Highlands Area Climbing

The other piece is that people willing to take on long/difficult approaches and bold routes typical of NC don't tend to be the dogs/music/20 friends camping crowd. They are truly in it for the rockclimbing experience and are not there to socialize or otherwise expend energy making their presence known. If these places are comparable to others in NC, outside of Rumbling Bald/Moores Wall, then we can probably count on the few people that would want to climb there to be responsible with a little MP guidance on the area page.

I have been quietly watching this thread for a while and have wanted to chime in multiple times but have refrained.  At this point I feel that maybe I should voice my opinion because apparently I am part of a "conspiracy".

Ultimately, I am one of two volunteers for North Carolina.  I try my best to make sure the NC section on Mountain Project is easy to use, has relevant information and contributes to the climbing community.   I volunteer because I have a great understanding of technology, I have a desire for organization and correctness, and have been a part of the climbing community for many years.  That said, I cannot stay on top of every climbing area related nuance in the entire state as I also have a family, a day job and actually would rather be climbing on rocks instead of typing and clicking on my computer. Since this is not my full time job, I depend on others in the climbing community, included the CCC, to help me make decisions on whether content is appropriate to be on MP.  The default on MP is that content is posted immediately and admins, when they have time, go through and review the content.  So content can be live for days sometimes before one of us has a chance to review it.  

Many times before I get a chance to review a page, I will get a message from someone in the climbing community that is concerned about an area that has been posted.  After talking with this person I usually reach out to the CCC to get their perspective on the situation as I am NOT trying to make decisions in a vacuum.  Through this we talk about the concerns and I reach out to the person who originally posted the page in question with the concerns and their thoughts on them.  Sometimes they understand and are ok with deleting or modifying the content to address the concerns, other times I get a rude response, to which I reply and try to be professional but when I feel the conversation is not getting anywhere, I usually delete the page in question.  My thoughts on this is if multiple people in the climbing community have voiced concerns and I can't have a civil conversation with the original poster about the area, then this is "too hot" to be on MP.  I can't temporarily hide an area on MP so it's either available or it's not.  So I feel it needs to be deleted until we work things out as a community and then it can be re-added.  

Wildcat and Raven both have straight-forward, published (I think the state has a pamphlet at the kiosk) trails that will never be conducive to....dogs.....huge parties.....etc. Both being so steep and Raven effectively requiring you to rappel the entire face to avoid private property, could both be explained concisely. Much like the Laurel Knob page, back in the mid 2000's, it will require some smattering of information to start.....the trail, access conditions, rappels, etc.

Then, perhaps, some knowledgeable individuals like Andrew Mc. or Nathan B., in the case of LK, with their extensive FA's, friendliness with the other primary FA'ists, and ultimate/intimate knowledge of the cliff/dome.....to come along and trim it up. The LK page evolved with historical routes being added, the "middle age" Shannon/Wayne, Sean/et. al. routes, and then all the newer stuff....Nathan, Andrew, etc.

Of course, now there's Fischesser's coffee table book.....so, there's a good example of what could come of this.

Sean could always do one of his bootleg guides....

It might be nice to see Wildcat's routes, some pictures, and a objective approach to that information being more widely available. I think I have a topo or three floating around.

I've been starting to think that MP should become less "wide open", the way it is so democratic/free to post.   And move to a more edited format.   It's getting littered with shitty useless photos which take away from meaningful photos that help or in some way contribute beta.  Basically as time goes on, the content will need to be streamlined.   Same goes for areas/routes, which is ultimately the meat and potatoes of the website.   There needs to be a leader, or a purpose, and some serious editing.  These questions of public/private things need to be can be addressed through this editorial approach -- moving from "everyone can chip in" to more of "certain people control Mtn Project".   Then, people will know it's not a god-given right to use this website as they please, but more of a private business where everything is run through a defined channel before going live.

humm. there's some slight of hand going on here, a little misdirection, or maybe some full on deception. a route was done on wildcat cliff that was rap bolted. in order to rap and bolt, private property at the top of the cliff was used for access. three actions followed. first, the route was posted on mountain project. second, the ccc, in an untenable position because of the trespassing, asked that it be removed. third, the route was chopped. judge as you will.

Russ Keane wrote: I've been starting to think that MP should become less "wide open", the way it is so democratic/free to post.   And move to a more edited format. 

Have you posted to MTB Project? Every single trail post has to go through an Admin who peppers you with questions about your route and makes sure that its a legal trail.

Kinda annoying but it also keeps out the junk posts and trails that have questionable access. Probably wouldn't work for regular MP as there are WAY more climbing routes than MTB trails.

Time to light the Stegg Signal!  

My personal opinion is that Wildcat should remain off of the project due to the house at the top. If the homeowners start bitchin' it could be officially closed. 

Austin Goff wrote: Tragedy of Commons. 

This.

Part of the issue at wildcat was lack of access to info on existing routes, we havent gone around retrobolting all kinda stuff, that wasnt ever the intent....so that is part of my concern, i dont want to waste my efforts, time and money again in the future.

We just need a NC black book it can have all the spots in it nice lil .pdf file i’ll put it together and upload it to the torrent sites so i dont have to deal with censorship