"Rock" Passes vs. ROCK Passes

Discussions on Injisuthi Pass have been moved to a dedicated thread:
www.vertical-endeavour.com/forum/11-drakensberg-passes/55664-injisuthi-pass.html

The "rock pass" definition is one which I have been wanting to challenge for some time, and there has been some off-forum discussion about this. I do believe the system is old, has not been maintained, and has lost a lot of its relevance.

I have heard and read very little about what the formal definition of this system was, but from what I can see it was a very broad categorisation of the nature of a pass: it is either in a rocky gully of sorts, or it is not (implying that the other category is "grassy"). I do not have the impression that it was necessarily a direct definition of difficulty. The nature of a pass may imply a lot about its difficulty, but this is not absolute. Yes, there are also the thick pink lines which were added to indicate that rope may be needed (not clear if that means ropes for packs or people, going up, going down?) - these may have been closer indication of difficulty. A "rock" pass may in fact be quite doable, and a non-rock pass may be more difficult (take Corner Pass vs Ships Prow South for example). It follows that what defines the nature of a pass is made up of several components, as does what defines the difficulty of a pass. This makes the meaning of words such as "standard" in this kind of discussion rather difficult to pin down in a way which is helpful and satisfactory to everyone.

The definitions that have been suggested would be more helpful than the current broad categorisation, and they make for good discussion, but I believe they are incomplete and would ultimately raise more questions. I also see them as a type of difficulty grading, focused mainly on the cruxes. Difficulty gradings are probably the most subjective way to describe a pass. It may also not give an accurate picture of the overall nature and experience of the pass to a reader/enquirer. The need for using hands and a rope is a spectrum, differing from person to person (for example thinking of the Bell Traverse as a scrambling route doesn't sit right with me), rather than an absolute, unless you have a grading system such as is used for climbing. Even with such a grading system, it only conveys the technicality of the hardest part of a route or pitch - it doesn't necessarily indicate exposure, protection, length, rock quality, to a name a few, which are all important components which make up the overall experience on the route.

Defining a pass according to safety is just one of several ways that a pass can be looked at. I believe a meaningful re-categorisation of passes should incorporate multiple aspects. Subjective assessments will most certainly be part of this, as it is not totally avoidable, but in this way the definition wouldn't be entirely, or mostly dependent, on subjective ratings.

I think setting up a categorisation firstly for describing the nature of a pass without making the difficulty absolute is an easier initial step. The difficulty can be a subsequent definition/project to work on and this is probably where most of the debate and subjectivity will be encountered. In both cases the definition may have to a multi-faceted one, rather than a single one.

If we looked at factors such as trailed, non-trailed, partly-trailed, route along a rocky gully or slope or ridge or a combination, alongside a system of indicating technicalities such as gradient and places where more than just walking is involved, I think that would go much further in addressing the kind of assessment that a lot of us seem to want. No doubt one can get lost in the detail and complexity, but I think a more thorough approach, even if it eventually leads to a more simple one, will be less at risk of becoming redundant in the future.

Thinking of Gray's Pass, it is popular and often used. I disagree about it not having places where a fall can be fatal. It has several places where accidents can happen. It may not be a "death fall" in the sense of free-falling down a cliff but if you slip and fall on the steeper sections or on the scrambly bits, it could easily become quite bad especially with a pack on that can whip you around, and there has been such a fatality on the pass already I think (stands under correction). I have seen a rustled cow slip and roll 100m+ down the slopes on the pass - it was a sickening sight never forgotten! Several parties have landed up in the wrong gully and gotten themselves into a pickle. I've had micro-wave sized boulders crash down onto the trail 20-30m in front of the group, from the high cliffs of the Mhlwazini Buttress which looms over the route. I'd say that the scrambly bits on Gray's are arguably more technical than those on some less-frequented passes which have a "scary" reputation. Yet, there isn't much complaint about this and most do not think of Gray's as a difficult pass. What determines this? This is the point I am getting it - our categorisations and descriptions of passes should ideally be able to explain why Gray's Pass is popular and not considered "hard" even though it has some very clear "technical" scrambles.

There definitely is an intention to facilitate this kind on VE for passes, caves, peaks and the like, along with a way of cataloging (or "wiki-fying") the information, and I have a few more ideas on how this can be done, which I will share at a later point. Currently I just don't have the capacity to get those ideas going.

It may be worth mentioning the Yosemite Decimal System that is used in North America. It is more commonly known for the grading it gives in the rock-climbing spectrum (Class 5 and up). Class 1-4 is used for hiking and less technical routes. You can google these and see what the definitions are. It is helpful, but not complete, and has its own share of debate and subjectivity. Sometimes an additional roman numeral system is added onto the grading which indicates the length of the route (usually done only for true alpine routes). There are also add-on alpine grading systems, as well as a way of grading aid climbing. The point being again that a single description/rating just doesn't always cut it. Plus, I can tell you that a class 4 scramble on rock is not the same necessarily as a class 4 snow gully. A lower class 5 scramble can be totally acceptable to do unroped, or it can be seriously scary! Recently I ascended a peak via a Class 2 route, which barely needs hands in my experience. Because we did it the pre-winter season the route became more adventurous and we had to use mountaineering axes to cope with the hard ice and thin, slippery snow. In the proper winter it may become easier again as the snow thickens. There are so many factors.

So, in short, I do support a notion to do away with the "rock pass" categorisation. If it is to be replaced by another system, I believe it needs to be a thorough and much more sophisticated one.

Grading Berg passes with some international systems would be really useful and fun. However, regions and/or countries tend to have their own systems with good definitions, but unless you actually have done routes with a known grade you won't have the true feel for it. Each system can also have specific detail which is applicable to the region. Detail on glacial travel has no relevance in the Berg, for example. The Yosemite Decimal System (YDS) is primarily used in Canada and the US. In Europe there are a number of systems such as the British, French and UIAA systems to name a few prominent ones. I have noticed quite a few European readers and enquirers on this forum, and the YDS may not always have relevance to them, as an example.

From my reading I have come across a few systems which I think can be quite useful in looking at Berg passes.

These include the YDS - Wikipedia is pretty good at the definitions:

• Class 1: Walking with a low chance of injury, hiking boots a good idea.
• Class 2: Simple scrambling, with the possibility of occasional use of the hands. Little potential danger is encountered. Hiking Boots highly recommended.
• Class 3: Scrambling with increased exposure. Handholds are necessary. A rope should be available for learning climbers, or if you just choose to use one that day, but is usually not required. Falls could easily be fatal.
• Class 4: Simple climbing, with exposure. A rope is often used. Natural protection can be easily found. Falls may well be fatal.
• Class 5: Is considered technical roped free (without hanging on the rope, pulling on, or stepping on anchors) climbing; belaying, and other protection hardware is used for safety. Un-roped falls can result in severe injury or death.
• Class 5.0 to 5.15c is used to define progressively more difficult free moves.
• Class 6: Is considered Aid (often broken into A.0 to A.5) climbing. Equipment (Etriers, aiders, or stirrups are often used to stand in, and the equipment is used for hand holds) is used for more than just safety.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosemite_Decimal_System



Swiss Hiking Scale:

• T1 - Hiking. Path well beaten and marked, terrain flat or moderately inclined, no danger of falling. Requirements: None. Suitable also for sport shoes. Orienting without problem, in principle also without a map.
• T2 - Mountain hiking. A continuous path, generally marked, terrain in sections steep, danger of falling not excluded. Requirements: Requires a safe step. Trekking shoes recommended. Basic orientation skills required.
• T3 - Challenging hiking. Trail not necessarily visible, exposed passages can be protected with cables, to maintain equilibrium one eventually needs hands, usually marked, a danger of falling on exposed passages, gravel slopes, pathless rock slopes. Requirements: A very safe step. Good trekking shoes. Orientation skills required constantly. Elementary alpine experiences.
• T4 - Alpine hiking. Trail not present, on some places hands are needed to advance, terrain already quite exposed, tricky grassy slopes, steep rocky slopes, easy snow slopes or bare glacier passages. Requirements: Experiences with exposed terrain. Stable trekking shoes. Ability of terrain assessment. Requirements: Good orientation abilities. Alpine experiences. If weather deteriorates, escape can become difficult.
• T5 - Sophisticated alpine hiking. Pathless, exposed and difficult terrain, on some places easy climbing sections, steep scramble terrain, snow fields or bare glacier passages where there's danger of sliding. Requirements: Mountaineering shoes. Reliable assessment of terrain. Very good orientation abilities. A lot of alpine experiences. Easy climbing skills. Elementary skills of handling with rope and ice pick.
• T6 - Difficult alpine hiking. Pathless, not marked, very exposed and difficult terrain. Climbing passages up to UIAA degree II. Tricky, steep rocky terrain, glacier with a higher danger of sliding. Requirements: Excellent orientation abilities, mature alpine experiences and mastering of handling with alpine gear.

www.summitpost.org/grading-hiking-routes-sac-hiking-scale/187254


There is also a bundu-bashing (bushwacking) grading system which is also very useful for the Berg (and quite humorous):

• BW1 - Light brush, travel mostly unimpeded, only occasional use of hands required (e.g., mature open forest).
• BW2 - Moderate brush with occasional heavy patches. Pace slowed, frequent use of hands required.
• BW3 - Heavy brush, hands needed constantly, some loss of blood may occur due to scratches and cuts, travel noticeably hindered. Voluntary use of expletives at times.
• BW4 - Severe brush, pace less than 1 mile per hour if continuous. Leather gloves and heavy clothing required or significant flesh wounds will occur. Much involuntary profanity and mental anguish. Thick stands of brush requiring circumnavigation are encountered.
• BW5 - Extreme brush, multiple hours needed to travel 1 mile of this stuff, full armor desirable. Wounds to extremities likely, eye protection needed. Footing difficult due to lack of visibility. Tearful blabbering and suicidal tendencies sometimes exhibited by participants.

www.bodyresults.com/e2bushwhack.asp
This type of grading is actually pretty useful for the mountains of Vancouver Island too where I now live. For those interested, the following link is a good article to read on the grading, with pictures illustrating each grade, based on conditions found on the Island:
www.summitpost.org/in-praise-of-bushwhacking/475020


The most established grading system used in South Africa is used for rock climbing (apparently called the Ewbank system). I have not seen it used to describe anything lower than about a grade 6 however, which is where a good portion of Berg pass terrain would fall. It may be a good system to describe a specific crux on a pass. In the Berg an older system is still extensively used to describe route up peaks, which many on this forum will know about (A-G, where grades A through to D would be the ones most relevant to Berg passes) - again its proper place is maybe to describe the crux of a pass rather than its overall grade and nature.

I also came across this system developed for a SAn hiking club. Again, note the multipronged approach:
www.trailsclub.co.za/grading.html

Also an interesting read on a multipronged grading approach is found in the lower part of the following page (the "The Old Grading System I Used" section)"
www.summitpost.org/grading-hiking-routes-sac-hiking-scale/187254

I definitely like the idea of establishing the grades of Berg passes according to the above systems. At the same time I still believe a Berg-specific system is warranted, alongside a system to grade the nature of the pass. It seems kbresler has kindly volunteered to guide us in figuring out what we want!