If you're going to post a route, put a picture up too!

Thanks to all of you who post useful information and great pics. There are many people out there who love to post route information,
yet don't seem to be giving any realy first hand information.

Plus there is not a picture to entice me.

I think that in order to post a route you should be required to post a photo with it.
So just a thought..... instead of being the 100th person to post "6 bolts to anchors....fun route"..throw a pic up there with it! That's what makes this better than a guidebook!

i second this

How about Blitzo who has tons of beautiful shots but many route descriptions similar to the one above. I'd like to see both, but if I could chose one or the other, I'd rather have informative route descriptions.

Although there are certainly some pretty useless posts of routes, most of the content on the site is good.

If there is a particular one that you have beeter knowledge of, contribute by writing a comment with a breakdown like the format for the route as if you submitted it and post that, and themn maybe write the admin to use your comment to replace the lame script. It does happen.

However...
If a pic were required to post a route, most of the content of this site would not be here. Most routes get pics over time, and most pics are attached to routes that are already present. Maybe now most people have a digital camera, but at the turn of the millenium (Y2K) that was not really the case (When this site got started).

Anyway, I think if a description is good & legit, then it tells you more about a line than a photo. I mean, imagine pulling back far enough to get all of "Anthill Direct" into a photo. Shoot, you can hardly even see the thing now, to make out the features on it. So what is the climb like? Well, I guess we'd know it was long.

Frankly, I appreciate having the pics up on the board. I scan in some slides sometimes and post them. But I don't shoot $1/shot pics (film + developing) all over to make beta shots.

Not everyone with a camera writes good scripts and not everyone that writes good scripts has a camera.

caughtinside wrote: Whoever posts the info first has it locked up. You can post info in the comments section, but it isn't as organized as the header.

This is one of the things that administrators and developers have been discussing for a while. One of the ideas being kicked around is for a person to be able to "adopt" a route or area so they can improve or update the content. The person who orginally posted the information would be contacted and asked, etc, etc. Think of it as a managed or controlled Wiki.

Hopefully, this would get around the issue of people posting routes and areas without any worthwhile information, such as how to find it! We will post information about these possible changes as the plan develops. Don't expect much to happen until the snow starts to settle on the ground!

Chalk up another person who detests new route posts without photos. Hell, I can go through the guidebook and just retype it all.

Thanks for posting on one of my pet pieves on this site

Tony makes some great points. Sure, having a photo for each route would be great. On the other hand, if it were a requirement, this site would not contain the huge number of routes that it does. Just like a good book, detailed text can give more information than a "pretty" picture. This site is a reflection of its users. If you see routes without pictures, go take a shot and add it. If you think the route needs a better description or more info, add it to the comments. Most of the admins will then integrate important info into the description. Also, anyone using this site (admin or not) can be emailed. If you have more to add, email the original poster and make suggestions. Working together, we can create the database of your dreams. It's up to YOU!

I wish I could've posted my own photos of some of the areas and routes that I submitted, but in reference to Tony's comment, 6 years ago I didn't have a digital camera; I had some great slides but no scanner, and consequently those who did beat me to it. I still have no scanner, and if I ever get one, I've got several hundred quality photos I'm itchin' to post. Can anybody recommend a good, relatively inexpensive slide scanner?

You betcha! One picture is worth a thousand words. On the other hand, depending on the author, a thousand words can be rather confusing. A picture can make the beta worth reading.

-E

Nah, I disagree. A lot of the route descriptions that are being created in Yosemite have included excellent and thoughtful descriptions. As one example, see Josh Janes' description of the Steck-Salathe:

mountainproject.com/v/calif…

If you're looking for beta, you can't do much better than that. Josh submitted no photos, but photos have found their way onto the page. Had some wack policy been in place like what you mention, this excellent description and the cool dialog that has developed underneath it wouldn't exist.

Consider a hypothetical: an FA'ist who put up route X in 1974 wants to create a description of his route. Valuable to us as a community, right? History, etc. He doesn't have photos of his line. He's shut down?

Sirius wrote: Consider a hypothetical: an FA'ist who put up route X in 1974 wants to create a description of his route. Valuable to us as a community, right? History, etc. He doesn't have photos of his line. He's shut down?

That's my point... Consider another hypothetical- and for that matter, real situation. A few guys are going up to the flatirons, up to crags that have no documented routes on them. They find some old routes and clean some new ones. Maybe 5 or 10 routes a week. The guy is in 2007, but still doesn't have a digital camera. So now what? Don't post the info?

The tagline here at mp.com is "beyond the guidebook", and to me that means the ability to have more detailed descriptions and multiple pictures for routes (and areas) - things that normally can't be done with a traditional guidebook due to space constraints.

Beyond that there's the ability to supplement or replace the current information as things change or more accurate info comes to light. A broken hold, new routes or even FA info that was unknown are some of the things that can change quickly and dynamically here unlike a printed guidebook which is static and must wait until the next edition.

The ability to get a group consensus on difficulty and quality ratings is a big plus, and something which can be especially helpful on newer or more obscure routes; this benefits all of us, even guidebook authors.

Lastly, this constant exchanging of information and shared experiences has the ability to foster a greater sense of community and make for a more rewarding and enriched climbing experience.

Perhaps some of the value differences are centered on the thought that this site:
A) replaces a guidebook.
B) supplements a guidebook.

Since for me, it is just B. OK, unless it's a new crag I'm going to without a book... But generally I already have a picture and what I want is info (the text). But I admit that when I go to a new area, particularly one with non-obvious systems (a sport wall with no real defining features) I have wondered around looking for what was what for a while, then just given up and climbed what was in front of me to figure it out Vs grades...

SO yeah, in some instances, particularly where there is no existing guide or topo, a photo can be invaluable...

Darren, I feel your pain. I'm a big proponent for posting only useful, rich descriptions for routes and areas. Don't know if I always make the mark, but I try. But I disagree with the notion of requiring pictures, for all the reasons stated by others above. I include a photo as often as I can, and now take my camera every time I climb, but it just isn't always possible. What makes this site great is the ability for others to contribute. In that vein, I agree with Rick - take the opportunity to add photos where they're needed. I do that all the time (okay, so I'm becoming a point whore, hee hee). But it is rewarding to see my shots on a route page and I certainly appreciate that effort from others; adding photos adds to the overall appeal of a good route description.

Darren Snipes wrote: you should be required to post a photo with it.

Another proponent of more rules, constraints and/or otherwise more contingency based posts....No thanks.

Yeah, not sure what happened with that pic, Chris Miller, never happened to me before. That picture did not equal 1,000 words.

Fixed it though. Cool shot of Tenaya buttress from Saturday. Had the climb to myself with not another soul around. Went x-country over to Cathedral after Tenaya, then back out to the Meadows, and finished with a run up the Great White Book. What a day, there's no place like Tuolumne. This has been my 5 sentence TR.

Edited to add: check out those bluebird skies...

mountainproject.com/images/…

mountainproject.com/images/…

I am not necessarily an advocate of requiring a photo.

I agree that good descriptions are good, but this is a multimedia tool. I am not asking for a power point on the route. However, notice in the original post I am asking that people put more thought than just "6 bolts..."
Here is a direct example of what I am talking about...and this seems to be fairly common

Here is an example of a route that gets 4 stars mind you!

Description
Climb the corner lined with pockets to a small roof, then pull the crimps at the bulge to the anchors.

Location
This is the obvious third route in from the far right end of the cliff that starts on the pocketed corner.

Protection
7 bolts to LO

This description sucks! AND THERE IS NO PHOTO! The approach is long, and who is this that says it is 4 stars? a pic could fix the problem.

I have noticed that there are a lot of people who just like to post a whole lot of routes with a feeble amount of information just like this one.

I don't know about you but I don't see this site as a replacement for a guidebook...
I look to this site for inspiration...like HOLY @#$% that pic is great....what is that route? If I have to wade through a verbose descripition..I think that sucks.

Here's where the beef comes in...I have the Urioste, Swain, Brock/McMillan and Handren book for Red Rocks, which has all the route descriptions in it I can handle...and yet I still want to see what the routes look like...especially the ones way out in the backcountry.

It is my contention that this type of attitude (attempting to post photos) towards the majority of posts is the best policy. Many of your examples of times that photos wouldn't help and the exception rather than the norm. For example the majority of routes on this site are single pitch and don't need lengthy descriptions and a photo says more...

Sirius:I can't say I have ever read the route description by a route author from 1974 on this site, again it seems to be the exception.

Tony Bubb does raise a good question about new routes...however
For all who are missing it...my point is...some posts suck and a good picture would help. Not sure how else to say it but here goes
some posts suck...and a picture would help....maybe we should be able to delete the ones that suck!!!

Ditto on Darren's last post.

Maybe we don't need to require a pic but I agree that I would LIKE to see more pics.

A really cool pic can really add alot to my appeal of a route. For instance maybe a route only gest a few stars but has a spectacular pitch.

I would not be in favor of requiring a picture for posting a route. Someone may have some great route info and no picture... or worse still... a very bad picture that we would all have to look at instead of the good picture that would eventually be posted.

I would vehemently oppose turning this into a wiki style site where anyone can edit anyone else's posts. If it came to that, I would stop contributing altogether.

Why not just delete useless content?
If a route or area is not up to snuff then it should be deleted so that someone who cares enough to write a good description can take a crack at it.

Here is an example of an area that I think should be deleted so that someone else can contribute...
mountainproject.com/v/kentu…
Big South Fork is a proud and relatively extensive area that deserves better than a message that says 'Coming Soon'... especially since it has said 'Coming Soon' for a year now. I would argue that 'Coming Soon' only buys the poster a week or so... anyone else have thoughts on this?

Brad Brandewie wrote:I would not be in favor of requiring a picture for posting a route. Someone may have some great route info and no picture... or worse still... a very bad picture that we would all have to look at instead of the good picture that would eventually be posted. I would vehemently oppose turning this into a wiki style site where anyone can edit anyone else's posts. If it came to that, I would stop contributing altogether. Why not just delete useless content? If a route or area is not up to snuff then it should be deleted so that someone who cares enough to write a good description can take a crack at it. Here is an example of an area that I think should be deleted so that someone else can contribute... mountainproject.com/v/kentu… Big South Fork is a proud and relatively extensive area that deserves better than a message that says Coming Soon. I would argue that Coming Soon only buys the poster a week or so... anyone else have thoughts on this?

I second Brad's notion, except I would support allowing users to rate a write up as 'sub-par' by which the write up would be publicly available for re-write if X number of sub-par ratings are given. This would include boneheads that reserve routes and should have their accounts locked, anyhow. Alternatively, the admins could have a page to submit updates for existing routes -- but that requires add'l human intervention and interpretation. In the long run, that could provide the most accurate descriptions.

Avery Nelson wrote: I second Brad's notion, except I would support allowing users to rate a write up as 'sub-par' by which the write up would be publicly available for re-write if X number of sub-par ratings are given. This would include boneheads that reserve routes and should have their accounts locked, anyhow. Alternatively, the admins could have a page to submit updates for existing routes -- but that requires add'l human intervention and interpretation. In the long run, that could provide the most accurate descriptions.

We have had many discussions at length as Admins about the best way to let people re-write or beef-up descriptions that aren't up to par. Andy L ultimately has the responsibility of figuring out what to do after we all make our 2 cents heard. I'm sure Andy will come up with a great solution at some point this upcoming winter when he is planning on spending a lot of time implementing suggestions that have been made over the last 6 months.

Until Andy creates a better way to add your personal touch to routes that you know and hold dear, please add your personal knowledge via comments and (hopefully) the admin responsible can find a way to fuse the comment with the route or even replace it and give you credit.