Posting information on MP

There have been some posting of routes by Geir Hundal that are either incomplete (he hasn't climbed them) or have mis-information on them. I understand Geir is trying to do a service by recording these routes but in the process he is insulting the FAs. I was reading the comments made under the new route right of ides of middlemarch and felt this discussion needed to be moved here.

Charlie King has asked that the names be removed from the posts which I would have to agree with. The point Charlie is making is Scott and friends have put a lot of effort into these routes so let them choose the names. Calling it an unknown route right of Ides is one thing but to attach a name to it is crossing a line. Scott and crew have put a lot of effort into establishing good quality routes and making them fun and SAFE. Putting routes up is not easy or cheap. 1 good 90 foot sport route equals days of scouting and planning and costs about $60. Now do the math and tell me who has the most into it. Guide book or not we all owe Scott and everyone who has helped him a huge gratitude of thanks.

Saying the gripe is only with Geir posting "Mad Cow Disease" doesn't really jibe with Charlie & Mike posting messages under three of other routes that Geir posted only as "unknown".

The first ascentionist of the routes in question has contacted MP administration regarding Geir's postings. We are currently working to resolve the issue in a fair way. Please be patient.

I do not think that Geir intends to name the routes himself (I think the temporary place-holder names he has given to the routes make this obvious). Certainly the names given by the FA will be applied when/if they are made available. We are trying to work with the FA party to provide them an opportunity to correct any inaccuracies to the route descriptions and names.

However, we maintain that once new routes are climbed by the FA party, and then get discovered and climbed by other climbers, those routes are public domain. We can't, and won't, stop people from posting information about new routes put up on public land, but we will make every effort to correct inaccuracies.

Please be patient as we work to resolve this issue with the parties concerned.

On a more personal note, I do agree that NOBODY should be posting routes they have not climbed themselves. Geir, please weigh in on this as it appears you are being accused of this very thing.

Uhm, Jed, my name is Mike not Scott. The routes are Scott's. He hasn't named them yet so how would I know the name to send to Geir? I'm not an ahole as you stated. Scott has hundreds of multi-pitch routes and sport routes established in the Stronghold alone. A math lesson, 90 feet of sport cost about 60 bucks in hardware. that's 67 cents a foot. Assuming a route is all sport, an 850 foot climb (the height of Sheepshead) costs almost $600. 10 routes on Sheepshead alone is approaching $6000. Not every route is a sport route from bottom to top but you get the idea. I'm not saying Scott owns the land just deserves the respect to name the routes he has set. I have not been involved in any of Scott's endeavors but I truly respect him for all he has done for the climbing community. If you look at the route description you will notice Geir has posted names for 3 routes. I'm not insulting Geir just asking that we all show Scott some respect and appreciation.

Jed Pointer wrote:Why not post or email Geir the route name and call it good? Are you really that big of an ahole to complain about the non-name, then keep the real name as some kind of secret that you have to pay for?

Jed,

Mike is not the FA'ist. Your attacks are misdirected.

We are trying to get accurate beta from the FA. This is a local issue with lots of history, and the information available here does not begin to tell the whole story...

mike, i agree with you 100% that scott & co. deserve immense respect for the time and money they spend putting up all the quality routes they have done. however, it is not fair to geir to say that he has never climbed the routes he posts. perhaps he got the names mixed up, but i personally have used his topos and route descriptions from his website and MP.com and found them to be of the highest quality and accuracy.

have you tried contacting geir directly to discuss these issues with him? he is a very reasonable guy and i am certain that he will listen to what you have to say.

hey all-

just saw this thread, and will reply asap. i'm at work at the moment, and it's really hard to get a block of time to write.

regards-
geir

hey all-

i've taken some time to read over the contents of this page as well as the individual comments under the unknown routes listed for the sheepshead area.

charlie and mike, i hear ya. i think you made some valid points and will be glad to update the route descriptions in MP based on what you've said. christian, jon, & james, thanks for your input. it was never my my intention to name the routes myself.

it looks like much of this can be resolved by direct communication between scott and i. just an fyi: scott has never directly contacted me regarding regarding my topos or route descriptions. so as soon as i've changed the route descriptions in question, i'll be sending a PM to scott as well as james.

hope this helps. if you have any further concerns, please feel free to contact me.

sincerely,
geir

My suggestion regarding route names....

If route names aren't known then rename each route "Unknown". The route names (as well as additional details) will become common knowledge eventually and then can be corrected in the database.

Additionally, if accurate and updated information is posted in a comment for a route, hopefully the original poster will merge that information into the route description for the benefit of everyone.

Andy

Andy Laakmann wrote:My suggestion regarding route names.... If route names aren't known then rename each route "Unknown". The route names (as well as additional details) will become common knowledge eventually and then can be corrected in the database. Additionally, if accurate and updated information is posted in a comment for a route, hopefully the original poster will merge that information into the route description for the benefit of everyone. Andy

andy,

sounds great. i'll change them now.

sincerely,
geir

As an outside observer,anyone who names a route, that they were not PERSONALLY involved in the FA, is a complete jackass. Also , giving route descriptions, ratings, topos of routes that you have not climbed is not only wrong but DANGEROUS. PS I've climbed in the stronghold on occasion since the mid eighties, even done a few FA's there myself, sad to see such a cool area become a beacon for misinformation and large egos trying to capitalize on other(first accentionist's) hard work.

Mangus Coloradas wrote:As an outside observer,anyone who names a route, that they were not PERSONALLY involved in the FA, is a complete jackass...sad to see such a cool area become a beacon for misinformation and large egos trying to capitalize on other(first accentionist's) hard work.

If that were the case, I agree it would be a shame, but that is not what is going on here at all.

You guys need to stop making assumptions about Geir's intentions, unless you have spoken to him directly. Have you? I think you probably have not.

I don't mean to be an asshole, but if you don't have all the facts, then please mind your own business and butt out.

Mangus Coloradas wrote:As an outside observer,anyone who names a route, that they were not PERSONALLY involved in the FA, is a complete jackass. Also , giving route descriptions, ratings, topos of routes that you have not climbed is not only wrong but DANGEROUS. PS I've climbed in the stronghold on occasion since the mid eighties, even done a few FA's there myself, sad to see such a cool area become a beacon for misinformation and large egos trying to capitalize on other(first accentionist's) hard work.

Always the big talk from the AC's.

I know Geir and we have several mutual friends. "Complete jackass" and "large ego trying to capitalize on other (first ascentionist's) hard work" are about the last ways I would describe him. It sounds as though there was some honest confusion, and that he has resolved the issue.

The only hard work he is capitalizing on is Toofast's.

Also FWIW his topos are accurate & more informative than most.

And yes Mike D. most of us put up routes and we all know how much it costs. I doubt there are many AZ natives that are unaware of Scott's contributions & investment.

Just my 2 cents.

-Mike

Sorry I'm not a AZ native, and no I will not but out.since I feel accurate info on routes I may climb is MY business,and after speaking to the FA party about a number of routes there seems to be alot of inaccraccy. Why report a route if you aren't completly sure of the facts?

Mangus Coloradas wrote:I feel accurate info on routes I may climb is MY business, and after speaking to the FA party about a number of routes there seems to be a lot of inaccraccy

Point well taken, Mangus. That may be the case, and the FA party (or anyone else with first-hand knowledge of the routes) is free to identify and correct any inaccuracies in the comments section. Such clarifications are welcome, but if they include personal attacks, I'll just delete them.

As Andy stated above, upon confirmation such corrections would be merged into the route description by the original poster or by admin.

It might also be worth mentioning that the OP is now in direct contact with the FA. Please guys, let's give them a chance to try resolve this between themselves.

Shouldn't it be set up that if the FA party comes along with a route name/description after one is already posted it should take precedence?

In our strange but binding ways of granting rights to the FA's, the right to be the priority route poster should be included. This doesn't stop anyone from posting beta if they desire, yet has an allowance to limit the impact of overly exuberant pos(t)ers.

I would guess that well over 50% of the routes on MP were not submitted by the FA. Some times we have to beg someone/anyone in the know to post up about routes we're interested in. That being said, a route submitted by the FA is the best and very much appreciated in all cases.

I am not sure why Mike D. has chosen to attack Geir; It may be political. In any case it certainly is misdirected.

We here in AZ ALL know the contributions that Scott has made regarding equipping routes. We are all very grateful for the hard work that he has put into his routes. And, of course, no one has forced him to spend his money doing this. So, using his expenditure of money as an argument for any reason is silly.

A route guide has NOT been forthcoming. For years now we have waited. Geir (with the help of toofast) has provided a real service to the climbing community in an attempt to make some of these “unknown” climbs accessible to the climbing community at large.

I can say from experience that Geir climbs the routes that he creates topos for. There may be one or two routes here or there that he has not yet climbed, but I bet he has climbed 90% or more of them; I have been with him as he meticulously adds detail to a route (such as those found at the Troll Wall) while on the climb. He puts real effort into creating accurate topos.

Where are the topos from Scott? Where are the route names or grades from Scott?

For those that not aware of the politics here, I have been told by those that have done this that Scott will give beta to most anyone that personally calls him for the beta, but how inconvenient is that?

I respect the FA’s right to put up a climb, give it a grade, and name it. I do not respect an FA’s attempt to keep climbs on Public Lands as personal play grounds for them and their friends. Public land is public for a reason.

David Arthur Sampson wrote:And, of course, no one has forced him to spend his money doing this. So, using his expenditure of money as an argument for any reason is silly.

As you mentioned, Scott has put much hard work and money into his FAs. The fact that he was not forced to do them has no bearing on this at all. I sincerely doubt ANYONE would be spending as much time, sweat, and money, as Scott does if he were not doing it. Certainly, Scott must take satisfaction in putting up these routes, but I can imagine spending multiple days cleaning dirt out of cracks, placing bolts, and whatever other efforts FAs require must be a serious pain in the ass. Scott's efforts are an extremely valuable asset to the climbing community and should be respected.

David Arthur Sampson wrote:I do not respect an FA’s attempt to keep climbs on Public Lands as personal play grounds for them and their friends

Scott is not trying to be secretive about his FAs, he is just in the process of making a guidebook and trying to keep the newer routes from being posted before his guidebook comes out. I happen to think that is fine, especially considering, as David mentioned, he is happy to share route beta with most anyone who contacts him. Regardless if you agree or not, I think the climbing community owes him the respect to let him hang on to those until his book comes out. (which should be in the spring) To me, it is part of the social game we play as climbers (ie: respecting the FA's name for a route, not chopping or adding fixed gear without the FA's permission).

Though it may be somewhat more inconvenient to contact Scott to get route beta, again, I feel this is part of respecting him and the work he has done for the climbing community. Anyone who contacts him will find out that he is an incredibly friendly guy and is eager to give beta. Personally, I would love to be able to go to an area and call the FA for beta on some new routes he has been working on.

Scott's commitment to the climbing community is apparent to me for a few reasons. First, as I mentioned, he is happy to share beta with most anyone. Second, many of his routes (particularly on the Sheepshead) are done in a way that is not typical of the Stronghold or backcountry climbing in general; a moderate sport climber with limited trad knowledge/experience can get a good multi-pitch experience on routes such as Too Tough To Die or Peacemaker. With Scott's climbing ability and experience in mind, it is obvious he has put up some of these routes for the type of climber I mentioned. Also, I don't think Scott is living in a fantasy world in which his guidebook is going to bring him much profit. Scott has not made objections to the most popular routes on Sheepshead being posted on mountainproject, only those he is trying to save for the book.

As far as new routes going on to the Internet---I feel mixed.

I have certainly enjoyed Geir�s topo�s. I just downloaded his Troll Wall topos.

But let me suggest some other considerations about posting routes on the Internet that have not been discussed.

Both Lemmon and Stronghold are seeing a lot more traffic these days, in part, because of the Internet.

There will be additional adverse ecological and archeological impacts.

There will be other impacts. The rescue down on Sheepshead is an example. If I understand the details correctly, these poor folks did not serve an apprenticeship in the Stronghold. They did not appreciate the seriousness of their undertaking.

Perhaps, they came out of a gym back east---climbing harder that I can ever hope to climb. They read on the Internet about a multi-pitch 5.9 or 5.10 sport route and thought they could easily run up in a couple of hours.

They got gripped, had trouble opening a locking carabineer, night came and called on their cell phones for a rescue.

It concerns me that by posting our wonderful climbing on the Internet we will have additional adverse ecological impact. We will have an increase and this kind of unfortunate incident. If it does, then I fear that the Forest Service will see it as an excuse to regulate.

Another aspect of posting routes on the Internet is the �bird issue.� Each year the Coronado National Forest Service closes huge swaths of land. It does not matter that there are no birds in many of these areas. They closed them last year.

On the other hand, in Boulder or at Devil's Tower, for example, the Forest Service closes the route where the nest is located and a route or two adjacent.

But given our present relationship with the Coronado National Forest Service we are bound to have trouble when routes go up on the Internet. Perhaps you are already aware of the eager young climber who innocently discovered birds at a crag in the Coronado. They decided to talk about it on the Internet. They got horrified responses. They went to the Forest Service and reported the birds. I fear there is now considerable risk that this entire crag will be closed during the only season it is climbable.

It seems to me, by virtue of this Forest Services�s philosophy we are forced into a �Don�t Ask, Don�t Tell� relationship. It would be so much easier if we could trust each other. No climber that I know would climb through an active nest. If climbers could tell the Forest Service where the nests are located and if the Forest Service could closely tailor its closures, then both birds and people would benefit.

But when an out of town climber with an Internet topo comes down here and discovers birds on (take your pick) and that entire crag is closed--- we have really lost something important.

These are some of the reasons I am concerned about routes going up on the Internet. I do not have any easy answer. I merely want to ask everyone to be aware of these problems and think about them with me. Perhaps, someone can come up with a good idea. Perhaps, we need to start a climbing club (again) to address these issues in a more unified form.

Thanks for reading my post. Let's go climbing.

Scott

dancohen wrote: Scott's efforts are an extremely valuable asset to the climbing community and should be respected.

I agree. I mean no disrespect to Scott. I fail to understand, however, how someone posting beta for a climb on public land is disrespectful. Scott could probably use the efforts of others (such as Geir) for his book to save time and money. Why is this bad?

dancohen wrote:Scott is not trying to be secretive about his FAs, he is just in the process of making a guidebook and trying to keep the newer routes from being posted before his guidebook comes out.

I cannot speak to Scott's intentions, but I do know how long this book has been in the making. That someone has stepped up to help out in the interim, to me, is not disrespectful. Creating a name for a climb that one has not equipped, however, is disrespectful.

Much of this is a result of the poor communication (and bad blood) between Geir and Scott. Hopefully they can settle their differences and work this out so that all of these issues go away.