Adjustment of existing lines

What is the best way to go about dealing with an older sport route being rebolted at a sport climbing area and in that process, more bolts are added and lines adjusted? I was taught that this was poor form without the FAs approval but perhaps I am not up to date on what is acceptable. It seems equally poor form to go pull and patch the newer bolts (especially given locations of bolts was changed so now they are not in the same locations) but it changes the character of the route.

Serious question. 

Yes, it is generally regarded as poor form to change the position of bolts without the FA party’s consent 

I would reach out to any local climbing organizations first.  They might be managing the cliffs and/or know the FA if permission is needed.

More importantly, the organizations might have a better grasp on the policies.

Byron Smithfield wrote:

What is the best way to go about dealing with an older sport route being rebolted at a sport climbing area and in that process, more bolts are added and lines adjusted? I was taught that this was poor form without the FAs approval but perhaps I am not up to date on what is acceptable. It seems equally poor form to go pull and patch the newer bolts (especially given locations of bolts was changed so now they are not in the same locations) but it changes the character of the route.

Serious question. 

Depends on the situation. Here in LA we got this place called the “tunnels” up on HWY2... a mile past the now closed Willie. Nobody cared about the Tunnels because Willie was so good- it just didn’t matter when some dudes showed up and rapped in a bunch of “futuristic” roots. Problem is this: nobody could climb them and clip the bolts. Oh the climbing was great, solid 11s that wandered up overhang terrain- beautiful climbs on TR - but clipping the bolts was harder then 14 maybe 15 even.... qualified climbers tried hard to get the FA’s (original FA party had all retired from climbing and they admitted they never really got the lines) 

So some Local hardmen decided to go against the well established tradition of climbing and rip them out and bolt the lines that did go.

A public service for all.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/108287052/yosemite-sams-dinner-club-combo

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/107710347/running-boards 

So I think this is a good thing, but it’s a rare thing to do. 

Totally contextual. Are you "adjusting" bolted climbs that are runout because they were done ground up and don't match modern sport standards? Or is there an otherwise 4 star climb that's overlooked and overgrown because it was bolted poorly? Either way start with trying to get in direct touch with the FA, leave access groups out of it if you can and avoid the politics and red tape.

Guy Keesee wrote:

Depends on the situation. Here in LA we got this place called the “tunnels” up on HWY2... a mile past the now closed Willie. Nobody cared about the Tunnels because Willie was so good- it just didn’t matter when some dudes showed up and rapped in a bunch of “futuristic” roots. Problem is this: nobody could climb them and clip the bolts. Oh the climbing was great, solid 11s that wandered up overhang terrain- beautiful climbs on TR - but clipping the bolts was harder then 14 maybe 15 even.... qualified climbers tried hard to get the FA’s (original FA party had all retired from climbing and they admitted they never really got the lines) 

So some Local hardmen decided to go against the well established tradition of climbing and rip them out and bolt the lines that did go.

A public service for all.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/108287052/yosemite-sams-dinner-club-combo

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/107710347/running-boards 

So I think this is a good thing, but it’s a rare thing to do. 

Guy speaks truth.   BTW Guy, Jeff and I were just out at the “Desert” crag this morning.  We got our there at 6:30 and had shade and great temps till 12:00.   On the subject of moving bolts we noticed someone was fixing to move some of our bolts, not ad any but just move them a bit to make the route more inline.   I personally don’t think it needs it but I also really don’t care if someone wants to go to the effort and move the bolts as long as it doesn’t detract or change the nature of the climb.  
The Tunnels are a great example.  We are going to start cleaning up that South Face area with all the randomly placed bolts and make those climbs safe and enjoyable.   Nobody ever does them for the exact reason you mention, it’s a shame because that rock is some of the best up there. 

Kevin.... who would do such a thing? All of those climbs are stellar ( oh I would gladly add one or two bolts close to the ground but I’m just a frady cat. ) 

But to the OP... the climbs I referenced were ancient, with cobwebs and rusty bolts.

And Ian F is correct- don’t mess with old climbs established BITD that were done the tried and true American Way. Bolted from stances, maybe a bit runout for some of today’s modern climbers, but done with crummy boots and dull drills.  Up your game to match.

Climb on

Thanks for the input. I understand it’s not cut and dry but few things are. Some of the lines were not ideal but were fine IMO (a bit run out 5.7 on a 5.10 route) but that was The standard for when they were established. I feel like up dating to a “modern” gym climbing feel changes the character. 

HUGE Tradifan wrote:

What if the FA is dead?

Next of kin and it doesn’t matter if the next of kin climbs, they still get final say.

HUGE Tradifan wrote:

What if the FA is dead?

Seance or Ouija board?

Byron Smithfield wrote:

Thanks for the input. I understand it’s not cut and dry but few things are. Some of the lines were not ideal but were fine IMO (a bit run out 5.7 on a 5.10 route) but that was The standard for when they were established. I feel like up dating to a “modern” gym climbing feel changes the character. 

I would say that a bit of run-out 5.7 on a 5.10 route is, even now, completely acceptable bolting.

What I see too often, and dislike, is a 5.7 climb bolted like the 5.7 section of a 5.10 climb.

HUGE Tradifan wrote:

Generally on MP it's considered bad form to adjust lines but MP is only a small sliver of the community. Alot of times the FA is unreachable or unreasonable and furthermore standards have changed over time. There's no reason bad climbs need to be frozen in time.

I urge you to do what "makes sense" considering the circumstances of your particular area.

DING DING DING!  You win the vacation and the car!    

I've "adjusted" just about every route I've rebolted, and that's ~50 routes that had corroded bolts.  Sometimes I've added a bolt to prevent a ledge/ground fall.  Sometimes to get better (not hollow) rock.  Sometimes to make it easier to clip from the stance.   Sometimes so you swing away from that dihedral, not into it.    Sometimes to eliminate cross-loading the biner.   Sometimes to hold the rope out of a crack where it usually wedges.   Et cetera.

Do what makes sense and you'll have an improved climb.  Perpetuating the mistakes of the FA is stupid.

David Gibbs wrote:

I would say that a bit of run-out 5.7 on a 5.10 route is, even now, completely acceptable bolting.

I would say: maybe. If it's bullet granite or the like, without ledge-fall potential, sure. If there's the possibility of a hold breaking and a spine-crushing fall, then no.

What I see too often, and dislike, is a 5.7 climb bolted like the 5.7 section of a 5.10 climb.

I mostly agree with you on that but again, the situation should determine the bolt spacing.

HUGE Tradifan wrote:

What if the FA is dead?

that's pretty simple - don't add/change any bolts.  if the FA had wanted more bolts, they would have put more bolts - end of story...

not everything needs to be bolted to suit everyone's 'needs.'  if you don't like the way a route is bolted, then don't do it!  climb something else, or better yet, put up your own route in your own style...

Guy Keesee wrote:

don’t mess with old climbs established BITD that were done the tried and true American Way. Bolted from stances, maybe a bit runout for some of today’s modern climbers, but done with crummy boots and dull drills.  Up your game to match.

Climb on

Agreed!

I feel like there is a nuanced difference between someone doing a poor job of bolting and a "statement" route. Personally,  I'm all about always bolting well if you are creating an artificially protected route in the first place but that's just my opinion and I respect the dissernting opinions of others. Id never mess with their routes. However,  when someone has messed up a bolt job, sometimes something has to be done. In fairness, I'm not too proud to admit I could be guilty- bolting well is tricky sometimes. I appreciate the efforts of anyone putting up routes and would hope they are open to improvements. Im probably an idealist here...

Jesse Morehouse wrote:

I feel like there is a nuanced difference between someone doing a poor job of bolting and a "statement" route. Personally,  I'm all about always bolting well if you are creating an artificially protected route in the first place but that's just my opinion and I respect the dissernting opinions of others. Id never mess with their routes. However,  when someone has messed up a bolt job, sometimes something has to be done. In fairness, I'm not too proud to admit I could be guilty- bolting well is tricky sometimes. I appreciate the efforts of anyone putting up routes and would hope they are open to improvements. Im probably an idealist here...

Well said. 

old5ten wrote:

that's pretty simple - don't add/change any bolts.  if the FA had wanted more bolts, they would have put more bolts - end of story...

Not the end of story.  And you're wrong for many of the reasons I mentioned above.   Many dirtbag FA's are so cheap that they use hardware store bolts and wide spacing so they can buy Ramen, and then people like me have to go back and fix their shoddy work.  

not everything needs to be bolted to suit everyone's 'needs.'  if you don't like the way a route is bolted, then don't do it!  climb something else, or better yet, put up your own route in your own style...

Really?    So you don't agree that corroded bolts should be replaced?    You don't agree that a bolt that causes the biner to be cross-loaded should be moved?   Or moved to solid rock?  What you don't seem to understand is that there's much more to bolt placements than just the length of the fall.    

Old trad climber, eh?  

old5ten wrote:

that's pretty simple - don't add/change any bolts.  if the FA had wanted more bolts, they would have put more bolts - end of story...

Was thinking further about this statement.   It implies that the FA is god-like and never makes a mistake.   They never run out of bolts, drop a couple or break a bit, etc. 

Now, knowing probably a hundred first ascentionists, and being one myself, I know that's completely absurd.   End of story.

John Byrnes wrote:

Not the end of story.  And you're wrong for many of the reasons I mentioned above.   Many dirtbag FA's are so cheap that they use hardware store bolts and wide spacing so they can buy Ramen, and then people like me have to go back and fix their shoddy work.  

Really?    So you don't agree that corroded bolts should be replaced?    You don't agree that a bolt that causes the biner to be cross-loaded should be moved?   Or moved to solid rock?  What you don't seem to understand is that there's much more to bolt placements than just the length of the fall.    

Old trad climber, eh?  

john, you're obviously quite misinformed - i've been rebolting for the asca since 2004.  you mentioned you've rebolted 50 lines, i'm probably close to that, including some long multipitch/multi-day hand drilling projects such as 'hairline' on mt. whitney (with the late brutus of wyde), the 'chouinard-herbert' on sentinel in the valley, and more recently 'piece de resistance' in tuolumne.  i've also put up my own routes on the eastside, TD and GU, by hand and with a bosch, tightly bolted and runout. 

i've got a very good understanding that there is 'more to bolt placements than just the length or the fall' and to some extent i agree with what you said and actually practice it.  for example, earlier this summer i re(tro)bolted the p2 anchor of 'shagadellic' and moved it from a lower original location on a lower angle shelf of rock to a higher location and higher angle of rock with the thought that it would be more protected from rockfall/snow/ice damage (which is what damaged the anchor) and also facilitate better protection in case of a fall before the first bolt.  https://cdn2.apstatic.com/photos/climb/119293982_large_1595987088.jpg

that said, the title of this thread is 'adjusting existing lines' and that is a slippery slope.  we're not talking about moving a bolt a few inches to better rock or a 'better' placement (your opinion vs. the FA), we're talking about adding bolts and actually changing lines.  i absolutely disagree with that notion!  

when i rebolted 'piece de resistance' in tuolumne i communicated with (the late) tom (higgins) frequently and one of the things that struck me (because he was soooo emphatic about it) was his concern that replacement would be bolt for bolt and the same location.  i came in top down over the course of a couple of weekends and saw many instances where i could have moved bolts to create a 'better' line, make the climbing more 'natural,' or the clips easier.  heck, on the upper part of the crux pitch the line was a good three to four feet off from where i would have gone.  however, i respect his achievement, ethic, and vision, a whole lot more than anybody's desire to dumb down a route to the lowest common denominator so that they can have the 'perfect' climbing experience for their state of mind on the particular day that they are climbing a particular route...

so, once again -  not everything needs to be bolted to suit everyone's 'needs.'  if you don't like the way a route is bolted, then don't do it!  climb something else, or better yet, put up your own route in your own style... 

old5ten wrote:

john, you're obviously quite misinformed - i've been rebolting for the asca since 2004.  you mentioned you've rebolted 50 lines, i'm probably close to that, including some long multipitch/multi-day hand drilling projects such as 'hairline' on mt. whitney (with the late brutus of wyde), the 'chouinard-herbert' on sentinel in the valley, and more recently 'piece de resistance' in tuolumne.  i've also put up my own routes on the eastside, TD and GU, by hand and with a bosch, tightly bolted and runout. 

i've got a very good understanding that there is 'more to bolt placements than just the length or the fall' and to some extent i agree with what you said and actually practice it.  for example, earlier this summer i re(tro)bolted the p2 anchor of 'shagadellic' and moved it from a lower original location on a lower angle shelf of rock to a higher location and higher angle of rock with the thought that it would be more protected from rockfall/snow/ice damage (which is what damaged the anchor) and also facilitate better protection in case of a fall before the first bolt.  https://cdn2.apstatic.com/photos/climb/119293982_large_1595987088.jpg

that said, the title of this thread is 'adjusting existing lines' and that is a slippery slope.  we're not talking about moving a bolt a few inches to better rock or a 'better' placement (your opinion vs. the FA), we're talking about adding bolts and actually changing lines.  i absolutely disagree with that notion! 

when i rebolted 'piece de resistance' in tuolumne i communicated with (the late) tom (higgins) frequently and one of the things that struck me (because he was soooo emphatic about it) was his concern that replacement would be bolt for bolt and the same location.  i came in top down over the course of a couple of weekends and saw many instances where i could have moved bolts to create a 'better' line, make the climbing more 'natural,' or the clips easier.  heck, on the upper part of the crux pitch the line was a good three to four feet off from where i would have gone.  however, i respect his achievement, ethic, and vision, a whole lot more than anybody's desire to dumb down a route to the lowest common denominator so that they can have the 'perfect' climbing experience for their state of mind on the particular day that they are climbing a particular route...

so, once again -  not everything needs to be bolted to suit everyone's 'needs.'  if you don't like the way a route is bolted, then don't do it!  climb something else, or better yet, put up your own route in your own style... 

The OP asked about "an older sport route being rebolted at a sport climbing area"  NOT a trad route. Sport climbing is supposed to be safe and I'm really tired, like decades of tired, of old traddies applying their ethics to sport climbing, especially when so many of the old bolted trad routes are on slabs.

And since you mention Bruce, I did a lot of climbing with my "Evil Twin" including The Moratorium, Astroman, N Face of the Rostrum, and the Ho Chi Min trail which is quite run-out and had, at the time, shitty bolts to boot.   I've done my share, maybe more, of run-out slabs with 1/4" button-heads and StarDryves.   I also know trad FA's are not gods any more than sport FA's, they make mistakes just like everyone else.