|
James Schroeder
·
Jul 25, 2016
·
Fort Collins, CO
· Joined May 2002
· Points: 3,166
I was initially going to post this as a comment under Indigo Billy, but decided it would be better as a forum discussion. One has to wonder at the blurred lines between bad beta, a variation, and a distinct route. One also has to wonder how long it will be before every hold on 2. Balanced Rock Wall (and by extension every other heavily-used climbing area) is mapped out and every conceivable combination of said holds is named and claimed as a latter-day first ascent. Of course, one should then question whether doing so would serve any valuable purpose to the broader community or simply be a largely benign ego-stroke. Further, it occurs, at least to me, that the more specific we as a community delineate routes, the harder it is for others within the community to know what "route" they did (or are doing), and how having done it might translate to climbing at a similar grade elsewhere. I'm certainly guilty of adding "new" routes (see for example: Lamb & Eggs or the tongue-firmly-in-cheek Just Another Sick Old New Rig Right & Just Another Sick Old New Rig Left) - so I won't throw the first stone, only ask if it should be thrown. Indigo Billy is certainly not the only DL route that raises these questions, nor is it the most egregious for that matter. After all, even (or perhaps especially) the venerable Swartling and Mayer are guilty of it. Probably the most obvious example belonging to them is: Evelyn Bites The Crust described by them as "Climb 12 inches left of Ironmongers Super Direct (route 45)." - but I've always taken this as their intentional parody of both themselves and the Lake's tendency toward contrivance (maybe I'm misreading). Lots of confusion surrounding various starts on this boulder so I made this image to help you connect where you started to how awesome you are. Sorry if you're "not awesome;" keep inching your way down the lip and one day you'll be "mindblowingly incredibly awesome." as well, where even the width of "hand separation" on a starting hold may, or may not, call into question the completion of one problem versus another. So Jeff, I don't want you to think this comment is only about you, because it's a broad question for the community as a whole. Of course, we all want to leave our mark on the community. Most of us want to have some legacy. The question really comes down to what that legacy will be. I wonder with all this dubious (at least in my opinion) separation, are we gaining or losing something? Are we, in the attempt to make the most of our small pond, just muddying the waters? Should we instead focus our attention on bringing the skills and strength we gain practicing in our established areas on established routes to creating something that's both new and significant?
|
|
Ted Pinson
·
Jul 25, 2016
·
Chicago, IL
· Joined Jul 2014
· Points: 252
Yeah, things get pretty funky at DL and making up routes. Lower Major Mass is particularly ridiculous...all of the "routes" above the Hammer Crack are like 10' and really should just be considered finishes for the bottom routes, not pitches. Not to mention Turk's Head Ridge...
|
|
Doug Hemken
·
Jul 25, 2016
·
Madison, WI
· Joined Oct 2004
· Points: 13,678
Lower Major Mass is a good example - the Devil's Lake community has had this side to it since the 1960s at least. I'm pretty confident, knowing the guys involved, that the latest Balanced Rock contribution is just a desire to share some fun. In 25 years I've seen a number of enthusiasms come and go. I remember when there were always ropes on "Sweatshop", "Angle of the Dangle", and "Hourglass" in the 90s. I have to admit, I've had Lake old-hands show me two new routes/variations in the last two weeks, and I'm glad. It makes me look at these rocks with new eyes yet again. The line between top-roping and bouldering has been vague here since the 1950s.
|
|
Jeff Howard
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Hales Corners WI
· Joined Apr 2011
· Points: 0
You have to remember this is the World Wild Web and as such sites like MP become a home for all devotees of a particular sport etc... I was looking at the new route descriptions and noticed that no one is listed for the FA. For me this puts these routes in the category of love of the sport being shared while not crossing the line of publicly claiming FAs in an area that most likely already has had every possible iteration climbed many times over. Informational but still acknowledging the obvious unavailability of any FA on Balanced Rock Wall. So MP is precisely the place for this kind of route suggestion?
|
|
James Schroeder
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Fort Collins, CO
· Joined May 2002
· Points: 3,166
I think the problem I have with this "route" and others like it, is that it's not really a route. It's an eliminate variation to New Box, and should be most likely be a side-note in the comments of New Box, not a separate route in itself. Yes, climbing is anarchy, and there are no rules, so people can (and should) climb as and what they wish. That's not the case with Mountain Project. Mountain Project, at least as I understand it, is meant to be a clear and concise resource for sharing information about routes and areas among climbers. Adding variations to the routes in the photo below, to the right of 9 (Beer and Booty), between 9&10 (Indigo Billy), and between 10&11 (6.63 Smoots), as well as a few more squeezed-in between well-established routes further to the right (Beer and Booty & Law and Gospel) as routes in themselves, at least for me, pushes the boundaries of reasonable. If one disagrees, then one ought to consider at what point further bifurcation becomes trivial. A high school math teacher once told me a story about a boy and a girl sitting on a park bench, who, at regular intervals close the distance between themselves by half. They never actually touch, but at some point they are close enough for practical purposes. Are we there yet with "routes" on 2. Balanced Rock Wall? Mr. Neutron (11), New Box (10), and Fear and Trembling (9) Obviously the answer to the question is matter of opinion. But let's make sure we're asking the right question when we ask ourselves about posting something as a route: Will adding this as a route increase, or decrease the clarity of information on Mountain Project, and as such, is it better on its own as a route, or simply as a comment on an already existing route? I'd like to add that I know that Jeff VS isn't adding these out of anything other than good intentions, nor is he by any means the only person adding routes of this nature. I simply think these routes (and many others) are being added in a way that muddies the already murky waters of our small pond. Ultimately that's the issue I have with the situation. It's only my opinion and I certainly could be wrong.
|
|
Jan van den Handel II
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Waukesha, WI
· Joined Jun 2016
· Points: 50
If 80 percent of the claimed new route does not share holds of current routes then it should be deemed a new route. Vary subjective. Administrators need to be able to determine if these are actual new routes or variations and be able to move them into comments if need be. This may not be possible if the program does not already allow routes to be removed or relocated. Being a new climber I find this site very helpful along with my guide book in locating DL routes. If I thought I could lay claim to every variation of a route that I used to make the top I may want to begin my own guidebook. I don't think it would sell though."Gumbies Guide to Devil's Lake" Being able to read and view variations of a route in the comments is fantastic in my opinion.
|
|
Doug Hemken
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Madison, WI
· Joined Oct 2004
· Points: 13,678
If you can sort this out with respect to bouldering variations, then I think we could apply that standard to Balanced Rock. If MP had some way of grouping several "routes" together as variations instead of as areas, that might bring some clarity to the rocks (although mistakes in grouping variations would be a headache). In the Swartling & Mayer guidebook you have a number and a name for major routes, and just a name for minor/variational routes. Jeff's next contribution should be named "Zeno's Paradox"!
|
|
James Schroeder
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Fort Collins, CO
· Joined May 2002
· Points: 3,166
Doug Hemken wrote:If you can sort this out with respect to bouldering variations, then I think we could apply that standard to Balanced Rock. Just because one thing is hopelessly jumbled, it doesn't mean we should let the rest slip into the same sort of disarray. Doug Hemken wrote:If MP had some way of grouping several "routes" together as variations instead of as areas, that might bring some clarity to the rocks (although mistakes in grouping variations would be a headache). Then of course aside from "variations" there are "combinations" too! Look! I'm guilty of that too - Anemic Ladder. And how would we handle that in the database?!?! Doug Hemken wrote:In the Swartling & Mayer guidebook you have a number and a name for major routes, and just a name for minor/variational routes. S&M (pun fully-intended) notwithstanding, I'm glad we're having this discussion, because it's important to the broader community and MP user-base. Doug Hemken wrote:Jeff's next contribution should be named "Zeno's Paradox"! I'd applaud that contribution no matter how squeezed! I adore self-aware and self-deprecating wit beyond most things in this world.
|
|
Jay Knower
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Plymouth, NH; Lander, WY
· Joined Jul 2001
· Points: 6,036
This is an important topic, I think, and it was certainly relevant to me as I was writing the DL Climbing Guide (due out, fingers crossed, late summer). I determined that I had to draw the line somewhere and no matter where it was drawn, assuming I'd draw it in the first place, routes would be left out. For me the validity of a route came down to the following factors: --Proximity to other routes. James is right to bring up Evelyn Bites the Crust. That route is a comically contrived variation off Ironmongers Super Direct, which itself is a contrivation of Ironmongers. I think Swartling et al nodded to the comedy by describing the route as "12 inches left". To me, that's absurd hair splitting and they were all described as variations of Ironmongers. But still funny on Swartling's part. --Historical significance. Phlogiston is one of the most contrived climbs at DL (the left corner is off, but you climb within inches of it), but given it's historical status as one of the world's first 5.13s, and given its recent free lead, it deserved to be its own route. --First ascentionist. As much as I hate to admit it, it matters who did the route first. If John Gill did a variation to the Tombstone, then it'd have been on MP and in the guides for years, regardless of how squeezed in it was. Sure, this isn't fair, but reputation matters in climbing, as well as in life, I guess. --Whether I liked the route. I'm not a fan of Tom Cat/Pussy Cat, so I conflated those into one route, and tried to describe the variations. They cross halfway up and everyone seemed to have a different opinion on where they went. So when the guide comes out, you'll see that there are some of the contrived variations included as separate routes and some not. That was a personal choice for me, and I assure you, I have a reason for adding or excluding each route that I added or excluded. Whether you agree with those reasons, that's a different story!
|
|
Double J
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Sandy, UT
· Joined Apr 2006
· Points: 3,952
It must be 90F out with 80% humidity today....yup, it is. My only wonder is what is the dew point? (I Just explained what that was to my wife, they don't report metrics like that out in Montana..) I agree with James, no real benefit to add a bunch of contrived variations of existing routes into the database that are obscure to a place like DL. It's a small pond yes, but a damn fine pond with murky-swimmers itch laden waters.
|
|
James Schroeder
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Fort Collins, CO
· Joined May 2002
· Points: 3,166
Seth Jones wrote:If I can reach a hold and still follow the general line to the top, I'm using the MFer. And yet here too I disagree! Some routes have rules, and if you want to say you did a route that has rules, then you have to follow the rules! Perhaps I'm just the murkiest swimmer of all. jon jugenheimer wrote:It's a small pond yes, but a damn fine pond with murky-swimmers itch laden waters. Don't forget the E. coli if you're at the North Shore.
|
|
Mike Robinson
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Boulder, CO
· Joined Feb 2012
· Points: 251
jon jugenheimer wrote:It must be 90F out with 80% humidity today....yup, it is. My only wonder is what is the dew point? (I Just explained what that was to my wife, they don't report metrics like that out in Montana..) I agree with James, no real benefit to add a bunch of contrived variations of existing routes into the database that are obscure to a place like DL. It's a small pond yes, but a damn fine pond with murky-swimmers itch laden waters. Jon, We can determine the dewpoint of air if we have temperature and RH (with the help of Psychrometric Chart, Magnus Formula or some other pretty awesome approximations!). Let's do it for fun! The simplest approximation gets us within ~2 deg C (as long as RH is greater than 50%) T_dp = T_act - (100-RH)/5 = 32.2 - (20/5) = 28.2 C = 82.8 F ! Let's compare that to our handy dandy Psychrometric Chart (thanks wikipedia!) The math checks out! Now, does anyone want to correct for altitude? Mike
|
|
Double J
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Sandy, UT
· Joined Apr 2006
· Points: 3,952
|
|
Doug Hemken
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Madison, WI
· Joined Oct 2004
· Points: 13,678
James, you could think about putting a parenthetical "(variation)" in the route name, as in "Cleo's Needle Superdirect (variation)", then explain in the description that this is the handstand variation of the normal route. Give it a try and see if it catches on. Seth, thanks for the Pseudo Hawk's Nest photo - I had forgotten that one. We've been having this conversation for a while now.
|
|
Doug Hemken
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Madison, WI
· Joined Oct 2004
· Points: 13,678
jon jugenheimer wrote:It must be 90F out with 80% humidity today....yup, it is. My only wonder is what is the dew point? Burt was smart enough to climb with a couple of beach towels on Sunday.
|
|
James Schroeder
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Fort Collins, CO
· Joined May 2002
· Points: 3,166
|
|
James Schroeder
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Fort Collins, CO
· Joined May 2002
· Points: 3,166
Seth Jones wrote:I was trimming trees on Sunday and don't think I have ever sweat that much. I can't believe you guys climbed in that! We've all got some degree of a problem.
|
|
Jeff Howard
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Hales Corners WI
· Joined Apr 2011
· Points: 0
James M Schroeder wrote:I think the problem I have with this "route" and others like it, is that it's not really a route. It's an eliminate variation to New Box, and should be most likely be a side-note in the comments of New Box, not a separate route in itself. Yes, climbing is anarchy, and there are no rules, so people can (and should) climb as and what they wish. That's not the case with Mountain Project. Mountain Project, at least as I understand it, is meant to be a clear and concise resource for sharing information about routes and areas among climbers. Adding variations to the routes in the photo below, to the right of 9 (Beer and Booty), between 9&10 (Indigo Billy), and between 10&11 (6.63 Smoots), as well as a few more squeezed-in between well-established routes further to the right (Beer and Booty & Law and Gospel) as routes in themselves, at least for me, pushes the boundaries of reasonable. If one disagrees, then one ought to consider at what point further bifurcation becomes trivial. A high school math teacher once told me a story about a boy and a girl sitting on a park bench, who, at regular intervals close the distance between themselves by half. They never actually touch, but at some point they are close enough for practical purposes. Are we there yet with "routes" on 2. Balanced Rock Wall? Obviously the answer to the question is matter of opinion. But let's make sure we're asking the right question when we ask ourselves about posting something as a route: Will adding this as a route increase, or decrease the clarity of information on Mountain Project, and as such, is it better on its own as a route, or simply as a comment on an already existing route? I'd like to add that I know that Jeff VS isn't adding these out of anything other than good intentions, nor is he by any means the only person adding routes of this nature. I simply think these routes (and many others) are being added in a way that muddies the already murky waters of our small pond. Ultimately that's the issue I have with the situation. It's only my opinion and I certainly could be wrong. All of these "new" routes are clearly contrivances and really who cares I find it no more difficult to navigate MP since they were added and for me they do not affect the clarity of information either. I have over the years climbed most of these variations as eliminates but just cannot imagine why it makes any difference if they are listed on MP. We have long since passed the day when anything truly new can be done in the Balanced Rock area. A website like MP by its very nature is resistant to editing since anyone can sign up and post so will MP create a ministry of "new" routes just down the hall from the ministry of silly things? A printed guidebook on the other hand by needs to be edited and if I were doing that work none of these so called routes would make the cut or even mention since they are not classic lines I like tradition and history. Thats what editors do set parameters to include/exclude information based on a premise. Moderators are not editors.
|
|
James Schroeder
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Fort Collins, CO
· Joined May 2002
· Points: 3,166
But Mr. Howard, at what point does further division become absurd and meaningless? Could we put another six routes in between Mr. Neutron and Red Pulpit? Eighteen? Fifty? A hundred? A thousand? Of course given the time I'm sure we could delineate any number of variations we set our hearts on, but surely at some point you'd agree that we cross a threshold of usefulness, correct? Imagine, for a second, that you hadn't spent the required time at Balanced Rock Wall to suss out all the nuance to which you refer, but instead were a first-time visitor from elsewhere (I'm think specifically about a place where routes generally are separated by more than inches) and you wanted to figure out just what route you were on? Mountain Project isn't here for people who have an area wired, it is here for people who don't. So your lack of confusion isn't really relevant in this case, it's the unfamiliar visitor's perspective we need. I know when I visit other climbing areas, I am happy if the local MP Admins have taken care to make the database neat, clean and efficient. When I visit areas where that is not the case, I am frustrated. If by "moderators" you mean administrators like myself, then I beg to differ. We are editors, and it is our job to keep the areas for which we are appointed tidy. We have discussions like these (many in private, but some right out in plain sight like this one) all the time. I can think of countless contributions that have been edited over the years and generally for the better. Are the admins perfect? Not in the least. Are we all generally trying to keep the MP "product" as best we can? Absolutely. So, I appreciate your input, and I think that I speak for the community as a whole when I say we'd like to see more of it - it sounds like you have a lot a valuable information to add. Anyway, I'm off to climb a rock - have a good night all.
|
|
Jeff Howard
·
Jul 26, 2016
·
Hales Corners WI
· Joined Apr 2011
· Points: 0
Yes at some point the addition of "new" routes reaches the absurd and meaningless and for me personally these 'new" routes fit that category. My only point is that a website such as MP should allow more freedom than a guidebook. Which by the way would be my preferred choice of navigating new areas as I like making notes on climbs, approaches etc in the margins. I was at the Balanced Rock Area on Saturday in the box canyon with my nephews youngsters. A group of guys from Missouri was also there with a shiny new guidebook they had questions and the normal 5 minute DL, WI friendly chat gave them all the beta they needed.
|
|
Jeff VS
·
Jul 27, 2016
·
Unknown Hometown
· Joined Jan 2012
· Points: 105
Lovely topic for the forum and since I seem to be at the heart of it, I'll put my oar in. Obviously, this is a huge phylosophical topic and can be discussed on the very local (should Indigo Billy be a new route) to more general (how dense should climbing routes be). It brings up all kinds of moral, ethical, and aesthic questions. I don't have time right now, or inclination, to write a huge response but here's my fast take on lots of this. First a little history. It may show you why I have some of the attitude I do. I've been climbing at DL for almost 50 years. I moved here from Idaho specifically to climb at DL and I now live in rural Baraboo. I am of the old school that thinks a first ascent is the person who first LEADS a climb. I very rarely lead any more at the lake. I don't care (usually) who did a first ascent and have no desire to have my name listed as FA. I have no idea what "red point", "white point", or any other point means. Anyone who thinks this kind of thing is important should climb naked and have a ruler taped to their thigh. Routes and guide books (I count Mountain Project as the latter in this instance) go together. They are both a way of showing others how to have more fun on the rock in a time economical manner. With a guide book, you find routes in the difficulty you like and might read how aesthetically pleasing a route is (and, yes, what kind of gear the lead takes). If you just finished a nice top-rope 5.7 and see that the guide book says that seemingly blank wall 5' to the left is a nifty 5.8, I'd say that's a win for everyone. Let's jump into the Balanced Rock Wall issue for a bit. James lists 3 routes on BRW that my climbing partner, John and I have recently posted here on MP. Timing is an important point here. These three routes are all supurb. If they had been in the early 1960's guide book, I think they would be considered DL "classics". All three are very distinct lines with unique holds and are challenging. Should others be denied climbing them because they weren't "found" earlier? (OK, they could also "find" them but most people don't spend the time on BRW that John and I do to "find" these gems.) So, while the general questions about should or shouldn't something be considered a "new" route are well worth asking and discussing, on these specific climbs, I would respectfully request that you shut up until you have actually tried them. Then come back to this forum and tell us they aren't actually new routes. John and I are at BRW almost every Sunday late afternoon. Come join us and we will show you some fun!
|