Mountain Project Risk Assessment

Mountain Project is great, but sometimes I feel that there should be something telling you how dangerous a route is (in terms of objective hazards and stuff like that). For example, if you look up Liberty Ridge, it doesn't really mention all the objective hazards on the route, but you can tell from the pictures that it's sketchy. I've never climbed it, but I saw some pie charts and like maybe 1-2% of people who climb Rainier take that route, but it has the highest number of accidents of all of the routes on Rainier.

So.. how can you tell before actually going somewhere if a route is prone to excessive risks outside of your control? I've found the comments to be useful, but what else?

Guide books usually go into more detail about this topic. Mountain project isn't a great resource for this type of info. Although the A2-3 rating should be a heads up that its technical and potentially dangerous. Cascadeclimbers might have better info and write ups for said route. That said mountaineering usually involves plenty of risk beyond your control not the least of which is other people.

LOL. Don't do those routes yet and learn more about weather and conditions first....

Martin Brzozowski wrote: So.. how can you tell before actually going somewhere if a route is prone to many risks outside of your control? I've found the comments to be useful, but what else?

Every route is prone to risks outside of your control. As is every road between your home and the climbing. As is walking around town. As is sitting in a safe room afraid to go outside. 

Martin Brzozowski wrote: Mountain Project is great, but sometimes I feel that there should be something telling you how dangerous a route is (in terms of objective hazards and stuff like that). For example, if you look up Liberty Ridge, it doesn't really mention all the objective hazards on the route, but you can tell from the pictures that it's sketchy. I've never climbed it, but I saw some pie charts and like maybe 1-2% of people who climb Rainier take that route, but it has the highest number of accidents of all of the routes on Rainier.

So.. how can you tell before actually going somewhere if a route is prone to many risks outside of your control? I've found the comments to be useful, but what else?

having a basic understanding of what the route entails. you don't need comments to tell you that 5000' of sustained steep snow carries more risk than a route like the disappointment cleaver, only common sense. 

Gumby the White wrote: LOL. Don't do those routes yet and learn more about weather and conditions first....

I'm not, but I'm going to be doing some smaller alpine stuff in CO this summer and obviously there are always risks but some have more than others, I'd just like to know if a route is more prone to these hazards than usual as I develop my hazard assessment skills. A simple "dangerous rockfall is very common on this section of the route" might have me change my mind about doing a route and try something else until I develop more skills.

Martin Brzozowski wrote:

I'm not, but I'm going to be doing some smaller alpine stuff in CO this summer and obviously there are always risks but some have more than others, I'd just like to know if a route is more prone to these hazards than usual as I develop my hazard assessment skills. A simple "dangerous rockfall is very common on this section of the route" might have me change my mind about doing a route and try something else until I develop more skills.

Rock fall is danger for any alpine route

Thomas G. wrote:

having a basic understanding of what the route entails. you don't need comments to tell you that 5000' of sustained steep snow carries more risk than a route like the disappointment cleaver, only common sense. 

I agree and I get that from reading the description also, but judging by the pictures it's also heavily seraced, has large open crevasses, so on which is not mentioned. And I'm not talking about this route specifically, I'm talking about those routes that don't have much of a description and like one photo. In that scenario, are there like other websites that you recommend? Guide books? Things like that

Martin Brzozowski wrote:

I agree and I get that from reading the description also, but judging by the pictures it's also heavily seraced, has large open crevasses, so on which is not mentioned. And I'm not talking about this route specifically, I'm talking about those routes that don't have much of a description and like one photo. In that scenario, are there like other websites that you recommend? Guide books? Things like that

What routes? 

If it's Colorado alpine expect lower rock quality. 

Hey - MP is not a climbing guide...  it is a pretty good resource and has some beta for sure, but for doing bigger routes, alpine climbs, routes that require commitment, each person must do their own research in depth to determine what the potential for risk is.  it is not up to MP to determine risk levels...  take responsibility for your own adventure and do the research into those bigger routes.  learn the history and understand what you are getting into...  basically this should be the approach for anything beyond clipping bolts at a sport crag.
IMHO...

mark kerns wrote: Hey - MP is not a climbing guide...  it is a pretty good resource and has some beta for sure, but for doing bigger routes, alpine climbs, routes that require commitment, each person must do their own research in depth to determine what the potential for risk is.  it is not up to MP to determine risk levels...  take responsibility for your own adventure and do the research into those bigger routes.  learn the history and understand what you are getting into...  basically this should be the approach for anything beyond clipping bolts at a sport crag.
IMHO...

Yes, that's what I'm saying, MP is insufficient. My question is: where can I find good resources to do research into things like that? Do you have any recommended websites? Obviously Google but what are your go-to resources when trying to get route beta, that is my question. I know I phrased it weird, my apologies 

a great example of a website that people may not know of that has tons of info: http://wyomingwhiskey.blogspot.com/ 

ALL climbing is a risk, And the climber is the one who has to make the assessment before the climb and a lot of times
during the climb.
Another thing to consider; One mans' risk is another mans' jaunt in the park

What you need is primarily experience and judgement. You can't count on guidebooks to identify all, or any, objective hazards.

Climb with more experienced partners and the judgement will come, eventually.

FrankPS wrote: What you need is primarily experience and judgement. You can't count on guidebooks to identify all, or any, objective hazards.

Climb with more experienced partners and the judgement will come, eventually.

My problem is that I don't have more experienced climbers to climb with, and I understand the only way to gain risk assessment skills is through experience, I just want to know what routes I should avoid while I'm new to alpine climbing, ones with higher amounts of risk than usual. I cant afford to hire a guide every single time I go climbing 

Martin Brzozowski wrote:

My problem is that I don't have more experienced climbers to climb with, and I understand the only way to gain risk assessment skills is through experience, I just want to know what routes I should avoid while I'm new to alpine climbing, ones with higher amounts of risk than usual. I cant afford to hire a guide every single time I go climbing

That's, The RISK, ya gotta take!    ;-) AKA, JUDGEMENT

Hayden Moore wrote:

What routes? 

If it's Colorado alpine expect lower rock quality. 

Looking at Kiener's route is actually what prompted me to ask this question, which does a good job with things like: "The most dangerous part of the climb is here when you must walk across a ledge and step around some blocks. The ledge is less than a foot wide here and a slip would have you plummeting all the way over the Diagonal Wall. " and "Depending on the season, this couloir can be a very dangerous avalanche hazard. "

Martin Brzozowski wrote:

Yes, that's what I'm saying, MP is insufficient. My question is: where can I find good resources to do research into things like that? Do you have any recommended websites? Obviously Google but what are your go-to resources when trying to get route beta, that is my question. I know I phrased it weird, my apologies 

well... i usually go to an actual guidebook to start.  for me MP is great for inspiration. it is not going to hand you a complete package of information for your risk assessment, nor should it... it is not insufficient, your using it with false expectations...   

so, i go to a book store or the library and look it up...  on line searches will help as well, example of Liberty Ridge as a google search gives a lot of information especially for danger assessment.   that was a 30 second search that yielded a lot of information that should help you to determine your next steps.  trip reports are useful also found in the google search.

I think in most cases just googling the route will give you what you need. Trip reports take a lot longer to read than a MP page, but can provide invaluable info. Summitpost has a decent collection of them for well-traveled routes. MP is a good one-size fits all approach for single or multi-pitch rock climbs, but I'm not sure there's really an equivalent in the alpine realm as increased complexity demands increased detail.

Martin Brzozowski wrote: Mountain Project is great, but sometimes I feel that there should be something telling you how dangerous a route is (in terms of objective hazards and stuff like that). For example, if you look up Liberty Ridge, it doesn't really mention all the objective hazards on the route, but you can tell from the pictures that it's sketchy. I've never climbed it, but I saw some pie charts and like maybe 1-2% of people who climb Rainier take that route, but it has the highest number of accidents of all of the routes on Rainier.

So.. how can you tell before actually going somewhere if a route is prone to many risks outside of your control? I've found the comments to be useful, but what else?

We totally had this discussion after two people died in an obvious "bowling alley" last year. Red mountain maybe... can't remember the thread title...

Anyway, I agree but "sketchy" is in the eye of the beholder and it sounds like the pictures on MP DID warn you about the objective hazards. A picture is worth a thousand words eh?

Mr. Tricams take on Risk Assessment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kPp2wHJGLQ 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZkUgUDrk04

Martin Brzozowski wrote: Mountain Project is great, but sometimes I feel that there should be something telling you how dangerous a route is (in terms of objective hazards and stuff like that).....So.. how can you tell before actually going somewhere if a route is prone to many risks outside of your control? I've found the comments to be useful, but what else?

Unfortunately MP is not really set up for the assessment of objective hazards. If you go to add a new route you can input a grade and then a safety rating (PG 13 etc)  but there's no check box for things such as avalanche prone, rock fall, serac hazard, etc. 

Since there is no standardized input for the type of info, you're mostly at the mercy of whoever input the route description. In my experience the route descriptions on MP run the gamut between excellent to terrible.

If this is your primary source of info it often leaves a lot to be desired. You can try what others suggest and look for guidebooks, Google, summit post or local forums as alternative sources of info. To date I've not found a single source for definitive info quite like what your looking for.

Many times info on certain routes is very scant even after reviewing everything you can find. The best advice I can give you is to approach those routes carefully and bring more gear than what you might need and be prepared to back off or turn around.