Qualifications to Keep a Crag off MP

So I’ve messaged with a few local admins about this and am interested in discussing the issue on a broader level.   My current understanding is that if crag gets posted to the database by anyone at any point, then it stays there unless it has an access issue. 

Firstly, if this is the way it is, I think it would be great if this policy were transparent.  (explicitly somewhere on the site as opposed to filtering through word of mouth)

Secondly, I believe strongly that an additional parameter is needed.  If the people who develop and climb at a cliff (aka the ‘community’) want it kept quiet, that should be enough. Granted that’s a very difficult parameter to assess.  

I used to see this line of thinking as selfish and toxic and that’s part of the reason I posted Trout Creek.  But given the explosion of the sport, I’m starting to see its merit. Spreading beta for a place via word of mouth as opposed to online can keep a crag from developing access issues in the first place.  Over the years, if it proves to be a truly outstanding cliff, then word will get out and it’ll make sense to post it, but there are thousands of small cliffs around the country that probably don’t need to be on here and would be better off that way. 

Max Tepferwrote:

Granted that’s a very difficult parameter to assess.  

It doesn't seem to me that climbing at a cliff ought to give you any special privilege in saying whether it should be on MP.  I want every cliff I already know about to be kept off of MP so they don't get more crowded, but I also recognize that the people at the new cliffs I enjoy learning about on MP and visiting don't really want me there.  On balance I think I gain more from using MP than I lose from other people using it and infesting my cliffs, so I don't complain.  I certainly think anyone who does complain shouldn't be using MP to learn about other areas.  

Here's the (hard-to-find) transparency: https://www.mountainproject.com/help/12/adding-new-climbing-areas-routes

Look at the last couple questions.

Nick Wilderwrote:

Here's the (hard-to-find) transparency: https://www.mountainproject.com/help/12/adding-new-climbing-areas-routes

Look at the last couple questions.

Thanks for that.  Would it be possible to put something in the new route and area submission pages saying that the action it posting is a one way valve and that it will then exist forever on the internet?  That would increase the transparency by making the information easier to access.  

The second from the bottom point is exactly what I want to challenge.  ‘On public land without access issues’ seems too broad to me. There’s no denying that proliferation of beta leads to traffic which leads to damage and possibly conflict.  It seems like we’re living in an era where the best thing we can do for the outdoor spaces we love is to slow that process.  We’ve reached a point where higher ups in the access fund have been quoted as saying something to the effect of ‘the best thing you can do for your new cliff is to keep it off of the internet.’  It makes sense to me to make sure the crags they are truly 4 and 5 out of 5 stars (most of them are already posted) belong here and the others can exist in a gray area. 

Edit to add: another example of it being too broad is Nate’s point above about cliffs in development. 

Anonymous wrote:

Can we all agree that a brand new never heard of crag, one that's in active development, should be pulled off MP?

There's safety concerns, trail work to be done, belay stations to be built, routes in various states of array or completion etc.

As long as there's no assumption of legal liability (which would  only be on development on private property by the owner and even that's questionable and a different issue altogether to this thread) then the responsibility for safety concerns should be assumed by the visiting climbers. It's not the responsibility of the developer to create a antiseptic safe space for recreation. Outdoor recreation should have at least a little  adventure left to it.

Granted a brand spanking new area that is still in active development should be respected as there's invariably cached gear and fixed lines and routes to nowhere and protection that may be more for moving around on the face rather than active climber fall protection, but, it's really the responsibility of the developer (and those they share with by proxy) to keep these areas under wraps. MP shouldn't be used to mitigate these situations as there's too much possibility  for locals only perception to cloud any real safety issues.

Usually if you are friendly and not standoffish at the crag or in the gym, you find out about "secret" crags quickly enough, wherever you go. Having trouble linking up with locals? Look into yourself rather than the community you are visiting; chances are nobody is actively trying to exclude you. 

I don't know why this needs to be discussed over and over again. 

sounds like some white privilege to me.

The core MP problem, as quoted from the Patagonia thread:

Some people can't conceptualize any motivation that does not personally benefit them.

What many do not realize is they will almost certainly benefit from having areas excluded from MP. Just maybe not right away. 

Keep it off of the net!

My friends and I make people swear a blood oath to never post anything on the net about “our spots” - no MP, no IG no nothing. And if you do - you get a reputation and you sure as heck never get asked to another one (secret spot) again. This has served US well.
At one time I thought we should share and share alike- but after going to one of the “old spots“ and finding the parking area full (some people kant figure out head in parking vs parallel parking) and Trash and human waste (close to the base- my God) plus some additional bolts on the climbs - I made an oath to keep my mouth shut and never again share new places.

Just the way it must be. 

I've definitely seen crags without any access issues mysteriously removed from MP (not that that's necessarily a bad thing), so not sure how that policy actually plays out.

Brassmonkey wrote:

Nick, I disagree that any and all climbing areas on public lands should be on here.  You say that with only your best interests in mind, not others.  As an example of sorts, if Lost City is an area that is word of mouth, why can't there be others that begin with this same tradition?

(I'm aware Lost City isn't on public lands.)

Public lands are "public". Get over it.

Max Tepfer wrote:

As someone who grew up in Bend and now lives west of the cascades I really wish that the Bend "community" wasn't so secretive. I have been climbing in Oregon for 9 years and would like to participate at my hometown crags, but I don't know anyone in the in group so apparently I'm not welcome.

Self-police your crew and stop bitching about it on MP.

If the super cool “locals only” crowds who believe their ultra dope secret clubhouse spots should remain a secret (I understand why they’d feel that way and agree that there absolutely are benefits to it), then don’t bring people that you can’t trust to the clubhouse.

If your friend who you brought to the crag posts the area on MP, then your judgement of your friend’s values and their ability to exercise discretion with what you feel is sensitive information needs some work.  Also, you may need to calibrate your expectations with your friend.

On the other hand, if some other person serendipitously happens upon the secret crag without any help or location beta and posts it online, that looks like a tall glass of “tough shit” to me. 

Kevin Beverly wrote:

I'd like to see the local access fund organizations act as gatekeepers of the information added to this site. It will add a little more transparency. many regional admins seem to be unaware of local access issues.  

Since MP is a privately owned for profit site no one really knows where/who the data is going to be sold to next. It's gotten too big for Nick to mange in a responsible way.

It's not a white privilege issue, it's a data transparency issue approaching the size of what any other social media network is currently dealing with.  

Typically your admins are involved in local access fund/coalition organizations. If not, they are usually well aware of any access issues that arise and deal with them swiftly. I’ll admit, there are some dead fish admins out there who rarely do much, if anything. But for the most part, access issues are #1 ahead of approving route descriptions and your latest butt shot of a route with a thousand other photos of similar angles. Having these organizations in charge of things rarely benefits anyone other than their own personal ( and often inside political) agendas. Having admins keep everything (and everyone) in check is a good go between. If the area admin is not doing their (limited) job or being excessively partisan, then that is something that should be addressed and brought up. 

^^^^^^^^^^^
Totally agree. Mt Project is not the reason or even much of a factor in the popularity boom of climbing. If anything, it has helped ease the impact of the popularity boom by providing more options for your average weekender. The only solution to pollution is dilution...!
That being said, there are some places that are way to sensitive or dangerous to be plastered all over the internet. If that’s the case, state your concerns to the local admins or state admins. Having multiple people state their concerns helps solidify the argument as well. So keep that in mind. If that still gets you nowhere, then you might be shit out of luck and at the mercy of the internetz.!! 

Public lands are "public". Get over it.

I got over it a long time ago, with respect to hot springs on public land. Some of them used to be the coolest best kept secrets. Then a few individuals started making bank on outing these heretofore quiet and relatively unknown places to the masses. And then it all went to the Web. Now?

Those places are cesspools. I got over it. I stopped visiting them. 

MP is in the process of doing the same to climbing as was done to hot springs. Enjoy the footprint of humanity on your favorite crags.

Ok, the milk is spilt, the glass is broken and there's no one to clean up the mess. All the more reason to resist the urge to post route info on mp.com. Despite disclaimers that users are liable for their content, once a person hits the submit button they have forever surrendered all control over that info. Even the names of their routes are no longer theirs. And it can never be taken back, ever. 

Enjoy your brave new world.

Oh wait, I forgot, its "the internet." Surrender flag hoisted.

Stoked to hear all of the perspectives.  Hear are a few thoughts+responses:

I think there's a big difference between a secret crag and a word of mouth crag.  It's doesn't have to be about locals only or keeping a secret, but rather about keeping it off the internet plain and simple.  The problem is, if this is your default setting and if you are friendly with those you meet and share beta, when one of them goes out and posts it despite being asked not to, it's up forever and can't come down.  That actually discourages being friendly and sharing beta. (as evidenced by multiple posts up-thread: 'I used to share and now I don't because...' 'keep it secret, keep it safe,' etc.

@Andrew, there really aren't that many secret crags out here.  Most of the ones that are considered 'secret' aren't really secret at all.  Visible from highways, names frequently referenced at popular crags, the gym, etc.  (I can't speak to the bouldering as I don't really outside of the gym)

@Kyle, I'm not really concerned about removing what's already here.  More creating a failsafe for cliffs that aren't here that many think shouldn't be.  I don't think anyone's going to out database the database anytime soon with or without all of the crags that aren't currently in it.  I do like the mitigating strategies idea and have advocated for it in the past.

Max Tepferwrote:

It's doesn't have to be about locals only or keeping a secret, but rather about keeping it off the internet plain and simple.  

Those are the same thing. 

Fail Fallingwrote:

Those are the same thing. 

Really?  To me secret is equivalent to locals only.  As in I only tell my friends and no one else and everyone keeps it as tight as possible.  Whether or not it's on the internet is academic because no one trusted with the secret would ever put it there.  Word of mouth/off line is tell anyone you want, but don't post it on social media or mountain project.  I can tell my friends, their friends, anyone from anywhere as long as it's communicated directly and not via some sort of online mass-broadcast. (IG/FB/MP)  Where the people who get the beta come from has nothing to do with whether or not they get the beta.  You honestly don't see the distinction?