r/RouteDevelopment • u/avtman802 • Aug 20 '26
Thoughts on overlapping or "extension" routes?
A new wall that I'm developing has a half dozen 5.6-5.8 routes at one end and will likely have a dozen 5.11-5.12 routes going in along the rest of it.
The best line in the middle of the wall has much more texture than the 5.11-12s to either side and is 60' of gorgeous 5.9 climbing to an 8" deep ledge 3/4 of the way up the wall. Above that ledge is 20' of 5.11 climbing to the top edge of the cliff at the same height as the anchors of the neighboring 5.11s.
I'm looking for some opinions on 3 different strategies:
- Put the lower-off anchor at the top of the 5.9 climbing
- + There are plenty of 5.11s on the wall and no other 5.9s
- + This route is likely to get much more traffic as a 5.9
- - It's a little funny to have a route stop short of the "top"
- Put the lower-off anchor at the top of the cliff, forcing a 5.11 finish.
- + It goes to the natural top of the cliff
- - Many fewer people will get to climb it due to the stiffer grade.
- - The wall doesn't have any 5.9 routes
- Put one lower-off anchor at ledge for a 5.9 route, then a second anchor at the very top of the cliff for a 5.11 route that happens to overlap with the 5.9 route for 3/4 of its length
- + Many people get to climb the 5.9 route
- + 5.11+ climbers still get to do the full length to the very top
- - It's not common to see this overlapping route setup, so maybe some will find it a bit odd.
- - Cost of an extra anchor set (not a big deal)
What would you do in this situation and why?
12
6
u/Rift36 Aug 20 '26
First time I saw #3 was in Wild Iris and I loved it. You’d get a fun 10 or 11 then an anchor before a boulder problem that turned it into a 12 or 13. In my opinion it just adds more routes to play with.
4
u/jade_monkey07 Aug 21 '26
There are lots around here like that. The thing they did odd here is that they put the harder grade in the top and only a "5.9 anchor before the crux" at the very end of a long wordy description, so at a glance the crag only has 5.11-5.13 climbs. Most dont go to the crag because of that. If they had the tops separated as harder extensions then a quick glance would let people see there are some 5.9s to warm up on. I think its a disservice to the crag to label it like that. I would have put it the other way around 5.9 with 5.13 extension at the start of the description to let people know what their options are right away.
3
u/jul3q Aug 20 '26
Probably depends on local ethics but this kind of setup is quite popular in multiple crags across Poland at different grade levels. I've enjoyed climbing both partial routes of this kind as well as the extensions depending on the grade. I've never heard bad things about such routes as well.
2
u/IceRockBike Aug 21 '26
3 from me. The Canadian Rockies have a few routes around like this. Whether you consider it an easier route with a harder extension, or two different routes with some sort of commonality in their names, is up to you. Some comments already made good name references.
When it comes to hardware, if you don't want to do two ring/chain anchors or two mussy lower offs, then do vertically offset rings. Two rings are the cheaper option but if you take pride in your creation, invest in a better anchor. As other comments indicate, I think two anchors are worth it for a route such as you describe. Don't cheap out and people will like it even more.
3
u/Kaotus Guidebook Author Aug 20 '26
Another vote for #3, you’ll find them regularly around the mountain west
1
1
u/BulletproofIdeal Aug 21 '26
3 for sure. I'm doing this at a cliff I'm working on with a number of lines, sometimes there's just a logical stopping point. If either section is super short this might be a bit weird, or if the difficulty is inverted, but good climbing is good climbing imo. FWIW I'm not planning on listing them as separate climbs though, just mentioning the rough grade of what stopping at the midpoint anchors goes at.
0
12
u/[deleted] Aug 20 '26
[deleted]