It also requires significant space and particular configurations (must be on a river, must be in a hilly or mountainous area, etc.) It also isn't necessarily scalable -- how many more dams can we build?
You can build a crane and blocks or drill a big hole in lots and lots of places.
So yes, pumped hydro is better than fossil fuels. But also it's not something we can consider to be the ultimate solution to the issue of storage. By all means, let's use it (and we do use it today), but not stop there.
The crane system could work out in theory if you make the crane arms 200m or longer. The covered surface area grows much faster than the length of the crane arm. In practice it's an engineering nightmare.
The piston idea has the benefit that you just use a wire saw and cut out a circle. The primary challenge is building what is basically the largest seal on the planet. The pressure itself is not a problem but the sheer size is.
Compared to hydrogen, reflow batteries, compressed air, heat storage, etc gravity energy storage is extremely questionable unless it's pumped hydro.
Using a rolling membrane for the seal is discussed at
https://heindl-energy.com/technical-concept/engineering-chal...
Naively that does seem plausible but it's a very large sheet of material to manufacture. What are your thoughts on that approach?
They still have their place. There is a pumped hydro system here in the Bay Area (San Luis Reservoir) that is coupled to a hydro station, and produces power when it drains back in to the aqueducts. It's primary purpose is water capture and distribution, not power storage, but it does both.