|
Arrogant_Bastard
Dec 11, 2010, 12:15 AM
Post #126 of 212
(3784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
bandycoot wrote: My favorite is to hear ignorate n00bs at Tahquitz discussing how difficult the routes are for the grade. As of yet I just laugh internally as opposed to inform them that the ratings are, in fact, the DEFINITION of the grade. That's right, the "Yosemite" decimal system is a misnomer. Maybe I'll inform them next time to help in the important cause of fighting grade creep! Josh
Will you also inform them that all their PTFTW are belongs to us.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Dec 11, 2010, 12:19 AM
Post #127 of 212
(3778 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Damnit, urbandictionary.com doesn't have PTFTW. I feel old.... 
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
jmeizis
Dec 11, 2010, 12:36 AM
Post #128 of 212
(3766 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 635
|
I've climbed at The Gunks a bit. What's a popular example of a PG route and a G route?
|
|
|
|
|
snoopy138
Dec 11, 2010, 1:45 AM
Post #129 of 212
(3740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28992
|
bandycoot wrote: My favorite is to hear ignorate n00bs at Tahquitz discussing how difficult the routes are for the grade. As of yet I just laugh internally as opposed to inform them that the ratings are, in fact, the DEFINITION of the grade. That's right, the "Yosemite" decimal system is a misnomer. Maybe I'll inform them next time to help in the important cause of fighting grade creep! Josh
the vogel/gaines guide is not helping these matters, with all of its grade creep at the low end. half of those definitional climbs have had their ratings changed in the that guide.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Dec 11, 2010, 2:31 AM
Post #130 of 212
(3715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
justroberto wrote: camhead wrote: TradEddie wrote: jmeizis wrote: Grades creep because young people brought up climbing in a gym, taught by high schoolers get a little older without getting any old school education and then when they start bolting routes or putting up new climbs they grade it just like they would in a gym. Maybe that's it, hell I don't know, I pretty much downgrade everything... Don't necessarily blame the gym climber. Gyms usually contain mostly vertical or overhanging walls, with few cracks or dihedrals, and any slabs are relegated to the "beginners" wall. I'm willing to bet that grade creep is greater on features not often encountered in gyms, and that there is even reverse creep on routes that reflect gym-style climbing. TE No. The Red River Gorge has arguably the most "gym-like" feel of any crag in the US. And people are still inflating the grades there. I hear WTOK is actually 5.9+.
Thats what I tried to tell my brother. Looked pretty doable to me.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Dec 11, 2010, 3:37 AM
Post #131 of 212
(3687 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Why doesn't someone just put a bolt in to protect the crux. There's no need to risk lives to preserve ego.
That about sums it up.
|
|
|
|
|
dr_feelgood
Dec 11, 2010, 4:01 AM
Post #132 of 212
(3673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 26060
|
olderic wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Why doesn't someone just put a bolt in to protect the crux. There's no need to risk lives to preserve ego. That about sums it up.
retrobolt bachar-yerian.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Dec 11, 2010, 2:10 PM
Post #133 of 212
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
dr_feelgood wrote: olderic wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Why doesn't someone just put a bolt in to protect the crux. There's no need to risk lives to preserve ego. That about sums it up. retrobolt bachar-yerian.
Some would. Despite the obvious heresy that implies the lesser experienced climbers (who dominate this site) would be in favor of that.
|
|
|
|
|
snoopy138
Dec 11, 2010, 3:37 PM
Post #134 of 212
(3618 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28992
|
olderic wrote: dr_feelgood wrote: olderic wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Why doesn't someone just put a bolt in to protect the crux. There's no need to risk lives to preserve ego. That about sums it up. retrobolt bachar-yerian. Some would. Despite the obvious heresy that implies the lesser experienced climbers (who dominate this site) would be in favor of that.
a few might, but I think the majority (even of the lesser experienced gym n00b climbers) wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Dec 11, 2010, 4:47 PM
Post #135 of 212
(3599 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
snoopy138 wrote: olderic wrote: dr_feelgood wrote: olderic wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Why doesn't someone just put a bolt in to protect the crux. There's no need to risk lives to preserve ego. That about sums it up. retrobolt bachar-yerian. Some would. Despite the obvious heresy that implies the lesser experienced climbers (who dominate this site) would be in favor of that. a few might, but I think the majority (even of the lesser experienced gym n00b climbers) wouldn't.
You are right about the B-Y. But I still maintain the "no need to risk lives" mentality is predominant here
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Dec 11, 2010, 7:37 PM
Post #136 of 212
(3575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
caughtinside wrote: aerili wrote: jakedatc wrote: also along Lena's point.. you can't downgrade a route that you hangdogged up. I have known at least one person who does, but I won't name names. Hangdogging up several times and then sending later = downgrade for him, lmao! what kind of candy butt would do such a thing??
The things that inspire candy-butt-ness in some people are just beyond me, what can I say.
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Dec 12, 2010, 12:19 AM
Post #137 of 212
(3530 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
jmeizis wrote: I've climbed at The Gunks a bit. What's a popular example of a PG route and a G route?
High Exposure: 5.6 G
Moonlight: 5.6 PG
Arch: 5.4 PG (No real pro until 40+ feet)
Gelsa: 5.4 G
Inverted Layback: 5.9 PG (in old Swain)
Retribution: 5.10 G
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Dec 12, 2010, 12:30 AM
Post #138 of 212
(3523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
bill413 wrote: jmeizis wrote: I've climbed at The Gunks a bit. What's a popular example of a PG route and a G route? High Exposure: 5.6 G Moonlight: 5.6 PG Arch: 5.4 PG (No real pro until 40+ feet) Gelsa: 5.4 G Inverted Layback: 5.9 PG (in old Swain) Retribution: 5.10 G
hmm williams called High E PG.. i guess because of the bit of the GT ledge.. no idea why he says for P1.
Rhodo is another G 5.6
Ants line G..vs Bonnies PG
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Dec 12, 2010, 2:24 AM
Post #139 of 212
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
jakedatc wrote: bill413 wrote: jmeizis wrote: I've climbed at The Gunks a bit. What's a popular example of a PG route and a G route? High Exposure: 5.6 G Moonlight: 5.6 PG Arch: 5.4 PG (No real pro until 40+ feet) Gelsa: 5.4 G Inverted Layback: 5.9 PG (in old Swain) Retribution: 5.10 G hmm williams called High E PG.. i guess because of the bit of the GT ledge.. no idea why he says for P1. Rhodo is another G 5.6 Ants line G..vs Bonnies PG
How is Bonnie's PG?
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Dec 12, 2010, 3:32 AM
Post #140 of 212
(3473 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
johnwesely wrote: jakedatc wrote: bill413 wrote: jmeizis wrote: I've climbed at The Gunks a bit. What's a popular example of a PG route and a G route? High Exposure: 5.6 G Moonlight: 5.6 PG Arch: 5.4 PG (No real pro until 40+ feet) Gelsa: 5.4 G Inverted Layback: 5.9 PG (in old Swain) Retribution: 5.10 G hmm williams called High E PG.. i guess because of the bit of the GT ledge.. no idea why he says for P1. Rhodo is another G 5.6 Ants line G..vs Bonnies PG How is Bonnie's PG?
|
|
|
|
|
jmeizis
Dec 12, 2010, 3:48 AM
Post #141 of 212
(3469 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 635
|
In reply to: Arch: 5.4 PG (No real pro until 40+ feet)
That sounds solidly R to me. I'd call Bonnie's R as well but I might be remembering it wrong. Can you get pro before you get to the arete? I seem to remember going like 20 ft. before getting a piece or maybe I don't remember them because I skipped them (which would be my own stupid fault if I fell).
CCK, seems like it would be R, another one of those swinging 10 ft. falls. Probably help if I could remember better where the gear was on these routes but I don't live in NY anymore.
High E seems G, I can't think where you could get hurt on that, but I climbed it a long time ago.
It's really hard to say sometimes without actually taking the fall. The east face of the Third Flatiron is most certainly R/X, 60 ft. tumbling falls couldn't possibly be anything but. 20 ft. swinging fall where you might hit a ledge, less cut and dry.
Maybe that's part of the problem is someone climbs a route, feels a little exposed and without actually taking the fall thinks maybe someone could get hurt if they fell and add on an R. Maybe people (including me) shouldn't add danger ratings to things they haven't whipped on in the same way people shouldn't throw their opinions of a grade around unless they've done the climb clean but that might look kind of silly reading a guidebook with "5.8 (Might be R)". There's also the reverse problem where somebody falls badly and gets hurt, should there be an R because sometimes people fall badly.
How far do you take it in warning people they could get hurt? On the one end you can say nothing and let them figure it out on their own (internet excepting). On the opposite end you can warn people about every possible danger they might face which to me seems like a waste of time and sort of sterilizes things too much in my opinion.
Personally I feel like R and nothing are a good enough demarcation between "it's likely you'll get hurt" and "it's likely you'll be fine". Who knows, but I feel like crap so I'm going to go think about it in bed.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Dec 12, 2010, 4:05 AM
Post #142 of 212
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
granite_grrl wrote: johnwesely wrote: How is Bonnie's PG? Maybe the start of the traverse on the second pitch? It's a bit spooky, but I don't know if that little section would make the entire route PG.
Hmm. I forgot there was a second pitch. Some interesting circumstances prevented me from being able to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Dec 12, 2010, 4:18 AM
Post #143 of 212
(3445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
jmeizis wrote: In reply to: Arch: 5.4 PG (No real pro until 40+ feet) That sounds solidly R to me. I'd call Bonnie's R as well but I might be remembering it wrong. Can you get pro before you get to the arete? I seem to remember going like 20 ft. before getting a piece or maybe I don't remember them because I skipped them (which would be my own stupid fault if I fell). CCK, seems like it would be R, another one of those swinging 10 ft. falls. Probably help if I could remember better where the gear was on these routes but I don't live in NY anymore. High E seems G, I can't think where you could get hurt on that, but I climbed it a long time ago. It's really hard to say sometimes without actually taking the fall. The east face of the Third Flatiron is most certainly R/X, 60 ft. tumbling falls couldn't possibly be anything but. 20 ft. swinging fall where you might hit a ledge, less cut and dry. Maybe that's part of the problem is someone climbs a route, feels a little exposed and without actually taking the fall thinks maybe someone could get hurt if they fell and add on an R. Maybe people (including me) shouldn't add danger ratings to things they haven't whipped on in the same way people shouldn't throw their opinions of a grade around unless they've done the climb clean but that might look kind of silly reading a guidebook with "5.8 (Might be R)". There's also the reverse problem where somebody falls badly and gets hurt, should there be an R because sometimes people fall badly. How far do you take it in warning people they could get hurt? On the one end you can say nothing and let them figure it out on their own (internet excepting). On the opposite end you can warn people about every possible danger they might face which to me seems like a waste of time and sort of sterilizes things too much in my opinion. Personally I feel like R and nothing are a good enough demarcation between "it's likely you'll get hurt" and "it's likely you'll be fine". Who knows, but I feel like crap so I'm going to go think about it in bed.
You are a weird dude.
Not necessarily in a bad way, I don't know you well enough to make that call, but definitely weird.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Dec 12, 2010, 4:19 AM
Post #144 of 212
(3444 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
jmeizis wrote: In reply to: Arch: 5.4 PG (No real pro until 40+ feet) That sounds solidly R to me. I'd call Bonnie's R as well but I might be remembering it wrong. Can you get pro before you get to the arete? I seem to remember going like 20 ft. before getting a piece or maybe I don't remember them because I skipped them (which would be my own stupid fault if I fell). CCK, seems like it would be R, another one of those swinging 10 ft. falls. Probably help if I could remember better where the gear was on these routes but I don't live in NY anymore. High E seems G, I can't think where you could get hurt on that, but I climbed it a long time ago. It's really hard to say sometimes without actually taking the fall. The east face of the Third Flatiron is most certainly R/X, 60 ft. tumbling falls couldn't possibly be anything but. 20 ft. swinging fall where you might hit a ledge, less cut and dry. Maybe that's part of the problem is someone climbs a route, feels a little exposed and without actually taking the fall thinks maybe someone could get hurt if they fell and add on an R. Maybe people (including me) shouldn't add danger ratings to things they haven't whipped on in the same way people shouldn't throw their opinions of a grade around unless they've done the climb clean but that might look kind of silly reading a guidebook with "5.8 (Might be R)". There's also the reverse problem where somebody falls badly and gets hurt, should there be an R because sometimes people fall badly. How far do you take it in warning people they could get hurt? On the one end you can say nothing and let them figure it out on their own (internet excepting). On the opposite end you can warn people about every possible danger they might face which to me seems like a waste of time and sort of sterilizes things too much in my opinion. Personally I feel like R and nothing are a good enough demarcation between "it's likely you'll get hurt" and "it's likely you'll be fine". Who knows, but I feel like crap so I'm going to go think about it in bed.
How would Bonnies P2 be R.. even if you did blow it you'd just do a short swing back under the anchor and be fine. there is nothing to hit.
A swinging fall is not R. You can take a 10' swinging fall after the last bolt of Apocolpyse Later at rumney.. i've taken that fall. It doesn't feel good cuz you bump a bit.. but it is certainly not R rated.
you really are a nancy aren't you. B-Y is not in your future if you think Bonnies roof at any point is R rated. It takes a whole lot more serious condition to be an R rated route.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Dec 12, 2010, 4:34 AM
Post #145 of 212
(3436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
johnwesely wrote: granite_grrl wrote: johnwesely wrote: How is Bonnie's PG? Maybe the start of the traverse on the second pitch? It's a bit spooky, but I don't know if that little section would make the entire route PG. Hmm. I forgot there was a second pitch. Some interesting circumstances prevented me from being able to do it.
grey dick has both pitches at PG... I think PG is a very small step from G.. it could mean the gear is a bit fiddly or a little run out.. like right before the anchor on P1 and then the traverse on P2. same with off the ledge of High E.. it is a few bouldery moves to get up to a gear spot.. but it's not the end of the world.
(This post was edited by jakedatc on Dec 12, 2010, 4:34 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Dec 12, 2010, 4:46 AM
Post #146 of 212
(3432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
jakedatc wrote: johnwesely wrote: granite_grrl wrote: johnwesely wrote: How is Bonnie's PG? Maybe the start of the traverse on the second pitch? It's a bit spooky, but I don't know if that little section would make the entire route PG. Hmm. I forgot there was a second pitch. Some interesting circumstances prevented me from being able to do it. grey dick has both pitches at PG... I think PG is a very small step from G.. it could mean the gear is a bit fiddly or a little run out.. like right before the anchor on P1 and then the traverse on P2. same with off the ledge of High E.. it is a few bouldery moves to get up to a gear spot.. but it's not the end of the world.
You have to do moves off of a ledge, the ground, on every route. I don't see how the second pitch of High E is any different. It is probably one of the best protected pitches I have ever been on.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Dec 12, 2010, 4:55 AM
Post #147 of 212
(3427 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
johnwesely wrote: jakedatc wrote: johnwesely wrote: granite_grrl wrote: johnwesely wrote: How is Bonnie's PG? Maybe the start of the traverse on the second pitch? It's a bit spooky, but I don't know if that little section would make the entire route PG. Hmm. I forgot there was a second pitch. Some interesting circumstances prevented me from being able to do it. grey dick has both pitches at PG... I think PG is a very small step from G.. it could mean the gear is a bit fiddly or a little run out.. like right before the anchor on P1 and then the traverse on P2. same with off the ledge of High E.. it is a few bouldery moves to get up to a gear spot.. but it's not the end of the world. You have to do moves off of a ledge, the ground, on every route. I don't see how the second pitch of High E is any different. It is probably one of the best protected pitches I have ever been on.
I'm just trying to justify what the book says.. the few moves up the slab are sorta tricky for 5.6 i dunno i agree it eats gear... though i only placed 7 pieces when i led it. like i said. i think the jump to PG is very small.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Dec 12, 2010, 3:28 PM
Post #148 of 212
(3397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
notapplicable wrote: jmeizis wrote: In reply to: Arch: 5.4 PG (No real pro until 40+ feet) That sounds solidly R to me. I'd call Bonnie's R as well but I might be remembering it wrong. Can you get pro before you get to the arete? I seem to remember going like 20 ft. before getting a piece or maybe I don't remember them because I skipped them (which would be my own stupid fault if I fell). CCK, seems like it would be R, another one of those swinging 10 ft. falls. Probably help if I could remember better where the gear was on these routes but I don't live in NY anymore. High E seems G, I can't think where you could get hurt on that, but I climbed it a long time ago. It's really hard to say sometimes without actually taking the fall. The east face of the Third Flatiron is most certainly R/X, 60 ft. tumbling falls couldn't possibly be anything but. 20 ft. swinging fall where you might hit a ledge, less cut and dry. Maybe that's part of the problem is someone climbs a route, feels a little exposed and without actually taking the fall thinks maybe someone could get hurt if they fell and add on an R. Maybe people (including me) shouldn't add danger ratings to things they haven't whipped on in the same way people shouldn't throw their opinions of a grade around unless they've done the climb clean but that might look kind of silly reading a guidebook with "5.8 (Might be R)". There's also the reverse problem where somebody falls badly and gets hurt, should there be an R because sometimes people fall badly. How far do you take it in warning people they could get hurt? On the one end you can say nothing and let them figure it out on their own (internet excepting). On the opposite end you can warn people about every possible danger they might face which to me seems like a waste of time and sort of sterilizes things too much in my opinion. Personally I feel like R and nothing are a good enough demarcation between "it's likely you'll get hurt" and "it's likely you'll be fine". Who knows, but I feel like crap so I'm going to go think about it in bed. You are a weird dude. Not necessarily in a bad way, I don't know you well enough to make that call, but definitely weird.
And when N_A calls you weird, you're REALLY fucking weird!
And seriously, arguing about whether 5.4 gully nature hikes are PG or PG-13? Maybe you should factor in the amount of shifting rocks and slippery leaves on the approach trails in that. People could trip and twist an ankle.
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Dec 12, 2010, 3:32 PM
Post #149 of 212
(3391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
camhead wrote: notapplicable wrote: jmeizis wrote: In reply to: Arch: 5.4 PG (No real pro until 40+ feet) That sounds solidly R to me. I'd call Bonnie's R as well but I might be remembering it wrong. Can you get pro before you get to the arete? I seem to remember going like 20 ft. before getting a piece or maybe I don't remember them because I skipped them (which would be my own stupid fault if I fell). CCK, seems like it would be R, another one of those swinging 10 ft. falls. Probably help if I could remember better where the gear was on these routes but I don't live in NY anymore. High E seems G, I can't think where you could get hurt on that, but I climbed it a long time ago. It's really hard to say sometimes without actually taking the fall. The east face of the Third Flatiron is most certainly R/X, 60 ft. tumbling falls couldn't possibly be anything but. 20 ft. swinging fall where you might hit a ledge, less cut and dry. Maybe that's part of the problem is someone climbs a route, feels a little exposed and without actually taking the fall thinks maybe someone could get hurt if they fell and add on an R. Maybe people (including me) shouldn't add danger ratings to things they haven't whipped on in the same way people shouldn't throw their opinions of a grade around unless they've done the climb clean but that might look kind of silly reading a guidebook with "5.8 (Might be R)". There's also the reverse problem where somebody falls badly and gets hurt, should there be an R because sometimes people fall badly. How far do you take it in warning people they could get hurt? On the one end you can say nothing and let them figure it out on their own (internet excepting). On the opposite end you can warn people about every possible danger they might face which to me seems like a waste of time and sort of sterilizes things too much in my opinion. Personally I feel like R and nothing are a good enough demarcation between "it's likely you'll get hurt" and "it's likely you'll be fine". Who knows, but I feel like crap so I'm going to go think about it in bed. You are a weird dude. Not necessarily in a bad way, I don't know you well enough to make that call, but definitely weird. And when N_A calls you weird, you're REALLY fucking weird! And seriously, arguing about whether 5.4 gully nature hikes are PG or PG-13? Maybe you should factor in the amount of shifting rocks and slippery leaves on the approach trails in that. People could trip and twist an ankle.
i hear some people find the boy scout trail on Long's Peak to be PG13.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Dec 12, 2010, 3:39 PM
Post #150 of 212
(3387 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
drivel wrote: camhead wrote: notapplicable wrote: jmeizis wrote: In reply to: Arch: 5.4 PG (No real pro until 40+ feet) That sounds solidly R to me. I'd call Bonnie's R as well but I might be remembering it wrong. Can you get pro before you get to the arete? I seem to remember going like 20 ft. before getting a piece or maybe I don't remember them because I skipped them (which would be my own stupid fault if I fell). CCK, seems like it would be R, another one of those swinging 10 ft. falls. Probably help if I could remember better where the gear was on these routes but I don't live in NY anymore. High E seems G, I can't think where you could get hurt on that, but I climbed it a long time ago. It's really hard to say sometimes without actually taking the fall. The east face of the Third Flatiron is most certainly R/X, 60 ft. tumbling falls couldn't possibly be anything but. 20 ft. swinging fall where you might hit a ledge, less cut and dry. Maybe that's part of the problem is someone climbs a route, feels a little exposed and without actually taking the fall thinks maybe someone could get hurt if they fell and add on an R. Maybe people (including me) shouldn't add danger ratings to things they haven't whipped on in the same way people shouldn't throw their opinions of a grade around unless they've done the climb clean but that might look kind of silly reading a guidebook with "5.8 (Might be R)". There's also the reverse problem where somebody falls badly and gets hurt, should there be an R because sometimes people fall badly. How far do you take it in warning people they could get hurt? On the one end you can say nothing and let them figure it out on their own (internet excepting). On the opposite end you can warn people about every possible danger they might face which to me seems like a waste of time and sort of sterilizes things too much in my opinion. Personally I feel like R and nothing are a good enough demarcation between "it's likely you'll get hurt" and "it's likely you'll be fine". Who knows, but I feel like crap so I'm going to go think about it in bed. You are a weird dude. Not necessarily in a bad way, I don't know you well enough to make that call, but definitely weird. And when N_A calls you weird, you're REALLY fucking weird! And seriously, arguing about whether 5.4 gully nature hikes are PG or PG-13? Maybe you should factor in the amount of shifting rocks and slippery leaves on the approach trails in that. People could trip and twist an ankle. i hear some people find the boy scout trail on Long's Peak to be PG13.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
