Route “Risk Factors”

[polar]

Bill modeled the risk factors based on the avalanche danger rating of low/moderate/considerable/high/extreme used by CAIC, because that is a scale that many people are already familiar with. He initially also tried to use the same color scheme used by CAIC, but yellow text doesn't show up very well on a white background, and black text just blends in with the rest of the route description. So instead he used the color scheme that is already in place for the class rating.

[LURE]

I think considersable as an adjective overstates the level of exposure/rockfall/commitment etc, that would be associated with a route that falls between moderate and high.

When I think of a route that has considerable rockfall potential I think of something like the hourglass, not the west ridge of Evans. Again that may just be me though, it’s subjective interpretation of he word, not the route.

[LURE]

Bill modeled the risk factors based on the avalanche danger rating of low/moderate/considerable/high/extreme used by CAIC, because that is a scale that many people are already familiar with. He initially also tried to use the same color scheme used by CAIC, but yellow text doesn't show up very well on a white background, and black text just blends in with the rest of the route description. So instead he used the color scheme that is already in place for the class rating.

That makes sense. Maybe I just need to get used it.

[nunns]

I think considersable as an adjective overstates the level of exposure/rockfall/commitment etc, that would be associated with a route that falls between moderate and high.

When I think of a route that has considerable rockfall potential I think of something like the hourglass, not the west ridge of Evans. Again that may just be me though, it’s subjective interpretation of he word, not the route.

I can see that. Bill rates all 4 aspects of the standard route on Castle as "considerable". I did not find anything on that route difficult except:
1. dealing with the boredom of the first 5 miles on a crappy rocky "road", and
2. dealing with the rottenness of the rock.

Sean Nunn

[BillMiddlebrook]

I can see how the word "considerable" may seen like overkill without being in the context of all 5 factors shown together. The word ratings will take some getting used to but after working with them for a couple of weeks on the site and changing the mobile app, etc. I think they are much better at drawing attention compared to a 1-5 scale icon, like I previously used for exposure.


LURE, I used the "considerable" rating on Evans' west ridge route from Guanella Pass because of rockfall in Gomer Gully and the willow-bashing. Coming from Summit or Echo Lakes, I used "moderate."

[nunns]

I can see how the word "considerable" may seen like overkill without being in the context of all 5 factors shown together. The word ratings will take some getting used to but after working with them for a couple of weeks on the site and changing the mobile app, etc. I think they are much better at drawing attention compared to a 1-5 scale icon, like I previously used for exposure.


LURE, I used the "considerable" rating on Evans' west ridge route from Guanella Pass because of rockfall in Gomer Gully and the willow-bashing. Coming from Summit or Echo Lakes, I used "moderate."

Now that I understand the continuum, "considerable" makes sense. I agree that descriptive adjectives are better than a 1-4 scale; some people just don't have the abstract thinking ability to imagine what 3 on a scale of 1-4 means. Plus, IMO it is better to have a healthy "fear" of a climb, get to the climb, and realize it isn't as bad as you thought it was going to be, than vice-versa. No one ever died because they overestimated the difficulty of a climb.

Sean Nunn

[peterkfes]

Bill, thank you very much for this added layer of information. It's exactly where I find myself with a handful of class 3's under my belt...this new level of guidance will help me rank those that remain. It will help manage my skill set toggle switch; which peaks should/shouldn't be on my to do list. Thanks again.

[disentangled]

you're awesome, Bill. i find this new format and all the information to be exceptionally helpful.

[LURE]

LURE, I used the "considerable" rating on Evans' west ridge route from Guanella Pass because of rockfall in Gomer Gully and the willow-bashing. Coming from Summit or Echo Lakes, I used "moderate."

I don't disagree there. Just my admittedly knee jerk reaction to the word considerable made me think it was overkill. Before I went and read the risk factor description page my initial thought was considerable was a special rating beyond extreme, based off the color and the nature of the word. It is appropriate. Just an additional word, along the continuum, like you and Sean stated, to get used to.

Makes more sense to me now. Thanks again though, Bill, I do really like the changes.

[Rollie Free]

Can someone educate me better on 'commitment' risk ? Not sure what that is entailing.

[WishIWasInTheMts]

Can someone educate me better on 'commitment' risk ? Not sure what that is entailing.

Its my understanding this means it is very difficult to bail if the weather turns sour or if things go wrong. For instance, if you are half way up Capitol's NE Ridge ("Extreme" commitment rating) it takes a long time to escape to easier terrain if a storm rolls in due to both technical terrain and overall distance. Once you reach a certain point on the ridge, you are "committed". Same goes with South Maroon. It takes a long time to get to lower terrain once you gain the higher points on the peak in addition to the overall distance, it also requires some careful movement, making it even slower going. You can bail pretty easily and quickly off Mt. Elbert's Northeast Ridge, for instance, making it a Low on the scale

[Buckie06]

Should Avalanche terrain be added as one of the risk factors? ie. this route crosses avy terrain, this route is below avy terrain, this route has no avys