Balancing Equity with Personal Vision

You seem to suggest the climbs are comparable - both slabs, same crag, but different grades.  Generally speaking, things that are sport should be bolted to be safe for a climber leading at their limit.  If the 5.10+ deserved 9 bolts, then the comparable 5.8 line deserves at least 9 bolts -- possibly more.

I say "possibly more" because, generally, the lower grade the climb, the worse the fall consequence, therefor the greater the need for closer bolting to reduce that fall consequence.

Tal, I assume this is in the SPlatte. I personally don’t mind a bit of runout on the moderate slabs. But generally those are older climbs bolted on lead, and part of the fun is appreciating the developers and imagining what it was like to hand drill from tenuous stances. If you rap bolted the line, I think that does change things. I am firmly against placing a bolt every x feet just because that’s the formula. Put them where they make sense.

As you have pointed out in previous threads, some of my lines down there are well bolted, the 9+ in particular. I felt like there was no need to have long run outs, and the bolt placements made sense to me. I went back and added a bolt on Fire in My Veins on the upper 5.5 slab (10d/11a pitch), where we’d left it as a 30 ft runout initially since it was so easy. I kept thinking about it and, for one thing the rock down there is pretty friable, a fall in that terrain could easily happen with a broken hold. I’d feel terrible if someone got hurt from a stupid long slab fall.

I’ve argued against tight bolt spacing in other threads - and I’m really against gym style bolting in the SPlatte. I think there’s an in between approach that works - you don’t need 30 ft runouts but you don’t need a bolt every 4 feet either unless the terrain dictates it.

Maybe take a 5.8 climber along and get their opinion? Technical ability and headspace are different beasts. Are you bolting for physical safety or for psychology?

Thanks for the input folks! I appreciate the personal attacks lofted against me about routes you’ve never seen - but I’ll spare the defending myself or the routes for this thread except I want to make it clear that “safe” and “scary” or “exciting” are absolutely not mutually exclusive terms. And also that “5.8” doesn’t mean the entire route is comprised of 5.8 moves. Similarly, “5.10” doesn’t mean the route only has one 5.10 move. If you’d like to engage further on this, please just DM me. Reminder: this thread wasn’t “hey do you like my 5.8”

It sounds like we're all on the same page here of "Don't bolt climbs that are easy for you far apart just because they're easy for you". So the next part - and the point of this thread - is "How do I make climbs as equitable as possible?". Bolting is obviously a part of that, both in terms of spacing and placement from stances. Generally when bolting I go based on good clipping stances, crux sequences, and then pretty much just "where does the bolt need to be for a safe fall?". But that doesn’t solve the issue of spacing on slab routes where there's typically not much risk of hitting anything, making it an essentially blank canvas. It is easier for me to determine where to place the bolts on hard-for-me routes because "where do I want the bolts?" is a salient thought when you're projecting something near your limit. It's something that's a lot more flexible when you're on a route significantly below your limit. Realistically, I should be clear - while I appreciate the feedback from the general climbing community, I am specifically looking for feedback from people who have actually been involved in the route developing process before as well, and techniques they’ve used in their development in the past. I’m not actually looking for you all to unleash every transgression you’ve felt as a result of climbs you felt were runout onto me.

Some ideas I have on better developing routes well below your limit

• Bring climbers who typically climb in the grade range you're developing out with you to the crag to develop
  • Concerns: Route development is already difficult enough to recruit people for. Further limiting down to people who typically climb in a specific range AND have the rope skills/safety knowledge to not get into a sticky situation/accidentally injure each other in the cleaning and bolting process makes that even more difficult to find
• Bolt based on specific distances between bolts when unsure of crux sequences (especially on climbs that don't really have a distinct crux but are instead just continuous climbing of a grade)
  • Concerns: Visual impact as a concern in areas with sensitive access, may mean the crux isn’t protected as well as it could be with more intentional placement/spacing
  • Question: Can this spacing extend if the grade changes? E.g. if it's a 5.10 route but there's a 20ft section of 5.6 - can we extend bolt spacing here in good conscious as long as it's safe? Or is it a best practice to not do that? Or is it just a "it depends" situation also involving rope drag, rock quality, etc.

Other thoughts I have relating to equity in climbing

• High first bolts - where are we at here? I know they’re ideal for safety considerations but only if you have a stick clip. Requiring this specific piece of gear as an additional investment doesn’t seem like an equitable decision. Do we instead just have normal height first bolts and accept super close bolting to the ground?
  • Concerns: Visual impact is really the only concern here - as bolts closer to the ground are more likely to be noticed anyways and this can be an issue for areas with sensitive access

To folks who have been mentioning they’re curious about where these climbs are at - access to them currently isn’t open but will be in a few weeks. Feel free to reach out to me and I’ll send you the mini guidebook I’ve been making for the area and will be happy to show you around - we can even bolt together if you’re comfy doing the hard work that goes into development. You can help me make a call on adding new bolts to the line at that point. Please do note that most of the current routes are Trad lines in the 5.10-5.11 range - though there are routes as easy as 5.4 and likely as hard as 5.12 and beyond. Additionally, I’ll be in CCC over the next two weeks doing some extra cleaning and anchor improvements on some routes while letting a pulley injury heal and I’d be happy to have the help/second opinions anyone is willing to offer.

Rob Dillon wrote:

Wait, making people use a stick clip is an equity problem?  What about making them buy more draws to clip all those extra bolts?

Climbing gear is not free (although sticks and 1' of tape are pretty close), and at some point we must concede that a voluntary activity requiring gear purchase has a minimum access point.

Agree. I don't think stick clips are an unfair barrier to entry. 

The fancy commercial stick clips are really nice, though somewhat pricy (I have one, worth it). But a painter's pole and a spring clamp works too. And I got by for many years using a stick and pebble from the ground. 

Tal Mwrote:

Other thoughts I have relating to equity in climbing

• High first bolts - where are we at here? I know they’re ideal for safety considerations but only if you have a stick clip. Requiring this specific piece of gear as an additional investment doesn’t seem like an equitable decision. Do we instead just have normal height first bolts and accept super close bolting to the ground?
  • Concerns: Visual impact is really the only concern here - as bolts closer to the ground are more likely to be noticed anyways and this can be an issue for areas with sensitive access

The equity issue is interesting, but I am not sure it applies here in the context of stick clips. If you think the high 1st bolt is ideal for safety, then I think that outweighs the consideration that some people might not have stick clips. Unlike most climbing gear, a stick clip can easily be improvised and does not need to cost a lot of money. Going down that road leads to the question of other barriers to entry - should every route have a top rope hung (ropes are expensive), permadraws (draws are expensive), etc etc.... I am passionate about DEI, and am trying to make sure I am not missing something because I agree, it matters.

I still believe the route should dictate the bolting - in some cases, a lower 1st bolt might make sense, and consequently bolts 2-3 need to be placed accordingly to avoid ground fall. Rock quality can sometimes be the deciding factor - maybe you can't get a good placement for the 2nd or 3rd bolt where you would like it to be, and that will impact the 1st bolt placement. What I really dislike seeing is the 'psychological' 1st bolt that can be clipped from the ground (unless it is in dangerous terrain for the belayer, in which case I'd consider that a belayer bolt) - that bolt does nothing to protect the climber. I've seen this a lot on easy climbs and I worry that it could give a false sense of confidence to new leaders.

I like your ideas about developing in general - I'd love to go out with you sometime (I consider myself to be a solid 5.8 climber these days!) - currently can't wear a shoe due to a foot injury, but maybe in a few weeks. Hope your finger heals quickly!

Tal Mwrote:

Realistically, I should be clear - while I appreciate the feedback from the general climbing community, I am specifically looking for feedback from people who have actually been involved in the route developing process before as well, and techniques they’ve used in their development in the past. I’m not actually looking for you all to unleash every transgression you’ve felt as a result of climbs you felt were runout onto me.

If you’re bolting lines as a contribution to your community, I feel like taking into consideration the general community may be more important in cases like this. I understand that developing is also highly for the developer’s own enjoyment, but as soon as you touch your drill to the rock, you’re altering it and your decisions affect EVERYONE else who will be climbing it…so perhaps, do consider everyone’s input and not just the cyclic nature of only other developers… Especially if your question is about “equity”…

That’s my opinion. I’m not a route developer, though I really want to be. Physically going out has been inaccessible to me, thus putting my thoughts and ideas into these kinds of conversations.

I do agree that attacks are not cool, and I apologize if my own first message was abrasive. 

I hope your crag goes well.

I'm in the camp of aligning bolt placement to the local style instead of offering a mix of styles at one crag. Often it's mismatched expectations that give new leaders trouble - expecting every route at the crag to be tightly bolted and then jumping on something more run-out without giving it a good look. 

Having just come from climbing at Lemmon and Cochise, where there's a huge mish-mash of bolting styles, there were a number of "easy" routes that would be downright dangerous for an unaware leader of that grade. However, there were also plenty of routes that were tightly bolted through their harder sections and loosely where the climbing is significantly easier (>1-2 number grades). The style there seems to be that climbs shouldn't be completely foolproof and safe if you fall from anywhere on the route - and that makes for a great "sport" climbing experience imo. For me, "exciting" sport cragging has its place and makes for memorable climbs. 

Contrast that with Rumney, where the style is that you should be able to safely fall from almost anywhere on the route. That's a different type of good fun - I'm more likely to try things at my limit there.

I'll also offer up Flyboys in WA as an example of a horrendously bolted route. The hard sections are well protected but then they bolted the same slabs you walk down to get between rap stations, even though a fall anywhere below or above the 5.0 bolt would be incredibly unlikely but catastrophic.

Hey BigRed - that's a great callout. I actually had the opposing point of view - where I love routes of a variety of protection styles at a crag. It feels like if there's a bit more exciting bolted climb at a crag, with some more tightly bolted ones around it - then I could work my way up to leading the exciting one and ultimately it improves my headgame as a whole in the end. But you bring up an excellent point - definitely one I'll keep in mind moving forwards.

Ry - I appreciate that your heart is in the right place. It still seems like you're hung up on this route not having as many bolts as you'd like. I made it pretty clear in the OP that I've already resolved to bolting other routes of the same grade with more closely spaced bolts. In fact - I've made this thread which shows I am very clearly considering the community input. Also in fact, if you check my posted routes on MP you'll see the routes are all extremely safely protected - with my most "exciting" route actually being the hardest route I've ever FAd. You and I are on the same page. However, this thread is specifically asking for methods and techniques, not every Tom and Jane's diatribe on spaced bolting - again, on routes they've never seen or been on or have any understanding of the nature of. So please, give it a break. If you make your way out to CO ever, feel free to reach out and I'm happy to show you the ropes and routes and get you involved in bolting.

Erika - let's make it happen. Judging from the sort of routes and places you've talked about in other threads, I think you'd love this spot and I'm happy to have some extra hands developing it - there's far more rock than I know what to do with.

Mike & Rob - in some veins I agree. In others though - I never saw a stick clip actually used for my first year of climbing outside. Granted, I was learning to climb in CCC aka the land of low first bolts and tight spacing. It's not just a cost equity problem, but also a knowledge equity problem. And then there's the whole thing about people constantly shitting on stick clips as a gatekeeping mechanism that may keep folks from using them. I'm not saying any of these are unsolvable issues by any means. But is there a benefit to a high first bolt that requires a stick clip vs a more manageable first bolt and a few more closely spaced bolts after that to ensure safety?

Developer here, often rap bolting PNW semi-choss. I think there's a trend, which I followed, which bears mentioning. The first few routes you put up, even on rappel, you want to be considered "bold" by your peers. You don't want anyone to think you are a coward who had to tightly bolt the route, especially if the route is nowhere near your limit. This leads to creating sketchy runouts. You probably also sandbag the route by a number grade or so: "If such and such a route (old school sandbag) is 5.9, how can my new route be 5.10a?" If you ever re-lead one of your own early routes a few years later, and are scared because you forgot the beta and the holds aren't so clean and the draws aren't hanging - this is the experience you likely created for everyone else. Is this really what you wanted?

Over time, you realize that literally manufacturing danger by purposely spacing bolts far apart is lame to everyone in the future who has to onsight your route. So you mellow, you realize most people don't want to face injury on sport climbs, they want to enjoy cool movement on a route you of all people on the planet had the initiative to visualize and create. You start to put bolts where they protect injury - not every 5 feet, but where they really are needed. You don't force people to make that "extra move" into the gray area of injury to finally get to the bolt.

I have absolutely added bolts to my own rap-bolted routes, or let other people add them. Think of yourself as a writer who is re-reading their first draft and making edits to improve the work of art in progress. Yeah, sure, you did it for yourself, but that route is out there now and going to be climbed so why not make it better? (And yes I am 100% taking the position that the second you give up going ground-up and you develop the route top-down you are obligated to make it (reasonably) safe to onsight - change my mind)

One from back in the day that touches on some of the topics raised in this thread. The short comment section was friendly and productive. I envisioned a 140' route with a big runout at the top (slab moves, yes) that had a convenient sub-anchor so you could do it with a 60 meter rope (what we had in those days) in two lowers. Dual punchline: 1) I later realized I'd created a stupid runout and invited someone to fix it, and 2) apparently no one climbs it the way I envisioned it, haha.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/120368782/hope

bryanswrote:

I have absolutely added bolts to my own rap-bolted routes, or let other people add them. Think of yourself as a writer who is re-reading their first draft and making edits to improve the work of art in progress. Yeah, sure, you did it for yourself, but that route is out there now and going to be climbed so why not make it better? (And yes I am 100% taking the position that the second you give up going ground-up and you develop the route top-down you are obligated to make it (reasonably) safe to onsight - change my mind)

Very well said - I like this perspective.

LL2wrote:

One from back in the day that touches on some of the topics raised in this thread. The short comment section was friendly and productive. I envisioned a 140' route with a big runout at the top (slab moves, yes) that had a convenient sub-anchor so you could do it with a 60 meter rope (what we had in those days) in two lowers. Dual punchline: 1) I later realized I'd created a stupid runout and invited someone to fix it, and 2) apparently no one climbs it the way I envisioned it, haha.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/120368782/hope

This. When you put up a route you think everyone will see the line you see and climb it how you see it. But if you watch someone onsight it, and don't say a word, they'll often climb where you didn't, clip where you didn't, place gear where you didn't, and so on. If they ignore your contrived "crux" section because it's easy to avoid by going 5 feet left or right on easier terrain - even risking a sketchy fall - that only shows you failed to bolt the natural line, it doesn't mean they were "off route." I've learned to assume that, left to their own devices and without our beta spray telling them where to go, people will almost always go the easiest way on lead and onsight, so it only makes sense to bolt that way. This is another reason to have a bunch of people toprope your line before you sink bolts, if possible, as they will demonstrate the true line to you. 

Seems like there is a lot going on here. Some "i am a route developer humblebragging...". Some "i am bestowing a gift by developing a route way below my grade...". Some "i am going to pretend like i am open to the climbing community's input, but i am just going to do what i want..."

You asked the question and the overwhelming response has been that rap bolting a spicy beginner route is lame.

I have seen this many times. A 5.12 climber puts up some crappy, poorly protected moderate and then goes searching for poor souls to sell it. "It's all there, totally classic", then sits and chuckles. It makes me think less of them as a person.

So what are you going to do? Maybe your best option is not putting the route up in the first place.

Your 5.8 bolted route sounds more like 5.8 trad bolted, not 5.8 sport bolted. If you label it appropriately, great. If you don't, not so great. If these are the first routes in this area, other developers may go with the same style on subsequent routes, for better or worse.

Trad can be spicy and runout because you get gear wherever you get gear. Sport is not the same. You get excellent bolts where-ever you choose to drill. Sure, there was/is a time where ground up drilling from stances or hooks was/is a thing and you got bolts where you could physically stop to place them... but if your rap bolting, and can afford to have things not be so run out, that would likely be largely appreciated by the local community (both climbing and SAR/Rescue, which on a long enough time scale will eventually need to respond to an accident), especially those leading at the 5.8 level.

Wow - an impressive amount of projection from the comments on this thread, truly. I do want to highlight one point real quick

slimwrote:

You asked the question and the overwhelming response has been that rap bolting a spicy beginner route is lame.

I want to reiterate that at no point was I asking for feedback on the route in question, nor was I trying to defend that it was a stellar, welcoming sport climb. It's an approach pitch to what will likely end up being a 5.11 PG/13 trad line for fuck's sake. In fact, I even said "Hey, that probably wasn't the best precedent to set. I wonder what other things should be considered when trying to develop the best routes possible". That was the point of this thread - considerations in equity for development. Instead it has devolved into name calling and I'm not really sure what else - not anything useful. And truly - a lot of personal attacks. It's not that hard to express concerns without being a shitty person.

Anyways - to my point above, there so far hasn't really been any meaningful discussion about the actual question raised. I'll keep the thread open for a few more days and if nothing meaningful pops up then I'll delete it (Edit: Lock it - thanks Marc) and enjoy my weekend like I hope you all are able to do. If you want to continue to engage beyond that, feel free to message me directly or just bomb the route if it ever gets posted on MP. As mentioned earlier - if you'd like to climb it in person feel free to reach out and I'll be happy to show you around whenever it opens back up.

Tal Mwrote:

I'll keep the thread open for a few more days and if nothing meaningful pops up then I'll delete it and enjoy my weekend...

Just a reminder - once there are replies, you can no longer delete the thread.

What's your take? Do you think I'm being unreasonable by not adding more bolts to the existing line? Or in the opposite direction, do you think I'm being unreasonable by wanting to make more tightly bolted climbs? What are some other ways we can increase equity in the development space in a way that meshes well with personal vision for a line?

OK you want an answer to your questions...here goes:

1) My take - it depends.

2) Depends. Is this likely to be the only 5.8 route at a crag that's going to be full of 5.10 and up? Is it pure slab with low friction, so you could slide a long way without getting more than minor road rash? Is it well protected at every hard move, and the less protected stuff is much easier - so a 5.8 move at a bolt, 5.6 friction to the next bolt, then a 5.8 move?

3) Depends. Tightly bolted is in the eye of the beholder, and as time goes on, what was previously "tightly bolted" has become "a little runout" or even "runout"... it really depends on the particular route and the rock (e.g. smooth slab with low friction vs. abrasive slab with sharp grains, knobs, etc)

4) "Equity" is a very loaded term. Considering that climbing is a leisure activity done by a (relatively) small number of (relatively) privileged people, using a loaded term like "equity" seems intended to limit open debate instead of encouraging it. So let's say someone doesn't want more tightly bolted climbs - are they "anti-equity"? Or are they "pro-challenge"? Or "encouraging of mental development by promoting boldness"? "Equity" just seems like a weird term to throw into this. I've seen bolted cracks called "the democratization" of climbing, since having to buy trad gear is expensive (in a guidebook in Europe) - so if we want to be more "equitable", should we propose bolting every single climbing route (exactly what happened at some crags in Europe)?

there so far hasn't really been any meaningful discussion about the actual question raised.

You just didn't like the answers. So lock it and walk away.

Tal Mwrote:

So for the examples given in the OP - both routes have their first bolt somewhere around 10ft up. 2nd bolts is typically ~6ft above that, and then the bolt spacing continually grows as you go higher (and the angle eases off so the climbing gets easier), with both routes having their final runs to the chains close to 20ft on ~5.5 slab. At no point on either climb would you be looking at a ground fall unless you fell clipping the second bolt and had a monumentally shitty belay. There are no features to hit on the way down, and as someone who has fallen on these routes, you're really not looking at anything more than a scare unless you get the rope caught behind your leg. Should these be considered runout? Or is the combination of progressive bolt spacing and easing terrain enough to consider them not?

I'm going to slightly dissent with some of the commenters and say that I do enjoy some amount of excitement when sport climbing. One example of a sport climb which is bolted similarly to your description is Freaky Stylee, a 12a at the new. It has 5 bolts in 70 feet and it's about 20 feet from the last bolt to the anchors. The crux is the section is a bit above the last bolt and is followed by 10- climbing to the anchors. So you could theoretically be super pumped from the crux and fall there but you probably won't. But even if you did fall, it would be 100% safe because the wall is just a few degrees overhanging and blank enough for it to be impossible to hit anything. I really appreciated the bolting because it forces you to maintain focus through that entire final section but rationally you know you're completely safe.

I know you mentioned that this route is just an approach pitch but I'm going to use it as an example anyways to explain my point. IF the fall on the final 20 feet is 99% safe (I'm slightly skeptical that any 40 foot fall on 5.5 can be 100% safe) then I personally think that sounds like a fun sport 5.8 that some 5.8 leaders will really enjoy. If that fall is not 99% safe and the harder routes in the area are bolted more closely then that's more ambiguous (at least the potential danger should be communicated to those who would lead it).

Re equity: I don't think there's anything inherently inequitable about bolting an individual sport route more or less sparsely. It does suck if there are no well protected easy routes in a region but that doesn't sound like that's the case here. I'll also make the point that there are 5.8 sport leaders who really enjoy the mental aspect of leading but haven't gotten into trad.

On the other hand, people who bolt 5.8s in nonsensical ways, e.g. groundfall crux at 30 ft followed by grid bolted 5.5 (several developers come to mind...) should actually hang up their drills.

Hey Greg - I really appreciate that reply - specifically your last two points, about the evolution of the sport and what steps should be taken to improve equity. I find myself constantly oscillating on things like bolted cracks. Shelf road is a big place for this - as I'm sure you're aware of based on your contributions to the Front Range. Sometimes I appreciate the the bolts by the cracks, and sometimes I protect them with trad gear just for the giggles. And sometimes I see a bolt or piece of permanent gear near a crack (shitty buttonhead near the P3 belay on Center route) and think "why the hell would someone do this?". And then I think about how nice bolted anchors are on trad routes even when a natural pro anchor + walkoff might be available (the turkey rocks constant war, for example). Norms in climbing change. "Equity" changes. Ultimately I'm for whatever decision allows the most amount of climbers to climb the route and for the longest amount of time. The definition of "runout" and risk tolerance expected of climbers changes from crag to crag - that's why I've added bolts to routes I've developed post-FA in the past. My takeaway, is that in general, it seems like the best way to improve equity in the sport is to just keep having the conversation, and occasionally acting on that conversation where necessary. 

Cherokee also brings up a good point - MP is not a good place for nuance in a conversation so I'll just cut it here. Thanks for the input everyone - even if it was just postulating that I'm an egotistical selfish jackass. Sometimes that's a good reminder - unless you're just always a jackass. As always, my DMs are open if you want to discuss further.