Class 2 vs Difficult Class 2

[Flyingfish]

Another problem with how hikers use the YDS is that they often mix in exposure with their ratings. Difficulty and exposure are very different ways of measuring a route. However, generally something with a high difficulty does have lots of exposure. This is not always the case. Halo Ridge is solidly class 2 but has some sections with a high amount of exposure. There are also come class 4 sections on Pyramid with very little exposure.
This exposure vs. difficulty rating is something I feel like very few "new" hikers have any understanding of and can lead people to both over rating and under rating routes.

[AlexeyD]

Difficulty and exposure are very different ways of measuring a route.

I agree up to a point. I'd argue, though, that there are times in which the exposure actually does become a factor in the rating. Take the following example: imagine a Class 1 or 2 trail. Now put that trail on top of a ridge, and make it increasingly narrow. At some point, the consequences of a slip will become so severe that people can no longer walk that trail the same way they would if it were simply on flat ground; instead, they're now using their hands and feet in a way that's more similar to climbing. In other words, the exposure actually changes the nature of the route - and hence its rating. The Capitol knife edge is the obvious real-world example of this. Were it not for the 1000s of feet of air on either side, it wouldn't be harder than class 2, and most people would simply walk across. It's the exposure that makes people scoot, crawl, smear, or do whatever it is they do to get across without falling into the abyss.

Ultimately, these scales - even at the YDS Class 5 level - are an attempt to quantify the human experience vis-a-vis the terrain, not an objective measure of the terrain itself. Therefore, it can never come down to just one factor alone, and it's rarely the case that you can completely eliminate another factor (i.e. exposure) from the equation either.

[Jorts]

Route finding can make some class 2 terrain more difficult to navigate and thus "difficult class 2". Really though, it's arbitrary.

A 5-12 climb for a short woman could be a 5-9 for the tall guy who can bypass the difficult section, and a 5-9 for a person with small hands could be a 5-12 for the large handed guy left crimping.

[mtree]

By definition, class 2 does not require use of your hands. Class 3 will require the use of your hands. It gets blurry in the middle. I'd say Challenger is a great example of a difficult class 2. Chicago transplant explained it well. A difficult class 2 requires very modified movement, whether its for balance or security. Easy class 3 would be something most folks can accomplish fairly easily, but will require hand holds...however easy they may be. Kit Carson's standard route is a great example.

I'll mention that one person's class 2 may be another's class 3. Depends on how long your legs are... or your skill level. Sneffel's V-notch comes to mind. Some might even consider Kit Carson's Challenger Point route a class 2.

[TakeMeToYourSummit]

imagine a Class 1 or 2 trail. Now put that trail on top of a ridge

An even better example of this is the Devil's Causeway on the Flattops. From everything I understand it is simply class 2. The exposure turns people around all the time though. This discussion is similar (not exactly) like the class 4 or low 5 debate. I climbed Tijeras followed by the south ridge of Music this weekend. Solidly class 4... or was there a move or two of low 5 in there somewhere?! Such a blurry line. When I hear difficult 2 I always think of loose, shifting terrain - think Castle, Challenger, or the like. My personal nemesis on this matter was Gilpin... ascending (& worse yet; descending) that gully dry was not the most prudent choice!

[derekesq]

How about Belford and Missouri both being class two. I would consider Missouri a difficult class 2 whereas Belford seems more like a 1.5.

[justiner]

I propose we split Class 2 into more specific grades:

[*] Easy Class 2
[*] Moderate Class 2
[*] Difficult Class 2
[*] Hard Difficult Class 2
[*] Very Difficult Class 2
[*] Hard Very Difficult Class 2
[*] Severe Class 2
[*] Hard Severe Class 2
[*] Very Severe Class 2
[*] Hard Very Severe Class 2
[*] Extremely Severe Class 2

[rijaca]

Class 2: I use my trekking poles.
Class 3: I put my trekking poles on my pack.

I encounter difficult Class 2 when I try to put my poles on my pack while still wearing it.

[Conor]

I propose we split Class 2 into more specific grades:

[*] Easy Class 2
[*] Moderate Class 2
[*] Difficult Class 2
[*] Hard Difficult Class 2
[*] Very Difficult Class 2
[*] Hard Very Difficult Class 2
[*] Severe Class 2
[*] Hard Severe Class 2
[*] Very Severe Class 2
[*] Hard Very Severe Class 2
[*] Extremely Severe Class 2

I propose we adopt the yds for 5th class. We then have 2.1 all the way up to 2.15. This represents the hardest part of the route from a technical stand point. We should then use letters for an exposure rating. + and - can then be used in multiples for route finding difficulty. For example, sneffels would be 2.10b-+.

This system is fool proof and elimanted all silly conversations about a route's difficulty in the technical climbing world. Applying it to the hiking world should bring the same joy mountainproject.com enjoys.

[Scott P]

How about Belford and Missouri both being class two. I would consider Missouri a difficult class 2 whereas Belford seems more like a 1.5.

Isn't Belford a class 1 by more than one route? I'm asking rather than arguing, because maybe I'm not remembering correctly.

[TravelingMatt]

I propose we adopt the yds for 5th class. We then have 2.1 all the way up to 2.15. This represents the hardest part of the route from a technical stand point. We should then use letters for an exposure rating. + and - can then be used in multiples for route finding difficulty. For example, sneffels would be 2.10b-+.

Yes, as I wrote:

I understand the original intention of YDS was for all the class levels to have decimal precision the way Class 5 does. Imagine all the long, pointless debates we could have over whether Crestone Needle is 3.6 or 3.7.

[Conor]

I propose we adopt the yds for 5th class. We then have 2.1 all the way up to 2.15. This represents the hardest part of the route from a technical stand point. We should then use letters for an exposure rating. + and - can then be used in multiples for route finding difficulty. For example, sneffels would be 2.10b-+.

Yes, as I wrote:

I understand the original intention of YDS was for all the class levels to have decimal precision the way Class 5 does. Imagine all the long, pointless debates we could have over whether Crestone Needle is 3.6 or 3.7.

I think we might have blown this whole troll account thing.