T-Wall Reorganization -- Your Opinion Wanted

I'm looking for climber opinions on whether and how to reorganize the Tennessee Wall section on this site.

Currently, T-Wall is divided into two sections: T-Wall North and T-Wall South. If you've ever climbed there, you know that this makes no sense at all; T-Wall is a south-facing crag, so its cliffline goes east-west rather than north-south. But that's the way it's been designated for years via the Dixie Cragger's Atlas, as well as on climbing websites like rockclimbing.com, and climbers are familiar with the north/south labelling. So when I started adding T-Wall routes here on Mountain Project, I just stuck with the "tradition," such as it was.

I never gave this much thought until Rob Robinson (one of the discovers of T-Wall) came out with his excellent new guidebook earlier this year. The Tennessee Wall: A Rock Climber's Guide lays out the cliffline in seven main divisions, bypassing any geographic labels altogether. Some of these divisions are further divided into subdivisions. As Rob readily acknowledges, the divisions are arbitrary and the names whimsical.

Poring eagerly through the new guidebook last spring, I wondered if it would make sense to reorganize the T-Wall section on Mountain Project to match the Robinson designations. I got busy with other stuff and forgot about it until some recent comments on the T-Wall page brought the issue up again. So I decided I need to give reorganizaton some serious thought and see what other T-Wall climbers think.

Here are some alternative approaches:

1. Leave things as they are (T-Wall North and T-Wall South).

• Pros: familiarity -- everybody already knows it that way, even if it's wrong.
• Cons: geographically incorrect; contrary to the naming convention of the person who established T-Wall as one of the south's premier climbing destinations.

2. Completely overhaul the T-Wall section according to the Rob Robinson divisions.

• Pros: conforms to the layout of the new guidebook; eliminates geographic inaccuracy.
• Cons: arbitrary division of what is essentially a continuous cliffline; potential for user confusion (most climbers aren't familiar with the Robinson naming convention); added complexity of navigation in the T-Wall section.

3. Rename the existing two sections to reflect the actual geography of the cliff (T-Wall East and West instead of T-Wall North and South).

• Pros: intuitive; conforms to the way most climbers approach the cliff by the main trail.
• Cons: ignores the FA's naming convention; some potential for confusion of users accustomed to the north/south naming convention.

My feeling is that the second option is the least desirable. Chopping up the T-Wall section on Mountain Project into unfamilar sub-areas will make it much harder for people to figure out where things are (how many of you have any idea where Valhalla Wall is or what routes are there?), and it will add more mouse clicks to find the desired route by trial and error.

The third option (T-Wall East and West) seems most sensible to me, at least as an interim step. Route descriptions could be modified to make reference to the Robinson divisions. For example: "Golden Locks is located in the Middle Blossom area, about 35' right of Razor Worm." And navigating between just a couple of sections is a lot more convenient than navigating among seven would be.

So -- what do you think? Do you like one of the alternatives I've listed, or do you have any other ideas on how/whether to reorganize T-Wall here? I'll review the responses and make a decision after I get back from my Gunks trip.

Thanks.

John Liles
Adminstrator, TN

My votes in order of preference would be: 1, 2, and then 3. I think option 3, while a good idea in theory, would simply add more confusion. You'd be introducing a 3rd naming convention to a well established cliff which would potentially confuse users of the Dixie Craggers AND Rob's new guide. In my mind I think of the walls as T-Wall Right and T-Wall Left, should we add a fourth (completely logical) naming convention?

I'd be in favor of adding some verbiage describing Rob's layout of the cliff and comments in individual route descriptions (this is in Lost Blossom in the RR guide, etc) but try to keep drilling down steps to a minimum.

Thanks for the work on the section.

I like the right and left idea a lot. That's kind of a big undertaking. If you did break it up, it would be really great to have a topo page at the beginning to sort out the divisions you make.

could you just add in parenthesis left/right or (east/west) after the north/ south? this would be the best of both worlds in my opinion. having it divided up in the way Rob Robinson did would make it harder to find routes if you're just browsing or unfamiliar with the area in my opinion.

If you do change it you should definitely add a topo to the page to prevent any confusion, although the East West or Right Left thing seems pretty intuitive to me....facing the cliff you have a left side and right side or a W side E side.

This instance just reinforces the fact that all "text-only" guidebooks (online or otherwise) are extremely confusing to new users. Any of the proposed options would be infinitely better if there were simply an overview map that described the cliff layout. Then it would be clear where the Valhalla wall is and what routes were there.

I also find the alphabetical organization of routes to be nearly useless if you're new to an area. The Gunks page is the worst, IMO, but T Wall is close behind. It is impossible to visualize the layout of the cliff when there is no overview map and the routes are listed alphabetically. I assume there is some code-based reason the crags are organized this way, so my complaints are pointless, but nevertheless, routes should be listed in geographical order, and/or they should be shown on a locator map...as they would in a paper guidebook. When I browse a new area on MP, I like to click on crags and be able to figure out what routes are in the vicinity of each other to plan the days' climbing. Right now there are over 100 routes listed under "T-Wall North", which doesn't give you a feel for the cliff layout at all.

For the record, I would prefer option 5: Break the Wall up into 5 or so geographically named areas: T-Wall Left (left), T-Wall Left (right), T-Wall Right (left), T-Wall Right (center), T-Wall Right (right). This would break up the 174 existing routes in the database into manageable "crags", while making it clear where each wall is located. If you want, you could make the divisions correspond to Rob Rob's crag definitions from the new guide.

Good luck, and thanks for taking this on.

I made my first trip to T-Wall this year. I used MP as my only resource and had no problems at all finding my way around. I would leave it as is and at most take Reece's idea of just adding the true directions in parenthesis. If Rob Robinson has an opinion on the matter then ignore everything above and deffer to him....

Also, if possible, it would be easier to find routes if they were listed sequentially instead of alphabetically. When I'm thinking of a route and don't remember the name, it's hard to find without just guessing possibilities. This could be confusing if there is another approach trail (I'm not aware of one though)

Sorry, off topic, anyone know fall hunting closure dates?

eparker-s wrote:Sorry, off topic, anyone know fall hunting closure dates?

Go to the 2nd page of southern and they're on there

It would be most helpful and correct if you used option #2, or slightly a simplified variation. It would reduce confusion if the organization of the site were based on the familiar names of the different areas at the crag--Cibola, Paradise, The Wasteland, Orange Blossom, Lost Blossom, etc. Breaking the site into every single wall might be too complex and overkill, but dividing it into the major areas would be ideal. Please consider the following breakdown or a variation: Cibola, Paradise to Valhalla, The Wasteland, The Orange Blossom Walls, East and Lost Blossom Walls.

Please do NOT use option #1, since there is no North or South section at The T-Wall. The cliff is south-facing and runs almost perfectly West to East (left to right) as you are facing the Wall. Most people are accustomed to Paradise, The Wasteland and Orange Blossom, NOT "North" and "South".

Option #3, dividing into "West" and "East", would be an improvement; however, the cliff-line is way too long to simply be divided into two enormous sections.

Please at least break the cliff up into major sections that relate to the names of the different sections of the cliff: Cibola, Paradise, The Wasteland, The Orange Blossom Walls, etc.

Consider:

Paradise and beyond (Left/West)
The Wasteland (Middle)
The Orange Blossom Walls (Right/East)

Then in the description list the different walls in each section.

Kirk's suggestion makes sense to me, I'd also be fine with option 2 of matching it exactly to Rob's guide (which is excellent).

Now we just need a trail day to work on the cibola trail. Went up there last Saturday and had a hard time staying on the trail (finding the start and parking was easy with Rob's guide though). Up at the wall itself we crawled through some seriously thorny underbrush to get between some of the sections.

There's some really great stuff on that side of the cliff, but I won't be going back until later in winter with boots, jeans, and a machete.

TS, yeah we definitely ended up too far right. We lost the trail pretty early (NOTE: I'm not a good trail finder). We passed a few trees with pink tape and one stack of rocks, but then lost it and ended up thrashing up to the wall just left of Schrodinger. At that point we managed to thrash all the way over to Little Steps (not a recommended path without machete and thick clothes). We did that (with an alternate finish since there is a big dead tree blocking the end right now), then worked back and did Big Orange Country, Schrodinger (great route, HUGE spiders), then Mass Transit.

We also found that trying to find the real end of the cibola trail from the Mass Transit corner was not easy. Along the cliffline runs into a 20 foot 4th class cliff (was not passable for my 2 dogs) and we ended up on the wrong side of the ridge to find the trail after we tried to get around that.

All in all though, it was a fun day of thrashing in the woods. I'd never ventured to the other side of twall so it was fun to see a less beaten down version. Once more traffic heads that way, some really fun routes will clean up nicely.

P.S. For what it's worth, there appear to be 2 new bolts on Rob's 12a onsight route a couple left of Mass Transit. I could be misidentifying the line, they might be there correctly, or they might be retros. I don't really know and it's out of my league anyway, but figured I'd throw it out there. Really, I have no interest in starting a bolt war, I could easily just have no idea what I'm talking about.

heard they had run out of vertical retro-bolts - - now they are shooting them in horizontally, trying to link up the entire cliff.

It sounds like Kirk has a good simple way to break the cliff up into "workable" sections that would keep it true to the natural cliff line and development of it.

All this talk of T-Wall is making me antsy...

#2

JSH wrote: Suggestions welcome!

I suggest the same thing I suggested here. Do something like: Trapps Left, Trapps Center, Trapps Right. You could use the other names as well, but if you do I suggest using a geographical description in paranthesis. I.e. "McCarthy Wall and environs (Trapps Center)" or something to that effect.

Mike Anderson wrote: I suggest the same thing I suggested here. Do something like: Trapps Left, Trapps Center, Trapps Right. You could use the other names as well, but if you do I suggest using a geographical description in paranthesis. I.e. "McCarthy Wall and environs (Trapps Center)" or something to that effect.

To get any utility out of sub-divisions they need to be much smaller than that. They need to be small enough that they include only the routes you would want to walk to without packing up all your $hit and shouldering your pack. So maybe 40-50 routes tops in areas of high route density (less in other areas). Otherwise the sub-areas just make it harder to find a specific route in the database without providing any benefit.

And I think rather than wordy area names, we should just force the areas to be in geographical order from L to R, by putting numbers in front of the name. For example, the areas titles could be:

"(1) Uberfall & Vicinity"
"(2) Easy O & Vicinity"
"(3) Mac Wall"
"(4) Madame G's & Vicinity"
"(5) Arrow Wall"
"(6) High E Buttress & Vicinity"
"(7) Yellow Wall Area"
"(8) Slime Wall & Vicinity"
"(9) Restless Virgins Area"

By using numbers, the areas will be listed in whatever order you dictate (geographical) rather than alphabetical. Another big help would be to describe the organizational method on the main Trapps page, perhaps using a map or picture with all of the areas shown.

The main challenge would be deciding where to draw the lines between areas. This would be difficult and would draw endless critiscism.

Rod Thomas wrote:For crying out loud why don't we rename the routes in alphabetical order from left to right (left is the hand that makes an "L" when you hold your hands up in front of you with the thumbs pointing together). So what if that means changing names of classic routes, it seems that some are already content to change their grades. Why worry about these cute little mini-cliff names anyway. Oh you want to climb Dirt Bag? It's the big honkin' crack between Prerequisite for Excellence and Finagle, don't know these routes, then it's between Sanscrit and Points of Contact, or Shiva's Last Dance and Finger Lockin' Good. Need I go on? I'm not intending to come off hostile or trying to attack anyone. I just want to bring a voice of reason to quit arguing a pointless thread and GO CLIMB! Unless this is what you consider climbing then carry-on! -Rod Thomas Chattanooga Local who thinks that yep the compass is correct and the cliffline is not North or South but has never found himself hopelessly befuddled looking for a sign that says "Right Orange Blossom Wall". The basic descriptions that have been in place since the 90's seems to work fine.

With all due respect, locals are not usually the best at evaluating a guide to their local crag. It's probably hard for you to remember what it was like to visit T-Wall for the first time, and it's possible your first trip was with a more experienced climber. How about this, since you are so much smarter than the rest of us, why don't you go to this page in the online guide and tell us which two routes are on either side of "The French Are Here" at Cactus Cliff.

Mike Anderson wrote: With all due respect, locals are not usually the best at evaluating a guide to their local crag. It's probably hard for you to remember what it was like to visit T-Wall for the first time, and it's possible your first trip was with a more experienced climber. How about this, since you are so much smarter than the rest of us, why don't you go to this page in the online guide and tell us which two routes are on either side of "The French Are Here" at Cactus Cliff.

I agree. If you know the crag so well, you're not going to be the ones on here looking up routes and if you are, you should be able to distinguish where everything is no matter the layout of the page.. i do think that the page should stay simplistic unless the man himself wants it his way. when i'm looking at a new area, i hate having to navigate between different subcategories that have only a handful of routes in them. It is much easier in my opinion to look at the routes as a whole and go from there