Posting routes you aren't strong enough to climb

I've looked around the website, but I can't find any guidelines about adding routes to MP that you're familiar with, but haven't gotten up yet.

Is that against the website's policy?

Given this... 

https://www.mountainproject.com/v/dawn-wall-free/109951912 

Seems like no.

Burcheydawwwwwwg wrote:

I've looked around the website, but I can't find any guidelines about adding routes to MP that you're familiar with, but haven't gotten up yet.

Is that against the website's policy?

If you can give someone clear and correct directions for how to get to the route, and how to find it, when you get there, I don't see why not. But I also don't know why you would spend a lot of time doing this... If you are adding the info about the entire crag, and there are two routes there that you haven't done, it makes sense to add all routes at once, in correct order, etc...

Burcheydawwwwwwg wrote:

I've looked around the website, but I can't find any guidelines about adding routes to MP that you're familiar with, but haven't gotten up yet.

Is that against the website's policy?

I'd like to think it is more about accuracy in the details, route names, grades, first ascent attributions, potential environmental concerns and how to approach.  Photos are often helpful. More importantly every time a contributor inputs poor or incomplete route information it degrades the overall quality of MP's route data base.  If it's a multipitch route and you haven't climbed it, I gotta think the accuracy of your beta is at the minimum suspect.  I won't know that before I get on the route; there's a little karma in there somewhere.

The mods look things over from time to time; if you contact them directly they sometimes have suggestions.  If you find a line (not your own)  and it's not in a syllabus somewhere it's considered polite to find the first ascent party and ask if they want it published.    My question is why go to the trouble?

There are always going to be trolls.

Thomas Beck wrote:

I'd like to think it is more about accuracy in the details, route names, grades, first ascent attributions, potential environmental concerns and how to approach.  Photos are often helpful. More importantly every time a contributor inputs poor or incomplete route information it degrades the overall quality of MP's route data base.  If it's a multipitch route and you haven't climbed it, I gotta think the accuracy of your beta is at the minimum suspect.  I won't know that before I get on the route; there's a little karma in there somewhere.

The mods look things over from time to time; if you contact them directly they sometimes have suggestions.  If you find a line (not your own)  and it's not in a syllabus somewhere it's considered polite to find the first ascent party and ask if they want it published.    My question is why go to the trouble?

Interesting points.  They aren't multipitch, they are glorified boulder problems.  I can flail up them on TR - basing the difficulty on conversations with other people who climb much harder than I.  A couple of them have been on rockclimbing.com for years, but without much info beyond a very vague description and a rating.

Why go to the trouble of posting climbs to a database used by climbers to find new interesting climbs to do?  ( <<< This question is rhetorical)

"Published" routes? If you can judge the rating, or have enough input for a consensus, that's a nice thing to do, getting them in here.  Others can always add stars, comments, and suggestions for ratings.

I've already "violated" the rules, if ya have to lead the suckers to add them. Or even get up them on top rope!

Best, Helen

it's against locals policy to post routes that are for locals only

if you were local you would know this

I feel like MP should be a place to (1) supplement established guidebooks with updates, closures, new routes etc. (2) serve as placeholders until a new edition comes out (everyone looks at Ward Smith) (3) get info out about new or smaller areas not in a book.

I feel like MP should not be to (1) replace a guidebook (2) submit routes you haven't gotten on. I guess I could go through all my old guidebooks and make sure every last little climb in the 15+ books I have gets put up on the site, despite not having done the vast majority of them.

If the guy who submitted the Dawn Wall to MP has gotten on it and has some insight, great, but doubtful. But clearly the Dawn Wall Free having 6 ticks and average of 3.2 stars out of 6 votes is dumb and while funny, is not really the point of this site.

Nathanael wrote:

it's against locals policy to post routes that are for locals only

if you were local you would know this

Wise words, Nathanael.

Incidentally - do you even climb bro?  If the answer is "yes" the follow-up question is: do you even night climb in the warmer months at Woodson/South Woodson bro?  If the answer to that is "yes" the follow-up statement is I'd invite you to come climb but I don't really like climbing that much, just like talking about it.

Burcheydawwwwwwg, this is a good question for which there are probably a spectrum of opinions. In the good old days, there was basically one guideline, "Don't be a jerk!" Judgment was left up to the individual, but that didn't address things fully. Over time, a variety of problems have arisen, including the difficulty of communicating over the internet (e.g. sarcasm, humor, tongue-in-cheek stuff), marginal submissions, and even copyright infringements. Obviously, the best situation for one to post a route would be to have done the route. The perspective can be much fuller if you add in your own insights, history, and knowledge. The worst case situations include where you haven't even climbed the route or post for the wrong route. Whenever possible, I think you should have done the route, think of your submission as a means to help a good friend or relative, and should have enough information to make it more than a place for others to "tick" a route. Net-net, submit something useful to the community. I hope this helps. Contact me if you want more details or have questions. Thanks.

Climbing a route or not shouldnt be taken into account imo. I think as long as the information is accurate and it came from a good faith effort to share the information with the community what difference does it make if you have climbed it or not? 

I've put up a bunch of information/topos of things I haven't climbed but the information is just as accurate ( if not more so) as you would get from someone who had. I'd say just do your due diligence and if people aren't satisfied that's on them.

From my perspective, the only concern I'd have is accurate beta for trad routes. Gear needed, how good the gear is, runout, where the route goes, the descent options. That all seems pretty hard to accurately describe without having at least seconded the route.

But for single pitch sport routes and boulder problems, I think it's easier. You can see all or most of the route or problem (in most cases), and that simplifies things a lot. And I personally would rather have these types of climbs well documented by someone that hasn't climbed it, than for someone who has to add the bare minimum, just so they can tick it. "Route left of [insert name]. Height: ? Descend as for [insert name]. Bolts."

It's also worth considering that even though many people will buy a guidebook for a new area, they may only do so if there are enough climbs there that they find appealing. So they search MP first.