SRT DRT DmRT vs. MRS SRS What do we call it?

John@TreeXP said:
I can see the benefit of identifying and accurately defining the climbing methods, while charting the types of functions one may offer over another, such as when using ground or canopy anchors together with moving or stationary climbing lines and when ascending, descending or maneuvering. But it all basically revolves around two primary principles, using either a stationary or moving rope system, despite the use of labels like single and double.

Lets combine these two concepts together and alleviate the confusion:

SSR = Single Stationary Rope Technique, fka: SRS & SRT
SMR = Single Moving Rope Technique, fka: MRS, DRT, DmRT or DdRT
DSR = Double Stationary Rope Technique, fka: Dual DRT/DdRT/SRT
DMR = Double Moving Rope Technique, fka: Dual DRT/ DdRT/DmRT

When climbing on a dual climbing system, the possibility then arises when one could climb (wait for it) ... DS&MR. As for using three climbing systems in tandem, the shit gets even more real.
Click to expand...

That actually seems kind of foolproof.

Though I have 1 question ... What the hell is double moving rope ?? Can anyone illustrate such a system ?
 
John@TreeXP said:
DMR is two moving rope systems. IE. Could be someone on DRT while lanyarded in.
Click to expand...

Hmmm I don’t think describing two simultaneous systems would be fair. Because then there’s no longer any differentiation between someone on SSR with a SSR lanyard (DSR)from someone footlocking up 2 static legs of rope

Better to keep this nomenclature for 1 single system at any given time

I still can’t think of a DMR system in the same way that one might employ twin ropes through a rope runner and call it DSR
 
CanadianStan said:
Hmmm I don’t think describing two simultaneous systems would be fair. Because then there’s no longer any differentiation between someone on SSR with a SSR lanyard (DSR)from someone footlocking up 2 static legs of rope

Better to keep this nomenclature for 1 single system at any given time

I still can’t think of a DMR system in the same way that one might employ twin ropes through a rope runner and call it DSR
Click to expand...
I disagree, because it's as discriptive as it can be and I agree that it's a foolproof way to identify varied climbing systems with extensible accuracy. Someone on SRT while using a lanyard would be DS&MR, whereas someone on SRT who is simultaneously using a throw hook/lanyard would be properly identified as using a DSR technique, whereas someone on DRT and a lanyard is on DMR.

One might want to further elaborate on the specifics, including whether, or not, a DSR technique shares a single tie-in-point, thus determining whether a climber is on two possibly girth-hitched static lines, as if it were a single line, versus two SRT lines with different TIPs, but that's just one example of an obscure, unpopular and rarely used variable.
 
Last edited:
Now remember DRT is two stationary lines. The rest of the rope world outside the arb industry require this, and uses the term DRT. One a backup if the primary srt rope fails. This is similar but very distinct from using two srt ropes, as one can become life support and the other just work positioning depending on how the climber rigs the system.

DdRT aka MRS is totally different. When doubled with the tail or a second line it’s commonly referred to as double crotching. Two independent systems for a specific technique.

First before we try to rename all this crap, we need to get the definition of terms ironed out. Only once that is done can we work on what fits into what box.
 
evo said:
Now remember DRT is two stationary lines. One a backup if the primary srt rope fails. This is similar but very distinct from using two srt ropes, as one can become life support and the other just work positioning depending on how the climber rigs the system.

DdRT aka MRS is totally different. When doubled with the tail or a second line it’s commonly referred to as double crotching. Two independent systems for a specific technique.

First before we try to rename all this crap, we need to get the definition of terms ironed out. Only once that is done can we work on what fits into what box.
Click to expand...
I tried to do that, when replacing other names with the new ones, but there is some crossover. For example, DRT may be different than DdRT, depending on who you ask, but I still think it all comes down to whether there are one, or more, stationary or moving ropes involved.
 
We're splitting hairs over whether two or more ropes serving as a single line should constitute being a style of its own. I'd say nay. If a climber double hitchs two stationary climbing lines using the same TIP, that's great, but its still serves as a, (SSR) Single Stationary Rope.
 
Last edited:
Screw what the rope is doing, let’s write a dictionary
Click to expand...

I've actually done some reading on lexicography (dictionary writing) when in another unrelated industry I was involved in went through this same kind of situation of going round and round trying to define and redefine words with no resolution. As an outside observer, the issue you guys are running into as a group is that collectively you're essentially trying to force fit words into your language. Everybody's making good arguments for why their set of terms acronyms should be used but that's not how language evolves. Language evolves in a more organic way than that.

The reason dictionary writers are able to define hundreds of thousands of words without interupting the language while arborists are spending years debating a handful of terms is because they define words by how they're actually used, not by how they think they should be used. So they look at words that have entered into common usage, research how people are using them, and then describe what they've found. Another way to look at that is that when words enter into common usage they've proven themselves to be useful, it doesn't matter how logical they are. They aren't being used based on logic. They're being used based on their effectiveness of communicating ideas and its often difficult to impossible to pinpoint why that is. The reason doesn't actually matter, all that matters is that people commonly use a given word.

So to wrap all that this rambling I think you're absolutely right to write a dictionary. Look at the Arborists language as it is, document the words and accronyms as theyre commonly used, and forget trying to get everyone to use the same words. That process in and of itself will straighten out the language. Don't worry about defining all the different proposed acronyms until they enter into common use.
 
@brydan Thanks for your insights.

Until there is an agreed upon arbiter for arbo language we'll keep plodding ahead I think.

When TCIA's Best Practices for SRT in Arborculture was written a group of about 8-9 volunteers spent at least a couple of hours a week on a conference connection hashing out the writing. That was an interesting project to be involved on. I have a really clear memory of the thrashing we put on naming the tools that are used to go up and down a rope without a changeover. They were between ascenders and descenders. in the end 'multicenders' was chosen. That seems to have stuck. The SRT in the name was decided to stand for Stationary Rope Technique. A good etymological compromise I think. My brain is still stuck on Single Rope Technique though lol

Having a memory around this issue that goes back a ways I can see that it will take a while for this naming thing to settle in. Dr. Alex Shigo admonished us to have good language when we talk trees. Not only the biologic side either. How many of us still use 'heal' rather than 'seal'? ;) My brain says 'seal' when I talk about a skin cut mends itself...sheesh!
 
Bob Bob said:
Time has a tendency to settle things (at least some things). It may boil down to what terms stick and what terms are abandoned over a very long time scale. By long time frame, I mean long enough that a new generation of climbers willingly adopts the winning terms from the previous generation. This of course assumes that hover boards are not going to be used instead of rope access methods in the future.
Click to expand...
A hoverboarder climbing a tree, based on my suggested formula, would be using ZSR (Zero Stationary Rope)
 
Tom Dunlap said:
@brydan Thanks for your insights.

Until there is an agreed upon arbiter for arbo language we'll keep plodding ahead I think.

When TCIA's Best Practices for SRT in Arborculture was written a group of about 8-9 volunteers spent at least a couple of hours a week on a conference connection hashing out the writing. That was an interesting project to be involved on. I have a really clear memory of the thrashing we put on naming the tools that are used to go up and down a rope without a changeover. They were between ascenders and descenders. in the end 'multicenders' was chosen. That seems to have stuck. The SRT in the name was decided to stand for Stationary Rope Technique. A good etymological compromise I think. My brain is still stuck on Single Rope Technique though lol

Having a memory around this issue that goes back a ways I can see that it will take a while for this naming thing to settle in. Dr. Alex Shigo admonished us to have good language when we talk trees. Not only the biologic side either. How many of us still use 'heal' rather than 'seal'? ;) My brain says 'seal' when I talk about a skin cut mends itself...sheesh!
Click to expand...

I appreciate the thoughtful response and certainly wouldn't expect anybody to jump up and change the way of going about what you're doing based on a forum post. I know how those committees go though. I was involved in my other organization debating definitions and terms for a decade and while I and most of the others eventually walked away from it all, the last I saw there was still no resolution to any of it.

It was during that process though where I took a step back and thought, here's a bunch of smart, well-intentioned people. We're all experts in the field. How after all these years and countless thousands of emails, and forum posts, and discussions, are we still at square one, no further down the road than where we started? Trying to answer that question is what lead me to buy some books on Lexicography and attempt to learn a little bit about how the experts in that field pursue their craft.

So anyway with that said, I hope it all works out and will continue to watch from the peanut gallery :)
 
I've come across two elaborate Tree Climbing glossaries of terms. While Treestuff acknowledges a difference between DRT and DdRT, Wesspur's list omits DRT, SRS and MRS. Other similar glossaries seem to confuse the terms DRT and DdRT, but Evo's point is valid, when it comes to their being a difference between DRT and DdRT, according only to Treestuff's glossary. Moreover, in every case, SRT is defined as Single (not stationary) Rope Technique.
http://www.wesspur.com/info/tree-climbing-glossary.html
http://www.treestuff.com/glossary_list.asp
 
Last edited:
I really hate to say it, but I will.

We are now leaders in the rope access world and unique within it as well. So let’s get our shit straight shall we? When the other 80% of the rope access trades call twin line DRT please let’s not let them think we are a bunch of morons and call out mrs or non srt the same thing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom