Adding new Routes to the database?

Hello MP community,

Recently after ~100 man hours of rebolting efforts on old routes at the Auburn Quarry we saw some old lines with new eyes and put up 3 new routes. Some probably well meaning person literally days after the routes were first led "discovered" them and created MP route pages for them filled with numerous errors including choosing to name one of the routes himself, misrepresenting bolt counts and drawing topos on photographs/written descriptions that do not accurately reflect the climbing lines and protection schemes. Some of these drawn topos potentially lead the climber to loose blocks or very dirty sections of these brand new lines and could lead to a serious accident.

The FA team would like some feed back from the community about this:

1. Is it appropriate for random members of the community after making no effort to contact the FA to put up route pages literally while the climbs are still "works in progress" re: cleaning dirt and removing loose blocks and mere days after the projects were started?

2. Is it appropriate for random members of the community to put names on routes that they had no part in the First Ascent simply because they choose?

3. Should the FA team (per their request) be the ones to create the route pages so that they might receive notifications about the condition of the routes going forward to maintain safety and condition of the anchors? This is not to be considered an "open ended" situation but some reasonable time period might be acceptable for the FA to publish or suffer the consequences? Being the author of the page is very useful for the FA team so that the route can be monitored.

4. The FA team was told that they could submit improvements to the erroneous pages, but that the pages would remain. Honestly, this feels disrespectful that we are now put in the position of "submitting for approval" improvements to the pages of our own new routes as those pages are filled with errors or straight up attempts at trolling/furthering someone else's agenda creating far more work than simply allowing us to submit clean pages.

Our shared resource belongs to all of us and I am anathema to any concepts of "localism" in this regard. We are not claiming ownership of anything other than the effort and cost of establishing these little routes and feel some consideration is justifiably due....However it should be said, most "traditional" guidebook authors do not publish route information without the consent of the FA party unless the route is so old and in so many previous guidebooks that information about the route has passed entirely into the public domain. In previous correspondence with Nick Wilder (albeit several years ago) he stated that MP policy was to respect the FA and if they choose not to have their routes included in the MP database he would remove them per their wishes and had done so in the past.

Has this changed? I think this is important information for route developers to know in the future so that they might choose to inform their choice of medium for reporting their routes or not choose to develop certain areas or steward at all if their efforts are going to be so poorly regarded by some members here that reflect so poorly on MP.

/flame on

Just make another page addition, and place it directly next to the ones in question. Highlight that they are the "Official" pages, or something to that effect. Then, contact the member directly and ask them to delete their route pages.

No, it's not appropriate and it's also not appropriate to copy routes directly from pamphlets and guide books, but that still happens. Put up a link so we can see it. 

here's the route:

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/118829194/filthy-animal

Tiny Cam wrote: So this is what retirement will be like?

Can't wait.  Exciting.

If this isnt your route, you should delete it and give over controls to those who did the work. You're not doing anyone a service if you are pissing off the FA team. Why would you even want to do what you're doing?

Alternately, the route developer can contact the admin for the area, submit the corrections, and fix it that way. 

Tim Stich wrote: Alternately, the route developer can contact the admin for the area, submit the corrections, and fix it that way. 

+1

There is also an "improve this page" link.  

Luke Bertelsen wrote:

+1

There is also an "improve this page" link.  

But why? Who is so egotistical that they would want control over someone else's routes?

IMO it's perfectly reasonable to post routes that you didn't FA under some generic name that describes the route, or just simply unknown, it's definitely not okay to make up a route name as if you were the FA.  

The basic purpose of MP is to be a compendium of routes, and it can be difficult/impossible to find out who the FA was on a particular route in many instances.  I know I have put up 4 routes over the past week and a half, none of which are posted on MP, so if someone else goes and climbs one or all of those routes and wants to post it up to keep track of what they have climbed I have no problem with them doing so.  If however, I want to then have a say in what is posted about those routes, I would need to either use the page improvement button, or contact the person who posted the routes to get them the updated and correct information.  If they insist on leaving incorrect information up about my route, I would just post the route again with the correct information and contact the admin to the area letting them know that the other route is incorrect and should be deleted.

I have also posted many routes that I didn't FA.  In those cases, I think it is reasonable to add any information to the route that the FA later provides, or delete my version of the route if the FA would like to post it by him/herself.  Personally, I don't believe that an FA should have the power to just have a route deleted if they are not willing to put the route on MP.  If a route is on public land and someone else goes and climbs it, they have the same right to post the route on MP as the person who did the FA, but common courtesy would say that they should at least update the route with any info that the FA later provides. 

Ma Ja wrote:

But why? Who is so egotistical that they would want control over someone else's routes?

Who is so egotistical that they care who posted their route on MP?

Also, is a route owned?  In case you think this is rhetorical, the answer is NO.

Luke Bertelsen wrote:

Who is so egotistical that they care who posted their route on MP?

Also, is a route owned?  In case you think this is rhetorical, the answer is NO.

Its something called “respect”, learn about it.

Have you tried contacting the person who submitted the routes, to resolve the issue?

Unless the routes are red-tagged, it is perfectly acceptable to submit routes to MP database that you haven’t FA’ed. You shouldn’t give them arbitrary names though! Or in any way imply that you are the FA. 

I’ve had a couple experiences where I had submitted a route to the database, while someone else had also submitted it, but made a new/different section for the route.

Jay Crew wrote:

Its something called “respect”, learn about it.

Good try but this is an actual discussion, and I haven't been disrespectful at all.  I agree with Ken's very thorough response.

Also, I have put up quite a few routes, and because I value good information and find MP to be a useful tool I usually add my own routes to the MP database.  In the instance that someone else has added one of my routes I have also felt it very easy to reach out to that person with suggestions if there is info to be added.  Not that hard.

Luke Bertelsen wrote:

Good try but this is an actual discussion, and I haven't been disrespectful at all.  I agree with Ken's very thorough response.

Also, I have put up quite a few routes, and because I value good information and find MP to be a useful tool I usually add my own routes to the MP database.  In the instance that someone else has added one of my routes I have also felt it very easy to reach out to that person with suggestions if there is info to be added.  Not that hard.

Reached out to the OP, "Cory Gene" and heard nothing but crickets.

A long time ago I spent a few months "developing" and "establishing" a boulder field in Southern Utah. As it turned out the boulders had been being climbed at irregularly since the 90s and most boulders and areas already had names. I was contacted by a local and after some discussion turned over literally hundreds of pages I posted to him through an admin. Over the last few years he's been correcting them and creating better topos than I ever intended to. This is just a boulder field.

All in all I think its better to trust the person that's going to put in the most effort overall. Sometimes FA parties aren't the ones actually putting in the effort and upkeep, but mostly they are. 

Luke Bertelsen wrote:

Who is so egotistical that they care who posted their route on MP?

Also, is a route owned?  In case you think this is rhetorical, the answer is NO.

Who is so egotistical that they would like to post their own routes so as to be able to receive notifications about them and ensure their accurate documentation?

You know, like bolt deterioration or new loose block found or accurate topos so as to steward the route now and into the future? Maybe the FA would know not to post them until they were safe out of a sense of duty to his community because he doesn't want a belayer to wear a 100lb block incoming from 40'?

That would be me, that oh so egotistical one who just spent ~100 hours with his compadres humping loads to the area to rebolt routes there in service to that same community.

The routes were sent after more cleaning than "Cory Gene" can imagine but only enough for quick sends. They are in no condition to be opened to the general public and the topos he created would lead someone straight to blocks than can kill.

Who is so egotistical that when the FA reaches out to them for such errors and for naming the route in a universal violation of etiquette you get "crickets"?

Luke Bertelsen wrote:

Good try but this is an actual discussion

 and I haven't been disrespectful at all.  I

Nice actual passive-aggressive statement.

hillbilly hijinks wrote:

Who is so egotistical that they would like to post their own routes so as to be able to receive notifications about them and ensure their accurate documentation?

You know, like bolt deterioration or new loose block found or accurate topos so as to steward the route now and into the future? Maybe the FA would know not to post them until they were safe out of a sense of duty to his community because he doesn't want a belayer to wear a 100lb block incoming from 40'?

That would be me, that oh so egotistical one who just spent ~100 hours with his compadres humping loads to the area to rebolt routes there.

The routes were sent after more cleaning than "Cory Gene" can imagine but only enough for quick sends. They are in no condition to be opened to the general public and the topos he created would lead someone straight to blocks than can kill.

Who is so egotistical that when the FA reaches out to them for such errors and for naming the route in a universal violation of etiquette you get "crickets"?

It doesn't look like that user has submitted any routes in the area in question. Maybe he already deleted them?

Randy Von Zee wrote:

It doesn't look like that user has submitted any routes in the area in question. Maybe he already deleted them?

Tradiban took up the troll torch and reposted the route.

As well, the OP is leaving his photos up with the inaccurate topos.

hillbilly hijinks wrote:

Who is so egotistical that they would like to post their own routes so as to be able to receive notifications about them and ensure their accurate documentation?

You know, like bolt deterioration or new loose block found or accurate topos so as to steward the route now and into the future? Maybe the FA would know not to post them until they were safe out of a sense of duty to his community because he doesn't want a belayer to wear a 100lb block incoming from 40'?

That would be me, that oh so egotistical one who just spent ~100 hours with his compadres humping loads to the area to rebolt routes there.

The routes were sent after more cleaning than "Cory Gene" can imagine but only enough for quick sends. They are in no condition to be opened to the general public and the topos he created would lead someone straight to blocks than can kill.

Who is so egotistical that when the FA reaches out to them for such errors and for naming the route in a universal violation of etiquette you get "crickets"?

I'll sign off now.  I appreciate your point of view,  but since you're new here (at least with this account) I'll point out that this is generally where these forum discussions deteriorate with not so productive additions to the conversation (see J.Crew).  

One last thing I am curious about though - When you did all that work rebolting and new routing with your friends did you really feel like it could be in any way derailed by someone posting the route on MP in a form other than what you wanted?  Seems like a pretty minor step in the entire process to be put off by, especially given the fact that there are ways to correct it.

hillbilly hijinks wrote:

Tradiban took up the troll torch and reposted the route.

As well, the OP is leaving his photos up with the inaccurate topos.

Oh, my money would have been on trad princess rather than tradiban.