[HN Gopher] Via ferratas are finally catching on in the United S...
___________________________________________________________________
Via ferratas are finally catching on in the United States
Author : geox
Score : 82 points
Date : 2024-02-29 06:48 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
| snowwrestler wrote:
| > With both the National Park Service and Forest Service
| currently challenging the ban on fixed climbing anchors on public
| lands, they may become more common in the near future.
|
| This is completely backward; there is currently _not_ a ban on
| fixed climbing anchors in wilderness areas, and the NPS and
| Forest Service are attempting to create bans through a backdoor
| by updating their climbing management guidelines.
|
| There is no way via ferratas are ever going to go into wilderness
| areas. People can argue whether the occasional fixed rappel
| anchor is an impermissible "installation" under the Wilderness
| Act. But everyone agrees that via ferratas are.
| hunter-gatherer wrote:
| I personally would rather not see these in the wilderness. One
| of the things that make the little remaining wilderness we have
| in the US "wild" is the friction to entry. I have some seasoned
| experience with mountaineering and wilderness stays and what
| makes it remarkable is the smaller footprint from humans. The
| more accessible it is the less wild it becomes.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| People used to complain about Yosemite having a road built to
| it, because it'd detract from the natural beauty of the
| valley and bring in too many "lazy" tourists. To some extent
| those critics were right, but it's pretty undeniable in
| hindsight that the cause of the parks system has been better
| served by having parks like these accessible to the public
| than it would have been by keeping them pristine and largely
| unvisited. We still have parks like that too. Gates of the
| Arctic and Isla royale come to mind as inaccessible, and both
| are tragically undervisited / unknown as a result. It's not
| like you can't escape the crowded masses in busy parks
| either. A half hour hike towards the backcountry will free
| you from the bustle of crowds at almost all of them.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Yosemite already has a via ferrata: the cable route on Half
| Dome.
| stagger87 wrote:
| Yes, and it's a huge attraction. For better or for worse?
| snowwrestler wrote:
| I think it's for worse, but NPS obviously disagrees. They
| seem to have essentially designated most of the Valley a
| sort of tourist sacrifice zone, what with all the hotels,
| roads, stores, paved hiking trails, etc.
|
| There was a similar cables route up Longs Peak in Rocky
| Mountain National Park for decades, but NPS took it out,
| leaving the Keyhole Route as the easiest (but not easy)
| remaining way to the summit.
| zmj wrote:
| Wasn't that due to lightning strikes on the cables?
| sandworm101 wrote:
| The balance is that if the park doesn't let enough people
| in, the people stop supporting the park. America is
| democratic. Parks are not protected by royal proclamation.
| If the park is inaccessible then people don't visit. Then
| they don't care about it. Then one day someone wants to
| drill for oil in the park, and nobody cares enough to vote
| that down.
|
| I really don't mind the car-camping crowd. They stay inside
| their gravel circles and don't impact the real wilderness
| much. But come time to vote they will always far outnumber
| the dedicated rock climbers. I want the car campers on my
| side. If that means giving them their parking spots then so
| be it.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Re: your democracy comment, note that Trump and Biden
| have both converted public land reserves and in cases
| near/impacting national parks into private oil drilling
| sites. Not to the point of drilling inside national parks
| yet, but expanding and encroaching. Given the bipartisan
| efforts to convert public land and the reversals on
| campaign promises without perceptible consequence, I'm
| skeptical of relying on the "voting and waiting" strategy
| to protect our undeveloped lands. You are overstating how
| democratic this process is.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> relying on the "voting and waiting" strategy
|
| I don't know where you get that. Parks are old. Older
| than petty debates between recent presidents. They rely
| on support from the population over decades, even
| centuries. This isn't about the ebb and flow of current
| voting patterns. This is about keeping people on the pro-
| park side intergenerationally. It is about making sure
| that people know what a park means, even if they only
| visited it as a kid decades previous. Current political
| personalities are irrelevant to that longer perspective.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| >Parks are not protected by royal proclamation.
|
| That's _exactly_ how they 're protected: https://en.wikip
| edia.org/wiki/List_of_lands_protected_by_The...
| weaksauce wrote:
| that is something that can be reversed if the public
| doesn't want it enough.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| ok, but you can make that point for any law.
| unit_circle wrote:
| The one counterpoint I'd like to make here is tat. Imo it's
| better to leave minimal high quality, long lived gear than
| soft goods that deteriorate over time that can make for a
| dangerous descent and produce a fair bit of garbage.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| The stuff I saw pictured looks like rebar bent into rungs,
| so now you have steel left out that will deteriorate,
| possibly in an undetectable manner(remember, your anchor
| point is in the rock face).
|
| Also you are drilling into the rock. So much for leave no
| trace.
| willcipriano wrote:
| > little remaining wilderness
|
| The US is mostly wilderness. Drive across it sometime staying
| off the highways.
| schaefer wrote:
| Within the context of land management and the BLM,
| "wilderness" is a technical designation.
|
| Here is a map[1] for land designated wilderness.
|
| [1]: https://gbp-blm-egis.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/BLM-
| EGIS::blm-n...
| legohead wrote:
| As a rock climber, I hope it grows. Tired of seeing these
| debates and fights with authorities on putting up anchors,
| which are far less visible than these via ferratas. If these
| catch on and people like them, I think it will be good for
| climbers.
| mateo1 wrote:
| I wholeheartedly agree. I used to visit my grandpa's village
| every year (somewhere in europe) surrounded by beautiful
| mountains. The nature was accessible by everyone - warranted
| they'd do a 2 hour drive on rough road, get a hiking map and
| hike to the top. You'd also have to pack lunch and coffee.
| Now a new road is build, several hotels including a luxury
| resort with pools, coffee shops, tourist traps selling
| "traditional" "local" products etc. It's just terrible.
| Before, you'd "buy" your way there with effort, now you just
| pay, and you take your laziness with you all the way to the
| mountain top where you buy your $10 coffee and instagram
| snaps. If you want to sidestep the "nature" part of nature
| just go to a city park.
| namdnay wrote:
| Good news, but if this is anything like other mountain activities
| in the USA, I bet it costs an arm and a leg
|
| And... yep, I just opened a random one (Estes Park?) - prices
| starting at 199USD a head! About 4x the price of a french one
| (30-50e per adult depending on how big it is and how expensive
| the location is)
|
| I imagine it's a combination of novelty + everything being
| managed privately (whereas in most of europe there are a lot of
| subsidies to keep mountain areas thriving)
| lm28469 wrote:
| The ones I've done in Europe were free, you could even access
| them and climb without any gear if you want
| namdnay wrote:
| indeed a lot of them are "free" but they clearly state the
| correct equipment must be worn (which is of course available
| for rent at various approved outlets) , or else any accident
| will get you into a world of financial trouble
| sebtron wrote:
| What do you mean by "financial trouble"? You certainly risk
| getting hurt or killed without the right equipment, but I
| don't see how this is related to "financial trouble".
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| I assume they mean that you will be billed for any rescue
| costs incurred.
| hgomersall wrote:
| I always assume that's the case when I'm in the Alps.
| That's why it's important to have proper insurance.
| dfadsadsf wrote:
| Most US medical insurances (definitely the one I have
| from work) will cover rescue (including helicopter) if it
| was medically necessary. There is nothing specific about
| via ferrata in Europe that changes financial situation
| compared to for example hiking and breaking the leg or
| something like that.
| sebtron wrote:
| Yeah, that's true. But I always assumed you need to be
| really inconsiderate with your equipment to get fined. At
| least this is what the local stories about tourists
| getting fined told :)
|
| Never heard about this being a tourist trap.
| namdnay wrote:
| the big risk is third party risk - if you fall on someone
| else, or bring down a power line, or drop a rock on
| someone below you. not having paid for the session means
| you won't have paid the 2-3 euros for the third-party
| insurance
| seattle_spring wrote:
| We must be talking about completely different things,
| because in no way shape or form is a "power line"
| associated with any via ferrata I've done in Italy or
| Austria.
|
| Further, equipment depends on difficulty. Some via
| ferratas are really just some metal cables to help keep
| your balance over small crossings, while others are
| traversing sheer cliffs and peaks with obviously fatal
| safety implications. It would be silly to require safety
| equipment for the former, while it'd be silly _not to_
| for the latter.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Oh yes for sure, I just meant there is no one to physically
| stop you at any point (neither for money nor gear check).
| The equipment rental was very often in the closest city, a
| ~10 min drive away
|
| I assume the US experience would be quite different
| hammock wrote:
| Yeah, we did caminito del rey near Malaga Spain back when
| it was closed to the public, people were still doing it
| but I think officially you weren't supposed to, this was
| years before they recently fixed it up and officially
| reopened it to the public
| sebtron wrote:
| Interestingly, this is the first time I hear about any paid
| mountain track / climbing path.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| As I understand it, you can access them for free with your
| own equipment, or rent the gear, or go with a guide. Most
| tourists are going to go with a guide at least the first time
| and probably rent gear afterwards. They might ask for
| donations for the maintenance, although generally I think
| that's paid from the equipment rental/tour income,
| subsidizing it for people going on their own.
|
| $200 sounds about what you'd pay for a guided tour (gear
| included) in Switzerland.
| patall wrote:
| Honestly, what real benefit does a guide bring to most
| reasonable people? I know, the stereotypical American will
| travel to Iceland with norhing but shorts, but those aside,
| most everything to learn/understand here can be explained
| in an 2-5 minute introduction of the equipment. I mean,
| both me and my brother managed without problems (under
| paternal guidance) starting around age 6 two decades ago.
| Nowadays, most seem to be super crowded in the high season
| (meaning well, you have to wait often on a route), but its
| always been a fun activity.
| luplex wrote:
| It's still unfamiliar terrain, and a guide will help you
| find the start of the route, will help you get through a
| difficult spot and can perform first aid if needed. So if
| you're not an experienced hiker and climber, going with a
| guide will make everything go smoother the first time.
| eastbound wrote:
| 30-50EUR in France?? Try 5.50EUR !! Or 25EUR with gear rental.
| And this is for La Colmiane, one of the most beautiful, or
| Lantosque, where you are 10m above an epic bowel of water.
|
| https://www.colmiane.com/activites-ete-sur-la-colmiane/via-f...
|
| https://www.puremontagne.fr/fr/a-faire/nature/item/via-ferra...
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| I expected that to be a euphemism for a railroad but it means
| ladders and cables for climbing.
| dkdbejwi383 wrote:
| The literal translation from Italian is something like "iron
| way". Compare with the Italian word for a railway, which is
| "ferroviario"
| hk__2 wrote:
| > Compare with the Italian word for a railway, which is
| "ferroviario"
|
| No, it's "ferrovia" and it's in the wrong order because it's
| based on English: rail+way -> ferro+via.
| dkdbejwi383 wrote:
| https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trasporto_ferroviario
| myrmidon wrote:
| No; ferroviario is an adjective, like "rail" in "rail
| transport".
|
| But it is ONLY an adjective, you can not use it as a noun
| (you would use "ferrovia" for railroad track, instead).
| gpderetta wrote:
| "strada ferrata" (iron road) is literally railroad in Italian,
| while "via ferrata" (iron way) are the ladders and cables for
| climbing.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| In French, railroad is "voie ferree" ("iron way") or "chemin
| de fer" ("path of iron").
| paulkrush wrote:
| Great video on a free one in Colorado:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bReTV2J7PIk
|
| "Telluride Via Ferrata in Colorado has been on our bucket list
| for quite some time. So when our cousin Anh asked if we want to
| make a trip there, of course, we said yes. Telluride Via Ferrata
| has to be one of the most exciting and unforgettable adventures.
| It combines mountain hiking with the traditional Via Ferrata
| cable system and breathtaking scenery. There is nothing more
| thrilling than traversing across a sheer cliff, 600ft above
| ground, with only safety tethers, a steel cable, and metal rungs
| to support you. Besides the spectacular views, this amazing
| adventure also challenges your physical and mental fortitude
| while giving you an incomparable sense of accomplishment."
| hnrodey wrote:
| I hiked Via Ferrata in Telluride, CO and it's an amazing
| experience. Search on YouTube for videos. In the past few years
| there's been another via ferrata opened in Ouray, CO (neighbors
| Telluride) that looks even more intense - sadly I haven't made it
| to this one quite yet.
|
| We went with a paid guide in a small group and I thought it was
| money well spent. However, in Telluride it's public access so
| anyone can hike it completely free if they want. Make sure you
| know what you're doing though - follow the rules and I think it's
| quite safe.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| The Ouray one now has two tracks. Both were excellent! We did
| the more advanced one this time around with just my climbing-
| experienced brother leading us.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| So we did the Via Ferrata in Ouray and it was AMAZING! They did
| offer guided runs but we just rented gear for pretty cheap and
| went on the course. I'm not understanding the costs here as we
| paid no money for course access.
|
| For those interested it would be beneficial to have some
| understanding of rock climbing mechanics - how to strategically
| prop yourself and rest, how to transfer weight, how to grip
| efficiently. You can definitely "muscle" your way through the
| courses but it will get tiring and then dangerous.
|
| Highly recommend for those who have some beginner rock climbing
| experience and want to give it a shot!
| jakub_g wrote:
| If you're ever in south-east France, there's a bunch of nice via
| ferratas of varying difficulty. A nice one to start is in
| Lantosque, it's very easy and low and beautiful with river a few
| feet below (except a vertical climb at the end followed by a zip
| line / bridge very high above, but you can quit before that point
| if you're scared).
| Georgelemental wrote:
| One thing that's confusing is that in French, "voie ferree" and
| "chemin de fer" ("iron way"/"path of iron") mean "railroad".
| jlongman wrote:
| It's still called a via ferrata in France so this isn't
| confusing at all. Source: did some near Annecy as well as
| Grenoble 20 years ago.
|
| And Quebec fwiw but I only know of the one at Tremblant
| (which is paid).
| morkalork wrote:
| There's a few in Quebec:
|
| https://viaferrataquebec.com
|
| https://www.sepaq.com/quoi-faire/via-
| ferrata.dot?language_id...
| namdnay wrote:
| Lantosque very nice, and less than an hour's drive from Nice
| airport
| seattle_spring wrote:
| Lots in northern Italy and Austria too!
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| that's where they started...
| exabrial wrote:
| After visiting Austria and Germany, I'm "hooked" on Via Ferattas.
| It's astounding the number and variety of them available... I'm
| going to make a vacation next year where that's all I do
|
| However, Colorado needs to do some soul searching. Currently
| Colorado has exactly TWO free-access Via Ferattas: Ouray and
| Telluride. Allowing commercial companies to build exclusive
| access theme parks on public lands is a gross misuse of public
| lands.
|
| Private land owners can charge if they want for all I care, but
| the most obnoxious thing about this model is even an experienced
| climber often must "hire a 'certified' guide" at absurd rates.
| someguydave wrote:
| "Allowing commercial companies to build exclusive access theme
| parks on public lands is a gross misuse of public lands."
|
| This describes nearly all ski areas in the US, good luck
| getting them to change how things are done on either the public
| or private side.
| czinck wrote:
| Because of that, all ski resorts on US public land aren't
| actually "exclusive". A lift ticket just buys you access to
| the lifts, you can hike up during the winter or summer, with
| restrictions during the winter mainly around everyone's
| safety (designated uphill routes, don't go where they're
| doing avalanche control).
| exabrial wrote:
| This is 100% correct. You can actually walk to the top of a
| mountain and ski down. Or in the summer time, you can bike
| up and mountain bike down...
| someguydave wrote:
| Sure, so if there is a via feratta on public land I imagine
| there will be similar access, although controlling access
| to a via feratta would be much easier than a ski run.
| jupp0r wrote:
| Mountaineer with a bunch of via Ferrata experience here, mainly
| in Europe. What's often forgot in discussions about these is that
| in spite of you being anchored to steel ropes, the consequences
| of a fall on these are pretty severe when compared to falling
| into a normal dynamic climbing rope (which is pretty normal and
| done all the time without problems in sports climbing). The
| physics of shock absorption by via ferrata equipment is not your
| friend here, a fall with a vertical slide to the next anchor 6ft
| below you is a ticket to the hospital, likely with permanent
| damage.
|
| Via ferratas can be fun, but you really don't want to fall, and
| if in doubt, do your research and get really good equipment.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Is this still true if you use the appropriate shock links?
|
| Those are set up to limit the force up to a certain height,
| wouldn't they design those to limit the force to one less
| likely to cause permanent damage?
| lazide wrote:
| It all depends on how you fall, what you hit and when, and
| what position your body is in at various stages of this.
|
| If you spend any time on a via ferrata, it's pretty easy to
| see where the answers to one or more of these will be 'not
| great', and sometimes 'really bad'.
|
| For instance, hitting a rung on the way down. Or getting an
| appendage caught behind something.
|
| But unlikely you'll die.
|
| And honestly, you shouldn't fall unless you screwed something
| up pretty bad to begin with, which is your primary protection
| anyway.
|
| You're literally climbing a ladder, this isn't wilderness
| trad climbing or developing some new route on loose rock.
| krallistic wrote:
| Death at Via Ferratas are extremely rare (with proper gear
| ofc).
|
| But the falls are notoriously hard. Force can get really
| high and the chance of injury is high, even in cases where
| the fall zone is free of any metal etc..
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> use the appropriate shock links.
|
| Don't use these. They are generally one-use affairs. They
| have a place in climbing but only as part of a larger system.
| The issue is multiple falls. Say you slip and cause an
| impact. The link does its thing and extends. Now you are on
| the side of a cliff without proper equipment. A proper
| dynamic climbing rope, used properly, will safely take
| repeated falls.
| luplex wrote:
| They are absolutely the right equipment for the job. If you
| take a bad fall on your shock link, you likely need medical
| attention anyways. You won't keep climbing far with it.
| ryeights wrote:
| The answer IMO is using two prusik friction hitches. Easy to
| slide along the cable by hand when slack, but holds you in
| place via friction when taut (i.e when you slip).
|
| Of course these would be a pain to tie and untie at each
| anchor point
| Leherenn wrote:
| It's also very hard/impossible to climb back up depending on
| where you fall. It often requires an helicopter to get you out.
| yread wrote:
| the dangerous part in falling when mountain climbing is almost
| always hitting the rock (and not the bottom) too. At least for
| via ferrata you're supposed to wear a helmet which few climbers
| do
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> A via ferrata is essentially rock climbing. It provides all of
| the same sensations," says Michele Van Hise, managing partner at
| Zion Adventures, a guiding service and outfitter based in
| Springdale, Utah. Between 2018 and 2022, the company built three
| via ferratas near Zion National Park, including Shorty Town,
| which snakes up and down across a cliff suspended over the
| flowing water of Oak Creek.
|
| I cannot express how strongly I am against this. The first rule
| of most every outdoor activity is "take only pictures, leave only
| footprints". That applies for everything from scuba diving to
| mountaineering. Hammering in rods and installing ladders on
| otherwise perfectly climbable rocks is just wrong. There is a
| time and place for fixed protection, and regular climbers have
| huge debates about this, but installing ladders so people can
| more easily "climb" in hiking boots doesn't meet anyone's
| standard. I've known many climbers who, if seeing any of this,
| would actively destroy such installations if anywhere close to
| existing routes. And in Zion? I guess it isn't halfdome or dawn
| wall but this is still a climbing mecca that that should be left
| unaltered.
|
| I was once at a very popular toproping area when an army unit of
| about eight people showed up. They were about to hammer pitons
| into the cracks to "practice". The word when quickly around the
| crag and they were basically run out of town by a hundred
| climbers. You don't damage rock casually, not established
| climbing routes.
| blakeburnette wrote:
| Pitons are something I think are already controversial enough.
| Necessary in some rock types to enable climbing...but that's a
| debate for another day. I would say I lean to, only if
| necessary. Via Ferratas make me cringe and am wholeheartedly
| opposed.
| digital-cygnet wrote:
| I've come to believe that there's a place for the more
| accessible enjoyment of the outdoors that the via ferrata seems
| to represent. Every park represents a different place on the
| spectrum of accessibility vs true wilderness -- from
| Manhattan's Central Park (millions of visitors of all types,
| requiring hard paths, railings etc) to Denali National Park
| (other than the road, limited to very small dispersed groups,
| kept few enough that it can remain a "trackless wilderness").
|
| I don't begrudge someone who is not a very skilled climber
| their use of a via ferrata, provided that impact to the area
| (e.g. sightlines) is kept to a minimum and other options for
| more purists remain. I'm not a climber per se but this is the
| same attitude I have towards hiking, skiing, mountain biking,
| etc. I'm careful not to gate-keep casual folks using the Mt
| Washington cog railway because they get a lot of enjoyment out
| of it and it's a small blip in my Prezzie Traverse -- if
| carefully managed, there's enough nature for everyone.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> there's enough nature for everyone.
|
| Climbing is different. It is about very rarified and somewhat
| delicate places. Climbing is also always about balancing
| safety with ability. Anyone can hammer in ladders and assent
| a cliff. That isn't climbing. Make a route too "accessible"
| to the masses, make it easy, and the masses will loose
| respect. They will destroy it. Have a look at Everest base
| camp. It is effectively a landfill of garbage and human
| waste.
| jltsiren wrote:
| Accessibility is not the issue. Prestige is. A lot of
| people have heard of Everest, and many think it would be
| cool to climb it. Other equally accessible mountains in the
| region see much less human activity.
|
| Also, the waste issues in the area are mostly due to
| serious climbers who go to less accessible places. Casual
| tourists stick to settlements, some of which have existed
| for centuries. Because the settlements are relatively
| wealthy and connected by decent paths, there seems to be
| less waste than in the average rural area in a third-world
| country.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| I'm not against making something more accessible but I
| against destroying nature in order to do so.
|
| If in order to provide access to a waterfall; you have to cut
| a road through a mountain and then clear out the trees at the
| base so you can construct a ramp for wheelchairs, you have
| disfigured the very thing that you wanted to preserve by
| having a park.
|
| What is the difference, if any, between hammering these iron
| rungs and jack hammering steps into the rock face?
|
| Why would we say that "via ferrata" is an acceptable amount
| of defacement while jack hammering is not?
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| How is this any different from, say, a gravel hiking trail? I
| see plenty of those in state parks all over the place. Makes
| things far more accessible with a very minimal impact on the
| overall environment.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| A gravel trail isn't there to make the user's life easier. It
| is there to prevent damage to the park. The gravel prevents
| people cutting a deep trench through the mud, which
| inevitably become a series of parallel mud trenches across
| the terrain. A gravel trail or even a pavement allows for
| more people to transit an area without doing damage. A ladder
| on the side of a cliff is just about making life easier and
| does nothing to protect the cliff.
| listenallyall wrote:
| > would actively destroy such installations if anywhere close
| to existing routes. And in Zion?
|
| Your claim is contradicted by the fact that the most popular
| hike at Zion, Angels Landing, has an established set of fixed
| heavy chains to guide people up and down. Not to mention
| Walter's Wiggles, without which most people wouldnt be able to
| reach Scout's Lookout, the base of Angels Landing.
|
| Also, these via ferratas you're objecting to are located
| outside Zion NP.
| anthomtb wrote:
| I can see the opposition here if a via ferrata is built such
| that an existing climbing route is altered or reduced in
| difficulty.
|
| > would actively destroy such installations if anywhere close
| to existing routes
|
| "anywhere close" implies visible but not interfering. Would it
| really ruin the climbing experience if the 5.12b route you are
| attempting happens to have an accessible option within view?
|
| I am neither a climber nor someone who would use a via ferrata,
| but I do see parallels to my mountain biking hobby here, where
| skilled riders (and more often "expert beginner" types) are
| threatened when newbie-friendly trails are created.
| mrg2k8 wrote:
| I started practicing last summer and went on a few via ferratas
| in Switzerland and Italy. The hardest one was in the Dolomites
| and required climbing knowledge and upper body strength because
| there were no easy anchors.
|
| The scariest one was in Switzerland, called Murren where there's
| a 30m horizontal section with a 400m vertical drop with nothing
| to hold on to other than the steel cable and some metal inserts
| in the wall, see https://www.sac-
| cas.ch/processed/sa2020assetsprod/9/0/csm_15... .
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Looks scary but horizontal sections of via ferratas are usually
| the safest part, because you'll come tight to your leashes
| right away if you slip.
|
| It's the vertical sections, where you could free fall and pick
| up speed before your leash catches on the next anchor point,
| which can cause the worst injuries.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| If you think nature must be left unspoiled then do not go.
|
| If you think only those like you with your specialized equipment
| and your physical fitness should be able to go, you do still
| 'spoil nature.'
|
| There's no need to point fingers at others for going an inch
| beyond your intrusion by leaving equipment in place. Popular
| routes are visited so often than the average condition for the
| area is climbers with equipment. Any peaceful absence of human
| presence is entirely imagined.
| unit_circle wrote:
| Western American wilderness is different than Europe--it has very
| few human improvements.
|
| Personally I'd love to see it retain that character and I think
| this is the wrong direction.
|
| Imo if you want a European experience you should go to Europe.
| roca wrote:
| Surely it's "vias ferrata".
| jfengel wrote:
| "Vias ferratas", if you're getting technical.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-01 23:01 UTC)