What qualifies as a route?
|
Jeff VS wrote: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!I think we've all had the experience where you think something should not be listed as a new route or boulder problem on MP, then you do it, and decide that it was surprisingly a lot of fun. I think James' question was more in the theoretical arena, and is a great question to ask. MP (particularly DL) is crowded with a lot of variations and can be confusing to use as a guidebook for this reason. As an admin I encourage variations to be added as a comment to the route that the variation is a variation of, in general. Having climbed with James, I am sure no disrespect was intended by this thread. |
|
First, Jeff VS, while I used your routes as examples, they weren't the only examples - this is not meant to be a discussion that is solely about you and Balanced Rock Wall. And Chris is right, I mean no disrespect. |
|
This really gets back to the age-old problem of categorization. This is phylogeny: are we lumpers or are we splitters? |
|
There is a lot of variation among admins. |
|
Doug Hemken wrote:There is a lot of variation among admins. To my knowledge, none of us "approves" content - we just clean up messes that we notice or that are pointed out to us. Perhaps some admins elsewhere are more aggressive at "cleaning up" than we are here in Wisconsin.I've been working, and I think Chris has too, at cleaning up the bouldering junkshow as best we can. But, that's painstaking work. It took me at least an afternoon of research to cleanup one area, 4. Monolith Ridge - East Side, and then another day to reorganize that area and draw a Not to scale and highly stylized. for it. And that was an area I've been to before, and I happen to have a copy of an old guidebook for. Similar work was done with 4. Flatiron and 2. Leaning Tower/Tombstone Wall. Often, just visiting and sorting relatively straightforward and simple areas like these to get the L-R orientation can take all of an afternoon! Now take a complex situation like Fish & Gritz and the process becomes daunting at best, more likely completely overwhelming. Yes, variations are best added to the descriptions not just as comments, and Admins should do that when they notice that a comment noting a variation is posted. |
|
Doug Hemken wrote:To my knowledge, none of us "approves" content - we just clean up messes that we notice or that are pointed out to us.Doug: click on your name in upper right corner, then "Admin: Tool". All new routes, photos, etc appear on the left side of the screen to approve, or edit then approve, or not approve. Personally, I'd rather not simply delete something that someone contributed if I think it's BS without some type of discussion first. I really like the idea of adding variations to the descriptions rather than comments and will start doing that effective immediately. Finally, with regards to the "bread crumb" directions rampant, yes it's not useful for visiting climbers and not sustainable as more boulders are found. Currently in the process with a few others to try to get GPS for areas and boulders that are a bit out of the way for easier navigation. This will likely be a several year project but with the end goal of ridding MP of the bread crumb directions. |
|
And J Marsella this: |
|
J, I think we are really focused on this as a local issue, because the dominance of TRing and bouldering really affects the way we think of and describe "routes" to each other. But you're right, it does call into question the machinery of the larger Project. |
|
Doug Hemken wrote:James, I have re-organizing and cleanup jags myself. I find it most useful to visit an area with Burt, then work on just that area while it is fresh in my mind. Same reason Jay put in so many lightning trips here in the last year or two, right?I couldn't agree more. |
|
Chris treggE wrote: Doug: click on your name in upper right corner, then "Admin: Tool". All new routes, photos, etc appear on the left side of the screen to approve, or edit then approve, or not approve. Personally, I'd rather not simply delete something that someone contributed if I think it's BS without some type of discussion first.I guess I've always used the Admin:Utilities and never the Admin:Tool! I had no idea! Fascinating to see how people revise their stuff! So to the non-admin users, I would say: "approve" doesn't mean as much as you might think. It's an opportunity for an admin to remove or edit a contribution, but whatever you submit shows up right away, and then we either clean it up or we don't. The "approval" list just gives us a quick way to see what's new that is much more detailed than the "What's New?" tool everyone has. |
|
I should chime in.... I find all the banter to be quite interesting. The majority of climbers who frequent (or don't frequent.. just come now and then) DL for climbing just pull out what ever current version of paper guide book they have to decide what to set up on and climb. Or they just climb the same routes they always have. MP is a bit more then that and perhaps in the case of individual climbing locals like DLSTP a more intense (and maybe more up to date)free resource that folks with a bit more interest and zeal go to for fun, information, recognition, etc etc... a whole host of reasons. That's great. With that in mind... I personally am most concerned with accuracy of the stated difficulty (I know I know--- very subjective) and location. I don't see myself any real big deal with squeeze jobs and variations being individually written up... all within generally accepted reason (OK what's that... hence this thread). DL really lends itself easily to the variations, eliminates, climb this particular route by these strict rules thing because of the nature of the rock. Except for a few very particular sections of rock a person could conceivably climb to the top at DL in most directions. I don't see the pages of the DL location on MP.com as really all that crowded or hard to decipher. I find it very entertaining and inspirational myself in these few instances noted within this thread that someone has and/or is motivated/interested to the point that they actually post the information up. I guess if we eventually see something appear that is really going too far we will know and react. |
|
I'm really enjoying this thread. Great discussion! I really can't chime in on the bouldering problem But I see that it is one.I don't really buy James' argument that each climb multiplies the possiblility of more possible climbs. It sounds mathematically good but you run out of holds first (love the Zeno comment!). I also have a real problem with "variations" listed in both the guide book and MP. Here's a perfect instance: there is a listing under the famous Water Marks climb of a variation "wall to the left of Water Marks". This "variation" uses none of the holds on Water Marks, is a face-climb, not a crack like Water Marks and, in my opinion. is WAY more fun route than Water Marks. And yet, it is listed as a "variation". How does anyone, new to the area, even find out there is a unique route there? |
|
Jeff VS wrote:"The ancients were omniscient. Anything that came after them was variation or dross."As the other guy with a white beard in this conversation, this seems like a perfectly reasonable attitude to me! We used to think it wasn't a "route" until it had been led on sight from the ground up. This resulted in interesting anomalies like separate route names for stacked pitches at Devil's Tower (and in Major Mass, at the Lake), or "Serenity" and "Sons of Yesterday" in Yosemite. I think this also accounts for some of the popularity of naming individual pitches on big wall routes. Clearly the dominant definition of a "route" has shifted over the years - it had probably changed at the Lake by the 1960s. I think the current lack of logical clarity, which you need for a good database, is as much a reflection of shifting cultural sands as it is the inevitable disparate points of view we have currently. The good news for would-be guidebook authors is that each decade or so there will probably be a need for a new set of route descriptions, to reflect the new enthusiasms. |
|
Keeping in mind, also, that the routes aren't painted on the rock! No one knows they are there. Dense packed routes does not deface climbs but it does seem to offend the sensiblities of some... |
|
I did all those routes years ago... |