Responsibility of route setters in the modern sport climbing age?

Mark E Dixon wrote: Peter has put in a lot of really good routes. Suggesting that developers who are using a public resource ought to put in good routes seems pretty reasonable to me.

If he is actually out there developing then my apologies, but that doesn't change what I believe to be true. The climber is completely responsible for their own safety and anything that short circuits that is opening the door to injury, death and possible legal action. All sport climbs are not safe and a climber can be severely injured on any sport climb.

Peter would serve the community better to say "he" tries to put up safe, clean climbs without trying to create a standard that shifts responsibility.

For the record. Other than the "responsibility" part I mostly agree with Peter. I have gone back and added bolts to some of my early climbs because they were put up in a different time with different ethics. These days I mostly rap bolt and I try to put up safe climbs. But like I said upstream, no climb is truly safe and anyone that believes they are is setting themselves up for an accident.

It's true that I have no idea what climbing is really about but back to the main point.What responsibility does a route developer have in terms of fixed gear?

"You decide what route to climb and you damn well better be prepared to back off if it's too dirty, too hard or too scary for you."

I'm not seeing anything about backing off because the bolts suck and that's hardly surprising because if the anchors are no good, backing off becomes very dangerous in its own right. That doesn't sound like sport climbing; that's trad climbing.

In other words if you choose to install a route on public land, you should use accepted high-quality materials and methods or let someone else do it. That doesn't mean you are personally liable for the consequences of climber error or even bolt failure. It means that you have taken reasonable measures to install a safe route according to generally accepted practice. If you put up a lousy dangerous route, you are still not liable but you shouldn't be surprised if the route is removed and updated, again according to generally accepted practice.

Note that I didn't claim that it is impossible for climbers to be injured on said routes, only that the route conformed to a community consensus, often established through a governing board or committee set up by a land management agency, on acceptable numbers and quality of placements. If a climber doesn't think that works, he or she can choose another route or even petition to have it updated.

In my view that is the future path for sport climbing areas.

I went and climbed the route that started this whole thing. I think it is bolted fine. I brought a cam it really isn't needed. It is 5.4 climbing to get to the bolt on a 5.8. should be no problem where it is placed. If it was lower you would hit a ledge if you fell above it.

The responsibilitys of a new route developer are.
1. use good quality stainless steel bolts.
2. Place them properly. RTFM Read the effin directions on the box!!!
3. No squeeze jobs.
4. No messing up other peoples climbs.
5. Never sandbag the protection rateing. sandbag the grade if you really need to stroke your ego but Never sandbag the protection rateing.

Thats the basics. As for the finer art of putting up good climbs that don't have stupid ledge fall and shitty clips that's a whole nother story. Not required to make good routes but its certainly desireable.

Climbers responsibility is to Not Fuck Up And Die. That means You need to figuer out on your own if you can do a climb or not. You need to bail before you get stuck if you can not do it. That is 100% on the climber. If the climb is mixed instead of sport it is the climbers responsibility to figuer that out. If it looks too far for YOU to get to the next gear without getting hurt it is YOUR responsibility to NOT FUCK UP AND DIE.

Magpie79 wrote:So what duty does the route setter have to the climbing community?

None. "route setter" is a term we use in the gym. Climb at your own risk and don't impose your rules on my climbing areas ever.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:The responsibilitys of a new route developer are. 1. use good quality stainless steel bolts. 2. Place them properly. RTFM Read the effin directions on the box!!! 3. No squeeze jobs. 4. No messing up other peoples climbs. 5. Never sandbag the protection rateing. sandbag the grade if you really need to stroke your ego but Never sandbag the protection rateing. Thats the basics. As for the finer art of putting up good climbs that don't have stupid ledge fall and shitty clips that's a whole nother story. Not required to make good routes but its certainly desireable. Climbers responsibility is to Not Fuck Up And Die. That means You need to figuer out on your own if you can do a climb or not. You need to bail before you get stuck if you can not do it. That is 100% on the climber. If the climb is mixed instead of sport it is the climbers responsibility to figuer that out. If it looks too far for YOU to get to the next gear without getting hurt it is YOUR responsibility to NOT FUCK UP AND DIE.

Nick

I don't disagree with anything you said except for the the "responsibility" bit. It is certainly good practice to do all those things but the moment the developer responsibility notion gets out there a lawsuit is sure to follow.

"it is YOUR responsibility to NOT FUCK UP AND DIE". This includes evaluating the climb before you get up into dangerous territory.

GDavis wrote: None. "route setter" is a term we use in the gym. Climb at your own risk and don't impose your rules on my climbing areas ever.

Can you explain what you mean by "my climbing area"?

I'd estimate that well over 95% of the climbing areas most of us visit are public lands owned by all of us. Who has the right to say what happens on that land?

Peter

We have a fundamental disagreement. Not in how to technically put up a climb but how one characterizes that effort. The problem stems from your belief that there is a handbook for this. How much runout is too much? What type of bolt to use? How much cleaning should be done? These are all decided by the FA team. We make choices that some people disagree with. As an example, (once we stopped using 1/4 inch button heads) we would use plated steel bolts and stainless hangers. I've seen a lot of noise on climbing sites about this being a no-no. Yet when I pulled some of them 25 years later there was absolutely no corrosion and I would have taken fall after fall on any one of them.

"I'm not seeing anything about backing off because the bolts suck and that's hardly surprising because if the anchors are no good, backing off becomes very dangerous in its own right. That doesn't sound like sport climbing; that's trad climbing".

I guess maybe I just don't get this. I have backed off climbs after running into a crappy bolt I was unwilling to climb above. I certainly wouldn't continue to climb past bad bolts all the way to an anchor. It is your choice to continue past bad fixed gear or to go for it if the runout is more than you are comfortable with.

"If you put up a lousy dangerous route, you are still not liable but you shouldn't be surprised if the route is removed and updated, again according to generally accepted practice".

I'm not sure of that and you can't be either given the way liability works. But let's get back to the basic idea of "responsibility". If you change that to "good practice" we are on the same page.

Brad

Edited for clarity

John Wilder wrote: Peter- you seem to be used to the mindset and community ethic in the Front Range- which is unfortunately not a good example of what is the norm in most places for route development. Eldo and the Flat Irons are the only areas on public land I can think of where route development is actually governed and guidelines are enforced. There are others on private land- Muir Valley and the Gunks come to mind. I'm sure there are a handful of other places (maybe Arches?) where there are strict guidelines on Public Lands. Everywhere else, though- there are no standards, no guidelines, and there is no responsibility for the route developer to do anything in particular. It is fully climb at your own risk on whatever hardware the developer felt like using. There is a difference between *should* and *have to*- and most of us are coming at this from the what does a developer *have to* do perspective.

I think there are probably a few more than that and the efforts of the ASCA make it more and more likely that "should" will turn to "have to" as people realize the effort and cost it takes to retrofit old sport routes. IMO it's just a matter of time before this approach is standard at major climbing areas.

climbing friend,

perhaps you may wang-slap through tubes of internet anyone who does not develop a route according to your personal likings?

Parker Wrozek wrote:I went and climbed the route that started this whole thing. I think it is bolted fine. I brought a cam it really isn't needed. It is 5.4 climbing to get to the bolt on a 5.8. should be no problem where it is placed. If it was lower you would hit a ledge if you fell above it.

Best post in this whole thread.

I went to some recently bolted sport routes this weekend, the moderate routes were all well bolted. The easy 9 and below routes all had first bolts a whopping one or two moves off the ground, honestly lower then my gym. The second bolts were at normal spacing, you'd be looking at a ground fall if you blew it.

I think putting bolts that low (whether it's the base of the route or ledge fall potential mid route) is really a bad idea on easier routes. When a newer leader clips a bolt most of the time they will think they are now "safe", not having much experience yet with lead falls most don't realize how far they will go. It's better to have them in a "no fall zone" frame of mind. I think that makes for a safer route than over bolting.

sport routs the 1st bolt should be a stick clip. if it's lower than that the bolts is usless as tit's on a boar hog. Low first bolt only protects a single move if that and then you are completly screwed if you blow the 2nd clip.

I happened to climb this route over the weekend with no information (as I had the guidebook but didn't happen to look on here). From the ground it looks like it is consistently bolted with the other routes at the crag, with probably the first 8 or so bolts visible from the ground. The runout in question is not visible from the ground.

The next bolt is about 10-12 feet up a nearly vertical face with a 1-inch crack, so probably 1-2 moves for most climbers. I estimated this bolt is probably 20-25 feet above the last bolt. While I agree this climbing may be no harder than 5.7-5.8 and I am a solid mid 10s leader at this crag, it took me a while to be absolutely sure I wouldn't fall getting to this bolt. But this is also a new route and I could easily see some holds potentially breaking unexpectedly, or even grabbing something dirty and slipping.

The MP page even suggests placing a cam there. Maybe you would only drop the few feet to the ledge if something happened getting to the bolt, but you could also roll backwards off the ledge and probably fall more than 40 feet. I disagree with a previous poster that placing a piece before attempting the move to the bolt that is there wouldn't add protection - in my opinion it definitely would. Maybe not for falling to the ledge, but definitely preventing someone from possibly taking an additional 30 ft fall.

It makes me nervous that newer leaders at 5.8 might try to lead this route the way it is based on their experiences on the other climbs at this particular crag. The people in my group who top roped it after me all lead and agreed this was out of character for the crag. As I lead a lot of groups to this crag with people of varying levels, I know I'll be cautious with what I tell people when they ask about leading this route. Which is a shame since I think it is a really great climb.

While I am supportive that the route developer should have freedom to establish the route as they want it, so should the main developer of a crag - and assuming the existing routes define the intent of the main developer, I think new routes should be consistent with the bolting of the existing routes.

If you can't safely climb to the next piece of protection then bail.

Richard Blumberg wrote:While I am supportive that the route developer should have freedom to establish the route as they want it, so should the main developer of a crag - and assuming the existing routes define the intent of the main developer, I think new routes should be consistent with the bolting of the existing routes.

'Main developer'? WTF? You mean like:

"One Developer to rule them all. One Developer to find them,
One Developer to own them all and in their sweet time bolt them"

Good luck with that.

If Frank had been a climber...

And now, the end is near;
And so I face the final chains.
My friend, I'll say it clear,
I'll state my case, of which I'm certain.

I've lived a life that's full.
I've developed each and every route;
And more, much more than this,
I bolted it my way.

Regrets, I've had a few;
But then again, too few to mention.
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption.

I planned each charted topo;
Each careful move along the high way,
And more, much more than this,
I bolted it my way.

Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew.
But through it all, when there was doubt,
I ate it up and ran it out.
I faced it all and I took the fall;
And bolted it my way.

I've loved, I've laughed and cried.
I've had my fill; my share of losing.
And now, as tears subside,
I find it all so amusing.

To think I did all that;
And may I say - not in a shy way,
"Oh no, oh no not me,
I bolted it my way".

For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught.
To bolt the things the way he feels;
And not the whines of one who squeals.
The record shows I took the blows -
And bolted it my way!

Yes, it was my way.

Instead of bitching on MP, why not find out who put up the route and ask them nicely to add a bolt? I'm sure they would oblige.

Better yet, ask them if you could add a bolt and do it yourself.

Or, if you lack the expertise/tools/time buy the guy/gal the necessary hardware, drive them to the crag, belay them (faster than one person trying to get up there and hauling a drill) and buy them beer and dinner.

Almost always things like this can be easily resolved in person off line. Once you air your grievances in a public forum, things usually escalate and you may just get passive-aggressive response (or non-response).

Eric Carlos wrote:A route setter sets routes in a gym. For outdoor climbing the onus is on us as climbers to be responsible for our own safety. If you aren't comfortable going up a route, whether bolted or not, don't go up it. If you aren't sure what the gear is, and aren't willing to take the risk, don't climb the route.

You mean climbing might be dangerous? No way....

One time I bitched to Mike Liniskey (sp?)"MO" about the lack of bolts on one of his climbs in the Needles.... and that he needed to go back and fix it so we all could do the climb.

His answer to me: "heck- its OK, you didn't die now did you?"

No I did not.

Good guidebook descriptions and ratings can go a long way to avoid situations like this. Throw an R rating and/or call it a "mixed" route etc and the reader should understand there is an issue at some point. Everyone's idea of how far a run out should be is different - it's probably happened to everyone that a section lacks what "we" call adequate protection.

Richard Blumberg wrote:The runout in question is not visible from the ground. The next bolt is about 10-12 feet up a nearly vertical face with a 1-inch crack, so probably 1-2 moves for most climbers. I estimated this bolt is probably 20-25 feet above the last bolt.

So a developer chose to not place a bolt where there was a clear/simple gear placement. Many would argue that that is the correct (or, even, only correct) decision. It is also pretty common at some of the crags in my area. (Other crags end up with bolted cracks.) Unless I'm 100% sure something is actually a sport climb, I tend to make sure I have a small selection of gear on my harness for just this case. (For this, personally, I like Tricams -- they're light, and pretty flexible for what they can protect.)