Red Rock “Numbered” on MP?
|
Interesting Change ... also notice the 1st and 2nd pullout now just called Calico 1 and 2 respectively My guess is so they kinda flow in “order” around the loop? |
|
Looks bush league to me. |
|
Exact opposite ordering from the guide book. |
|
Jorge Jordan wrote: Looks bush league to me. Agreed. I don’t think lumping all the bouldering together is a bad idea and think that’s a welcome change . But the numbers looks hack and nobody calls them “Calico l” and “Calico ll” which are then also reffered to as the pullouts ... but the. Also are labeled 3 and 4 ? |
|
james schaefer wrote: Exact opposite ordering from the guide book. The RR admin I asked about it said it wasn’t him ... so I would be interisng to see who decided it was a good idea. |
|
Interesting...of the two (of 3) commenters whose "home town" is identified, both are from the Vegas area and, presumably, know RR "cold". |
|
M. Morley wrote: Tough crowd. I made the changes. Seemed logical enough to me, but I'm open to suggestions. I think it was fine the way it was. The exception being pulling all the bouldering into one category ....that was a solid move. There isn’t a way to keep them in order but without the numbers? it’s the numbers I think that at the most off putting. That and with the first four things being labeled Calico.... I could see someone seeing the 1 next to Calico basin and getting it mixed up with Calico 1 and then seeing Calico 1 with first pullout next to it and not understanding where they are seems to muddy things in my opinion. |
|
Robert Hall wrote: Interesting...of the two (of 3) commenters whose "home town" is identified, both are from the Vegas area and, presumably, know RR "cold". Exactly we picked up on that order because we live here .... otherwise we wouldn’t have known that they were in order. It’s not mentioned that is a geological order on the RR main page and really you can certainly envision it flowing like that as far as “oh I guess that makes sense” but in reality it doesn’t |
|
Baffling change, 2/10 would not recommend to a friend. |
|
John Wilder wrote: I think it makes sense. I don't like the numbers and wish you could order areas like you can routes so it would look cleaner, but I like that they're in order now. It makes sense to you because you live here aswell ... and you can infer what was they were going for because you have a frame of reffernce. You can say “Oh yeah I guess Calico basin would be ‘1st’ doing it that way” or ... “sure promiss Land is ‘between’ willow and icebox if your gonna order things like that”but in reality they aren’t things aren’t like that it’s just making it more confusing. The only person to not live here to respond referenced it as “clockwise order on a one way road” .... which again isn’t the case ...half of those places aren’t even on the loop. You’ve certainly lived here longer than me John so you might have the case study on me to back it up but I’ve never heard a climber say “Oh yeah it’s over at Calico 2 in the Black Corridor” |
|
Regardless of the order, the numbering is non-standard. No other area I frequent is setup like this. So it creates a bad user experience to people familiar with using MP generally. |
|
John Wilder wrote: So I can pull into the loop and I’ll come to Calico basin first? That’s why it dosent work. You say you find it extremely unhelpful that things are just in a list... this is literally just in a list. The only reason this list makes sense to you is because you can see the order. Just looking at that list ... if you’ve never been here before ... what’s the fifth stop on the loop? How would you figure that out . The old way didn’t have them in order but also didn’t allude to some kind of order ... numbering hem offers you order but falls short.I’ve never been to RMNP if someone put all areas there in some kind of geographic order with numbers it might make technical sense to someone from there ....but unless I knew that is what the numbers were meant to represent how are they going to be useful to me? Could someone just intuitively make the leap that these are a general geographic order.. sure.... it’s more likely people will take these numbers as the order of the loop since 90% of RR visitors initially assume that RR climbing is contained within the loop. I think it’s just going to confuse people. |
|
The ability to sort areas like routes (L to R, R to L, or Alpha) is long overdue...
|
|
+1. Love this. Kinda bush league I mean I see what you mean... so what MP isn't exactly a visual wonderland. |
|
Yes, I think Calico Basin does need to be separated from those areas that are accessed from the loop road. as "01" and "02" with 1st pullout =03 is confusing. Calico Basin, Blk Velvet, etc, etc could/should probably just be alphabetical, but an obvious SORT of the road-access areas I think is logical. (Oak Creek, which can reasonably be accessed two ways presents a slight issue, although I'd venture to guess 80-90% of climbers access via the loop road and the dirt road off it it instead of the longer approach from the main highway.) |
|
Both options have their some merit... but a vote for organizing crags based on location. Your guidebooks don't list the crags in alphabetical order, do they? |
|
If the numbering method is offensive to the RR folks, perhaps consider a "Mileages / Crags" section on the main RR page a lá Boulder Canyon ( mountainproject.com/area/10…) , albeit with some descriptive sub-headings to reduce confusion? |
|
It’s a terrible change ...and that’s not a judgement on you’re effort , and like you said maybe your just handcuffed by the coding of the site and this is as close as you can get for now but this itteration of what you're trying to do falls short imo. |
|
Nicholas, you wouldn't happen to have a number phobia, would you? Obviously it would be nicer if admins didn't have to use numbers or letters to order subareas, but where it works it is a pretty minor aesthetic deficiency to be able to give a sense of the order. Ideally, we would have the option to order and a note in the description would say how it is ordered (example r>l or in the left side and out the right in the case of a canyon). That could be a mess though. |
|
Find an overhead view and label it like the excellent Smith rock page. The only way to improve it would be to have the areas, which are lettered, match the numbers in the picture. Link the pic in the area description. |
|
M Sprague wrote: Nicholas, you wouldn't happen to have a number phobia, would you? Obviously it would be nicer if admins didn't have to use numbers or letters to order subareas, but where it works it is a pretty minor aesthetic deficiency to be able to give a sense of the order. Ideally, we would have the option to order and a note in the description would say how it is ordered (example r>l or in the left side and out the right in the case of a canyon). That could be a mess though. Yes I’m sure I have a number phobia .... super terrified of numbers you got me.... That’s kind of my point is that ...it doesn’t work here ... the asthetic bothers me ... but that’s not my gripe ... it could create more confusion than I think people are realizing for reasons I’ve mentioned but I’ve said my peace on it and no longer care to have a back and forth about it. |