SRT or SRWP?

Voltaire got it from Socrates :)

No one expects that the vocabulary of the populace will change overnight. T ony wrote what I don't need to repeat,

I'm throwing some of this out for discussion to get in put for the the process that the TCIA srt team is going through. The srt Manual is just the beginning. There will be training sessions, the srt summit at expo and a second edition on the manual. The group that's working on this want to have what is presented be a s right as possible.
 
I believe if we're going to continue to use SRT or any S... it should not refer to single as I believe someone already pointed out Ddrt is a single rope technique. static or stationary perhaps but not single. unless we are going to put single rope technique at the top and then put Ddrt under it and next to that put whatever we are going to call these non running systems.
I like Positioning Systems leave "work" out of it.
positioning systems on a single static line. Hmm
Or maybe add a second S
SSLPS, SLPS, SSRPS, SRPS,
couldn't we also use fixed line positioning systems?
FLPS, SFLPS
what about throwing in the term arborist of course we take a lot of techniques and gear from other disciplines but these new systems are being developed by and for arborist so shouldn't we take some credit for that. plus it would create a separation from other disciplines that have the need for and or can benefit from a second backup system. anyone else who used it would just refer to it as an arborist system that their using for something else.
ASLPS, AFLPS , ASSLPS, ASFLPS, AFLPS
ASSRT, AFRT, APS-FL, ARPS-FL, APS-SL, APS-RL(Ddrt)
ha, don't mind me just typing thoughts as they come lol
 
Isn't fixed more accurate I mean the line isn't stationary it moves with us it just doesn't run.? Right
I'm not familiar enough with other disciplines and the use of static to know whether or not it would be appropriate but if it was keep SRT and just refer to it as static rope technique.
I still kinda like Arborist Rope positioning system, running line or fixed line. ARPS-FLS, ARPS-RRS.
 
Static is already 'taken' though. In the rope world the connotation is linked to rope construction. Its too confusing to try and use it for the application.

Arborist in any name is limiting too.

If the name changes it needs to be simple and not demand a long explanation or definition.
 
Personally I think the terms we already use are the ones that require long explanations. We use single rope technique to distinguish from doubled rope technique both of which are only using a single rope and the term doubled often gets missed placed with double and then leads to confusion about whether it's a single line or two, and of course we also use double or two line systems as well as hybrid systems.
Going to the SRT workshop the other day just got me thinking.
Listening to the instructors have to explain all the contradictions in terminology, and thinking about how when I try to explain to friends or family I might as well throw the terms we use out the window because they just add confusion.
I understand the thinking in where the terms came from the rope is doubled over a branch back to us doubled rope technique now instead of having both ends of the rope we only use one so there's only one in front of us so we call it single rope technique. I just think we can do better, and use terms that don't require extra expert explanation. I think something like fixed line positioning system,or running loop positioning system, doesn't require much explanation. On the other hand every time I try to tell someone about SRT they say "so you normally climb on two ropes then", and I have to explain well no we usually climb on one rope but we create a big moving loop and this is climbing a line that is fixed in place.
Also we have real concerns about separating our disciplines from others so that the lines don't get blurred and regulations get placed on us that would make our work more complicated and/or dangerous. That's where I think categorizing all the systems under arborists systems would distinguish ours from others. I don't think it's limiting if other disciplines want to use the systems and techniques were developing they would just refer to them as using an arborists technique, or arborists style.lol hey maybe more people will learn what the term arborist means.
I think we also interchange system and technique too much. To me a technique is something you do and a system is something you use.
All just food for thought:)
 
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think the terms we already use are the ones that require long explanations. We use single rope technique to distinguish from doubled rope technique both of which are only using a single rope and the term doubled often gets missed placed with double and then leads to confusion

[/ QUOTE ]
Let me give my perspective from someone that has recently leaned these definitions.

SRT: it is clear to me that I'm moving on a single line. I can triple that line into a z-rig in front of me but it is still a single line and I may climb, descend or move about with it.

DdRT: the single rope is doublED over onto itself. Like a blanket is doubled over onto itself to make a sleeping bag. Not like the ingredients of a recipe are doubled to make twice as much. English has many fine distinctions but they are different uses of the same word.
Again, I can climb, descend or move about with it.

DRT: You are in some way using two independent but perhaps connected ropes. Double the ropes.
Again, I can.......

It never seemed confusing to me and quickly helped me understand the difference when I first saw it.
 
Yo!

You're right, all of those definitions work.

Back in about '01 I was working through some SRT concepts and realized that DRT wasn't the best description for how arbos climb. DRT is two ropes. I came up with a better term, DdRT, to better describe our rope system. At that time I never thought that the discussion would be at this point...maybe a new term?

DdRT is SRT in a different configuration, that's all. Now that TCIA is taking the lead on presenting SRT to the profession we're working hard to do a good job of setting basics in place.

In our discussions we see the differences in two places. One, the rope moves or doesn't. The other, the rope is anchored to the climber or not. These seem like the defining differences. The discussions have been around which way to describe the system. This is a lot like naming a new plant or animal. What criteria is used in the name?

If we named the anchor then there would be a need for TWO new names. Why do that? DdRT, which is commonly called DRT anyway, works fine. Climbers understand it and it's accepted.

Look at this like a 'family tree' with SRT in the top box. Below that there would be DdRT, DRT and whatever name is chosen for 'Stationary Work Positioning'..or???

All of this discussion is enlightening. By November when the SRT Summit is opened at Expo we'll have some consensus.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Back in about '01 I was working through some SRT concepts and realized that DRT wasn't the best description for how arbos climb. DRT is two ropes. I came up with a better term, DdRT, to better describe our rope system. At that time I never thought that the discussion would be at this point...maybe a new term?

DdRT is SRT in a different configuration, that's all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well Tom, I would say you did an excellent job in '01 giving those basic ascension and rope movement techniques a perfect name. As a new climber it made 100% logical sense and painted a picture in my mind that left no question about how it worked and what it was.
I see the distinction between a pulley(ed) anchor and a fixed anchor but it seems less descriptive and more narrow that what you already have.
I would say the if DdRT is SRT so is DRT as it can be done with the one rope, a girth hitch and a knot.
At any rate, whatever it is, or how it is named, I don't mind learning something new. Just make it as easy to understand and descriptive as you did in '01 because that was brilliant.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Might be that Single Rope Technique - Work Positioning is the right answer (SRT-WP).

For example in the SRT/DRT flowchart, with SRT as the "parent" item, SRT-Access and SRT-Work Positioning would be the two child items related to tree climbing.

It doesn't mean you would always say "SRT Access" when referring to traditional SRT technique, or "SRT Work Positioning" when you were talking about Uni, Wrench or HH climbing, it just means that if you needed to communicate the difference between the two you have the terms to do so.

Making it SRT-WP instead of SRWP shows the clear relationship to the widely used and well accepted term SRT.
-AJ

[/ QUOTE ]

Of all the responses, I like this the best. This makes sense and will make for a smooth and uncomplicated transition.

If this is combined with an understanding that the "S" stands for stationary as opposed to single, it will produce a more positive and questioning response compared to the fearful road blocks that the use of " single " seems to produce.

Hyphenating the WP will maintain simplicity and clarity of the parent, SRT, acronym and will allow the insertion of ascent-only or descent-only clarification during discussion.

I also believe that "work positioning" most accurately describes not only what we do when we leave the ground, but what these new tools do that makes them different. Using a training module that is based on the limitations of ascent- only or descent-only tools, just reinforces the myth that these new tools also have the same limitations.

So what do you call the point where you need to tie-in twice? How about "work station"?

Keep in mind that the focus of this discussion is in relation to our specific industry. Rec climbers don't need us to define what they do.
 
"I understand the thinking in where the terms came from the rope is doubled over a branch back to us doubled rope technique now instead of having both ends of the rope we only use one so there's only one in front of us so we call it single rope technique. I just think we can do better, and use terms that don't require extra expert explanation. I think something like fixed line positioning system,or running loop positioning system, doesn't require much explanation. On the other hand every time I try to tell someone about SRT they say "so you normally climb on two ropes then", and I have to explain well no we usually climb on one rope but we create a big moving loop and this is climbing a line that is fixed in place."

This is the best I have heard, makes a lot of sense we have starting calling it FL and RL already. The term "single" is confusing as both techiques require a single rope.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Might be that Single Rope Technique - Work Positioning is the right answer (SRT-WP).

For example in the SRT/DRT flowchart, with SRT as the "parent" item, SRT-Access and SRT-Work Positioning would be the two child items related to tree climbing.

It doesn't mean you would always say "SRT Access" when referring to traditional SRT technique, or "SRT Work Positioning" when you were talking about Uni, Wrench or HH climbing, it just means that if you needed to communicate the difference between the two you have the terms to do so.

Making it SRT-WP instead of SRWP shows the clear relationship to the widely used and well accepted term SRT.
-AJ

[/ QUOTE ]

Of all the responses, I like this the best. This makes sense and will make for a smooth and uncomplicated transition.

If this is combined with an understanding that the "S" stands for stationary as opposed to single, it will produce a more positive and questioning response compared to the fearful road blocks that the use of " single " seems to produce.

Hyphenating the WP will maintain simplicity and clarity of the parent, SRT, acronym and will allow the insertion of ascent-only or descent-only clarification during discussion.

I also believe that "work positioning" most accurately describes not only what we do when we leave the ground, but what these new tools do that makes them different. Using a training module that is based on the limitations of ascent- only or descent-only tools, just reinforces the myth that these new tools also have the same limitations.

So what do you call the point where you need to tie-in twice? How about "work station"?

Keep in mind that the focus of this discussion is in relation to our specific industry. Rec climbers don't need us to define what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, I am in agreement. It allows for distinction in the separate phases, allows for growth through the adoption/adaptation of new techniques, but provides clarity when necessary.

In reality, face to face, we will use simple/simpler terms and many will become colloquial and probably regional. Great! I love the variety language offers. However, we will have specific terms when clarity of communication is of the essence.

Look for these terms or variations in my future writings.

Thanks,

Tony
 
[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that the focus of this discussion is in relation to our specific industry. Rec climbers don't need us to define what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but... rec climbers will accept it or modify as needed if it makes good sense for technical tree climbing in general.

You folks probably know I'm primarily a rec climber who enjoys getting tree work done when I have the opportunity. I can say that most experienced rec climbers are familiar with the term "work positioning" and understand what it means as a tree climbing technique whether a climber is actually working in the tree or not. WP is a solid concept well established across rope disciplines.
-AJ
 
Isn't all climbing actually part of 'work positioning'?

Where does wp start or end?

Define 'work':

work
/wərk/
Noun
Activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.
Verb
Be engaged in physical or mental activity in order to achieve a purpose or result, esp. in one's job; do work.
Synonyms
noun. job - labor - business - labour - occupation - employment
verb. operate - labor - function - labour - run - go - make

If I remember my high school physics teacher, Mr. Barton, correctly work was defined as applying energy to create movement. He illustrated this by pushing on the black board. He wasn't doing work there. Lifting a pencil was work.

Separating ascent and wp is OK but for the most efficient SRT setup there shouldn't be any changeover from ascent to WP.

Are we defining movement of the climber or non-movement of the rope?
 
Tom, you probably have heard of the term that is used to categorize scientists/biologists involved in species differentiation work, there are "splitters" and there are "lumpers". You are definitely a splitter! ;-)

For sure a smart SRT system designed for tree work does it all without changeover. But maybe we're talking about describing different phases of rope climbing. These phases coincide pretty nicely with established methods. Many tree climbers for example still use cammed ascenders for long ascents, and probably will continue doing so. I think of the wrench or HH as hybrid ascent/descent WP tools, that can easily be merged with or diverged from pure access tools like cammed ascenders and dedicated rappelling devices. They defy a simple term or simple set of terms to describe everything they can do.
-AJ
 
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't all climbing actually part of 'work positioning'?

Where does wp start or end?

Define 'work':


Separating ascent and wp is OK but for the most efficient SRT setup there shouldn't be any changeover from ascent to WP.

Are we defining movement of the climber or non-movement of the rope?

[/ QUOTE ]


To address the first quoted point:

I define work and hence, work positioning, in this context, as the lateral movement through the tree reling on the structure of the tree as a primary part of movement. (Using tree structure differentiates it say from a speed line). It is separate from ascent of descent in that it combines both, one, or possibly none, but it does involve lateral movement.

So in essence ,just ascending to the top of the tree then coming back down would entail no work positioning. That is where I would draw the line. After all, it must be drawn.

To address the second point:

You have hit the nail on the head. By dividing out the phases we gain the ability to judge efficiency based on quantifiable terms. We can change, alter, and/or discuss "efficiency" as it relates to tree climbing.

To the third point:

I think introducing the term stationary is confusing. Seems at first glance that the climber is not moving! For those of use that would use this terminology, I think a basic understanding of the systems would already exist and stationary just complicates matters.

Who cares what the rope does if it accomplishes the climbing goals? Yes, it is a fundamental difference, but one that is inherent to knowing the systems and using the terminology.

A.J. I agree with all you points.

Tony
 
[ QUOTE ]
...Are we defining movement of the climber or non-movement of the rope?

[/ QUOTE ]

The way I see it SRT would stand for Stationary Rope Technique. A non moving climber would be Stationary Climber Technique. He would also not be in great demand.
 
[ QUOTE ]
...Who cares what the rope does if it accomplishes the climbing goals? Yes, it is a fundamental difference,... Tony

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, really!
confused.gif
Aren't you the same guy that has a blog that focuses on the clarity of climbing and its definitions?

What the rope does(some even insist it be called a line because it has a job)defines how it will be used. It is far more accurate than counting the number of legs of line in front of you.
 
peace.gif
Whoa Dave, Just giving my impressions on reading the term adding to the discussion. Not claiming to be right. I see your point.

Yes, I do discuss clarity of terms and climbing systems on my blog. That is what my comment was aimed at, clarity.

My earlier comment about a line having a job was just that a comment, one I fully admit(ed) is(was) splitting hairs.

Perhaps, I am reading you wrong, but is there a good reason for the perceived rancor?

I only suggested confusion. No pretensions here. Really!

Tony
 
Sorry, Tony. No rancor intended. We all here are just trying to state our personal opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom