Author |
When is a new route a new route. |
|
|
24-Jan-2008 11:33:06 AM
|
There was a recent chuck of rock fall out of a crag in Dunedin that affected up to 4 routes.
I figure if a hold breaks off a route it would stay the same name maybe be regraded.
At the other end of the spectrum is something like dog face where a whole new face is created.
How much does a route need to be modified before a new first ascent and new name is given?
Where is the cut off in the middle?
|
24-Jan-2008 1:11:25 PM
|
A series of enormous rockfalls wiped out large faces of the Troll Wall in Norway in 1988. They didn't just modify the routes affected they wiped them from the face. I'd say that's one clear cut end of your spectrum. Tabula rasa.
Global warming has by the way since continued the job, with a 'rock explosion' in 2006 so big that it rated 2.5 on the Richter Scale.
.Macca
|
24-Jan-2008 6:03:05 PM
|
>When is a new route a new route.
When it is not already claimed by others!
Heh, heh, heh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post edit:
>Where is the cut off in the middle?
I'd guess that would be about right, ie if more than 50% of the route was 'gone', then what remains if combined with the 'new', would make a new route in my opinion, but I would qualify that by saying that I am generally uncomfortable* with naming anything less than half a ropelength as a 'route' ~ said while stroking trad beard without a boulder mat in sight anywhere!
(*Depends on the area, precedents already set, etc).
Acknowledgement of the original route still needs to be preserved as 'history' in ongoing guidebooks.
|
25-Jan-2008 7:48:05 AM
|
>Global warming has by the way since continued the job, with a 'rock explosion'
>in 2006 so big
If 0.6 degrees C can cause rock explosions, you'd better watch out for the effects of body heat.
|
25-Jan-2008 9:42:59 AM
|
I imagine the changes to freeze /thaw in a place like Norway could indeed cause so-called "rock explosions". Or you could just call it natural erosion and geology in action.
|
25-Jan-2008 9:51:15 AM
|
No - I saw a show on cable tv called 'When Good Cliffs Go Bad!' - about so-called explosions and avalanches
Apparently people had ring-bolted on the traditionally natural protected cliff and Troll Wall got angry, and even.
Be kind to your cliff . . .
|
25-Jan-2008 9:53:36 AM
|
"I'd guess that would be about right, ie if more than 50% of the route was 'gone', then what remains if combined with the 'new', would make a new route in my opinion, but I would qualify that by saying that I am generally uncomfortable* with naming anything less than half a ropelength as a 'route' ~ said while stroking trad beard without a boulder mat in sight anywhere!
(*Depends on the area, precedents already set, etc).
Acknowledgement of the original route still needs to be preserved as 'history' in ongoing guidebooks. "
A reasonable answer. however i think short routes can still be routes but anything under 10m is a little arbitary.
|
25-Jan-2008 10:59:05 AM
|
If you can call a route a new route when all you've done is a couple of traverse moves between existing
routes, then there wouldn't need to be much rock fall to create a "new" route. More than just one hold
snapping off though (so I guess that means Sky diver should get renamed).
|
25-Jan-2008 11:31:43 AM
|
On 25/01/2008 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:
>If you can call a route a new route when all you've done is a couple of
>traverse moves between existing routes, (snip)
They call those linkups and not routes maybe?; ... or traverses?? (eg The Fantini Traverse; which links Ozy Original to Ozy Direct).
:)
I have always been uncomfortable with 'variations' of existing lines being called 'new routes' and having their own 'route' name.
Fair enough to acknowledge them, but as variations would be sufficient imo, particularly if not majoritively (sp?) independent in nature, on walls where many 'full' routes exist.
I can see where problems in this thinking arise when significant ledges break the natural line of some routes, and original ascents are not necessarily bottom to 'top' in one push.
|
25-Jan-2008 11:42:13 AM
|
On 25/01/2008 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>I have always been uncomfortable with 'variations' of existing lines
>being called 'new routes' and having their own 'route' name.
There goes 90% of the routes on the Omega Block @ Camels Hump then!
|
25-Jan-2008 11:50:50 AM
|
I am not familiar with it, but acknowledge there are considerable amounts of 'grey area' in the game we call climbing that would constitute exceptions to our arbitrary 'rules'.
I guess you are referring to a block that has a common start to various topout lines. In this case if the common start constituted more than half the climbing of (all), those lines then I would still regard them as variations. If it is the other way around (ie the common start is the shorter bit), then imo they would still be legitimate lines in their own right.
I am happy to admit that my thinking is probably old fashioned, particularly with the rise of bouldering as an independent strand of climbing in its own right.
In the grey areas of that genre; does a one move variation to a three move problem constitute a new route?
|
25-Jan-2008 12:03:11 PM
|

The confusing wall in question!
and the topic...
http://www.chockstone.org/Forum/Forum.asp?Action=Display&ForumID=15&MessageID=1632&Replies=1
|
25-Jan-2008 12:25:00 PM
|
On 25/01/2008 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>They call those linkups and not routes maybe?; ... or traverses?? (eg
>The Fantini Traverse; which links Ozy Original to Ozy Direct).
>:)
sometimes
|