So I don't know exactly how you would want to do this but you all need to figure out a way to let people other than just the original poster of a route sort them. Lost of areas are unsorted and could be quite easily but the OP is not active on the site or doesn't care to do it... maybe a consensus thing where once 2 or 3 people sort it the same way it shows it or something. IDK...

Your admin should be able to do it if you send a list ( that is if they aren't spending all their time posting off topic pictures and comments), or even put you in charge of the OP (maybe temporarily)

Not every area has an admin assigned...

I can help if there is no Admin assigned. PM me with the details.

On the topic of improving the L-R sorting, I've found that a lot of bouldering areas aren't sorted because there is no good way to account for a bunch of boulders, each with problems all around them. I think a good solution to this would be to create headings within an area that would contain a boulder or an individual problem to identify that it is separated from other problems in the area, but still a part of that area. This would differ from the current system in that these headings would not be linked to anything or have their own page. I could see this working well for areas that contain a lot of problems within a definable area, yet it would be messy to create a new area page for each boulder with 1-2 problems.

For example, this page (mountainproject.com/v/hogleganchorpoint-boulders/106488869 ) includes problems in a defined area, as well as problems scattered around this area. Instead of that format, the left sidebar would look something like:

Anchorpoint Area:
Trust fund slab
Left Anchor
Grasping at Nothing
Grasping at Something
Anchorpoint
Hogleg Corner
(continues on)
TCC Boulder:
TCC
Compressor Boulder:
Compressor, The
Professor, The
Duke Boulder:
Duke, The
Dutchess, The
Etc...

In addition to the problems gaining L-R order, the headings would also be arranged L-R as much as possible. When adding a new route or problem, the user would be able to either create a new heading and also sort that heading relative to existing ones, or add it to an existing heading. I feel like this would be a possible solution to the dilemma of trying to force a multidimensional space into a 2-D ordering, especially because it does not require the addition of more redundant pages or tons of clicking for the user when browsing an area. I could also see it being beneficial for spires, towers, or any other type of area that is hard to sort L-R.

Thoughts?

Actually, you could leave the database fundamentally like it is, organize problems by boulder (boulder=area, problem=route, some "areas" would have just one "route", e.g. TCC boulder), but add a level to the navigation frame on the left. Make it always show the current level and any children. (Might be too much on a phone app?)

This deserves to be a new topic JJ.

L to R sorting of areas has come up several times as a discussion topic.

Oh, JJ, we are projecting three dimensions onto one, not two! Everything collapses onto a line.

Wouldn't it be cool if we could sort routes by time, i.e. by first ascent date, like Ortenberger tried to do in the Teton guidebook! Then we could think about projecting FOUR dimensions onto just one!

I have thought about this, and even contemplated changing the DL bouldering "areas" into seperate boulders. However, now after playing with the app for a while, I think having each boulder listed seperately would be very burdensome to navigate. However, if there was much of a call for this I would be willing to start working on it.

Chris: playing with the App also convinced me that having each boulder be a separate area would be quite burdensome. There's a lot of tapping as it is. I think the advantage of having "headings" would be that you could see all the problems in an area at once, but there would be some semblance of organization.

Doug: my bad...definitely projecting onto one dimension. I think I was just fantasizing about an ideal solution where Mountain Project creates 2D maps based on the coordinates of the features in an area. Maybe some day...
Also, I thought about creating a new topic, then realized I was about to name it "Improvements to L R sorting" and decided that'd be redundant.

I don't think "have an admin do it" is a very realistic answer.