1st pitch TR on multi-pitch routes (Gunks)

. Mobes wrote: You did nothing worth apologizing for in my book. If eric had stopped to wait for an opening you probably would have finished and moved on right? 

Of course we would have scooted along.  I do see how the manner I answered wasn't conducive to everyone sharing and having a good experience.  I have no problem admitting fault in that, and I take the advice given above on the better way to let someone know we were hoping to hop on after our friends pulled their rope, especially as both climbers were finishing at the same time, without sounding like I felt like I owned the place.   

I just want to say that I don’t really know Alicia well but I’ve run into her many times at the Cliffs of LIC and the Gunks, and in my experience she is about as courteous as anyone could possibly be. I’ve seen her climbing in a family group, but nevertheless offer to let others take a run on her rope or lead through. I really can’t imagine she represents the wrong way to go about things.

Agree, it's not that big of a deal especially when there are literally hundreds of other routes and it's not that busy. Just offering my opinion and I'm sure you're a nice person!

Dana Bartlett wrote:

Thank you for your maturity and grace. I am sure most of the people who have read or commented on this thread appreciate your attitude. 

I certainly do.

Agreement... on mtn project of all places!

Id like to add that of all the horror stories one hears about the gunks scene ,especially coming from out west, its way civilized there for the most popular crag in the country.

sometimes I find myself judging people from the carriage road toproping a classic on a weekend. Then I realize that 80% of the time it's someone who did the first pitch and had enough rope to be lowered and belay the 2nd from the bottom. I do this all the time. With the good/tall section of the cliff closed right now a large portion of the great climbs are doable this way. v3, son of easy o, strictly, all of the mac wall, most/all of the uberfall... the higher pitches are rarely done. so don't be like me an jump to conclusions. cause I lower down and belay from the bottom all the time. or maybe you can shame me here.
-luke

gtluke wrote: sometimes I find myself judging people from the carriage road toproping a classic on a weekend. Then I realize that 80% of the time it's someone who did the first pitch and had enough rope to be lowered and belay the 2nd from the bottom. I do this all the time. With the good/tall section of the cliff closed right now a large portion of the great climbs are doable this way. v3, son of easy o, strictly, all of the mac wall, most/all of the uberfall... the higher pitches are rarely done. so don't be like me an jump to conclusions. cause I lower down and belay from the bottom all the time. or maybe you can shame me here.
-luke

this is the case for a few multis also - with all of these fancy rappel anchors, there quite a few multipitches that I find belaying the second from the previous belay (instead of from the top) to be a lot more comfortable.  This last weekend I climbed the top pitch of a 3 pitch route, lowered to the top of p2, and belayed from there.  Made getting down a little quicker too. 

I think running a slingshot tr for the second (who then cleans) isn't gonna take any more time than a competent party going up the rest of the route, and probably less, since there's less rope management. The issue is more about large groups who 'session' a route way above the ability of some group members to get up quickly and in good style and hog the route.

Should have gotten up earlier. Just like the guy who tailgates me on the way to work.

Other than first come, first served, it’s up to people to be decent to each other.

Sometimes that’s hard to come by there but didn’t used to be too bad.

Rob D. wrote:

this is the case for a few multis also - with all of these fancy rappel anchors, there quite a few multipitches that I find belaying the second from the previous belay (instead of from the top) to be a lot more comfortable.  This last weekend I climbed the top pitch of a 3 pitch route, lowered to the top of p2, and belayed from there.  Made getting down a little quicker too. 

Yeah I just did this on the dangler. It was kinda a mess but I wanted to be able to see my second in case he didn't make it. And not have to make an intermediate belay.

Edited to add: the below was in response to a post complaining about a party of three top-roping Jackie, and noting that they had backpacks and shoes and such at the base of the climb. That post has since been deleted.

Sounds awful. What with the backpacks and all.

I'm sorry but I don't see anything wrong with three people setting a top rope on Jackie. Presumably one of the three of them led it. They had to lead something...

We are supposed to encourage them to do the second pitch? To get out of the way so others can lead the second pitch?

I think three people should get done in a reasonable amount of time and it is up to them whether they feel like doing the upper pitch. 

To me this just goes to reinforce the difficulty of the norm that is being proposed. All top roping is bad when you are not the one doing it... but we all do it.

Aw man! You had to share the mountain?! You had to go three feet over?! Shame on them!

I'd like to again thank everyone who weighed in. I read every comment 3 times taking notes and organizing the most important points into the final draft below. I think it's quite cool that we are at a point in which guidebook authors can get feedback from the community here to get a better perspective on what matters most to people who are regulars at the cliffs. I'd also like to extend a special thank to RGOLD whi helped edit and give additional guidance in writing this section.

Interactions with others: Leading, Rappelling, and Top-roping

Ethics and conventions change over time, but being considerate to others, communicating our intentions, and sharing the climbs we love should not. The Gunks can be a crowded place, especially on weekends. At some point, you will encounter another party at the base of the cliff or at an anchor. When busy, it is not uncommon to see multiple parties using the same anchor or sharing the same climb. These situations can get confusing and even dangerous. Following these guidelines can reduce problems and enable everyone to get the most out of this sometimes over-taxed resource.

1.Lining up: The first party to arrive at the base of a route is first in line to climb. If you arrive first and prefer to take your time, eat a sandwich, sort out your gear etc… consider allowing a faster party to climb through.

2. Rappelling: Before tossing your rope call "Rope!" followed by the name of the climb. ie."Rope on Betty!" Lowering your rope (snaking) is preferable to tossing your rope, but in any case do your best to avoid hitting a party below. If rappelling near a leader, communicate with them and be willing to stop until they are ready for you to pass.

3. Traffic: Avoid occupying the first pitch of multi-pitch climbs for extended periods of time. This allows other parties access to the upper-pitches. Be willing to move your ropes aside if you are not actively climbing a route so that another party can climb through.

4. Shared anchors: The bolted anchors were installed for rappelling. Despite this intention, the anchors are frequently used for top-roping and belaying. Communicate your intentions with the other party when arriving at an anchor so as to avoid confusion and potential safety issues.

5. Top-roping: Bolted rappel anchors consist of two bolts, chains, and rings. Avoid top-roping directly through the rings as this prevents parties from using the anchor to rappel. On weekends or at other busy times, avoid lengthy stays or "gang-roping" on multi-pitch classics such as:  Jackie, Classic, Betty, Sixish, Ribs, Something Interesting, Arrow, Limelight etc...

Thing went to hell once the rap routes were established.  As a matter of fact, the once well trodden ridge trail that led to the Uberfall or the 3rd class down climb in now quite overgrown.  And guides (people who lead folks around to make money) are another problem.  Personally, I believe guides should be very limited in the Preserve.  I'm all for not allowing TRs on weekends or holidays or at least establishing specific first pitches that can be top-roped (e.g. Slightly Roddey... not Ken's Crack). Probably a bit draconian, but imagine the the number of routes that get freed up for trad climbers. Encourage climbing to the top of the cliff and walking down; this would create space for more climbers and is analogous the surfing leashless, to some extent.  And if we could remove the rap routes and force climbers to build real belays from clean gear, an incredibly important skill that all climbers should have, that would go a long way to creating a far more enjoyable climbing environment in the Gunks.

Gunkie Trad wrote: Thing went to hell once the rap routes were established.  As a matter of fact, the once well trodden ridge trail that led to the Uberfall or the 3rd class down climb in now quite overgrown.  And guides (people who lead folks around to make money) are another problem.  Personally, I believe guides should be very limited in the Preserve.  I'm all for not allowing TRs on weekends or holidays or at least establishing specific first pitches that can be top-roped (e.g. Slightly Roddey... not Ken's Crack). Probably a bit draconian, but imagine the the number of routes that get freed up for trad climbers. Encourage climbing to the top of the cliff and walking down; this would create space for more climbers and is analogous the surfing leashless, to some extent.  And if we could remove the rap routes and force climbers to build real belays from clean gear, an incredibly important skill that all climbers should have, that would go a long way to creating a far more enjoyable climbing environment in the Gunks.

I agree this would probably lead to the best experience if everyone would actually walk off. But there are two reasons this won't (can't?) happen:

1. Everyone is not going to walk off. Have you read this thread? We can't even get people to walk to the nearest chain anchors, so it's completely unrealistic to hope that people will walk the entire length of the cliff.
2. Erosion. Erosion at the top of the cliff causes environmental issues similar to erosion at the bottom of the cliff, but unlike erosion at the bottom, top erosion poses a danger to climbers. I've volunteered a bit for trail work at the preserve, so I've seen what goes into it. Maintaining a trail in an erosion-conscious manner requires a lot more resources than putting in rap routes. Furthermore, the ridge trail is much more featured and hard to get to than other preserve trails, making proper trailbuilding and even getting equipment to problem areas difficult. I don't know the full extent of the preserve's trailbuilding resources, but I strongly suspect that the preserve doesn't have the resources to maintain the top of cliff trail.
   
   Existing fixed anchors are mostly installed with an eye for avoiding erosion--this is exactly why fixed anchors exist.

David K wrote:

I agree this would probably lead to the best experience if everyone would actually walk off. But there are two reasons this won't (can't?) happen:

1. Everyone is not going to walk off. Have you read this thread? We can't even get people to walk to the nearest chain anchors, so it's completely unrealistic to hope that people will walk the entire length of the cliff.
2. Erosion. Erosion at the top of the cliff causes environmental issues similar to erosion at the bottom of the cliff, but unlike erosion at the bottom, top erosion poses a danger to climbers. I've volunteered a bit for trail work at the preserve, so I've seen what goes into it. Maintaining a trail in an erosion-conscious manner requires a lot more resources than putting in rap routes. Furthermore, the ridge trail is much more featured and hard to get to than other preserve trails, making proper trailbuilding and even getting equipment to problem areas difficult. I don't know the full extent of the preserve's trailbuilding resources, but I strongly suspect that the preserve doesn't have the resources to maintain the top of cliff trail.
   
   Existing fixed anchors are mostly installed with an eye for avoiding erosion--this is exactly why fixed anchors exist.

I don't need to read the thread, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I know as well as anyone that the toothpaste is out of the tube.  No going back.  I would significantly argue about ridge top erosion being a problem particularly when weighed against climber experience.  A lot of the ridge trail is on rock. And based on your experience, I suspect you helped put in the original yellow blazed base trails?  Those work great.  I remember when there were few established base trails and it was a mess.  And the original fixed anchors were installed to keep folks from rapping off trees; so yes, erosion.  The secondary aspect was to facilitate rescues.  Many of the issues are cultural: Did you (rhetorical) grow up climbing with or without influence of gyms?  And if you are in my camp and exceptionally experienced with 100's or 1000's of pitches of trad climbing under your belt, how many of your gym-only friends are begging you to take them climbing outside?

It is what it is.  My recommendations are certainly more of a wish-list on a selfish note.  But it it more selfish to rap through a party who is climbing all of the pitches?  Is it more selfish to bogart the first pitch of Snooky's for a 1/2 day?

Gunkie Trad wrote:

  And the original fixed anchors were installed to keep folks from rapping off trees; 

Nope. It was to remove the visual blight of tat, due to complaints from non-climber Preserve members, who at the time outnumbered climber members.  

Marc801 C wrote: Nope. It was to remove the visual blight of tat, due to complaints from non-climber Preserve members, who at the time outnumbered climber members.  

Yes, good point.  And correct.  I remember that, now.

I like the revised draft, Christian. Thanks again for everything you do.

SethG wrote: I like the revised draft, Christian. Thanks again for everything you do.0

big +1.