Boston's Promised Land - An Access Rant

Hopefully that grabbed your attention.

If you're like me, when you moved here/first discovered mountainproject, you quickly found the Lynn Woods bouldering page (1000 boulder problems 20 minutes from Boston!), saw the lack of info, and moved on to bigger and better crags. Hell, it seemed like most of the areas in "Lynn Woods Reservation" really weren't. No use digging around to get beta on some local choss pile with access issues if there's good rock an hour away.

However, near Lynn Woods is a huge parcel of land with the rock volume and density of New England's other bouldering hot-spots, and with the potential to secure legitimate access. Currently, on Mountainproject, it lives under the moniker "Lynn Woods -> Promised Land ".

There's an insane volume of climbable rock there, primarily bouldering but also roped. The dominating feature is giant glacial erratics, but there are also many cliffs and several large slabs that offer amazing views of Boston. However, the secrecy surrounding the area has kept it virtually unknown and vastly underutilized by climbers. The fact that it's all "documented" on mountainproject makes exploration frustrating.

It might be in insiders' short-term interests to keep the place under wraps, but continued secrecy threatens to level the entire crag, as has occurred at other "Lynn Woods" spots. A few years ago, the city of Peabody sold off a quarter of the promised land to a housing development company, who swiftly leveled the ridges and demolished the boulders on their newly-acquired land.

What's the upside to the rant? The vast majority of the land is owned by New England Power, who keep the land undeveloped and turn a blind eye to recreational users trespassing on their property (local hikers are the current primary user group). The city of Peabody is very interested in securing the currently-undeveloped portion of the region as green space. In a 2014/15 public spaces plan (here: peabody-ma.gov/comm_dev/FUL… and here: peabody-ma.gov/comm_dev/201…) they explicitly voice their concerns about the area, particularly noting a) how much of the region is held by private owners and b) the invasive destruction caused by the housing development. Of relevance, they also state concern over the impermanence of land that, while undeveloped, is not explicitly allocated for public use.

Two small parcels on the ridge have been bought from NE Power by Peabody as conservation areas, and it's likely they're interested in a more substantial purchase. If a large group of climbers (and other user groups) petitioned the city, I'd wager they would buy up the whole thing (or what's left of it). They're currently working to acquire lots of land a half mile east, near Spring Pond, but I bet their plans could be swayed to include the promised land. It's the sort of problem that a local Access Fund affiliate would deal with...if Boston had one.

I'm moving to NYC, so I won't see any direct benefit from securing access. However, I hope the discussion here highlights the usefulness of a climbing access group in Eastern Mass. Even if the end consensus on the Promised Land is that the are should be kept secret, there should clearly be a better forum to discuss these things with local climbers than Mountainproject.

Edit: To preempt a few expected comments, I found the Promised Land via topo/satellite map, not Mountainproject. I realized later that it was the same place. The "insiders" I mention are purely abstract - other than a grid-bolted blank slab deep in the woods, there's no evidence it's been climbed in ages. I talked to Pete back in the spring, but he lives in Cape Ann now and was more psyched to showcase the stuff out there. "Rant" was probably a misnomer, and was meant to describe the length of the post, not the tone.

Hi - I'm in support of your efforts. I've climbed here and also the surrounding areas for going on 20 years. A couple items worth noting: Daniel Terrace Conservation Area and Rockaway Conservation area are publicly owned land and accessible. (I have confirmed this with City officials). Although a good number of boulders were lost with the Gedney Drive development, there still remains many many blocks.

Part of the problem is that there appears to be lack of interest in the bouldering community. Old Timer (Pete) has graciously offered tours, and has given quite a few (including myself). It is not a secret area, but it appears folks would rather climb in a gym or drive to somewhere with a guide book. I really hope this changes. Is now finally the time?

One of the tricky things with access on private land is that it can disappear very quickly. This is the main reason why specific locations and directions are not given. A private land owner, such as the New England Power Company, may consider climbing a high risk activity and if they get a sniff of what is going on, they may start to enforce their No Trespassing rules. My point: discussions like this require careful preparation and the understanding that climbing may be restricted until agreements can be worked out.

If there is a large enough group of climbers who would like to pursue a course of legal access then there are two options: Ask the current land owner, or petition the City as you suggest. A petition to the City will become public information, which the private landowner would see and may possibly enforce their current rules until a land transfer takes place, which could take years. My point: Caution is needed on any action taken since the risk of losing the access that exists is high.

I've climbed with at least a few of the folks over the years that have climbed at the Promised Land, and nobody is trying to keep it a secret for selfish reasons. We are all nervous and cautious about access. Period.

By the way, Spring Pond Woods, just up the road is another publicly accessible recreation area with a handful of large blocks. Worth checkin out.

I will look forward to what comes of this discussion.

It is worth mentioning that this area was once known as Gowdy Playground Conservation area. I don't know the full story behind the sale for the development, but at least some of it was Peabody land, and some of it was Lynn land. This makes me nervous because why wouldn't NEPC just sell it's parcels off for development? If I was the land owner, and I knew folks were rock climbing on my land, I may try to sell it off quicker to lower my liability risk. Again, just trying to highlight caution.

Just so folks know, I have about 75% of the boulders here mapped via GPS. I have not shared these maps with folks other than Old Timer and a few others. Again, not out of secrecy, but out of caution.

Tim

Thanks for sharing, Matt. As you described, I was lured to Lynn woods by the promise of hundreds of supposedly 4 star boulder problems. Luckily, I like exploring, so I wasn't disappointed. I found my way through what I believe to be part of the promised land, but ran into a frustrating problem. While I'm sure everything there has been climbed, and all of it has presumably been documented on MP, it's impossible to identify a single boulder problem from the information that is available.

Maybe I'm off base, but I think this is a bad state of things. I should mention that I appreciate that any information was posted in the first place, and I realize that nobody was under any obligation to do so. I should also mention that I have no problem with exploring and having to work a bit to discover areas - I did wander through this area on my own. However, as it stands, the information that currently exists on mountainproject is fundamentally incomplete, and serves only to complement the memory of the select few who already have intimate knowledge of the area.

There doesn't need to be a full on guidebook, but for many of us climbing is a social activity. The lack of even the most basic shared information (to find the boulders, and to know what is what) means that it's everyone for themselves. My thinking is that this will limit the development of the community, and relegate the bouldering here to obscurity and eventual bulldozing. I don't even care if I never get to climb them at all, but the thought of how much rock must have already been destroyed in the region makes me sad, and I'd like to see what remains preserved. Sometimes the best way to do that is with secrecy, but that didn't stop the Gedny Drive development. Maybe it's worth trying a more concerted community approach?

Continuing a recent theme in the New England Bouldering facebook page, it seems the only way to get the beta for this area is by arranging a tour with a particular local. I have no problem with this policy, but in both cases my efforts to get in touch with said local have been missed or ignored. In any case, I'll put it out there to anyone who reads this - I would be grateful for a tour of the area. I can offer a ride and provide pads. I'd like to update mountainproject so that it contains at least minimally useful information, but won't do that if the locals are against it.

Bump

I suppose that my original post had two components - a rant about the state of affairs of the Lynn Woods mountainproject section, and a plea for Boston-area climbers to work to make the Promised Land a legitimate bouldering spot. Might as well expand on both.

On the Lynn Woods rant front:

I'm not sure people "prefer to climb in a gym or drive somewhere with a guidebook". I think it's more the case that the people that enjoy the exploration and development side of climbing aren't as interested in spending their time redeveloping someone else's work that's fallen to the wayside and only shared with a small ingroup. It's no surprise that when the majority of the original group left or lost interest, progress stalled.

Even within Lynn Woods itself, the majority of the site documentation is useless. It's not a matter off "Make up your own names and grades", but rather "Eeverything's been done, you just don't know what it is or where to go". It's also weird to publish names/grades for hundreds of problems in a specific area, but no way to know what those problems are.

Sure you could spend a day and get a tour of a small fraction of the boulders, but there's no incentive to explore further - you're likely just reinventing the wheel. As Sean mentions, the fact that there are a thousand existing problems in "Lynn Woods" with no real way to figure out what they are is absolutely fatal to interest when places elsewhere in New England are either openly documented, undeveloped entirely, or have a healthy community of under-the-radar climbing to keep the in/out-flows of locals in balance. With so many established climbs, the number of people in the know is way too small.

As far as disappointment by the original developers in the lack of interest in re-climbing existing problems, I think boulderers, for the most part, don't care about the exploration and development side of climbing, and those who do don't currently see Lynn Woods as a place to find it. With so little new local rock left to climb, why should they? If climbers want a sense of adventure or exploration, they head to the Whites or Maine, not the Boston 'burbs. They're mostly looking to enjoy a day of casual climbing with their friends, and documented areas facilitate that well. It's no surprise that people haven't been chomping at the bit to check out some semi-secret v6 when they could go up to Pawtuckaway and find Ride the Lightning blindfolded (along with a few hundred other high quality moderates). By the time they've climbed out the v6's, they're up to climbing v7, and off they go.

And on the Promised Land front:

I think talking to the town to persuade them to consider buying more of the land is a good idea, obviously - it's evident from the parks plan I posted that they've talked to the power company already, and both parties know about the area's use as both a recreational zone and importance as an ecologic region. Even if such efforts fail, I don't see any way the power company is going to find climbing more intrusive than whoever left the random garbage strewn about under the power lines or the hikers that will probably still outnumber climbers even if the spot's popularity explodes.
The question is whether anyone else think's it's a good idea.

I'm gonna head over there tomorrow afternoon with a friend and hoof it through the region. If anyone has any beta (particularly parking info, or a map), or if you want to meet up, I'd welcome it - just message me.

Just to be clear, in spite of my expressed desire to make the information to this area more accessible, I won't post any info until I have a better understanding of the region and some kind of input from the locals.

Deleted.

Hey there CT climber here.

Be careful with sharing info on boulder locations in New England. I know from first hand experience amazing locations that have been closed because of too many people finding out about it. It has happened to us via private landowners and companies land.

There's a reason why these locations are not shared with the public. Because THEY GET SHUT DOWN.

Welcome to New England.

mountainproject.com/v/orena…

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/thomaston-ice-climbing-closed/106393216

Not to mention a dozen others that have amazing quality rock that now has no climbing no trespassing signs. Both of these examples are from private residences buying property and closing access. There are more but I don't want to share.

Seriously, if I were you I would delete your post with the info you posted. Too much attention and you will lose your access.

In all honesty I wish we could share the locations. I'm tired of cleaning boulders that don't get enough traffic and lack of trails from lack of traffic.

But, that's just my two cents and random thoughts based off experience. Good luck.

Tylerpratt wrote:Hey there CT climber here. Be careful with sharing info on boulder locations in New England. I know from first hand experience amazing locations that have been closed because of too many people finding out about it. It has happened to us via private landowners and companies land. There's a reason why these locations are not shared with the public. Because THEY GET SHUT DOWN. Welcome to New England. mountainproject.com/v/orena… mountainproject.com/v/thoma… Not to mention a dozen others that have amazing quality rock that now has no climbing no trespassing signs. Both of these examples are from private residences buying property and closing access. There are more but I don't want to share. Seriously, if I were you I would delete your post with the info you posted. Too much attention and you will lose your access. In all honesty I wish we could share the locations. I'm tired of cleaning boulders that don't get enough traffic and lack of trails from lack of traffic. But, that's just my two cents and random thoughts based off experience. Good luck.

As " Tyler" says what's your goal?

If your end goal is recognition for finding & helping impact a

wild as can be zone

in suburbia

turning Peoples
backyard privacy buffer zones
into
the next cool place for social gathering for groups of pad smashers to hang out and do all the things that come along with the group activity, ,

if that was the intent of the posts then you & others,of like mind, are well on your way to seeing what
the person , " Tylerpratt" has warned you of.

Check the cost of the adjoining Real Estate.
Find the largest parcel adjacent to the rock zone.

Check the tax maps, realize the values that you're or more, that a group or groups of climbers presence ,cars parked, etc, will have on those dollar values.

That may help you understand, why your wrong headed in this. The suburbs of Boston , are
(I was born in Boston, & lived in Lexington) home to very expensive real estate, with the required taxes.

You are in an area very much like in CT & NJ, states where whole cliff lines are kept away from public debate on purpose,
to ensure continued careful use can be enjoyed by a very few. Who value climbing
for the movement and the location close to where they are, and YOU
Are Not.

High impact land use by groups of more than One or Two,
draws unwanted attention, gets Land posted
Shutting down climbing opportunities that were
until you showed up,
Someone's private Idaho . . .

Always carpool, get the lay of the land before you go,
try to have written permission if you want to climb on private property.

If the land is not designated for public use,
do not post/publish your climbing exploits.

If you must spray to leave your name in the data base. . .

find state land - scrape, clean, bolt, gather around a campfire and post pictures, Maps, topos. The parking rules? call routes & trails, by the wrong names & post - up.

Give everything names that are not the old historic ones,
so that the confusion as to where you are talking about takes hold,
& throws off FA authors who won't care at all that you claim
the FA on the climb they sent 30 yrs ago,
while you were learning to walk. If you are were even born yet.

Or

Be glad that no one before you was so ego driven & stupidly short sighted. As to add the area to the climbing data base in a magazine or store.

Value these zones as if you owned them / it
stop trespassers ,pick up all trash and be low impact ,
, try to be invisible
brush your chalk or do not use chalk,
learn the definition
Of " A stealthy low impact approach"!

This post is under edit so a rough draft ....YMMv if you grab it in quotes

Michael Schneider wrote: As " Tyler" says what's your goal If your end goal is recognition for finding & helping impact a wild as can be zone in suburbia turning Peoples backyard privacy buffer zones into the next cool place for social gathering for groups of pad smashers to hang out and do all the things that come along with the group activity, , if that was the intent of the posts then you & others,of like mind are well on your way to seeing what the person , " Tylerpratt" has warned you of. Check the cost of the adjoining Real Estate. Find the largest parcel adjacent to the rock zone. Check the tax maps, realize the values that you're or more, that a group or groups of climbers presence ,cars parked, etc, will have on those dollar values. That may help you understand That very much like in CT & NJ states where whole cliff lines are kept away from public debate on purpose, to ensure continued careful use can be enjoyed by a very few. Who value climbing for the movement and the location close to where they are, and YOU Are Not. High impact land use by groups of more than One or Two, draws unwanted attention, gets Land posted Shutting down climbing opportunities that were until you showed up, Someone's private Idaho . . . Always carpool, get the lay of the land before you go, try to have written permission if you want to climb on private property. If the land is not designated for public use, do not post/publish your climbing exploits. If you must spray to leave your name in the data base. . . find state land - scrape, clean, bolt, gather around a campfire and post pictures, Maps, topos. The parking rules? Give everything names that are not the old historic ones, call routes & trails, by the wrong names & post post post - up.

I think you totally skipped the entirety of my post. I want no association with this place and make no claim of having put in any work to develop it. I simply noted that:
-there's a crazy amount of rock here
-other, significantly higher-impact user groups haven't been pushed out despite continued presence
-it seems pretty feasible to work with the city to preserve access long term.
Feel free to direct your derisive comments about being "ego driven and stupidly short sighted" to the original ascentionist group who decided to post their FA's here years ago.
This is essentially a plea to explain the usefulness of a Boston climbing advocacy organization, with enough evidence of one particular area to compel people to see its benefit. This area will never be pawtuckaway. The parts that are already public have a negligible difference in their development - to everybody using the trails, it's all the same.

The other rant was about the info that's been posted to mountainproject already for years.
Even places with completely public access in the confines of Lynn Woods itself have similarly vague info posted. Not to mention the fact that the area I've supposedly spoiled by posting here has been listed on mountainproject for 5 years. This has been a continuous complaint from many Boston climbers I've talked to.

There's a few places I know of that do not have published guides and access is at least tenuously fine and fully legal. It's important to honor the wishes of the landowner first and foremost, and if they request no beta spray on the internet then that's the final word. Maybe in time they will change their minds, but it's not up to the climbing community to force their hand.

Creating a private guide and distributing it among friends confidentially... ?

Tread softly on land you are not supposed to be on. That includes on the internet.

Orenaug Park for example. The landowner purchased land up to the base of the cliff line, but doesn't own the cliff itself. Since I have been climbing here since before I can literally even remember. I figured I would stay off the ground and just climb the cliff via top rope with my belayer at the top rope anchor. This way we did not trespass at all.

But tell that to the cop that escorted us out of there and did not care that what we were doing was technically legal and kicking us out was actually illegal.

This is New England. If you don't own the land you are looked down upon by every authority.

Like someone else mentioned. If you bring this to attention you will most likely lose access either temporarily or permanently until you can either purchase the land yourself or secure it through the state/town/city.

Yes I did read and understand that today's climbers want it all laid out for them in advance.
The need for as much "pre beta" or - Correct easy to follow - how to . . . .X X X,
And
Legal access to rock climb regardless of the potential impacts to the RealEstate values.

Make the case that public parks/ land preserves drive UP residential home values, have a plan to offset rescue costs to local tax payers the idea to get a group together to fight for, provide advocacy for outdoor pursuits is a good goal.

The way to do it is not my expertise Nor apparently is there anybody doing that kind of thing. . .

Can anyone tell me how to get the Access fund Banner advertising widow to stop popping up in the center of my screen?
before I can post I have to read & close it , it is annoying. . . .

Tylerpratt wrote:Orenaug Park for example. The landowner purchased land up to the base of the cliff line, but doesn't own the cliff itself. Since I have been climbing here since before I can literally even remember. I figured I would stay off the ground and just climb the cliff via top rope with my belayer at the top rope anchor. This way we did not trespass at all. But tell that to the cop that escorted us out of there and did not care that what we were doing was technically legal and kicking us out was actually illegal. This is New England. If you don't own the land you are looked down upon by every authority. Like someone else mentioned. If you bring this to attention you will most likely lose access either temporarily or permanently until you can either purchase the land yourself or secure it through the state/town/city.

Fair enough. I'll refocus the posts around attempting to organize a Boston climbing group and remove specific location info (as vague as it was). I'm not sure the crags you discuss are the best comparison, though. The access situation is quite different, and the climbing history is as well. If orenaug park has a bunch of rusted out car parts at the base of the cliff, broken plastic lawn chairs strewn about, and dozens of hikers on a typical weekend, then maybe.

Edit: sorry, Michael. I've no rebuttal to your rant. Sorry that you believe every climbing area should be secret. We're clearly not going to end up eye to eye. My final counterpoint is Lynn Woods park itself. Has that area become a drain on the property values of the neighbors? What about spring pond? If so, why is Peabody buying up more land around it to turn into a bigger park? Anyone who's been to the promised land zone knows that the existing user base has treated it like shit. There's no way a group of climbers, bikers, hikers, etc cleaning up the forest is going to drag things down.

If the concern is that this place becomes the worst of Lincoln Woods, it's too late. There's graffiti on many boulders, trash everywhere, and, because it's officially power company land, the city can't enforce anything if the power company doesn't care. Talk about a property value hit. Compare to Lynn Woods proper, which is significantly cleaner due to city oversight. The Promised Land in its current state is essentially a vacant lot that the owners don't care about and that the city can't clean up.

Regarding rescue costs, that seems like a legitimate consideration for climbing areas in general. However, I think the imposition of a bouldering userbase's rescue cost risk on the residents themselves is pretty low. Further, it should be a consideration that the city itself is the one to make, rather than the ingroup. To argue that keeping the climbing there a secret is better with regards to financial burden on homeowners from rescue risks is ludicrous - you're essentially taking the liability concerns into your own hands and deciding that your personal risk is worth it but others' isn't. The only way to remain logically consistent in defense of secrecy under such considerations is if the risk of financial burden on the landowners from rescue is negligible, in which case it shouldn't be a factor in whether or not to open the area up.

Tylerpratt wrote:Orenaug Park for example. The landowner purchased land up to the base of the cliff line, but doesn't own the cliff itself. Since I have been climbing here since before I can literally even remember. I figured I would stay off the ground and just climb the cliff via top rope with my belayer at the top rope anchor. This way we did not trespass at all. But tell that to the cop that escorted us out of there and did not care that what we were doing was technically legal and kicking us out was actually illegal. This is New England. If you don't own the land you are looked down upon by every authority. Like someone else mentioned. If you bring this to attention you will most likely lose access either temporarily or permanently until you can either purchase the land yourself or secure it through the state/town/city.

Heard about that story... a rather unfortunate outcome. I was told the town even discussed taking the land at the base through eminent domain. Wasnt the issue not the popularity of the crag but litterally that they didnt want to see climbers at all on the cliff behind their pond? Ruined their 'view'? That was my understanding... not a quantity of climbers problem.

As a Regional Coordinator for the AF in CT I would say if you feel passionately about trying to protect the area, take the actions you describe yourself and start the climbing group, make some contacts in the govt that are working on the protection projects, begin to feel out who is sympathetic and who is not and, build the consensus to protect the land. It's not easy and often times can it can be a lot easier and less risky to just keep quiet and go about your business IMHO.

It is worth noting that the history of climbing and bouldering on those rocks goes back a long ways. In the early 1910s--before US entry into World War 1, an individual named Frank Mason--an active AMC member (and future Club president, I believe) and some of his friends began climbing actively in that area. They called themselves the Peabody Boulderers and were, to my knowledge, the first organized group of rock climbers in the region (and one of the first in the US). What exactly they climbed is no longer known--though it is quite possible that photos of them in action are buried in the AMC archives. Having such a history can often be a factor in arguing for preservation of an area and keeping it open for climbing, as was the case with the Quincy Quarries in the '70s. Alan Rubin

Morgan Patterson wrote: Heard about that story... a rather unfortunate outcome. I was told the town even discussed taking the land at the base through eminent domain. Wasnt the issue not the popularity of the crag but litterally that they didnt want to see climbers at all on the cliff behind their pond? Ruined their 'view'? That was my understanding... not a quantity of climbers problem.

I tried to have my neighbors across the street arrested. He was mowing the lawn, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY. I don't want to see that shit.

Unfortunately for me the cops around here have a brain compared to whatever law enforcement they have to the East.

Kevin Heckeler wrote: I tried to have my neighbors across the street arrested. He was mowing the lawn, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY. I don't want to see that shit. Unfortunately for me the cops around here have a brain compared to whatever law enforcement they have to the East.

Haha... as unreasonable as it seems, it was kids vs landowners who pay taxes. When it's kids vs adults who appear to be making a legitimate claim and also happen to own property in question it's obvious what the cops will do. Piss off the land owner who can make their day hell or escort some punks off 'their' property? Path of least resistance...

It would be interesting if a grown adult did this again with the documentation in hand that the cliff and cliff top were owned by the town and part of the park. I'm not sure exactly what that would be (deed & A1 survey?) but would be interesting.

Morgan Patterson wrote: Heard about that story... a rather unfortunate outcome. I was told the town even discussed taking the land at the base through eminent domain. Wasnt the issue not the popularity of the crag but litterally that they didnt want to see climbers at all on the cliff behind their pond? Ruined their 'view'? That was my understanding... not a quantity of climbers problem. As a Regional Coordinator for the AF in CT I would say if you feel passionately about trying to protect the area, take the actions you describe yourself and start the climbing group, make some contacts in the govt that are working on the protection projects, begin to feel out who is sympathetic and who is not and, build the consensus to protect the land. It's not easy and often times can it can be a lot easier and less risky to just keep quiet and go about your business IMHO.

Back in March, I talked to a friend in the WMCC to minimal avail (I think it was as low a priority as possible given that this isn't western mass). I'd continue working to figure things out low-key but, as I'm moving, there isn't really a good way to go about it. I posted several months ago in the local climbers group (to which several posters here belong) discussing whether anyone had made any efforts to secure long-term access but got no replies.
I figured that while I can't be the one to work long-term due to my impending departure, I could at least do the initial legwork for someone else to take over. I've recorded land values and ownership for every tax plot on the property and have contact info for all of them and several people in the Peabody govt.
However, most of my metro-Boston climbing friends are either college or grad students, making them less than ideal candidates to head such efforts. My hope was that someone (or several people) reading this would be interested and able. A more senior climber living in Lynn/Peabody would be ideal.

Morgan Patterson wrote: It's not easy and often times can it can be a lot easier and less risky to just keep quiet and go about your business IMHO.

From what I can tell, this has been the policy of the area so far. I'm not making a blanket case against secrecy as a viable access policy, because it is often the best or only way.

However, in this particular case, it didn't prevent the bulldozing of a large chunk of the region. Maybe I'm naive, but if those are the results we can expect from secrecy, I'd suggest we consider alternative strategies. There's always the risk that we overstep and end up with 'no tresspassing' signs, but compared to the seemingly inevitable demolition of the rocks themselves, it seems like we don't have much to lose.

Michael Schneider wrote:Yes I did read and understand that today's climbers want it all laid out for them in advance. The need for as much "pre beta" or - Correct easy to follow - how to . . . .X X X, And Legal access to rock climb regardless of the potential impacts to the RealEstate values.

I think that your 'kids these days...' post is missing the point. I don't care about ease of access or convenience - we have plenty of areas to satisfy those needs. I care about the preservation of boulders which apparently have a century long history of climbing, as well as the preservation of historical information such as grades, FAs, etc. If the current state of affairs were preserving either of those things, I'd leave it be.