Search across the entire UKC database for Routes or Crags.
Your query will be matched against the following:
Name of Route/Crags
Name of Crags (for routes)
Name of Buttress (for routes)
Rock Type eg. granite, gritstorne, sandstone etc
Route Type eg. trad, sport, winter etc
Grade i.e. HVS, V3, IV etc
E.g. Froggatt HVS-E1 ** Grit
Surround multiple words with double quotes to require a match on that phrase, eg "bat route" malham
Asterisks get special treatment in search queries. A sequence of them is considered to be a star rating for a route, so
treated as 1-star, ** treated as 2-stars and *** treated as 3-stars. Typing just one sequence
search where the route is required to have at least that many stars, eg bat route ** will only return routes with
or more stars that also match the other search criteria bat and route.
Adding a dash and a second star sequence will create a range, eg *-** means "match routes with at least one and
most two stars".
As above with stars, but with grades. Eg vs-e1 will match routes with a grade of either VS,
HVS or E1.
Date ranges (only years)
Date ranges will check against the first-ascent date field and require the route to have been put up between the start date and
the end date (inclusive). Eg 1970-1974 will match routes put up between 01-01-1970 and
31-12-1974. You should note that not all routes have had the first ascent date filled in, and these routes will
excluded from any search that includes date ranges, so you might not get the results you expect.
Difficulty for grade
We've calculated a value based on the grade voting system that assigns a route a value from one of:
You can search for routes with these characteristics by using the special pipe-syntax, eg |soft|. If you don't wrap
the text in pipes, you'll just be searching the other text fields, so soft, with no pipes, would get you a match if
the text appeared in the description for example and |soft| will only match against routes that have been
marked as soft, and not check the other fields for the text.
A continuation of this system which uses the same syntax allows you to search for routes that are voted to be a completely
different grade using the following criteria:
eg |overgraded|. Note that this is based on votes, so if there are no votes for a route and you include one of these
won't appear, regardless of whether it is in reality over or undergraded. Note also that whilst you can combine these with
soft/benchmark/hard, some combinations make no sense.
Regular expressions, for those that don't know, are a way of describing patterns in strings. They are a very powerful tool for
searching and manipulating text, and completely unnecessary in this route search bar. However, if you do want to use them,
they are possible by surrounding the expression with forward slashes, eg /chris (?!craggs)/ will match any routes
that mention 'chris' but not those that mention 'chris craggs'. Or e2-e3
/crap|damp|horrible/ will return you a list of probably not classic routes.
Note that pure-regex queries are not allowed due to the cost of the queries against the database. You should always add any of
the other query types mentioned above if you're using a regex.
Finally, if you precede any text with a minus character you will negate it and require that it is not matched, eg -"mark
leach" bat malham.
250m, 6 pitches.
Located at Urca Rock on "face oeste do Pao de Acucar" (The west face of Sugar Loaf).
Good sustained climbing on granite slabs, with small quartz crystal crimps. All pegged. The route follows Italianos before traversing left on "Vr. Darcy Ribeiro" and finishing upto the base of the cable car station on "Vr. Troglodita". A great climb, though worth taking a guide if you've not been before. Great views over rio and good exposure.
Brazilian Grade: 5 VI E2 D1 125m
βeta:A couple of wobbly flakes. Should be fine but just be aware. A bit runout in places but when it’s easier climbing. I felt it was harder than 5.9 but then we did do it in slightly wet conditions (last slab pitch was really wet which made it as slippery as ice) and I had shoes that were too big for me haha. Enjoy the views, beautiful climbing :) A route well worth doing.
Show beta βeta:A couple of wobbly flakes. Should be fine but just be aware. A bit runout in places but when it’s easier climbing. I felt it was harder than 5.9 but then we did do it in slightly wet conditions (last slab pitch was really wet which made it as slippery as ice) and I had shoes that were too big for me haha. Enjoy the views, beautiful climbing :) A route well worth doing.
35 users have logged this
7 users have this on their wishlist
Please Login to view more details on the logged
Feedback comments are intended to give extra information about a route which may be helpful to other climbers.
This can include 'βeta' which is crucial information about the route which may be how to do a move, or tips about
holds or gear.
If you don't want to see βeta then select 'Always Hide βeta' and the comments will be hidden for you. You can
set this in your User Options.
If you read a comment that you think contains crucial βeta then you can mark it as 'βeta' using the flag on
If you see something incorrectly marked as βeta, you can hide it by clicking on the word 'βeta:' on the
You can also copy any of your previous personal ascent comments to Public Feedback if they contain useful general
They can be edited before posting to remove
personal content if required.