. Pine Creek and Mystery become 3B PG. Etc.

Currently the R and X relate to risk. Perhaps people could start thinking in terms of experience required and risk. ???

[charlybldr]

3. The current technical/terrain ratings (1, 2, 3, 4) relate primarily to rope work. However, some canyons present serious technical challenges without any significant rope work. For example, tight slot canyons that involve long stretches of horizontal stemming. Under the current system, if there is no rappelling involved, these canyons will be considered class 2. Yet, they are much more challenging that the rating would suggest.

Your thoughts?

From the ACA Website:

4 Advanced Canyoneering
Route may involve any combination of the following: 1) 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. See route description for more information.

Although a lot of people focus on rope work, "difficult and exposed free climbing and/or down-climbing" is covered under Class 4. These canyons are not class 2.

[rcwild]

Although a lot of people focus on rope work, "difficult and exposed free climbing and/or down-climbing" is covered under Class 4. These canyons are not class 2.

Yep. If it's truly difficult – beyond the ability of the average Joe – it should be a 4. I think the concern expressed relates to canyons that require a LOT of stemming that isn't necessarily difficult. Some can argue that the information should be in the description. Others have said they want to see it right up front in the rating.

In Ram's example, 5.3 represents the YDS rating for climbing difficulty. The word "slot" is add to point out the canyon will include stemming and it is tight enough that someone over 180 pounds may have difficulty squeezing through.

3A/B III R- 5.3 50' Slot <180lb

[oldno7]

I'm with AJ on this--
adding 2 more classifications(g,pg) would greatly enhance the ACA system without having a serious effect on the various beta writers.

[ratagonia]

You could consider adding a category or class in the middle of the ratings. That way, the main ACA rating would remain the same; which would not cause a change. However, another classification could be added, or a difficulty level, or something else. There have been several discussions (on the canyons group, and with Kelsey) about extending the R and X classification to G, PG, R and X; to give an idea on difficulty. There could also be another character/identifier for certain scenarios - potholes, natural anchors, high stemming, etc. Again, by adding an additional classification, or by extending the R and X difficulty rating; it gives more info about the canyon as well as keeps the compatibility with the existing system.

Of course, we could just add the challenges to the canyon description as well....

The main breakdown in the ACA rating system is that it does not address high-stemming/mae-westing/narrow slots. It just does not talk about those KIND of obstacles. Thus, a recent trip to E4 was found considerably harder than E3, when only one step up was anticipated.

Adding G and PG? The ACA "additional risk factor" is a catch-all category, quite non-specific. If you are over 200lbs and NOT Matt Smith, Shenanigans is an X canyon for you.

Steve Allen and crew, and more lately Ram, Nat, Wy Dave, etc. have been exploring the 'superslots' and developing a G, PG, R and X rating based on superslot type problems. Even though the nomenclature used is similar, the thing being rated is distinct. Middle Leprechaun is quite a different canyon than Pine Creek!

The impetus for revising the rating system is that Kelsey will soon be publishing many dangerous, risky, difficult, inescapable superslots in his next guidebook. How will people know which ones are challenging, which ones are hard, and which ones will prove, for them a nightmare. Keep in mind that the PRIMARY PURPOSE of a rating system is to empower people to select canyons that are appropriate to their skill level.

Tom

[rcwild]

Adding G and PG? The ACA "additional risk factor" is a catch-all category, quite non-specific.

Actually, the R and X ratings were always intended to include both risk and "seriousness" factors. It was left to beta peddlers to apply. I think the absence of an R or X has left a perception that all other class 3 canyons are easy. See Moab Mark's anecdote. Adding the G and PG to the rating and clarifying the distinctions to include more than just risk could be an easy fix.

It is futile to attempt a rating system that covers all possible variables. If a canyon has moderate stemming, give it a 3B PG. If it has difficult stemming, give it an R. Etc. Getting into this "Slot <180" business in the rating seems pretty silly to me. If I see an R in the rating, I should be reading the description to find out why it's there. That's where I read that the slot gets so tight that the average person over 180 pounds will have trouble.

Lots of Boy Scouts out there who weigh well under 180 pounds. You might be able to deter them with an R. The Slot <180 thing will confuse the issue. It's an R for those old fat guys, but it will be easy for us young skinny Boy Scouts.

Having said all this, there is nothing stopping a beta peddler from expanding on the official core rating system. If you can convince Mike to buy in, that's his decision.

[rcwild]

The G, PG, R and X approach can also apply to class C canyons. If it's class C with a G rating, the canyon has current, but no water hazards. Class C with a PG has some faster current or minor hydraulics. Class C with an R has some serious hazards – hydraulics, siphons, undercuts. Class C with an X has severe hazards. Deadly if you don't know what you're doing.

[sanewcomb]

I agree with Ram that the current system works pretty well. As a fan of the KISS system I like that it is simple and easy to understand. I know if a canyon is classified as 1 or 2 then it doesn't require ropes or climbing. I agree with the post that says if stemming is required, it isn't a 2. Maybe more education if canyons aren't being classified correctly.

What I like most about the current system is it puts a big roadblock at 4 (almost no internet beta on 4s), with lots of canyons to do at 3. So it keeps people in the 3 catagory for awhile, and the more 3's they do the better idea the get of the range of conditions and obstacles.

I don't understand the desire to be able to glance at a beta sheet and make a decision based on a rating. If anything, more should be done to make the user read the description.


1. Water rating should be expanded to include A through D. The current C rating represents canyons with current, but some canyons with current have no real hazards while others do.


Although this probably doesn't apply to most experienced canyoneerers, I like the three letter water rating. Like the barrier between class 3 and class 4, I see the "C" rating as a barrier, a whole new level that requires additional experience, equipment and skills. I would say it is even more important to have specific training to advance to the "C" level than class 4.

To me an "A" means dry canyon (except flash floods), "B" means mostly dry and the water won't cause any additional problems (except flash floods) "C" current can knock you off your feet and you better know what you're doing, be with experienced people or have training.

Personally, it's off limits to me because I have a respect (read fear) for the forces of water and don't have the desire at this time to acquire the necessary training, equipment or time (experience) to feel comfortable in these situations.



For example, many of the canyons in the San Gabriel Mountains in California have current, but rappels end in knee-deep or waist-deep water. C rating should be revised to represent water with current, but no serious hazards.


The problem I have with this is the current itself is what raises the risk significantly. The combination of force + drowning makes any rope work near the water potentially deadly and the time frame is short. And new hazards can form and can be hard to detect, so that the way I see it if there is current of a "C" class, one should have all the skills and experience dealing with all potential hazards wrt water.



2. Many of the canyons in Utah are rated 3B, 3B, 3B. There are subtle differences between various 3B rated canyons.

I agree with that statement, particularly with the word subtle. I don't think it's a problem having a lot of canyons catorgorized with the same class, and subtle differences don't have to be reflected in the rating. From a psychological point of view I like the idea that there are four main levels of canyoneering, each with skills that for the most part build on the previous level. Class 3 requires ropes. This is a big step up from Class 2 and people shouldn't enter it lightly. In my mind I really don't see easy 3s and hard 3s, except as it pertains to time and energy. The rope work is similar in the sense that every rappel requires competent setup, following safety practices, equip. etc.

The Subway is an odd canyon. It's long time wise but really isn't a Class 3 because the two obstacles can be downclimbed. I think this may be a reason people see a big difference between Subway and Pine, but I don't see it as a fault of the rating system.

I agree the time rating is overlooked and needs more attention when the rating system is introduced to newbies. I think it does enough to differentiate between the different experiences found in what is currently called class 3 canyons, or at least the ones I've done.

To get back to the psychology POV, if you introduce another catagory to the rating it makes it more difficult to understand and raises the risk that people will pay less attention to it.



3. The current technical/terrain ratings (1, 2, 3, 4) relate primarily to rope work..... Under the current system, if there is no rappelling involved, these canyons will be considered class 2.


I don't think this is correct because class 2 only involves easy climbing/downclimbing. On Tom's website he states "When adventures are more like climbs, the YDS rock climbing rating system will be used.", which is one way to go.

As others have written, putting a class 4 rating when technical climbing skills are needed seems to work too, with more details in the description. People shouldn't be entering class 4 canyons with just the rating, or at least I don't see this as a purpose of a rating system.

Steve Newcomb
Tucson, AZ

[Canyonbug]

Cross post my comments to the same topic off of another forum.

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

[rcwild]

Originally Posted by rcwild
3. The current technical/terrain ratings (1, 2, 3, 4) relate primarily to rope work..... Under the current system, if there is no rappelling involved, these canyons will be considered class 2.


I don't think this is correct because class 2 only involves easy climbing/downclimbing.

You are correct. My statement was wrong. Blame it on a brain fart.

[Canyonbug]

I know if a canyon is classified as 1 or 2 then it doesn't require ropes or climbing.


I disagree with this. Here is a problem and a mis-understanding. I have been in canyons with people that require ropes for class 2 canyons. I have been in canyons that are class 2 that require some climbing. I have been in class 3 canyons where everyone needs to be on rope except me who can downclimb. Does this mean that because I can down climb a class 3 that it should be changed to a class 2? This is showing the subjectivity of the system. What may not require rope for you to complete, doesn't mean the next person will not need rope.

The system is set up as guidelines. I do agree that you should read the whole description of the canyon route and make decisions based more on that. Again that comes back to the responsibility of those providing that information to make sure that it is accurate and detailed.

[mdd]

crosspost from that other forum

Alright, might as well throw my two cents in, esp since I figure my
opinions diverge a bit from the norm...

I think the ACA rating system is a good start, but definitely needs
some tweaking, for a few reasons:

It shows danger, but not difficulty. In an area with about 6 canyons
(with flow) that we've been exploring, all but one is rated 3C, but
difficulty ranges from one with a single easily anchored rappel and a
few downclimbs to routes with sustained downclimbing, and one with one
rappel after another. Another example, Zion, where ha ha "every
canyon is 3B". Hence, to denote difficulty, people tend to add r or
x, which is really for danger.

Limited for canyons with flow, with only 6 possible ratings: 3C, 3Cr,
3Cx, 4C, 4Cr, 4Cx. See danger/difficulty above

Not extendable. Consider three canyons: first, Crystal Gorge. It is
possible it will be done someday but it will take a lot of fancy
ropework, and for most it would be suicide. 4Cx, right? Ok, now take
the Rockwood Box of the Animas. It's been kayaked (with bolts, yep
they rappelled) but it's a step up for sure than the Crystal... 4Cx
still? Then take the Box Canyon of the Cowlitz, which I personally
think would be suicide for a canyoneer to enter (maybe kayakers too?).
4Cx?

A big one for me, no comparison between CP canyons and non-CP class C
canyons. There are some 4Bx's on the CP (Shane calls Sandthrax that),
probably some of the ones Ram is exploring too. While these canyons
are certainly dangerous, the survival rate is (or would be) much
higher than the 4Cx's I listed above. That tells me that a 4Bx is a
lot less dangerous relative to a 4Cx, but I wonder if someone might
descend a 4Bx thinking they could tackle a 4Cx... since most people
descend CP canyons, it seems the rating system is geared more for the
dangers of CP canyons - just an evolutionary trend.

Class rating and risk rating overlap. For example, one of the
criteria for class 4 is "difficult and exposed free climbing and/or
down-climbing". Risk factor R is "One or more extraordinary risk
factors exist that could complicate the descent". So let's say I find
a canyon that has a 30' stretch of high stemming but bone dry. I
could say it is simply class 4A. I can also say 3Ar. I can also call
it 4Ar. Is the stemming section covered in the class rating, risk
rating, or both? If you look at the rating definitions, you could
call Sandthrax 4B, 4Br or 4Bx. You could even make a case to call it 3Bx.

In Colorado, we have a canyon we call the Quartzite Corridor whose
crux is a waterfall with an unavoidable hydraulic. You can use fancy
ropework to get around it. 4C? But the hydraulic is really just a
risk factor. 3Cr? I don't like calling it 4C (though that's what we
call it) because it makes it sound harder than it really is (the rest
of the canyon is pretty standard stuff, compared to others in the
area, which are mostly 3C).

So as for changes...

I'm ok with adding G, PG etc, but I think people will still confuse
difficulty for danger. I like the idea someone else posted of using
dot number: 3.1C, 3.2C etc, for a few reasons:

Denotes difficulty, can still use r, x (g, pg?) for danger

Extendable

More options for the class C world

Backwards compatible. If I read an older book that said Pine Creek is
a 3B, I know it is class 3, kinda like someone pointing to a rock
route and saying "that's fifth class". I can still get a reasonable
range for the rating (just not as accurate, but still close)

Not sure if it is a good solution for the risk/class overlap. Need to
think on that one.


M

[mdd]

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.


Yes, there is ambiguity, but I don't think it is a serious enough problem to warrant a "fix". We already have a rating system that is inherently detailed and covers all variables: the route description.

Think of 3.0 or 3.1 like the YDS system. There are some out there that say route XYZ is "the definition" of, say, 5.7. But there is still ambiguity. The intention is to give you and idea of difficulty, not a precise definition of difficulty.

I would simply make a list of canyons that are the "definition" of 3.0, 3.1 etc. Say:

3.0 Orderville
3.1 Pine Creek
3.2 Englestead
3.3 Kolob
3.4 Imlay
3.5 Heaps
3.6 Reserved for one someone finds something harder than Heaps

You would then make the same list but use canyons that are squeezy for an area like Lake Powell. The ratings may not translate cleanly between, say, Zion, Lake Powell, and the Pacific Northwest, but remember it is only a guideline. The YDS system doesn't necessarily translate between Yosemite, Vedauwoo, and just about every sport climbing area without ambiguity, either, because they are different kinds of climbing.


M

[Canyonbug]

As I sit in my work vehicle not wanting to exit because of the rain, I have thought some more about this topic. I agree with a lot of what MDD has posted, but more simply put. If we are going to change the ratings we need to be able to have it better define the amount or types of risk in a canyon. Is there any way to create, or build off of the current system, an objective view of the dangers?

Just with the YDS, simply adding in a decimal system only expands the already current problem that most agree with. In the YDS just because Rich can climb a 5.12 doesn't mean that I could. Same thing with using class 1,2,3,4 in the canyon rating system. Just because Tom can descend a class 2 without ropes, does not mean I could.

However I do see an advantage in using a decimal system in the canyon ratings that is a positive with the YDS system. I may not be able to climb that 5.12 w/ Rich, but I have something to work up to. This gives a more range of skill levels to be looked at. I may be able to do a 3.0B canyon, but I don't feel that my skill level is up enough to do a 3.5B canyon.

Adding in an expanded view of the ratings if you will, will give the options of being able to break down the ratings more and give a better look at what the canyon may hold. A 3.0 canyon may be a walk, rappel, walk, rappel, walk, rappel with no anchor or pothole problems. A 3.1 canyon may have the same scenario but with an additional anchor problem, or a stem of 100 yds. A 3.2 would be longer stems maybe over potholes. A 3.3 would be multiple anchor problems, prolonged swims etc.

If we can use it to better define dangers involved instead of mere skill level and experience I think the system would go a lot further.

Or am I just off base on this?

[rcwild]

I may not be able to climb that 5.12 w/ Rich, but I have something to work up to.

Unless you are talking about a different Rich, we can stand on the ground together looking up and admiring the other guys climbing that 5.12.

[rcwild]

A buddy of mine back in Arizona once suggested that YDS is too cumbersome. It should be limited to: 5. too easy, 5. fun, and 5. too hard.

The problem of course is that the 5. fun range is different for everyone.

[bashfulbob]

As a serious newby to canyoneering I have found the current rating system to be very informative, easy to understand, easy to remember and a great place to start. I started using the system long before I started fooling with ropes and getting into the 3s. I have always used the rating system as a starting point. After I look and see that a canyon rating falls into or around my area of ability I then go and get all the information on the canyon from other sources. I check Toms site, various books, ACA beta and try to find someone who has been in the canyon recently.

I am sure there are folks out there that look at the rating system and say “I can go that” and off they go. There are also folks that don’t wear helmets and do other equally stupid things too.

There is no way you can put together a rating system that will give enough information so you will know every nook and cranny in the canyon. There is no rating system that will save the dudes and dudettes from themselves so why mess with and possibly screw up a perfectly good system?

Bob

[rcwild]

Someone on another forum posted this possibility:


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.

Maybe enough to just add an S for slot/stemming and a PH for potholes ?? Not enough info to get a complete picture, but enough to make someone read the description to look for details about the stemming and potholes.

[Canyonbug]

As a serious newby to canyoneering I have found the current rating system to be very informative, easy to understand, easy to remember and a great place to start.

After I look and see that a canyon rating falls into or around my area of ability I then go and get all the information on the canyon from other sources. I check Toms site, various books, ACA beta and try to find someone who has been in the canyon recently.

First off, welcome to canyoneering.

Yes the system is informative and easy to understand and a great place to start. I commend you for not only relying on this and for looking for information else where also.


There is no way you can put together a rating system that will give enough information so you will know every nook and cranny in the canyon. There is no rating system that will save the dudes and dudettes from themselves so why mess with and possibly screw up a perfectly good system?

I agree with you that there is probably no way a rating system that give enough information on every nook and cranny of a canyon. A rating system will not save everyone from making mistakes. However, this discussion would be a moot discussion if it was a "perfectly good system."

Would you please describe in your opinion what makes it a "perfectly good system?"

[rcwild]

There is no rating system that will save the dudes and dudettes from themselves so why mess with and possibly screw up a perfectly good system?

No way to know how this will play out, Bob. Might decide to leave it alone. I'm certain we won't change the core aspects of the system. Just trying to figure out if some minor additions will provide people with a clearer picture of the canyon they're considering.

I'll set up a poll. One option on the poll will be "Leave it alone."

[rcwild]

I went ahead and posted a poll. You can choose more than one selection if you like the idea of using a combination of the elements.

[DtEW]

Along the same line posted in the Yahoo group...

People there have pointed out the issues with a weight-based description system for describing the tightness of a slot. "180" could be a thin 6'3" person, or a fat 5'5" person, which makes that number somewhat misleading unless you know the ASSUMPTION that "180" refers to a person of "typical proportions". Then you have to ASSUME what "typical proportions" of that weight mean and how they relate to you.

I say a better descriptor based on a figure that is commonly-known to most people is that of waist size, aka girth. This is by no means perfect, but I think its a much more direct descriptor of a slot's tightness than weight.

[rcwild]

I say a better descriptor based on a figure that is commonly-known to most people is that of waist size, aka girth. This is by no means perfect, but I think its a much more direct descriptor of a slot's tightness than weight.

.. and my response cross-posted from the Canyons group:

Let's not be sexist about this. You'll have to include something for breasts and hips, too. :D

Then you'll need to come up with something to match body shape to slot shape. People who have broad shoulders and narrow hips will fit neatly through V-shape canyons. But people with broad hips or big butts will find V shaped canyons too difficult, unless they pass through walking on their hands. :p

[mdd]

Someone on another forum posted this possibility:



Maybe enough to just add an S for slot/stemming and a PH for potholes ?? Not enough info to get a complete picture, but enough to make someone read the description to look for details about the stemming and potholes.

FWIW, I'm not sure if I like this system. Too many abbreviations to learn. For a technical canyon with potholes, some stemming and narrow sections, and lots of downclimbs (some of which are dangerous), and stagnant pools you'll have something like

3B S N P E III R

Which is starting to look like an encryption key. I'd need a decoder ring to figure that one out.

[bashfulbob]

First off, welcome to canyoneering.

Yes the system is informative and easy to understand and a great place to start. I commend you for not only relying on this and for looking for information else where also.

I agree with you that there is probably no way a rating system that give enough information on every nook and cranny of a canyon. A rating system will not save everyone from making mistakes. However, this discussion would be a moot discussion if it was a "perfectly good system."

Would you please describe in your opinion what makes it a "perfectly good system?"

Jared:

Again I am new to canyoneering, but have been using the current system for a number of years for hiking primarily through Tom's site. I have found the system to work well as a very informative as a starting place Then you have to do more research to come up with the additional information that pertains to your desires, level of expertise, body size and shape etc.. All this information and more that is being tossed around to possibly be included in the current system, is readily available. Granted it may take a little time, a few clicks of a mouse or god forbid someone might have to pick up a book and read, but it is there is greater detail than you will find no matter how many symbols letters etc you add to the current rating system.

The current rating system with it's simplicity is easy to use, easy to remember and will actually make the user spend some time doing more research. As a result in many cases learn more and be better prepared for the next canyon etc.

To me the current rating system is not perfect but it is a perfectly good system. As you are not going to ever have a perfect system why mess with one that has been proven to work well over time.

Bob

[Canyonbug]

To me the current rating system is not perfect but it is a perfectly good system. As you are not going to ever have a perfect system why mess with one that has been proven to work well over time.
I guess I am just going to take issue with your first line. How can the current rating system not be perfect, but it can be a perfectly good system? If I understand you correctly, maybe your wording should say: "The current rating system is not perfect, but it works."

I think Rich's initial question then is: Can't we make it better? No we will never have a rating that defines everything in the canyon. You are correct that you will always need a route description to get more details from. Since you have been looking at these for a while, I am not familiar with your actual in canyon experience, but if you have spent much time in them you will notice that one class 3 canyon differs from another. By a simple definition a Class 3 means "Technical Rope work required. The route is non reversible unless a fixed rope is left to ascend." This description does not give any indicators of difficulty of the canyon in regards to potholes, anchor problems, swims, Mae West sections etc. There is currently in use the R and X additions, but those denote more risky or extreme (life threatening) issues in a canyon. These still don't give a clear picture of what the skill level required is.

If we were to modify the system, not overhaul it, but as has been suggested even use a decimal system, this would offer a better understanding of skill levels required to safely complete that canyon. A class 3.3 is a little bit harder than a 3.0 maybe because of extended exposure to cold water, or a Mae West section.

Bob, maybe I am a bit over the top on my thoughts, but I feel that the system could be better than good.

[bashfulbob]

Jared:

We are getting tripped up on words here and there is nothing wrong with that. I happen to be a person that enjoys researching my trips. I feel that the current system is an excellent guide that is uncomplicated and easy to understand. It gives you an easy way to eliminate the canyons that are above or below your skill level.

After I have the canyons in skill level by researching those canyons I can find out how cold or fast the water is, how skinny the slots are and a ton of other information. Information that you will never be able to get into a rating system

Yep I know all class three canyons are not alike and that, depending on the time of year, one particular canyon can be anywhere from a nice romp to one that can eat your lunch. How depending on a time of year a bunch of pot holes might be just a nice swim while later they are keepers. Now how are you going to get all that into the rating system.

Tweek it here and tweek it their and soon you tweek it out of existance . I have visions of the system eventually looking like alphabet soup with so many symbols, numbers and letters that Rich will be offering a one day class to learn how to figure out the rating system.

Note: I did not use perfect or perfectly good.

Bob

[Canyonbug]

Sorry, my mistake in quoting you. You stated "To me the current rating system is not perfect but it is a perfectly good system."

I said "How can the current rating system not be perfect, but it can be a perfectly good system?" When I meant to say "How can the current rating system "be not perfect and a perfectly good system." at the same time?

I inverted the two words in my last post which would make the question confusing.

[bashfulbob]

Whew! Am I glad we got that straightened out. Basically we are both howling at the moon. Rich isn't going to let things get carried away so you have your ratings that have a letter or decimal point for every nuance in a canyon nor is he going to leave it alone. But it is fun do a little mental masturbation every once in awhile.

Bob

[rcwild]

Considering all of the suggestions received so far, my personal favorite would be using G, PG, R and X, but expanding the definition to include both risk and "seriousness" definitions. Adding + or - to these would provide much more nuance.

The technique/terrain classes – 1, 2, 3, 4 – define the skill sets that will be required. An easy class 3 and a difficult class 3 both require the same skills sets. Same might be said for water class C.

G, PG-, PG, PG+, R-, R, R+, X-, X, X+ ... That provides a lot of range and instant recognition by users. This system is independent of technique/terrain and water, so it can be applied to a combination of factors. And it doesn't change the core rating of any canyon currently listed in guidebooks, websites, etc. Wouldn't be a need to add any additional components to the rating.

My personal favorite, but not doing well in the poll so far. As of this writing, 18 people voted in the poll. 7 people have voted for adding additional activity designators like "S" for slot/stemming and "PH" for potholes. 6 people voted for decimal system.

[Canyonbug]

Considering all of the suggestions received so far, my personal favorite would be using G, PG, R and X, but expanding the definition to include both risk and "seriousness" definitions. Adding + or - to these would provide much more nuance.

G, PG-, PG, PG+, R-, R, R+, X-, X, X+ ... That provides a lot of range and instant recognition by users.

Rich,
How would this system translate to foreigners visiting the states? We recognize the G, PG, etc. ratings because of the movie industry. I don't know if those ratings are the same in other countries. Can anyone enlighten on this? If it is not would they recognize by sight like we would the difference?

[rcwild]

Rich,
How would this system translate to foreigners visiting the states? We recognize the G, PG, etc. ratings because of the movie industry. I don't know if those ratings are the same in other countries. Can anyone enlighten on this? If it is not would they recognize by sight like we would the difference?

Explaining it is no different than explaining the rest of the rating system. Foreigners don't have an inherent knowledge of what class 3 means or what class B means.

Per "Freedom of the Hills" ...

"Because the standard use of the YDS defines only the hardest move, a "seriousness" rating was introduced by James Erickson in 1980 to indicate relative danger of a climb:

PG-13: Protection is considered adequate, and if properly placed, a fall would not likely be long or of consequence.

R: Protection is commonly considered inadequate. The possibility exists of a long fall onto good protection or a shorter fall onto poor protection, which may pull. A falling leader will probably suffer injuries.

X: Protection is commonly considered extremely poor. There exists the possibility of long falls, pulling several pieces of protection and causing serious injury or death.

Even though I keep mentioning the use of "G", anything lacking a PG, R or X will be assumed to be a G. So we're really only talking about adding PG to the existing system and clarifying that the letters apply to both risk and seriousness.

[Canyonbug]

I see, thanks. I guess I need to open my copy of FotH again.

[desertresident]

opinion:

I like the + and -. The negative would refer to it having been done and a lower class level and the positive that it might be a higher level for some. For example, the Subway at 3-, and some canyons being 2+ if the downclimbs or jumps are too much exposure/angle.

I also voted for the descriptions so that people can group those canyons without reading every beta.

One thing that wasnt brought up so far is the last part, the time for the trip. I wonder how many people actually use this part easily, and if it cant be simplified. For example, having just 3 parts to the time...1=daytrip, 2=possible overnight, 3=overnight. That way a person would know what to bring and how long to schedule their time.

[ratagonia]

opinion:

I like the + and -. The negative would refer to it having been done and a lower class level and the positive that it might be a higher level for some. For example, the Subway at 3-, and some canyons being 2+ if the downclimbs or jumps are too much exposure/angle.

I also voted for the descriptions so that people can group those canyons without reading every beta.

One thing that wasnt brought up so far is the last part, the time for the trip. I wonder how many people actually use this part easily, and if it cant be simplified. For example, having just 3 parts to the time...1=daytrip, 2=possible overnight, 3=overnight. That way a person would know what to bring and how long to schedule their time.

The roman numeral GRADE is directly adopted from climbing, and is pretty simple: I - an hour or two; II - a half-day; III - most of a day; IV - a very full day; V - a very full day for fast parties, two easy days for average parties; VI - multi day even for fast parties; VII - multi-week, even for fast parties.

And yes, The Nose of Elcap is still a Grade VI even though it has been done in less than 3 hours.

Tom

[A.J.]

FWIW, I'm not sure if I like this system. Too many abbreviations to learn. For a technical canyon with potholes, some stemming and narrow sections, and lots of downclimbs (some of which are dangerous), and stagnant pools you'll have something like

3B S N P E III R

Which is starting to look like an encryption key. I'd need a decoder ring to figure that one out.

I totally agree. Adding symbols for each would be very confusing to new folks. I'm a big proponent (obviously, since I suggested it) of just adding the G and PG ratings. I think that would add leaps and bounds to the current system; and still make it very easy to understand as well as very backward compatible. I'm not opposed to the + and -. Although, I think that will add more complexity. Don't know if it's really necessary. I agree with Bob, that the current system shows a classification of canyon; and you should do the due diligence to find out more about the canyon.

While I like the idea of the decimal; I think it would be hard to classify. Each difficulty (pothole, stemming, etc) would need it's own categorization. i.e. What if there are keeper potholes AND high stemming? For the person who suggested relating decimals to canyons; that's very short sighted and/or flawed in my opinion. It assumes that person has done that canyon, and that the canyon hadn't changed. A good example is that the first time through Choprock was a good eye opener as what potential that canyon had for disaster. My last trip through, I found the canyon much easier. Maybe somewhat related to my abilities; but moreso that a lot of the dangerous logjams washed out. I think we should rate the canyons based on a rating system; not relative to other canyons (because that's not a constant.)

As several mentioned, what's hard for one person is not hard for the other. I see the same thing in climbing; as Mike points out. I'm more in favor of the KISS rule. Voted my thoughts...

Thanks for all the fun and informative conversation all!

[rcwild]

While I like the idea of the decimal; I think it would be hard to classify.

I have another concern, too. A couple print guidebooks came out this past year. Quite a few class 3s in both books. In the absence of a decimal, will people assume all those 3s are 3.0s? Important not to make any changes that will make those guidebooks out-of-date or create confusion.

[Canyonbug]

I'm a big proponent (obviously, since I suggested it) of just adding the G and PG ratings. I think that would add leaps and bounds to the current system; and still make it very easy to understand as well as very backward compatible....
While I like the idea of the decimal; I think it would be hard to classify. Each difficulty (pothole, stemming, etc) would need it's own categorization. i.e. What if there are keeper potholes AND high stemming? For the person who suggested relating decimals to canyons; that's very short sighted and/or flawed in my opinion.

Would you please explain why the G, PG ratings would be easier to use over the decimal system. I see them as being exactly the same thing, as far as difficulty to classify a canyon with, they would just be different symbols. Using the G, PG ratings you still have the same issue that you are arguing trying to rate each difficulty.

The way I see it, you can rate both canyons based on difficulty. In one system you get a 3GB rating and in the other System you get a 3.0B Rating. If there is a step up in difficulty you would have a 3G+B Rating or a 3.1B Rating. Another Step up would be a 3PG-B Rating or a 3.2B Rating.

Unless you are thinking about using them differently, this is how I see the rating would look. Where is the difference in identifying difficulty of the canyon?

I still think that the decimal system would be easier to understand, especially for those coming into the sport from a climbing background.

[charlybldr]

We already have a rating system that is inherently detailed and covers all variables: the route description.

Although qualifiers such as "S" for slot or "PH" for pot hole in the rating might help there is no reason a person can not get this information out of the route description.

The current rating system is complicated enough.

[rcwild]

The way I see it, you can rate both canyons based on difficulty. In one system you get a 3GB rating and in the other System you get a 3.0B Rating. If there is a step up in difficulty you would have a 3G+B Rating or a 3.1B Rating. Another Step up would be a 3PG-B Rating or a 3.2B Rating.

Actually, no. With one system you get 3.2B, making it obvious that the decimal only applies to the 3 part of the rating, not the B. With the other system you get 3B PG (PG where the R and X are currently used), making the PG apply to either or both of the 3 and B factors.

[mdd]

Actually, no. With one system you get 3.2B, making it obvious that the decimal only applies to the 3 part of the rating, not the B. With the other system you get 3B PG (PG where the R and X are currently used), making the PG apply to either or both of the 3 and B factors.

Well, I might as well reiterate where I think the current system can be improved. Currently, the rating system has four parts: Grade, water levels (no need to talk about those two), technical skills needed and an optional rating for risk (r and x).

In some cases, the technical skills and r and x overlap. If a canyon that is otherwise straight forward has an obstacle like a keeper pothole in it, is it 3r, or just class 4? As it is written today it could be either, and both are valid.

Add to this, the main issue I think, difficulty of the canyon isn't represented well. Maybe that is the "seriousness" you are talking about (for r and x), but then it confuses things more - if I see and r, is it because it is difficult (physical) or because of a dangerous obstacle? A canyon can be very difficult but not have a dangerous obstacle warranting an R/X.

Looking through Tom's Zion guide, the following canyons have ratings of 3B (with no r/x):

Subway
Pine Creek
Keyhole
Middle Echo
Mystery
Behunin
Fat Man's Misery
Spry
Right Fork
Russell Gulch
Das Boot
Icebox (via North Pass)

That's a pretty wide range of difficulty falling under the same rating. If the addition of PG/PG13/etc is still used to denote risk, the ratings for these probably won't change as there isn't much in any of them that is really extra "risky". If PG/PG13/etc denote difficulty, then the system won't be backwards compatible (since the current system clearly defines R/X to be risk, the definition would change). If it denotes both risk and difficulty, it will be too ambiguous - some authors will use it one way, others another way. Add to that climbers who are used to PG/R/X meaning risk (since difficulty is in the YDS 5.x rating), and you confuse the issue more.

For a reasonable system, at some point you have to get away from "if/then" logic to classify canyons (eg "this canyon has a pothole so it gets an R but the pothole fills up often so it is R- but then the canyon has 10' of stemming so it is R- + which equals R again etc)... move into comparing canyons ("Icebox seemed harder than Subway, so it is 3B+ or 3.1B or whatever"), as the only useful way to judge a canyon's difficulty is in relation to others. I do think that different canyons can be compared, just like climbing - you know a 5.12 in Vedauwoo probably means offwidth, at Boulder Canyon it is probably thin or possibly slabby faces (except sport park where it is steep, always finding juggy holds miraculously where you want them), in Maple it is endurance, at Indian Creek it is a heinous splitter, etc. Different styles of climbing but all fall under the same rating system, so you can get at least an idea of the difficulty by comparing to your previous climbs. Not perfect, granted, but the idea is give a feeling of difficulty.

My thoughts... I'd say keep R/X (and PG if you want) to mean riskiness. Add another variable (or +/- or SOMETHING) to denote difficulty. I really don't care if it is a +/-, decimal, or something else, but it is something I think the current system really lacks.

[Canyonbug]

Actually, no. With one system you get 3.2B, making it obvious that the decimal only applies to the 3 part of the rating, not the B. With the other system you get 3B PG (PG where the R and X are currently used), making the PG apply to either or both of the 3 and B factors.

OK Rich, just read through the FotH descriptions again and I can see what you are saying now, this system has some validity in it. I see what you are taking about also with the decimal relating only to the 3 rating.

[Cilantro13]

As I suggested the optional skill identifiers in the Uutah.com thread, I thought I would explain why I think it would be useful, as I did in the other forum.

Many people, such as me, use the ratings as a filter. We use it as a starting point to find new canyons (because once you have done a canyon you don't have to rely on a rating any longer because you know what to expect). The rating lets you narrow down a selection of canyons to those in your skill set and those that meet a minimum challenge level.

The problem with the ratings generally are (1) there is great deal of variability in canyons having a given difficult designator, e.g., 3-rated canyons; and (2) canyoneering requires a lot of different skill sets. We all wonder whether the Subway is a 2 or a 3 or if Kolob is a 3 or a 4. All of us would say that Pine Creek is a major step up from the Subway, yet there are both rated 3B (depending on the site).

That said, there is no substitute for reading the route beta in detail to get an understanding of the unique challenges each canyon has to offer. The ratings, however, are a place to start by filtering out canyons that require skill sets that a particular canyoneer doesn't have or allows canyoneers to identify canyons that have certain types of challenges the a particular is interested in. Some people don't like big wall rappels; others don't have the climbing skills for something like the Crux in Sandthrax; others like rappelling challenges, but prefer not to do a lot of stemming; etc.

Does it make the rating system more complicated? Yes. So does PG, G; +/-; or a decimal system. Will you get long convoluted ratings such as 4B IV RSPNE? Of course, but by in large the vast majority of canyons are not going offer every challenge for which a designator is used.

For me, it was hard to remember what each data point of the current system meant. 3 vs. III? What is the difference between B and C? Basically, adding additional designators isn't really incrementally harder for noobs and not that much harder for those of us who have done a fair bit of canyoneering.

My 2 cents, for what it is worth. Now, back to lurkdom (and my day job).

[rcwild]

Try this on for size ...

Add an "S" option to the terrain/technique rating for canyons that involve stemming. Obviously not applicable for class 1. Resulting options will be 1, 2, 2S, 3, 3S, 4 and 4S. This will let people know at a glance that there will be stemming. Those canyons are a unique breed. I'm putting the S with the terrain/technique element because the elements are related, but it could go with the risk/seriousness rating, too – except it might make it look like the PG, R or X only applies to the stemming.

Add a "PG" option to the risk/seriousness rating to help break up the large number of class 3 canyons.

Rating examples would look like ...

3B III
There will be some climbing and/or rappelling. Pools of water. Okay for beginners. Will take an average group around 2/3 of a day. Read route description for details.

3SB R IV or 3B S R IV
There will be some climbing and/or rappelling and there will be some stemming. Pools of water. The R suggests only advanced/expert canyoneers should try it. Will be a long, full day for an average group. Read route description for details.

3C PG II
There will be some climbing and/or rappelling. Water with current. The PG suggests it is appropriate for intermediate canyoneers. Will take an average group a half day. Read route description for details.

4SB X IV or 4B S X IV
There will be some difficult climbing, tricky anchors, etc. There will be some stemming. Pools of water. The X suggests only expert canyoneers should attempt it. Will be a long, full day for an average group. Read route description for details.

4C X III
There will be some difficult challenges – the C means there will be water with current and suggests the 4 might be the result of advanced rope work required to deal with the water. The X suggests only expert canyoneers should attempt it. Will take an average group a half day. Read route description for details.

[mdd]

Try this on for size ...

Rich, how would you use your proposed system to differentiate between the difficulty of the following range of canyons?

Subway
Pine Creek
Keyhole
Middle Echo
Mystery
Behunin
Fat Man's Misery
Spry
Right Fork
Russell Gulch
Das Boot
Icebox (via North Pass)

[Cilantro13]

Great idea to show what these would look like in practice. In my perfect world, I might change the look to preserve what we already use:

3B III stays the same;
3SB R IV or 3B S R IV becomes 3B RS IV;
3C PG II becomes 3C II (PG);
4SB X IV or 4B S X IV becomes 4B XS IV; and
4C X III stays the same.

Because X and R have been used for awhile and are important, I think they should always come first. Actually, I think it looks cleaner to write the above as follows:

3B III
3B IV RS
3C II (PG)
4B IV XS
4C III X

because we get very used to seeing technical class, water rating, and grade grouped together in so many ratings, it looks a little funny to me when we split the technical class and water rating from the grade to put in X or R. But reasonable minds can disagree.

Last cent from me. I promise (so long as everybody agrees with me).

[A.J.]

Would you please explain why the G, PG ratings would be easier to use over the decimal system. I see them as being exactly the same thing, as far as difficulty to classify a canyon with, they would just be different symbols. Using the G, PG ratings you still have the same issue that you are arguing trying to rate each difficulty.

The way I see it, you can rate both canyons based on difficulty. In one system you get a 3GB rating and in the other System you get a 3.0B Rating. If there is a step up in difficulty you would have a 3G+B Rating or a 3.1B Rating. Another Step up would be a 3PG-B Rating or a 3.2B Rating.

Unless you are thinking about using them differently, this is how I see the rating would look. Where is the difference in identifying difficulty of the canyon?

I still think that the decimal system would be easier to understand, especially for those coming into the sport from a climbing background.


As I (and others) have mentioned, I think adding the G or PG would open up a few more classifications, and allow Subway to be a 3B G II (or III), while Pine would be a 3B PG II (or III). It does have the disadvantage of grouping risk and difficulty as Mike pointed out. However, I think keeping the system simple is an advantage. It would be easier to classify canyons of a particular difficulty/style.

Adding the + and - could further subdivide the categories; but then I think we run into the same complexity of the decimal system. It will likely add a higher probability that things aren't rated correctly and/or might delay or prohibit adoption. Adding just the G and PG ratings also maintains the most compatibility with the old system. It does however, only add two more categories. Is that enough? I guess that depends on your point of view.

Each category (including 4's) would now have 4 different ratings. I think it could be enough. I agree with the person who said that the rating shouldn't try to encompass every situation. It should be a guideline of the difficulty; and the person should look at the description and/or past trips. But that's just my opinion. I'd say vote for the approach or combinations you like best.

Out of curiosity, has anyone talked to Michael Kelsey about it? His 2nd edition slot guide will be out early next year. I know he's working on it. I'd be happy to chat with him if nobody else has... Would be good to get his opinion and get him on board; as it would be nice to have the ratings updated prior to his next book coming out...

[A.J.]

4B IV XS
4C III X

because we get very used to seeing technical class, water rating, and grade grouped together in so many ratings.

I agree that if the symbols are used, then the risk and classifications should come after the rating. That preserves the old classifications; and adds new symbols to describe more of the challenges in the canyon afterwards. Still feel that people can get the challenge info from the description though...

[rcwild]

because we get very used to seeing technical class, water rating, and grade grouped together in so many ratings, it looks a little funny to me when we split the technical class and water rating from the grade to put in X or R. But reasonable minds can disagree.

This is the "official" description of the ACA rating system:

http://www.canyoneering.net/content/index.php?categoryid=23

Elements of the rating system are described in the order they should appear. Examples at the bottom of the page. The R/X element comes before the grade (time/commitment). Don't know how many of the minds involved in the development were reasonable. :bigeyes:

[rcwild]

Out of curiosity, has anyone talked to Michael Kelsey about it? His 2nd edition slot guide will be out early next year. I know he's working on it. I'd be happy to chat with him if nobody else has ... Would be good to get his opinion and get him on board; as it would be nice to have the ratings updated prior to his next book coming out ...

One of the reasons I brought up the subject. Ram and others interested in a "slot" rating and hoping Mike will include it. Goal to make sure users don't see a lot of 3s and get lulled into an 8-hour stem-a-thon.

Nothing wrong with having a unique add-on system for one guidebook, but better to put it out to the entire canyoneering community for discussion.

[rcwild]

Rich, how would you use your proposed system to differentiate between the difficulty of the following range of canyons?

Worthwhile exercise. On first pass, I added PG to every canyon except Keyhole and Subway. Found myself thinking about Moab Mark's post and which canyons would I want to force a Scout troop to think twice about. Easy to argue about several of them. Hmmm. Rethinking. Perhaps adding PG would only serve to create a large number of 3B PGs. That's not accomplishing much.

[moab mark]

THis probably relates more to the description of the route then the Rating. How ZAC's website talks about if you have taken this class we recommend you can do a,b,c canyon. Take this class and you can now do d,e,f. For a noobie this is very helpful. From reading all of these post I would need to have a cheat sheet to help me understand the rating. Trying to come up with a rating system for so many different types of canyons (slots, etc)is looking complicated.
Something else that would help a noobie is, just an example, if a guide book or Website like shanes or the rating? had something helping you to know if going to the roost for the first time start with this canyon etc. Which some of them do sort of. This would probably help a noobie like me stay out of trouble more than anything else. Hopefully this made sense.
Mark

[moab mark]

Ok after seeing my post I basically stated the same thing twice. My bad
Mark

[wiese]

I like the 123 and the ABCs, a lot like Sesame Street and keeps the egos at bay. Instead of ppl saying Kolob with heavy flow and 4.9+ XX

Lets just keep it fun, we will still depend on the discriptions and the canyons are always changing.

take care
EW

[Zarka]

I am in agreement with Cilantro that the R and X ratings are an unnecessary complication. If you have lumped a variety of hazards in 3 and 4, segregating by "toolkit" and skills, I hope, then this extra letter would not be required.

It's already so complicated that you have to go find the key when you read a description, and it's faster to read the complete description, so then you don't really need to know the key anymore! About the only use of it is to quickly exclude at a glance the ones that are way too easy or way too hard for your desired outing, and then you'll want to read the details before you go anyway. I suppose if I could just remember that every roman numeral "I" means about 2 hours, then I'd be a third of the way to remembering it.

I would rather you tweak it by altering the description of 4 to include some hazard types that were not identified explicitly before. This may upgrade the difficulty of certain canyons from 3 to 4, but that would be better, perhaps, than downgrading a canyon from 4 to 3.

I DO like the idea of adding max rappel length (i.e. anchor to ground) and perhaps a slot number. For example, you could identify max length in feet and min slot width in a variety of ways:

200 ft with a slot of 6" width:
200x6
200ft 6in
200h 6w

or if no slot less than 2 ft, just
200

[rcwild]

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

[mtngoat59102]

Maybe it should be addressed in another area but the lack of a time component leaves the new system wanting for something. Not to mention that the new system now uses the same number that was once time and re-defines it. I guess I'm just the old Scrooge that doesn't like change. It seems the new system is very applicable to a certain type of canyon. The effort to describe an entire canyon and its difficulties in an acronym is going to be impossible. Even the climbing rating system has this problem. Is one move 5.10 or is it a sustained 4 pitches of 5.10? Sometimes more is only more in a rating and you need to read the route description if you want the dirty details.

Like the Yosemite system I think we should call this new rating the North Wash Canyon Rating System. Just my 3 cents. How do the Euro's handle this? They have been doing canyons while we were still hiking 14'ers with filter-less Lucky Strikes, American flag backpacks and cut-off jean shorts.

[mtngoat59102]

I dug this post out of the early days of this thread. It echos my thoughts perfectly and it is worth re-reading.


As a serious newby to canyoneering I have found the current rating system to be very informative, easy to understand, easy to remember and a great place to start. I started using the system long before I started fooling with ropes and getting into the 3s. I have always used the rating system as a starting point. After I look and see that a canyon rating falls into or around my area of ability I then go and get all the information on the canyon from other sources. I check Toms site, various books, ACA beta and try to find someone who has been in the canyon recently.

I am sure there are folks out there that look at the rating system and say “I can go that” and off they go. There are also folks that don’t wear helmets and do other equally stupid things too.

There is no way you can put together a rating system that will give enough information so you will know every nook and cranny in the canyon. There is no rating system that will save the dudes and dudettes from themselves so why mess with and possibly screw up a perfectly good system?

Bob

[rcwild]

Maybe it should be addressed in another area but the lack of a time component leaves the new system wanting for something. Not to mention that the new system now uses the same number that was once time and re-defines it.

Sorry I wasn't more clear. This is only a revision of the 1-4 and A-C components. Roman numeral grades for time and commitment will still be used, as will the R and X for risk.

If you really spend some time digesting this, you'll see that people are free to continue using only A-B-C for water. Finer distinction is really intended for heavy water canyons in Colorado, Washington, etc. Upper end terrain ratings apply primarily to those high stemming canyons that only a small fraction of canyoneers are doing. There will still be a lot of 3B canyons out there.

As far as changes to existing guidebooks and websites ... There will be a few 3s that need to be upped to 4s and some 4s that need to be upped to the higher classes. Overall, not many changes.

[mtngoat59102]

There will still be a lot of 3B canyons out there.

Thank goodness, I thought for a moment I was going to have to stop canyoneering with no 3B's left. :roflmao: On a more serious note, thanks for the clarification.

[Cilantro13]

I generally like the revisions to the system as there needed to be a little gradation of the difficulty with respect to the canyons.

It would still be great to suggest some classifiers of the type of risks in the canyons to lump in the rating for filtering purposes. I am not a great climber, but I am a lot more confident in my rappelling skills. So tough, multipitch rappels don't scare me nearly as much as exposed stemming does. But that said, that info is still all found in the route description, so this really just whining about a little more effort in filtering canyons I am comfortable with than anything else.

All things considered, however, this is a great move in the right direction which IMHO captures many of the sentiments expressed here.

[rcwild]

Take another look. I tweaked it a bit to incorporate some elements Mike Kelsey is using for slot canyons in the upcoming edition of his guidebook.

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

[rcwild]

I replaced the poll at the beginning of this thread with a new one. Let's vote.

Since the discussion about revising the rating system first started, a few key objectives have been stated over and over ...

1. Keep the rating system as simple as possible. It should serve as a screening tool, with most information gleaned from the narrative description.

2. Make minimal changes so published beta is not rendered obsolete and so people don't have to completely re-learn a system.

3. Accomplish #1 and #2 while providing finer distinctions between some ambiguously rated canyons. Too many 3Bs.

Personally, I think the proposed rating system accomplishes all of these objectives. It is described at:

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

At first glance, it may appear a bit complicated, but it's not really. With the proposed system, it is not necessary to change any of the A, B or C ratings, but the option now exists to provide more detail, especially for Class C canyons. This will be important in areas like Washington and Colorado. Not so important in Utah or southern California.

Many canyons now rated Class 3 will still be rated Class 3, but there are some that should be bumped up to Class 4. And there are some Class 4s that should be bumped up, too. This should not present any major issues for beta website publishers. Only a handful of canyons published in printed guidebooks would be affected.

I don't agree with anyone who suggests they need to memorize the definitions. People just need to read the definitions once and get a feel where their skills lie. You'll know you are bored doing 1s and 2s, have fun doing 3s and 4s, are challenged by 5s, and incapable of doing 6s and 7s. Just like we don't need definitions of climbing ratings. We view the ratings in broader categories - 5.easy, 5.fun, 5.hard. We choose routes based on our mood and our partners. Sometimes we feel like doing something easy. Sometimes we feel like challenging ourselves with something hard. But we usually prefer doing something in the fun range. For some, 5.fun may be in the 5.6 to 5.9 range. For others, 5.fun may be in the 5.9 to 5.12 range. Same will happen with the canyon ratings.

As you study the terrain ratings, you'll notice that canyons at the low end do not require rope. In the middle range - Class 3 to Class 5 - rope can be used to overcome problems. More rope skill is needed as one progresses from 3 to 4 to 5. At the upper range - Class 6 and Class 7 - rope may be ineffective for overcoming problems. Those of us who feel comfortable with our rope skills, but not our high-stemming abilities will concentrate on canyons up to Class 5. So I guess we have some ego issues. Others will be doing Class 6 canyons that would spank me. They may be able to do some Class 5s without rope where I'll need to use some fancy rope work. Oh well.

[JDClery]

I like the new system. In the short time I've been canyoneering I've found that I'm fine in canyons that have a 3 rating. As I'm starting to tackle harder canyons, the new rating system will be helpful in evaluating what canyons will be suitable for me. It may take a little time and some descents to figure out the difference between a 4 and a 5 but I think it will be good to not have every canyon more difficult than a 3 being lumped together as a 4.

I also like the slot designation. I rather enjoy the skinny canyons, I'm built for them, but I have a frequent partner who isn't and he is slightly claustrophobic too, so it will be very helpful when I'm looking for canyons suitable for him.

[chowjusky]

I like the more simplified/straigthforward system. The current system works ok for me but when I first started I had difficulty getting my head round it. Essentially, I use my wife as a touchstone for this sort of thing. If she can understand what I am babbling on about, anyone can! :)

[Dwayne27]

I see both sides of this topic. The more simple the better- and you absolutely do need to study the route description. I do think there should be a little more to the 'old' rating system. As a beginner and a wuss, i would like some clarification about climbing/exposure, if i am gonna have to swim, if i will get stuck in something that is extremely narrow, etc. With the proposed new system braking some ratings up in accordance to climbing ratings, that just confuses me more because i have essentially 0 experience climbing. i would just appreciate a letter denoting moderate or more exposure, difficult climbing, difficult pothole escapes, extreme narrowness, etc...
again- i am new to all this and i know there is more to it all then i imagine. maybe add one more number to the main rating if a bunch of factors combine to just make it a hard canyon.
i know it had been mentioned before to have the one letter designations for specific problems you would encounter.
for what its worth- that is my vote

[rcwild]

Devin, what are you going to do when you're advanced and a wuss? :roflmao:

Not sure if I pointed this out before, but I included a vertical bar in the revised ratings table. The colors have some meaning.

Green = beginner/intermediate
Yellow = advanced
Orange = expert
Black = extreme

Personally, I'm not going to get too concerned about memorizing all those definitions. I'll be focusing on which category above each canyon falls under.

There are many things about the canyon that one can figure out just by looking at the ratings. If a canyon is rated C5 (expert), we know its difficulty comes primarily from water problems. It will be extremely rare to find a canyon that is rated 5-C5. Most advanced aquatic canyons require more ropework and not so much serious climbing.

If a canyon is rated 5-A S, we know at least a portion of its difficulty comes from high stemming/climbing. If it is rated 5-A with no S, odds are pretty good its difficulty comes from things like pothole escapes, long and multi-pitch rappels, etc.

I'm not concerned about entering a 5-A. Would be more concerned about entering a 5-A S. Big boys have to stem higher ... but there's a limit. :oldman:

[A.J.]

I like the new system. I especially like that it adds a dash between the first number and the second letter; that way, we can tell if it's the new system or the old ratings. Had an interesting climbing trip one time where I went out to climb some 5.11's with a friend; and we found out that it was WAY old climbing beta where 5.11's were given to anything they couldn't climb.... Nice to be able to differentiate between the two...

[Cheese]

I prefer sticking with the original system for consistency. I know that ACA is trying to set a standard that conveys more specifics, however that may not be necessary.

Consider other rating systems for similar sports (climbing, bouldering, whitewater, etc.) These all convey a general sense of difficulty, but the difference between a 5.10 and a 5.11 can be due to many factors. The important thing to remember here is that the rating system is used as a general guide for ability requirements, but before committing to a canyon (or climb or river) full beta should be read.

The existing system is easy, works well to convey the overall requirements, and most importantly, is used universally. Getting the whole community to sign on with a new system would be difficult, and the results for failing is a disjunct between ACA beta and the rest of the community (Tom's, UU, etc.)

Let the existing system continue to do what it has, and let the more specific beta include info on narrowness, stemming, etc.

[rcwild]

This has been on the back burner for quite a while ...

Unless we hear a lot of major objections to the contrary, we will go with the minor revisions outlined on this page:

http://www.canyoneering.net/content/index.php?categoryid=146

I believe the revisions represent a good compromise between some peoples' desire to leave the system as it was and those who felt the system needed some tweaks.

The revisions will permit beta peddlers to leave their ratings as is if they choose, but options exist to add additional detail.

[rcwild]

I've been reading through some of the posts in this thread to see if the revisions address most of the concerns.

1. Concern about forcing beta peddlers to rewrite their books/websites. Not necessary. The revisions add options for additional detail, but won't change the core rating system.

2. Distinguishing between all the Class 3 canyons. This can be accomplished with either the S (slot designator) or Risk/Seriousness rating. Keyhole is a 3B G. Pine Creek is a 3B PG.

3. Determining whether a canyon received a 4 rating due to advanced rope work or difficult exposed climbing. Should be obvious in most cases using the S (slot designator). Of course there will be exceptions. Some beta includes a YDS rating for climbing moves.

4. Distinguishing between the low-volume Class C canyons in southern California (that Chris Brennen rated B in most cases) and the serious high-volume Class C canyons in Colorado and Washington. This can be accomplished with the C1-C4 ratings. Most of the Class C canyons in the San Gabriels will remain Class B or changed to C1.

[nonot]

Hi Rich,

I'm mostly a lurker, but I think that adding G, PG, etc is a good compromise. On another forum members are moaning there isn't much of a way to differentiate between the non R(risky) canyons: G, PG, R, X gives you more feel...but should there be something between PG and R...PG13?

If I may make a suggestion, put some more thought into your slot (S) system, and at least move the slot designator to the end.

Example: Is a S4BIIIPG a fourth grade of slot or a class 4 canyon? You need to make the system unambigous. I consider myself smarter than a fourth grader and can't figure out your slot examples from your explanation. S44BIIIPG??

Might I suggest a P (pothole) designation in addition to a slot? IE, what is the most difficult pothole escape: P0: no significant pothole problems, P1: tall people have a chance to get out solo, P2: partner assist necessary, P3=bring aid gear, etrier, and a couple of potshots, P4=bring all the potshots you've got/rope from god technique?


4BIIIPG,S is clearer than the example above
4BIIIPG,S4,P2 is also clear...I'm not sure I get what the rank of a slot is though

I think the pothole designation is better than a slot. So there's a slot...with exposure...and you stem over it and it's just how nervous you get when you're up there.

So there's the pothole in the description...I didn't know I had to bring my happy hooker the beta said it wasn't that difficult! uh oh, call SAR. If I see P3 in the rating I know at least what level of gear to bring.

[rcwild]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for providing your input. Just so you know ... everyone is on moderated status when they first register. Once you post something canyon related -- and not about cheap knock-off tennis shoes from China -- you are moved to unmoderated status.

Regarding your comments ...

1. You are probably right about the location of the S. I'm inclined to put it right before the G/PG/R/X. 3-B S R II

2. Important to separate the elements of each rating so they don't run together like your example. Should be: 3-B R IV, not 3BRIV ... 3-C2 X III, not 3C2XIII.

3. I don't agree with you about the pothole thing. Potholes are incredibly variable features. Consider Neon over the past couple years. Sometimes so full of sand, you can walk out of the potholes. Other times filled with over-your-head water. Personally, I think it is too variable to rate. Plus, the "normal" difficulty is included within the definition of 3 and 4.

4. A slot is a slot. Sure, conditions within the canyon can still vary from year to year, but it is still a slot. Purpose of including it is to give users an instant alert that there will be extremely tight sections.

5. With experience, I think it will become fairly obvious to users why a canyon gets a 4 or an R/X. If I see a canyon rated 4-C, I anticipate the 4 is there due to advanced rope work that will be required to deal with the water. If I see a canyon rated 4-A S, I anticipate the 4 is there due to anchor problems, pothole escapes or high stemming.

6. I think the most important thing for people to focus on is actually this ...

1 = Canyon Hiking
2 = Basic Canyoneering
3 = Intermediate Canyoneering
4 = Advanced/Expert Canyoneering

Before you decide to up the ante and tackle a 4, ask yourself ... are you REALLY an advanced/expert canyoneer with only a year or two experience?

[skirocaileen]

In climbing, the aid ratings of A1 - A5 starting get complex with many qualifiers and finally Jim Bridwell proposed the "Casual Rating System":
NBD - No Big Deal
NTD - Not Too Bad
PDH - Pretty Darn Hard
DFU - Don't Fxxx Up

Like many rating systems, it never caught on because one persons NBD is another persons PDH.

[JMH]

I too just started canyoneering this year and quickly discovered the difference between 3B and 3B. I will propose Subway as one example and the Squeeze Variation to East Bluejohn with the upclimb main Bluejohn exit.

The Bluejohn adventure was obviously quite a bit more difficult and intimidating, but only because of the SLOT factor going in and coming out. So I think this new system that mentions a SLOT rating will alert me to the difference. It's not too unwieldy.

Oh, and thanks Rich for helping Carla set up my Xmas present... looks like I need to come down for a clinic/class and a wetsuit fitting!:happy:

JMH

[Vallejo]

My newbie opinion is that while more specifc rating, more information you can get... At the end of the day, just the people who never had visited a determined canyon uses the rating for calculating how many equipment (and which kind of) would have to carry.

Have you thought about a color/shapes(or icons) rating? (NOT AS A NEW STANDARD but according to the current rating system) Imagine a knot icon and according its color means the level... I would be glad to help about those graphic stuff.

Greetings!

[gunghoeel]

Total noob here, but this is what I feel:

The newer classification system seems to provide a lot more detailed information than the current one. So, if we could start all over, yes it would be great to use the new system. However, I'm worried about the possible confusion if some groups use one system, while other groups/older guidebooks use the older system. The old system provides enough info that I'd rather use the old system, than have the confusion of two existing systems.

In response to the concern of noobs getting in way over their head because not all 3Bs are created equal: anyone who charges into a canyon only knowing it's rating (which is subjective by the way) is going to be in way over their head regardless of which rating system is used.

Only after reading a detailed guidebook or great sites like the Alpinets Beta or the dankat site with paragraphs and paragraphs of info (and pictures, and a topo) will someone get a good idea of what the canyon is like. A few letters and numbers in the rating system won't be enough.

I only use the current rating to say "hey, in GENERAL I can do a 3B or 4C or whatever" and then I do my research to know what and how much gear to bring and to prepare myself mentally.

So in conclusion, the new system won't replace proper preparation and I'm not convinced the new system provides enough additional information to risk the confusion of dual systems in use.

[rcwild]

This is now a fairly old thread. The new rating system has already been adopted:

http://www.canyoneering.net/content/index.php?categoryid=146

It works well, in part because it does not force existing beta peddlers to change their ratings. Class C is still Class C. Extensions (C1, C2, C3, C4) are optional. Probably not necessary to distinguish in someplace like Utah or southern California where virtually all Class C canyons are just C1. More important to use in areas like Colorado and Washington where Class C conditions are more diverse.

[A.J.]

Hey Rich,

Took a quick look at the page you referenced for the rating system. Is there still a slot rating? In the slot section, it gives S2 and S6 as examples, but there isn't an explanation of the slot ratings. (I remember there was talk about just using S to designate a slot, and then also to use S and a number rating for slot difficulty.) It looks like you went with the simple S to designate a slot (based on the examples below) but then the Slot designation paragraph needs to change (as there is no such thing as an S6 anymore...

Take care,
A.J.

[perfectoval]

It is too bad that the new rating system didn't incorporate a classification that let's people know whether canyons can be descended without bolts.

This would be akin to climbing's Aid rating system, such as A1-A5, or if it can go "clean" (ie, without any fixed gear) it is instead designated as C1-C5.

Sure would be a nice way to let people know if something *shouldn't* be bolted.

Conversely, if something is already bolted, you could put the "clean rating" designation in a bracket to give people something to shoot for, much like a mixed aid/free climbing rating.

Hopefully we'll see more development of this rating system.

[rcwild]

Took a quick look at the page you referenced for the rating system. Is there still a slot rating? In the slot section, it gives S2 and S6 as examples, but there isn't an explanation of the slot ratings.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention, A.J. Actually my bad for not going back over the text after the rating was finalized. There was a phase when people were discussing a rating system that ran 1 through 7 instead of 1 through 4. We also decided that putting the S in front of the terrain rating could lead to confusion.

I made the corrections. Take a look again.

[rcwild]

Hopefully we'll see more development of this rating system.

Unlikely there will be any additional changes over the next few years. One point brought up often during the discussions was that much information needs to be relegated to the description. Anchors are an example.