|
b_rock
May 8, 2006, 4:30 PM
Post #1 of 10
(1342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: 8
|
quick question, and i am sure there is another thread about this somewhere. how close is too close when you are climbing a route? i was climbing with a friend who has just started so we threw a line down to top rope on a 5.8 which was in between a 5.6, 5.9 and a 510c. (these climbs are at most 8ft apart from the 10c to the 6) I have been climbing longer so I wanted some more difficult stuff, anyways we drop a line so he can start at the 6 and maybe work his way up to a more difficult climb. our packs and coats are at the base where we were goning to climb. when we walk down to tie in there are two guys on the 6 doing trad with there rope flaked out on ours. i was pretty pissed we climbed for a bit then went somewhere else. (it was early morning and we were the only 2 groups on this crag which is about 500 ft long) should i have said something or been a nice guy and shared
|
|
|
|
|
krusher4
May 8, 2006, 4:43 PM
Post #2 of 10
(1342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2005
Posts: 997
|
Just nicely ask them to more there gear over. If your a jerk you have to worry about them pissing on your gear when you turn around or something and remember to smile.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
May 8, 2006, 5:02 PM
Post #3 of 10
(1342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
Generally, it is considered common courtesy to allow competent leaders to quickly lead through a route you're toproping, especially if you expect to be on that anchor for some time (toproping multiple climbers or multiple routes as you had planned to).
It is also, however, common courtesy for the party that wants to lead the route to first ask permission of the toproping party. Others may have differing opinions :roll:
Who truly has the right-of-way? I feel that the party that got there first does, especially in areas where there are other options. But many climbers feel that the toproping party should always yield to a leading party. There is no standard rule to this, and different areas may have different ethics about this issue.
On the few occasions that I've asked to lead a route that was being toproped by a large group, most have happily obliged. Other times parties have politely refused and I've simply found something else to climb or waited patiently.
|
|
|
|
|
macherry
May 8, 2006, 6:12 PM
Post #4 of 10
(1342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
macherry moved this thread from Used Gear / Great Deals to General.
|
|
|
|
|
b_rock
May 8, 2006, 6:13 PM
Post #5 of 10
(1342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: 8
|
thats kind of what i figured and i patiently let the two fellows lead the route, and then two more showed up and another two, finally they told me it was their clubs day there, which is b.s. because groups aren't allowed to "group" climb at this crag, doesnt' matter thanks for the replys, i was just venting
|
|
|
|
|
yokese
May 8, 2006, 6:40 PM
Post #6 of 10
(1342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2006
Posts: 672
|
In reply to: Generally, it is considered common courtesy to allow competent leaders to quickly lead through a route you're toproping..
OK, I guess that "when in Rome"... but where I come from, the rule has always been "first come first serve". There is no right of pass for "more competent" 5.6 lead-climbers, specially if the top-rope is already set up and the guys didn't ask permission to climb over my rope. On top of that, there were other routes available. Anyways, in a situation like that, I'd probably allow those guys to climb the route just to avoid any confrontation that can ruin the day, but in my book there is a name for that kind of people....
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
May 8, 2006, 6:51 PM
Post #7 of 10
(1342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
In reply to: In reply to: Generally, it is considered common courtesy to allow competent leaders to quickly lead through a route you're toproping.. OK, I guess that "when in Rome"... but where I come from, the rule has always been "first come first serve". There is no right of pass for "more competent" 5.6 lead-climbers, specially if the top-rope is already set up and the guys didn't ask permission to climb over my rope. On top of that, there were other routes available.
My point exactly. Read beyond the first half-sentence of my post...
In reply to: It is also, however, common courtesy for the party that wants to lead the route to first ask permission of the toproping party. Others may have differing opinions.
In reply to: Anyways, in a situation like that, I'd probably allow those guys to climb the route just to avoid any confrontation that can ruin the day... but in my book there is a name for that kind of people....
Agreed... We are on the same page here as well.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
May 8, 2006, 7:04 PM
Post #8 of 10
(1342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
In reply to: thats kind of what i figured and i patiently let the two fellows lead the route, and then two more showed up and another two, finally they told me it was their clubs day there, which is b.s. because groups aren't allowed to "group" climb at this crag, doesnt' matter thanks for the replys, i was just venting
After the first pair I would have said, "Great, once we're done with the route we'll be happy to get out of your way." It's one thing to let a couple competent leaders play through, and another to be the doormat for a climbing club.
If there are so many climbs in so tight an area, I would have asked what route your rope was on and worked around you. I don't want to lead a route if someone is close enough to fall and hit me. That said, I can also understand wanting to play through. It's tough to know how quick someone else is going to be. As usual, it's best to play by the golden rule, but some seem to have lost track of it...bad form on thier part.
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
May 8, 2006, 8:43 PM
Post #9 of 10
(1342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
In reply to: Who truly has the right-of-way? I feel that the party that got there first does, especially in areas where there are other options. But many climbers feel that the toproping party should always yield to a leading party.
The standard that I would like to see followed is:
Everybody gets one lap on the climb (TR or lead) in the order they show up. So if a group of 5 is TRing and another party shows up and wants to lead, each of the 5 can take one run on TR and then the other party can each climb (lead and second or lead and lead) and then you start over with lap number 2. I'm not saying this is the norm, just the one I'm advocating.
If a group has TR set up on climbs that no one is using, they should let other parties TR or lead those climbs.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
May 8, 2006, 9:01 PM
Post #10 of 10
(1342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
In reply to: The standard that I would like to see followed is: Everybody gets one lap on the climb (TR or lead) in the order they show up. So if a group of 5 is TRing and another party shows up and wants to lead, each of the 5 can take one run on TR and then the other party can each climb (lead and second or lead and lead) and then you start over with lap number 2. I'm not saying this is the norm, just the one I'm advocating. If a group has TR set up on climbs that no one is using, they should let other parties TR or lead those climbs.
Sounds fair to me. The only caveat I'd add is no excessive hang-dogging. Give the route a fair shake, but don't take long rests when others could be climbing.
I agree that any route not being actively climbed is forfeit. If you've been "about to climb it" for 15 minutes, you're just wasting time. Get on it or let others enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
