Rock Land 

My only comment is that I personally like TR anchors back from the edge for safety reasons. Long runners don't bother me too much. I actually like not being right on the edge while setting up the anchor. You are right about one thing, those TR anchors were one big CF smorgasbord.

BTW, take a look at the new TR on The Beach at Wagon Caves, they are well back from the edge for a good reason...that rock with all the sand, etc., is slippery.

If I remember correctly there is a really fun 5.11ish TR just to the right of chimney crack. I don't know if it ever had a name.

Dave...that route would be "Step Aside Direct". The beginning is so smooth I never could figure it out. I watched a 5.13 climber struggle on it and he never could figure out the lower half.

John...I have a Bosch Annihilator if you want to use it. Only have 3/8 bits though in case you were planning on 1/2 inchers.

Thanks Jody.Yeah, I remember there were some pretty hard moves at the bottom. I guess it could be harder than .11, I just remember I really liked it.

I'm glad to see that climbers in the community are using a board like this to try and come to consensus on issues such as anchor placement in this area. It obviously doesn't reach everyone, but it's a good start and the more it gets used, the more people will find there way here.

Vickie Garagliano sent me this email:

_ I have heard the name "Thin Ice" used for the_ 5.11a/b climb between_ Chimney Crack and Step Aside at Cabrillo's_ Rockland area. The big hole_ on the right is off line and has been referred_ to as a sucker hold._ This information is handed-down and has not_ been confirmed.

Regarding the anchor reorganization:

I personally think John did a decent job with reorganizing the anchors. Since this area is a popular TR area, esp. for beginners, I can see the argument about the bolts being away from the edge - BUT, the anchors where they are now are closer to what I consider accepted practice for anchors - no runners required, just safety consciousness. An extra set of anchors would help the clusterfuck that occurs there, especially when groups like Poly Escapes bring people out there, but is it ethical to do that? I guess that's what this forum continually asks, though, eh?

Why would it be "unethical" to put in an extra set of anchors. It would alleviate crowding, make the climbing safer, and considerably reduce the suck factor of setting up the anchors on top. Rockland has a history of being a "begginers" area. So why not continue to keep it safe and easy?

I personally like the new anchors for Step Aside. The problem is now I need something for the top of Kermit Crack. What to do?

The anchors for Chimney Crack are awesome once they are set but it is a total pain getting them to that point. A little farther back and use extension slings might be a better idea.

The West Corner, Potato Head, & The Fly desperately need their anchors reorganized. The two bolts that are there are set up all wrong.

I have used Rockland for large groups in the past. One more set of anchors would be welcome in my opinion.

Wolfgang Leeb and I climbed that "Step Aside" thing sometime in the early 90s. We did the hardest line we could sort out. Since it wasn't in the book Wolfie thought it hadn't been climbed. I figured it had. I don't remember much about it except that he wanted to call it Punks in the Gym because the rock was like Gullich's route at Arapiles. Of course, it was 11-something instead of 5.14 and about 25' tall. Funny to think of this place as popular because it certainly wasn't at the time. Cool rock and setting though, so it makes sense.

A few of these routes felt a grade harder - 1-2 required thin feet moves at the bottom section and the overall slickness of that rock! (I guess it was a bit warm today - lets factor that in too)

Fun TR spot and great location on a nice day.