The vagueness of “T,S”

Congrats, Jared. You've reduced Old lady H to skimming.

At best.

H.

BREAKING NEWS: Florida Man holds up Wendy’s with climbing talk!

bryans wrote:

PS - many people climbed before there was even an internet, before there was MP and its vast database, so imagine how entitled you sound to them!

And before there was a distinction between 'sport' and 'trad', the latter of which didn't exist until the former came about. Until then it was just 'climbing'.

bryans wrote:

OP's "problem" would be solved by becoming more than a climber armed with quickdraws who requires bolts at gym spaced intervals to get to a bolted anchor. For the amount of time and energy you are putting into making enemies on this thread with stubborn logic-based but silly arguments you could just go buy a rack already and become a well-rounded climber, instead of one asking MP to bend to his limitations. Think about it, sincerely, buy a rack and then the world of lead climbing will open up. Or, stick to chasing bolts and griping about internet terms. Your choice. PS - many people climbed before there was even an internet, before there was MP and its vast database, so imagine how entitled you sound to them!

I wonder how many Floridians own a rack and how many roof cracks are hiding under all those bridges?

bryans wrote:

OP's "problem" would be solved by becoming more than a climber armed with quickdraws who requires bolts at gym spaced intervals to get to a bolted anchor. For the amount of time and energy you are putting into making enemies on this thread with stubborn logic-based but silly arguments you could just go buy a rack already and become a well-rounded climber, instead of one asking MP to bend to his limitations. Think about it, sincerely, buy a rack and then the world of lead climbing will open up. Or, stick to chasing bolts and griping about internet terms. Your choice. PS - many people climbed before there was even an internet, before there was MP and its vast database, so imagine how entitled you sound to them!

What exactly do you think the purpose of a database and categorization system is? Whether you like it or not, a significant subset of the climbing community only climbs sport. This will never change.

Your response is ignorant and presumptuous beyond belief. Who the fuck brought up gym spaced bolting?

J Ewrote:

What exactly do you think the purpose of a database and categorization system is? Whether you like it or not, a significant subset of the climbing community only climbs sport. This will never change.

Your response is ignorant and presumptuous beyond belief. Who the fuck brought up gym spaced bolting?

 Then stick with SPORT, or learn to read comments.

And never visit anywhere that's off the MP radar.....

Or.....

Make friends with those who have knowledge and beta. 

It isn't gatekeeping, it's called friendship.

If your personal climbing choices require specific things, fine, but don't expect the world to conform to your needs. For starters, it will never happen. Number two, there's an assumption of everything fitting into neat tidy categories. That's just plain wrong, too.

You need to get out and have more fun. Snowing there????

Oh wait. Florida. Sorry! Get that move rolling, eh??

Best, Helen

"What routes simultaneously fit the definition of Trad and Sport?"

 Lots, usually the ones marked T and S.

M Mwrote:

"What routes simultaneously fit the definition of Trad and Sport?"

 Lots, usually the ones marked T and S.

The dude can’t comprehend that. I gave him multiple examples on the last page and he still can’t grasp it, instead deflects and blames others’ reading comprehension  

Jared E wrote:

How can a route that requires gear placement qualify in any way as a sport route?

Look up China Doll, Proper Soul, or any other route that is bolted yet also climbed on gear. Or vice versa. There’s probably close to a hundred routes just at the lower meadows in the NRG that can be categorized as both as they are bolted but also can easily be climbed on gear with horizontal placements. Climbing ain’t binary. Like I said before, it’s somewhat similar to how how aid routes can also be free’d….you may need to look up the difference between aid and free climbing prior to replying to this post. 

J Ewrote:

How can a route that requires gear placement qualify in any way as a sport route?

A Bay Area crag, Mt St Helena, has mixed routes that are frequently climbed without gear, thus making it unclear if the routes needs gear. I mean, I need gear to lead them, but I'm a big sissy chicken, and loads of other people aren't. 

But I definitely think that overall you're right and that the root of all these problems you're pointing out are MP's objectively unclear categorization methods. 

J T wrote:

Do these routes address this in the description/guidebook? Genuine question. It seems that in your anecdotes that it comes more down to perceived safety and comfort than actual categorization. 

Yes, they do, but you'd be surprised how many people I've talked to who just assumed everything there was sport climbing because that's what Mountain Project or the guidebook said. I've probably had three independent conversations where people tell me how runout Mt. St. Helena is and then it's in that conversation with me that they learn that they're mixed routes and you're meant to bring and place gear. 

Ultimately that's not the end of the world, it's mostly annoying for sport climbers that don't have gear to have to sort out the mixed routes that require gear. In the older crags of the SF Bay Area or in places that are trying to keep trad alive like SLO have lots of mixed routes and it does lead to lots of annoyance and confusion. But yes, if you take the time to read the route descriptions you'd be set. However I agree with OP that it's stupid and a poorly implemented database to use a label that is supposed to mean "only draws required" when often in fact more than just draws are required. 

Way more than just OP are deeply confused, annoyed, and frustrated by this. It's a bad labeling system.

J T wrote:

I guess this is where our opinions differ, I don’t interpret it as such if it also has a “T” next to it. On the same token, if you can do the route with only draws and it just makes the safety more in the PG-13 or R range then I don’t necessarily think the labeling of what kind of route it is, is wrong. Especially if it’s mentioned explicitly somewhere that a specific part could take a #1, for example. From my viewpoint it seems the issue for you is more that these “mixed” routes are either not labeled as such, or they are not labeled as more dangerous. Not if it’s a Trad route or a Sport route, like the OP keeps suggesting.

I think part of the problem is that people use the labels differently in different areas. Since the labels are insufficient people will implement them in different ways to try to communicate the same idea, so in some places mixed routes will be labeled sport, in some trad, in some both sport and trad. One of the frustrations of all this to me is that there's no standardization so SLO might call them all trad routes and Mt. St. Helena call them all sport routes, for example. 

I agree that if it's labeled as both trad and sport that it's a major heads up that something is up with the route and further reading is required, but that isn't what happens all the time. Probably because listing routes as both sport and trad is deeply confusing to most people.

Newly submitted routes can't be labeled both trad and sport. All "T,S" routes were submitted a while ago I believe.

That said, I actually think allowing "T,S" is better, but also that JT's examples are wrong. MP's definition of sport is the most useful here, and a greenpointed (or retrobolted) sport route is still a sport route. Every "T,S" I've seen here refers to bolt-protected trad routes and I think that's how the designation should be used.

J T wrote:

How are my examples wrong lol 

China Doll (a singular route) has been, and is done both in gear and sport.  Thus, qualifying it as both sport and trad. It is actually listed twice on MP. Once as a sport and once as a gear/aid route, which is arguably more confusing as it is the same route but listed in different styles. Proper Soul was my second example, which has famously been done on exclusively gear and exclusively bolts…. 

It's wrong because that's not how MP has defined the terms and also because it's not useful.

I'm not that familiar with those 2 routes, but I'll try based on the descriptions/comments.

China Doll should be listed as trad since "most people use some trad gear" towards the end. Routes where people frequently don't climb the whole thing are a hard problem, but I think route listings should trend to useful over comprehensive (e.g. don't give a route an X rating for a final pitch nobody ever does).

I don't know what's up with Starlight. If people really just stop after the bolts nowadays it should just be labeled sport with a note that the original anchor is higher. If a a sizable fraction continue higher it should be labeled as trad.

Having a separate route listing for the aid line makes lots of sense and happens in other places on MP (e.g. Moonlight Buttress and The Renegade/Stigma).

Go Back to SuperTopo:
For greenpointed/retrobolted routes just note it in the description. Seriously.

Labeling routes that only requires quickdraws for the average climber is a mandatory feature in my mind. On MP that's done with the "sport" label even though that's pretty shitty.

Personally I think the "trad" label should be allowed to be applied independently of that. My answer to what that label practically means is that if a competent climber falls and gets hurt the community won't go add a bolt.

Edit: The type of route I think of as "T,S": https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105862957/the-dike-route

Post limit edit:
JT, if you say Starlight has retrobolted lower anchor that most people stop at then it's a sport climb now. I'm done responding to your trolling responses now.
GBTST: No they don't, which is why it belongs in a footnote in the description. The point is if I don't have a rack, I want to be able to search for climbable routes without having to read each route description.

Austin Donisanwrote:

I'm not that familiar with those 2 routes, but I'll try based on the descriptions/comments.

Yet somehow you label them as “wrong”? Lol  

I don't know what's up with Starlight. If people really just stop after the bolts nowadays it should just be labeled sport with a note that the original anchor is higher. If a a sizable fraction continue higher it should be labeled as trad.

People don’t stop “after the bolts” lol The bolts go to an anchor. There is no “stopping point” prior to the anchor. Like I said, it is commonly done exclusively on bolts (safely) as well as exclusively gear (equally as safe for a trad climb). Both styles climb the exact same (difficulty) with the exception of how it’s protected. How can it be labeled as only sport or only trad? This is my point. There are hundreds upon hundreds of routes that cannot be put into a singular category because they can be, and are, climbed in both styles fairly often.

Having a separate route listing for the aid line makes lots of sense and happens in other places on MP (e.g. Moonlight Buttress and The Renegade/Stigma).

I agree, but this is almost always due to being different difficulties. What happens when it’s the same difficulty and the only difference is whether you clip 12 draws or place 12 cams? You think having the same exact route listed twice with the only difference being rack selection is less confusing…?

J Ewrote:

When did the definition of troll become “says things I don’t like   “

Right about when someone posts something like this.

There's some irony here.

Go Back to Super Topo wrote:

As mentioned, if people read the description they wouldn’t be confused by the categorization. Seriously. Additionally, do you honestly think even half the user on here know what a greenpoint is? 

Then what is the point of the categorization?

It seems like OPs whole point is that if you can't figure out what a climb is from the abbreviations, they are useless.

If we want them to be useful, they should communicate a standard definition.

Sport = only bolts to climb safely

Trad = average person wants gear to climb safely or traditionally bolted (i.e. pinnacles level scary run-outs)

When in doubt, label it trad and explain in comments.

J Ewrote:

How can a route that requires gear placement qualify in any way as a sport route?

@J T:

Too bad this ignore function doesn't work once you got your foot in the foot in the door by calling me a troll without provocation.

I'll address the point, though. Multi-pitch where the first pitch is fully bolted is pretty much the only place you could make the argument that T,S is a fitting lable (though, this is due more to MP's limited labelling system than that being the best way to identify the route). I would, however, argue that it's best to defer to the most complex method of climbing. Ergo, China Doll is a trad route with a pitch that is fully bolted. I don't know what you're talking about in regards to Proper Soul. It's a sport climb nowadays and labelled as such. If someone chooses to climb a sport climb with gear instead, this is a personal choice. It does not make the route a trad route (just like Hannold soloing Freerider doesn't make that a "FS" route rather than a "T" route).

Lmao again, gfy with a Big Boy, please.

@Austin

I hear what you're saying, but the "Trad" option in your picture already covers routes of that nature. Most people use gear, may have some bolts. Whereas sport is all bolts. Historically, these definitions may have been different, but this is what these labels are typically used to communicate these days. And by MP's definition, is what the labels mean. So either MP should change what the label means, or add a third label like Tradiban said.

Simple. There are routes that were bolted as sport routes, bitd, totally climbable with just some draws, that people have since acknowledged as being, well, too sporty. Some gear along makes them less spicy. They don't require gear to be lead, but nonetheless, they also don't fit the more modern expectation that "sport" routes are bolted closely enough to keep ya off the ground. That's the "gym bolting" thing some have implied that you are expecting. Outside, when a route went up, who put it up, makes a big difference in the pucker factor. There are also routes that are bolted, but take gear quite nicely, so someone may choose to seek those out to learn gear, but feel safe with a bolt backup.

What a bunch of us are trying to say, is an ideal for a database is fine....but the real world is a hot sloppy mess pretty often. 

Remember, people can add all the comments they wish to the routes, as well as offer suggestions for the descriptions themselves. Just T or S is a pretty sparse amount of info to run with. All that's good for is just getting routes to sort, if you wanted to narrow it to something you're interested in, for a particular place.

Last, a reply that quotes you isn't necessarily entirely aimed at you. I brought up gatekeeping preemptively, because that's my expectation of what someone else might jump on if anyone says....well, almost anything, it seems. This is a broader discussion, and these things continue with people none of us will ever interact with. 

Hope your other quest is going good!

H.

M Awrote:It seems like OPs whole point is that if you can't figure out what a climb is from the abbreviations, they are useless. 

And my point, along with others on here, is that if you take the time to read the description, or even look at the route, the abbreviations almost always make sense….thus, rendering them not useless. The issue is that people, OP included, don’t seem to like what or how they are categorized. I agree the categorization for a route that has mixed protection falls under a loophole of sorts on this website. This is why I suggested creating “mixed - bolts/pro” and “mixed - rock/ice” categories. 

The theme of this thread should be revolving around suggestions on how to “fix” the “problem” and offering up ideas. Unfortunately, the resounding theme is actually just people bitching and offering no solutions….or just flat out telling other people to “gfy”. Yeah, looking at you Jared. 

If we want them to be useful, they should communicate a standard definition.

Someone already posted what the MP “standard” definitions are. However, it can be fairly ambiguous when applied to routes that are frequently done within both styles of climbing, as others have pointed out. Though, only 2 examples have been cited.

I’m shocked nobody has brought up bolted cracks yet. Can’t wait for that can of worms.