pic w/line vs. detailed topo: guidebook thoughts?

What's everybody's thoughts on the route map style used in the newer guidebooks - namely a color picture with a line roughly following the route - versus the previous style of having a detailed topo drawing?

The pic+line style definitely helps in finding the start of routes quicker/better, and it makes for a much more visually appealing book. But sometimes while on route it's difficult to relate to a picture taken straight on from far away.

The detailed topo drawings are great for reading the route and seem easier in terms of cramming to memory before launching off on the pitch, but they do take some of the adventure out of just following your nose. And they can sometimes be tricky in terms of finding the route's start.

My only exposure to the new style route maps is via Levin's new Eldo guide and Haas' Flatirons guide, both phenomenal works. For the most part they've replaced my older topo books, but then most of the routes I'm looking to climb I already have some general idea as to where they go. For some routes I haven't been familiar with, I've drawn in certain key topo markings on the route line to help with route finding/memorization. Preference-wise I like the feel of the new pic+line style, but could use a couple topo markers along the way, at times.

What's everybody else think?

We looked at most of the rock climbing guidebooks for in and around Denver and Boulder and believe that the new books high-definition color photographs with route overlays are going to revolutionize the entire climbing guidebook industry.

Comparing the new books to some of the older books with hand-drawn out-of-scale route maps (or none at all) is like comparing night and day. When your life literally hangs in the balance, you want the most accurate and easy-to-interpret beta you can get.

There is some potential for the use of high definition color photographs with route overlays in fourteener guidebooks as well, and there is definitely potential for the inclusion of color photographs in all guidebooks, but we feel that the type of guidebook where they are most useful is definitely rock climbing.

We do hear your point that the perspective is a little bit different (looking from below the route as opposed to opposite of it) but this allows you to get a full picture of the route, which is more helpful (in our opinion) than a picture from below it. Perhaps future guidebooks will include a small "from the bottom" photo for additional help. We don't feel like this added feature is imperative, though.

For more info (especially relating to Denver/Boulder-specific guidebooks) see our review: thegoodlifedenver.com/2009/…

We also reviewed the best cycling guidebooks for in and around Denver: thegoodlifedenver.com/2009/…

and the best hiking guidebooks for in and around Denver: thegoodlifedenver.com/2009/…

Although you can't see the topo pitch by pitch with data, I think there is enough available info on the web that you can do more than adequate research on a climb if necessary. In addition the older climbs you can take notes or copies of a page if need be.

Adventure is great, but I've spent as much time searching for climbs and wondering if "this is it" than I cared to. I think it's a great trade off. I think the detailed topo was needed more prior to the influx of all the beta you find on the web or in books. Used to be lousy directions, to a vauge route, with vauge beta. Now you're told which hand to place what sized cam with! :o)

That being said, I still don't think I'm getting rid of my old guidebooks.

Bob,

We wrote about the new guidebooks with high-definition color-photo route overlays and plugged them here because we believe that they are great books with great features that climbers will appreciate, just as in the same article we plugged mountainproject.com and wrote about it for similar reasons.

We agree with Scott when he says, "Adventure is great, but I've spent as much time searching for climbs and wondering if 'this is it' than I cared to." We would rather spend our time on the rock face climbing than on the ground wondering if we're at the right spot (or worse, on the rock face with the wrong gear because we thought we were someplace else).

We don't advocate throwing out your old guidebooks. There are great guidebooks out there that don't include color photos with route overlays. Nevertheless, we believe that, over time, rock climbing guidebooks with color photo route overlays will eventually take the place of guidebooks without them because they are easier to interpret.

I like photos, thats all the first ascencionist had and they had to find the line from there by starting with there eyes from the ground.

Takes good routfinding skills to go from a photo, Quite the adventure and without a detailed photo you have to think like a first ascencionist and find the weakness.

I do find it easier to find the start of a route with photos, that is defenitly an advantage and drops the handicap a bit, Its easier to stay on route if you start on route, LOL

JPVallone wrote:...Takes good routfinding skills to go from a photo... you have to think like a first ascencionist and find the weakness.

Now if only I could climb like the first ascensionists... getting off-route wouldn't be such a terrorfest.

Yeah, but don't you miss "move up and left from the pin 20 feet of 5.8, to a tenuous belay", that led to a terror fest of unprotected slippery, invisible, lichen covered bumps and finished on a sloping ledge with anchors that Sherlock Holmes would need a day to find?

Oh yeah, FA Larry Dalke

I know it has been mentioned by others on this site, but Serious Play is my most favorite guidebook and it has all rough drawn images. I find pictures to be heavily deceiving, and maybe the artist puts the key features in the hand drawings.

I like photo topos for finding the base of a route but that's about it.

Generally photos are taken from the bottom looking up which gives you a fairly distorted view of the route. The bottom ends up looking a lot bigger than the top because it's closer to the camera.

A decent drawn topo removes this distortion and also provides a much cleaner view of the route and important aspects of it. The drawn topos found in the SuperTopo guides are a good example of this.

Bob Packwood wrote:... Thanks to Richard Rossiter for a decade of sweet-ass guidebooks with sweet-ass topos...

More like 3 decades! I've been using his topos ever since Erickson's book Rocky Heights in 1980! This book had both photos with route overlays and some hand drawn topos (more like hand drawn photos).

The new books are fun to look at, but not too much fun to carry around. They weigh way too much. And sometimes they sacrifice important info for flashy photos. I want a guide book, not a $50 magazine!
A photo is only as accurate as the lines drawn in. If the line is misplaced, all the detail in the world won't keep you on route. The photos also loose all of the relevant info that a topo can easily show; pitch lengths, anchor and bolt locations, or just a little note warning about a sharp edge...
One step forward two steps back.

I like pic with line best. Perspective of pic matters of course. Don't take the pic from so far away that you can't see features on the rock in the pic.

I like 'em both. I like the pictures for actually locating the route on the wall adn for seeing in general where the line goes - right of the arete, left of the flake, etc.... the hand drawn topo generally does give better on route beta, like the width of the crack, or the fixed pin - rossiter did a great job with that in his books. The pictures do make it MUCH easier to see the relationships of the various routes in terms of where things start.

All in all, i prefer the newer style books, the pics are more fun to study and gawk at than are the hand drawn topos.

I dont have much experience with the new books, but I think that topos with key features are easier to navigate by some of the "high-definition" photos are hard to see detail on. One thing about the book I looked at with the photos is it didn't mark any fixed gear which is nice for refrencing where you are on the climb especially on wandering pitches.

The new Euro style picture guide books are superior. The advent of affordable quality digital cameras and computers has altered the world as we know it. I liken interpreting the older topo driven guides to reading braille.

However, I am very thankful to Richard Rossiter for his many quality guidebooks. I think they were the best of that era.

All I care about in a guide book is that it has the climbs I'm looking for and not a lot of BS. For example Orenczak & Lynn's "The Needles." Worst. Guide book. Ever.

I realize this thread is Boulder-centric, but I figured I'd point out that line-on-photo has been the standard guidebook format at the Gunks for 45 years.

Find a copy of Alan Watts' guide to Smith Rock. Published way back in '92, it is still the best, most informative guide I've ever seen. Virtually every route is described with a photo/line overlay and an exquisitely drawn topo with key beta such as where the cruxes are (and how hard) and where/what size gear is required.

Pictures are nice for guaranteeing you are in the right place, but once you are there, a topo is much better at providing information.

Mike Anderson wrote:Find a copy of Alan Watts' guide to Smith Rock. Published way back in '92, it is still the best, most informative guide I've ever seen. Virtually every route is described with a photo/line overlay and an exquisitely drawn topo with key beta such as where the cruxes are (and how hard) and where/what size gear is required. Pictures are nice for guaranteeing you are in the right place, but once you are there, a topo is much better at providing information.

I agree. The Watts guidebook is excellent.

Mike Anderson wrote:Find a copy of Alan Watts' guide ... Virtually every route is described with a photo/line overlay and an exquisitely drawn topo ... Pictures are nice for guaranteeing you are in the right place, but once you are there, a topo is much better at providing information.

Huh.... now that sounds like the ticket right there. Have both.

This is all interesting input for someone who is now working on a new guidebook. At this point I plan to include both topos and pictures. It is really interesting to see how different people prefer different methods to receive information, written words versus maps & pictures, and even different types of maps & pictures.

Personally, I think that a few of the newer guidebooks, while visually appealing, lack in providing real information. In some cases the pictures are small with lots of color lines drawn all over them and are coupled with terse route descriptions that don't really give you much to go on. I suspect this is done to produce the book faster and easier and to squeeze the most into the fewest number of printed pages (leaving more room for ads of course).

Some climbing areas are easier to describe & document than others, depending on the rock type, layout of the crags, roads and trails, and the presence or absence of trees. Topo drawings for Shelf Road would probably be somewhat illegible, while they may be useful for South Platte domes. Pictures become cluttered faster with lots of spot ratings, rappel distances, belay stations, and bolt locations, but often help determining which crag is which.

Ultimately, the best measure of a good guidebook is how well it got you to what you were looking for and provided some inspiration for going to the area in the first place.

Tzilla Rapdrilla wrote:...Ultimately, the best measure of a good guidebook is how well it got you to what you were looking for and provided some inspiration for going to the area in the first place.

spot on...