Route “Risk Factors”

[BillMiddlebrook]

After discussion in this thread, I completed a set of 4 risk factors which will expand upon the difficulty of individual routes. I’ve tried to display the risk factors in a simple manner but also in-your-face on the route descriptions.

You’ll see the new info on the following pages:
1) The route list for a given peak/group. Here the risk factors can be expanded but the default is to keep the page simple. On a small mobile device you may not see the risk factors - try rotating to landscape. They will display on larger screens.
2) Route descriptions
3) Printed route descriptions
4) The route selection page

I still have to tweak the risk rating text on the help page.

Hope this helps

[glenmiz]

Bill, I started looking through and looks like a good step to segregating risks that people perceive differently. Thanks for never letting things get static or ignoring good ideas from the users.

Glen

[RyGuy]

Looks great, Bill!

Thank you!

-Ryan

[Stratosfearsome]

Good idea, Bill! Quite a useful route-planning feature.

[Jay521]

Ditto - I really like this feature.

[desertdog]

Thank you for the work on these features. They add a lot, especially for folks just starting out climbing. Glad you moved to word rankings on the esposure as I think some people had confused it with the climbing class rankings. Great stuff!

[justiner]

I like it - it's the right amount of granularity: I wanna know in a glance what I'm getting into, and it's one of the first things you see in the route description. Does the job.

[nunns]

Really good stuff Bill. I can imagine this will help prevent some people from getting in over their heads.

Sean Nunn

[LURE]

I like it a lot.

This might just be me, but my initial reaction to the word "considerable" in pink was similar to that of extreme, at first I thought it was a different rating that went beyond extreme. I know that's not what it means, and the risk factors explanations clear that up, but to me it gave off that vibe of something like "this route has CONSIDERABLE rockfall danger, beware!" And we all know that's not really the case with say, the west ridge of evans.

[nunns]

I like it a lot.

This might just be me, but my initial reaction to the word "considerable" in pink was similar to that of extreme, at first I thought it was a different rating that went beyond extreme. I know that's not what it means, and the risk factors explanations clear that up, but to me it gave off that vibe of something like "this route has CONSIDERABLE rockfall danger, beware!" And we all know that's not really the case with say, the west ridge of evans.

I think the words "considerable" and "extreme" will serve as warnings for people who have little to no experience with harder routes. For those who climb a lot, we recognize that both terms are subjective. My guess is that none of these designations is set in stone. Personally I think it's amazing that Bill was able to get all of these hazard ratings integrated into the 14ers website almost overnight. I am guessing he would be willing to modify them should consensus dictate a different rating.

Sean Nunn

[LURE]

I think the words "considerable" and "extreme" will serve as warnings for people who have little to no experience with harder routes. For those who climb a lot, we recognize that both terms are subjective. My guess is that none of these designations is set in stone. Personally I think it's amazing that Bill was able to get all of these hazard ratings integrated into the 14ers website almost overnight. I am guessing he would be willing to modify them should consensus dictate a different rating.

Sean Nunn

Absolutely. And yes thank you Bill, it is very well done.

I only think considerable is a misleading word for a rating that falls between moderate and high. That might just be me though!

[nunns]

Lure,

I am confused (not that unusual). Do you think the word "considerable" understates or overstates the dangers of rockfall and exposure?

Sean Nunn