UKC

If there was a specific forum for guidebooks I'd have posted there. regardless my question concerns alpine routes so here goes.

I'm writing an depth guidebook to alpine climbing on Vancouver Island, BC. Despite the long history of alpinism in the Rockies etc.. things are pretty new here and some traditions and ethical guidelines if you like have yet to be clearly established.

In 1988 a new, moderate but long alpine route was established. About 1400m long at TD- 5.8 (about VS 4b/c if I remember right). The line takes a natural diagonal across a big face to join a very defined arete for the upper two-thirds. It's moderate technically but does require a committing rappel down to a beck at the edge of a free-falling waterfall to reach the base of the upper arete.

A few years later in 2002 a couple of guys climbed a direct start that avoided the rappel and joined the upper arete (which defines the overall route) about a third of the way up and then obviously finished up the original line. In all I'd estimate they climbed about 450m of new ground.

I realize their are many variables and without knowing the face and the local culture it's hard to say definitively but I'm just looking for general opinions to draw on.

Would you list the later, direct start as an entirely separate route?
If so does it get described with the full length of the overall route or just the new ground covered?
Or does it get more of a bold 'VARIATION' at the foot of the original route description?

In reply to Wild Isle:

Well at the risk of giving a "how long is a piece of string" answer, but this sounds like a direct start to an existing route. How does the technicality of the new start compare to the difficulty of the original start?

In reply to Simon4:

very similar - basically technically the same.

In reply to Wild Isle:

Than I would just record it as a variation in the guidebook / route descriptions you are writing.

In reply to Wild Isle:

In the UK you generally have to have more than 450 meters of independent new climbing for a route to be considered new

In reply to Tyler:


No more new routes on Stanage then.

In reply to Wild Isle:

It's up to the first person no? If they want to call it a separate name, and it finishes at the other route, so be it?

In reply to jonnie3430:


No issue with naming the route - in this case there is a name and it's established. I am more interested in the presentation. The feedback here has been helpful and I have of course looked at a lot of other guides. I'm going to list it with its own entry like a full route but the title starts:
Original Route: New Name Variation

In reply to Wild Isle:

Was the direct start significantly harder than the original route and what's the relative quality, are they likely to be climbed much in the future? As the direct start sounds like a purer line, you could imagine it might become the normal way to gain the upper arete and the original way described as a variation in future guidebooks? Hard to say without more info or a photo, just musing really but I can think of other routes where that has happened.

In reply to Dave McG:

The original line starts on the left, the later direct start to the right

http://www.wildisle.ca/islandalpineselect/cataract.png

In reply to Wild Isle:

Thanks, and apologies notice now you mentioned earlier they're both similiar in difficulty. Your decision to list them as 2 separate entries makes good sense, think i'd be more tempted by the direct start myself.

Looks a good place.

In reply to Wild Isle:

To me that represents a seperate route - from the looks of it the "variation" is the longest part of the route. A variation for me is a slight deviation from the original line, not 450m of continuous line that is completely seperated from the original in both geographical terms but also aesthetic. If this was 450m of climbing that was split up and 20-50 m from the original then it would be a variation...

In reply to mike kann:


Thanks for the reply. It breaks down that the length of the direct start is about one third of the length of the original line.

I think I have it all squared away, thanks for all the feedback. The first ascentionists are happy with the treatment so we're good to go.