Not Stepping on Toes- Posting in areas with guidebooks

Say a place has been well developed, and the only good info source exists in a guidebook- a guidebook written by locals that developed the area. Obviously it is unethical to reprint their beta and pictures, only the guidebook authors hold that right.

But, what if you are a dirtbag climber that doesn't buy guidebooks, and you explore the area on your own, on-site something, and take some pictures.

Where is the line between sharing your beta with your fellow dirtbag community, and stepping on toes? Would you post pics, but leave the name/ F.A. unknown until someone voluntarily updates it?

You can make your own guide with your own pictures of course, share it with anyone you choose, post it up online for free, whatever. Just don't copy the guide book and you're fine.

Phrases and images are copy writable. Facts are not. All beta is interpreted by the law to be facts so as long as you aren't using the same exact wording you are fine. I have spoken with my local guidebook authors about all of my contributions to Mountain Project. They often feel that it sells more copies of their guidebooks because it brings exposure to the areas that they are highlighting. They do miss out on some of the climbers passing through town who just want to do the local classics however.

People can't voluntarily update routes you enter. Only you can edit them and/or a site administrator. I've added routes that are in guidebooks. I've used my own photos and my own beta but used the routes name and FA if known because that's essentially public record. I'm *curious* about your motivation with this Shawn. If you just wanna show up and on-site stuff why the urge to post it up? Honestly not trying to be a douche.

Deleted for redundancy..have to write more quickly next time

It is nice to mention available guidebooks in your area description. and if a guide is just coming or came out, courtesy might suggest holding off spraying every last route you know of before the authors have a chance to get some return and glory. Other than that, have at it and give another perspective.

I always think of MP as a supplement to my guide books. There's some "secret" spots I've got in a guide book that I've never seen people at. It's not on MP but its got a huge section in the book. No way would I exploit it to the internet. However, If there was a classic 40 y.o. Route on a well established crag that isn't on MP? I'd consider posting it

Thanks for the input guys.
Tried to delete, but it won't let me.

Motivation is that I was looking for beta on MP prior to visiting the area, couldn't find it, and didn't want to buy the guidebook. After my trip when I posted my pics and description from onsighting someone implied I was disrespecting the local climbers that developed the guidebook. I know I would have appreciated some beta and I didn't see what the big deal was, so I wanted to get feedback.

Hey Shawn,
I'm sure this is starting to feel like a horse being beaten but after rereading my comments I think I owe you an explanation. I didn't intend to imply that you were stepping on guidebook author's toes or disrespecting them. What I meant with my comment is that I think climbers in the area don't want to rip routes out of the guidebooks that exist and post them on MP. I don't think what you did even approaches that.

There have been a few instances on MP of local climbers going out to much loved areas and then posting up route names, descriptions or photos that are just plain wrong. For whatever reason that irks the sh!t out of me. I should probably just get over it and let the beta on MP become one big Monkey Phuc.

Shawn, look and see if you have a 'change location' option in your edit tabs for your original route posting that you were trying to redo. I can't remember if that is only an option for admins or if you can do it. If you don't see the option shoot a note to your area admin to help you. If I were you I would also put the FA information in if you have it, even if from a guide. Those basic facts are not considered plagiarism and it is nice to give credit to the first ascentionists.