Adventure Sports and Online Communities

[H-man]

Morning everyone.

I think this is a good read for all of us as a reminder of how to act and how to be careful being involved with sites like this. I bet it will at least get you thinking.

Adventure Sports & Online Communities

Enjoy, and learn.

[NtrentT]

The interent is a powerful tool, use it wisely or it becomes dangerous.

[M@]

Good article - I encourage everyone here to read it. We've talked about this kinda stuff before - someone getting just enough info on this site to be dangerous. I think it's a part of the "show-no-tell" philosophy too.

Reputated - which is an example of how we dole out the rep - more likely for attending a good beer festival than doing something dangerous.

M@

[jumpturn]

Actually, if you track mountain locations closely, you will find that they hold traps, which spring on people with statistical regularity. The rate of injury and death depend primarily on the volume of traffic.

In Yosemite, for example, hikers (not so much climbers) get killed in the same locations, where there is often a sign telling them what not to do. Likewise in Chamonix (minus the signs), only the numbers can run 50 dead and 300 injuried per week in high season!

On Mt. Washington, there is probably less traffic, and probably fewer ways to get killed (no glacier, seracs, or rock fall), but there are lots of resort skiers (and city slickers) sampling the backcountry with zero mountaineering skills.....love the way they fall down all of tux! Get a helmet, dude!

This is why it pays to hire a mountain guide: so you can learn to rag doll down tux safely. Seriously, a guide and a few books on moutaineering can definitely help raise the level of competence, and reduce the accident rate. But, staying off the mountain in high winds and/or low temperatures will save your life.

[P-HUG]

Good find thanks for sharing H

[gpetrics]

Originally Posted by M@

Good article - I encourage everyone here to read it. We've talked about this kinda stuff before - someone getting just enough info on this site to be dangerous. I think it's a part of the "show-no-tell" philosophy too.

Reputated - which is an example of how we dole out the rep - more likely for attending a good beer festival than doing something dangerous.

M@

I totally agree that this is an important point; people who get stoked by reading an online forum, and then head out into the mtns, and try to do it themselves without acquiring knowledge and experience deliberately and over a long period of time are dangerous to themselves (and perhaps others).

But would you really say that the climber in this article took unneccessary risk as a result of his interaction with 14ers.com? It sounds like at some point in his life he was struck with the itch to hike 14ers in CO, he went out there and acquired alot of knowledge & experience (and presumably gear), began hiking 14ers, and then made a big mistake on one hike where danger was present (albeit a danger he was apparently willing to accept).

I'm just not so sure this story is evidence that the online community is at fault. Message forums or not, the mountains are dangerous places, and sometimes you get very unlucky.

My takeaway from that story is not that Talus Monkey did anything wrong, but instead that it was a little sickening to read about how people were "permitted" to follow the story in near-real-time on 14ers.com. I think THAT perhaps is an abuse of technology. I don't understand why it was important to keep people not involved in the rescue up to date by perhaps draining rescue reserouces?

Regardless, thanks for the link! It was certainly a thought-provoking read, and I guess that's all one can really hope for. I forwarded it to a bunch of friends to see what they think.

[tig]

He seems to have climbed al 54 14ers in a year and a week, so obviously he got out, and was strong, and had experience. Might this have been a case of overestimating onself in the conditions?

Lets be honest, God knows we all have done that, at whatever level we are. One makes mistakes and learns, if one is lucky.

I guess what I am saying is he was well in his 'comfort zone' when this happened it seems...

I also really dont see the relevance to online communities as being different from a bunch of guides from one mountain area. Non localization in geography does not translate to non-localization in trust and commitment, as multiple postings on this forum, or neice, or others bear witness to.

The real time updates are maybe over the top, but welcome to "The Real World"

[BladeGirl]

Thank you for the link, and I agree with the above comments.

This is a serious thing, but when I read "paradoxical undress," I could not help but think of . Please forgive.

-BG

[RR]

We have lost cyber-friends hereabouts as well. To my way of thinking our user groups are making us better aquainted, as though we were villagers again.

As villagers we know each other's business, including our living and dying. This is a good thing.

[PWDR8S]

So the thought here is that we should pull TR's of lines like Pipeline and other serious and dangerous BC runs? I recorded as much beta as I could on Pipeline because I wished I had that prior to hitting it and I think that others could use it and be the wiser for it. Perhaps emphasizing the dangerousness(?) of the descent should have been repeated often.

I think people will do it anyways.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by PWDR8S

So the thought here is that we should pull TR's of lines like Pipeline and other serious and dangerous BC runs? I recorded as much beta as I could on Pipeline because I wished I had that prior to hitting it and I think that others could use it and be the wiser for it. Perhaps emphasizing the dangerousness(?) of the descent should have been repeated often.

I think people will do it anyways.

I'm with you P8's. People are responsible for themselves. If some unqualified buffoon reads my Pipeline TR and thinks, "hey, that doesn't look hard at all" and goes out there and kills himself, he has only himself to blame. I don't sense that anybody here on this board goes out there for the express purpose of showing off to this board what he/she can do. It's about a community that shares information with others, so that we (ourselves and our online friends) can be better prepared when we go out. Trip Reports are the lifeblood of this forum, in my estimation. I would never think to contemplate whether my TR might prompt someone who is unqualified from seeking out the objective I reported on. And I think that in this place in particular, we have the right mix of people offering up good, sound, practical advice to newcomers, without being too pedantic or supercilious.

Talus Monkey had an unfortunate accident that could befall any one of us. May he rest in peace.

[RR]

I'll stay with the village theme....aside from the power brokers there are, variously: Wise, Ignorant, Willing, Unwilling, and many other kinds of villagers.

Village idiots are no less common in cyber-villages than they are elsewhere and even the wise can have a bad day.

This forum and several others lets new folks know there are serious hazards...even to the point of upsetting folks, as happened on my watch a few days back. I don't mind folks getting PO'd at me; it goes with the territory. Besides, as happened then, these things usually sort out pretty well and the cautionary language gets some air-time.

I agree about the bc gems:

If folks want beta on the Gnarly...sorry, not gonna get it for two reasons. First, I want to pop that-one and second because it's way the heck away from help, really skinny and serious as a heart attack! I can think of more than two dozens T4T denizens that would be great on a posse through there...but as has been said....show only, no telling.

[jumpturn]

I think it is better to have the information on the net than not.

What would be useful is a skull and crossbones rating.

In the US, rock climbing uses PG, R, X to indicate the seriousness.

It would be helpful to indicate the seriousness of descents on any online route descriptions.

Here's a rating scheme:

• PG Self-arrest possible, safe runout
• R Self-arrest difficult, nasty runout
• X Self-arrest unlikely, death runout

This scheme needs to be normalized for snow conditions.

• 1 soft corn or powder: seriousness comes down one notch
• 2 packed powder, firm snow: standard rating
• 3 ice or hardpack: seriousness goes up one notch

Pipeline or Airplane are R, which means an expert can stop in good conditions with good technique, but you will probably die (X) in hard conditions. I think Airplane is more dangerous because it is steeper (44º vs. 40º) and it doesn't have discontinuities to break any fall (just rock ledges to slam into and bounce off). Of course, down climbing the ice fall, or skiing it, probably jacked the rating to R/X in good conditions. People have bit it on both.

More generally, over 45º, and especially over 50º, make it unlikely that a skier can self-arrest on the most favorable snow (1). This is particularly true if they are not able to stop within the first 30' because they will pick up too much momentum and start bouncing. For unfavorable snow (3), self-arrest will not be possible on anything over 30º, and the only question will be what you hit and how hard.

When you get into higher end descents, the technical rating may need to include rope work, such as anchors and rappels, or belayed skiing.

Avalanches and ice fall are separate ratings. Remoteness and difficulting mobilizing help are further considerations.

A bozo rating might be good too. Basically, stick to PG in ideal conditions and don't get out of sight of the ski patrol in Tux.

That's my 2 cents.

[surfy]

Its all about knowing your own abilities and sticking within them. I know that I'm an intermediate on backcountry. I purposely stay away from the more remote stuff and try to congregate where the crowds go, just in case. I don't get backcountry very often due to logistics. Someday I'll get better at it and I plan to be around to see myself get better.

Hardpack.... with gates....... that's another story. But I also get to spend 30 to 40 days a year in gates.

[jdw]

Originally Posted by jumpturn

In the US, rock climbing uses PG, R, X to indicate the seriousness.

It would be helpful to indicate the seriousness of descents on any online route descriptions.

Here's a rating scheme:

• PG Self-arrest possible, safe runout
• R Self-arrest difficult, nasty runout
• X Self-arrest unlikely, death runout

This scheme needs to be normalized for snow conditions.

• 1 soft corn or powder: seriousness comes down one notch
• 2 packed powder, firm snow: standard rating
• 3 ice or hardpack: seriousness goes up one notch

Lou Dawson's D ratings do a pretty good job. Definitely accounts for a lot of what you've mentioned here. The conditions point is clearly lacking in this system, though. It's just so difficult to predict. I do like the idea of adding or subtracting one for the conditions. Snowpack is another variable that really can't be accounted for in a standard rating. Dodge's in a thin year is quite a different thing than, say, May 1997.

For me - I love the beta. The more the better. Bad beta is a drag, but I am accountable to myself alone. I treat the info I get here just like any other on the intarwebs. The source is key. I've skiied with or met a good deal of folks here and to a person, they've been frank regarding their abilities and modest regarding their accomplishments. I generally trust the info I get here. I've done the due diligence. Everyone's got to do their own homework, though.