Hi,

As a re-try from a previous post, I was wondering if there are websites that list out trails based on class, or even grade. I climbed Katahdin last month, which had a trail that started as a Class II and became a Class III. (I feel like I've graduated from Class I which is great.)

Anyway, I'd like to use the "Class" and "Grade" ratings to help me find climbs that are right for me.

Thanks!

A bit of info and a short list http://www.jagged-globe.co.uk/exp/grading.html.

Warning: the above link is to a commercial site.

As mentioned in the accidentally-deleted thread, there's a lot of potential confusion with terminology. You shouldn't ever use the word "class" (nor "grade") without mentioning which definition you're using - i.e., which rating system you're talking about.

In the YDS rating system, "class" refers to technical difficulty. The very hardest move determines the difficulty of the entire route. The length of the route does not affect the Class rating, nor does the degree of danger: climbing a small boulder on the ground gets the same rating as climbing a similarly difficult boulder on the edge of a cliff. [In practice, these rules tend to get bent a little, but never mind.] YDS Class ratings should be written in Arabic numerals, because Roman numerals are used in the YDS system [edit: I meant the NCCS system, the one usually used together with the YDS system] for Grade, which (in the YDS system [edit: oops again]) reflects the length and "commitment" (whether it's possible to get down if you choose to) of the route.

From hints above and in your previous post, I'm sure you're talking about the YDS Class rating.

The YDS class rating is mostly used for technical climbing (class 5), and there are varying interpretations of the boundaries between the lower classes, but the following should be fairly uncontroversial: typical hiking trails in the mountains of New England are YDS class 2, a few reach class 3. (The Cathedral trail on Katahdin and the Chimney section of the Knife Edge on Katahdin are class 3; you could argue about the "iron rung" section of the Hunt trail on Katahdin.)

As mentioned in the defunct thread, you can search Routes on Summitpost by class rating, but beware: if you're looking at routes outside the US, "class" probably refers to the UIAA rating system and means something rather different.

Summitpost routes also have a "Route Type" field, try searching for "Scrambling".

PS this thread may be right up your alley: Hardest Trails in the Northeast

Natreb said in his post above

"YDS Class ratings should be written in Arabic numerals, because Roman numerals are used in the YDS system for Grade, which (in the YDS system) reflects the length and "commitment" (whether it's possible to get down if you choose to) of the route".

Natreb, YDS Grade system does not reflect commitment at all, except as related to length of time the outing takes.

Specifically, the original YDS system does not take into consideration the approach and descent AT ALL...It has always been understood that Sierra routes and any YDS rated peaks or routes(even before Roper and now Secor) reflect the TECHNICAL climbing only and not approach and descent. Look at it this way, Gannet Peak from Elkhart Park would have to be GRADE VI if you went about it that way, Castle Rock Spire, Grade VI as well. Countless peaks and routes have long approaches and devious descents, but those are not counted in the Grade number.

It is imperative that people who rate climbs and routes in the YDS system, spell the approach and descent. It was understood by the old-timers who invented this system that these two components would be verbalised but approaches and descents are the achilles heal of our activity to this day. Too bad...

I should also mention, that there is really no specific rating/grading system for non-technical outings in the mountains. That is a problem and places like SP should collectively try to work on a fix. Neither the YDS Grade or Rate fits into hiking and scrambling well, nor are these inclusive of all issues that fit non-technical (sub class 4) outings. None of the other North American systems fit either. Comments,corrections?

For the meaning of "grade", I'm relying on my memory of FOTH; there aren't a lot of routes around here beyond grade I or II. It's possible I'm muddling in the commitment (in french: "engagement") rating from the French two-rating system (not the same as the famous IFAS (French Adjective) system of "Facile - Peu Difficile" etc (based on the adjectival part of the old Welzenbach system), nor the French rock rating system). On the other hand, the Grade in YDS is often called the "commitment grade". Anyway, your main point bears repeating for the likes of Lester: ratings reflect the "route", which generally does not include approach or descent.

Edit: I am now holding the 7th Edition in my hand. It starts by describing the NCCS "grade" rating system, which seems to be the one I've assumed was part of YDS. Next it describes YDS proper (the "class" rating described in this thread), and its optional "protection" rating (G, PG, R, X). There's a brief discussion of aid ratings ("A" system), and a couple of bouldering rating systems (mostly the well known Sherman V-scale). Next it describes ice climbing, beginning with an unnamed "commitment rating" (which is analogous to the NCCS system but goes to VII) and then an unnamed "technical rating" ("WI" system); together the latter two seem to be what I know as the "French two-rating system". Next it covers New England Ice (NEI) and Modern Mixed (M), and then mentions Australian, Brazilian, British, French rock (numeric), UIAA (roman numerals), and finally the IFAS (french alpine) system. Oddly, no mention of Alaskan, Russian, or Scottish systems.

The NCCS grade rating is said in FOTH to balance "length of climb, number of hard pitches, difficulty of hardest pitch, average pitch difficulty, commitment, routefinding problems, and ascent time." Of course, most of those so-called factors are interdependent.

Neither system.

European system is vastly superior

Grade of Climb, Highest Class rock, Ice Highest rating, + Distance of climb.

All other systems are inadequate. There are many climbs that technically aren't all that hard, but have extreme exposure and length of route making them vastly more dangerous/appealing/scenic than a WI4, 5.10, 100-200m route.

Asmrz, care to start a separate thread to discuss a possible hiking trail rating system?

I wonder if mountain bikers on SP can comment on whether bike trail rating systems are any good - the terrain is usually similar.

Personally, all I need to know on a hike (on a marked trail) are length and elevation gain, and whether it's above treeline. A fall-exposure rating might be useful for non-climbers. For a scramble a YDS class rating is sufficient for me. Maybe add a loose-rock rating? That's not in any climbing rating system I can think of !

The Swiss Alpine Club has a difficulty rating scale for trails – it is used to describe the difficulty of trails used to access huts and is published in the SAC Hut book. This is a copy of their English descriptions – I suspect that it reads better in German:

(B) or (P) = Mountain walker
Paths are followed. Exposed places are equipped with railings. In steep areas the path is well defined. The route goes over not too steep meadows with visible tracks. Good boots are recommended. (My note - by "railings" they mean a fixed line or cable attached to the rock on the uphill side of the trail. This is very common on many hut approach trails. Don't think of a classic bannister type railing.)

(EB) or (PE) = Experienced mountain walker
Route with or without tracks. Exposed places are not equipped with railings. One has to be able to orientate himself and to judge the lie of the land. Sure footedness and freedom from giddiness are essential. A slip could lead to a fatal fall. When necessary one should rope-up. The hands are only used to keep in balance. One should be able to cross snow-filled couloirs. Good mountaineering boots are absolutely essential.

(BG) or (RE) = Mountaineers
Steep grass which is partly interspersed with rocks. Generally tricky, where the use of the hands is necessary. Hand and foot holds consist of clumps of grass and friable rock; one must be capable of judging their solidity. A fall can often not be arrested. Knowledge of rope handling and belaying necessary. Isolated passages in rock can offer difficulties of grades I to II. An ice axe is necessary for belaying.

Natreb

There are thousands of hikers and scramblers on this web site. I know a bit about technical climbing and the issues I try to talk about are those I can hold a conversation in, so to speak. I don't know much about the issues affecting the huge community of hikers and peak baggers here on SP. More knowledgable people should chime in...

P.S. What Fred just posted is a good start. Several issues come to mind. Length of outing, elevation gain, on/off trail, time of year, summit is what elevation, difficulty rating of scrambling if any, snow?, crampons/ice axe, average party time, need compass/map? The problem is many issues can be relevant for those who absolutely need that info to have a safe trip. It almost touches on what is the basic experience one needs to have to move safely in the mountains...

nartreb wrote:Asmrz, care to start a separate thread to discuss a possible hiking trail rating system?

I wonder if mountain bikers on SP can comment on whether bike trail rating systems are any good - the terrain is usually similar.

Personally, all I need to know on a hike (on a marked trail) are length and elevation gain, and whether it's above treeline. A fall-exposure rating might be useful for non-climbers. For a scramble a YDS class rating is sufficient for me. Maybe add a loose-rock rating? That's not in any climbing rating system I can think of !

Seems to me that for hikes a description is worth a thousand rating systems.

Seems to me that for hikes a description is worth a thousand rating systems.

+1.

Class 1, 2 and 3 is descriptive enough. You also look at length and elevation gain and take in account things like bushwhacking, river crossings etc. It doesn't seem to need a rating system other than the classes and mentioning special obstacles (such as bushwhacking, etc.).

Fred, where did you find that SAC system? Their website says they use a six-point numeric scale for trails (though they only use three levels of blazing):

http://www.sac-cas.ch/fr/en-route/echel ... ultes.html

[I was trying to find out what B, G, and P and R stand for in German and French respectively... wild guess Promenade, Promenade Exigeante, Randonnee Exigeante?? ]

http://www.sac-cas.ch/fr/nc/en-route/ec ... h=5ff34771

1: (yellow blaze): well-marked, visible, very safe trail, with chains or railings if needed

2 and 3: (white and red): steeper, possible exposure, possible loose terrain, treadway not always obvious

4 to 6: (white and blue): treadway intermittent to absent, from grassy slopes to glaciers and UIAA grade II rock climbing. From "stiff hiking shoes recommended" to "familiarity with use of technical alpine gear". Note that T6 "trails" are usually not blazed at all.

Fred, where did you find that SAC system?

SAC guide to huts: Clubhütten published by the SAC in 1987.

It sounds like the same system with slightly different descriptions of the difficulty.

The French and German for the B, P, etc are:

B: Bergwanderer EB: Erfhrener Bergwanderer BG Bergänger

P: piéton PE: piéton expérimenté RE: randonneur expérimenté

Here's a list for the Andes: http://www.andes.org.uk/andes-information-files/6000m-peaks.asp.