Difference between bouldering problem and a climbing route

At what point would a bouldering problem become a climbing route?
I came across the below video on Rock and Ice (it's 60+ moves) and got me thinking.

If a bouldering problem is about not using ropes, then is free soloing just one big problem? Or is it just about height of the problem?

The problem Evilution in Bishop, top out is 55'! If you climb this with a rope isn't it just a route? Or is this really not a problem just a free solo route?

Daniel Woods sends The Wheel of Life
vimeo.com/71856230

I guess it depends on the FA. I climbed a small route in Jtree called Aguilles de Joshua Tree, or something like that. It said it was a 5.5, I think. Not very tall but had a terrible landing. I didn't use any protection or ropes. Just felt like a vb boulder problem to me, although it was a knee knocker to stand on the top.

Semantics, climb & call it whatever you want.

if the FA was done on toprope, it's a boulder problem

Super Fluke wrote:At what point would a bouldering problem become a climbing route?

There is no single, clear, line for this. There are a series of gradations of grey between boulder problem, high-ball boulder problem; and climbing route (possibly free-soloed), with definite overlap between the various different categories.

At best, I would say the difference comes down to how they are generally climbed/protected. A boulder problem is generally climbed with the protection being spotters and one or more bouldering pads -- or none at all -- at a height where a fall is not expected to result in injury, or in minor injury. A high-ball boulder problem is similarly protected, but at a height where most boulderers would feel uncomfortable falling off, and the risk of serious injury is much higher. A route is something that is generally climbed with a rope for protection, or if climbed without a rope, with the expectation that the climber has no protection and will not fall off.

Climb... Climb... Feel the Rock and be happy... Don't panic...

Some people think of the difference as mostly mental, and I really like that explanation. That said, it's definitely not perfect, and leads to the conclusion that the difference can vary for different people.
When you're climbing a boulder, to some degree, falling is an option. Even a highball. Maybe you won't be able to do a move, or maybe a foot will blow, and you could fall back down to your sea of crashpads and spotters. On a free solo, falling just isn't an option. You're not going to fall. Sure, a free solo can be about pushing yourself on a hard route, but falling isn't a possibility. Obviously accidents happen, but the mindset on a free solo is that you won't fall.

Again, it's far from perfect, but this is the best explanation I've found because it's reliant on the climber, not some arbitrary height or number of moves.

I generally just say anything up to 30ft is bouldering after that you are free soloing. So that 55ft climb isn't a boulder problem imo, I would call it free soloing, maybe is still classified as it because they don't want to bolt it and it doesn't look like there is any way to protect / build an anchor to top rope?

Read the details in the description of it. The original boulder problem was dropped off at around 20ft. The part past that if you go all the way up they call a 5.11 slab problem. So that is probably the best answer, drop off after the hard part at around 20ft or finish it free soloing.