Qualifications to Keep a Crag off MP

More than MP I find the fact that every other climber is a guide is the real problem. Guides bring swarms of people into areas that they should not be in. Restrict guiding to the main sport crags in town and do not allow them to hike a party of 10 into the off the beaten track crags and life will be a lot better. Seems like every big obnoxious crowd I see climbing is always guide related.

Alright you guys got me there. Thank you for showing me those examples, sorry for the snark.

The examples that Kevin provided are great, pretty much what I was envisioning. Maybe a better suggestion on my part would be for MP to require people to use certain sections when adding a new area. I cannot fathom why someone would go to the trouble of posting an area and barely writing anything, let alone something helpful. Example. (And yes I know about the small nod to the "featured guidebook" on the side.) 

People have complained in other threads about a lack of accountability on MP with people posting unhelpful information. If we weren't concerned with stepping on the toes of guidebook authors or putting word of mouth areas on MP, then MP could simply require a certain standard in contributing new areas. If there were a requirement to include a particular amount of information or a particular type of information, I bet that either far fewer people post crappy information or the same people would post, but they would actually do the research to make their contribution worthwhile. 

Kevin DeWeese wrote:

Sounds like the solution is already there and it's up to the people adding the area to MP to make sure that they are utilizing that option when they fill in info for the areas page.

The fact that it's "up to the people adding the area to MP" is problematic since (a lot of) people are lazy.

But since we don't want to just spray about every rock in existence, maybe a better solution would be to simply require that every area has to use the guidebook section that Kevin references in his post. For areas that don't have guides, the poster could just explain that, or keep it off the internet. 

Doctor Drakewrote:

Maybe a better suggestion on my part would be for MP to require people to use certain sections when adding a new area. I cannot fathom why someone would go to the trouble of posting an area and barely writing anything, let alone something helpful. Example. (And yes I know about the small nod to the "featured guidebook" on the side.) 

I like that, with an option for no guidebook exists and current guidebook out of print to bypass the required field for areas without a guidebook. 

---

Though for this:

Doctor Drakewrote:

I cannot fathom why someone would go to the trouble of posting an area and barely writing anything, let alone something helpful. 

This guy seems able to fathom. 

Doctor Drake wrote:

The fact that it's "up to the people adding the area to MP" is problematic since (a lot of) people are lazy.

Lol nice catch

Doctor Drakewrote:

I cannot fathom why someone would go to the trouble of posting an area and barely writing anything, let alone something helpful. Example. (And yes I know about the small nod to the "featured guidebook" on the side.) 

Wait what's wrong with the river rock description? Seems pretty standard/helpful to me, plus each sub-level crag has even more info. I'm not sure what more you expect from MP if that description for some dinky crag isn't good enough. People add areas without writing a ton of stuff because they add it for the purpose of adding the routes, and not much more info is really needed. Not every level of area/sub-area needs to mention the guidebook specifically if that's what you're thinking, it's fairly obvious with a modicum of research that the best guidebook for that region is the horniak one.

Also, for that specific case I think it's worth mentioning that it's not like anyone would buy the north tahoe guidebook just for beta on river rock.

This is why it's important to have admins who have a good sense of the ins, out, intricacies, and idiosyncrasies of their climbing areas on here. Not every area needs to be documented, for a million reasons, and admins should have the good judgement and experience to know what should be documented, and what should remain word of mouth.

Pnelsonwrote:

This is why it's important to have admins who have a good sense of the ins, out, intricacies, and idiosyncrasies of their climbing areas on here. Not every area needs to be documented, for a million reasons, and admins should have the good judgement and experience to know what should be documented, and what should remain word of mouth.

Exactly! And I think the Admins we have do a fairly good job at monitoring what content gets added. Of course not everyone is going to agree with everything. Sometimes areas get added with the intent to go back and fill in the blanks, and that intent never gets followed through. That’s where our user base can pick up the slack. Nothing is stopping “you” from adding content to any given page or requesting that content remain off the Proj or at a “beta minimum” state. You just have to state your case. There are many, many areas that are not on Mt Project, and even more with low beta for various reasons. There are so many crags  from big destination areas to the tiny micro crags you couldn’t possibly visit them all in a lifetime, let alone keep up on the changes that occur over time. My Project isn’t what it is because of Admins or Nick, it’s because of you, the user base.

As for the guidebooks themselves, there has been internal chatter about contacting authors and finding ways to better represent, promote and even advertise guidebooks in the near future. But like everything, things take time. 

k twrote:

Wait what's wrong with the river rock description? Seems pretty standard/helpful to me, plus each sub-level crag has even more info. I'm not sure what more you expect from MP if that description for some dinky crag isn't good enough. People add areas without writing a ton of stuff because they add it for the purpose of adding the routes, and not much more info is really needed. Not every level of area/sub-area needs to mention the guidebook specifically if that's what you're thinking, it's fairly obvious with a modicum of research that the best guidebook for that region is the horniak one.

Also, for that specific case I think it's worth mentioning that it's not like anyone would buy the north tahoe guidebook just for beta on river rock.

I’ll try to sum up my position. My utopian view of MP is where there are three types of areas.

1) A place like Yosemite or RRG or the Gunks. Basically a high traffic area that is approaching or is universally known. Such areas deserve mostly complete information on MP and of course clear advertisement of related guidebooks. None of the “Yosemite is a valley in California with big cliffs” crap. If you’re going to write a description, it should be complete.

2) A place that is not as popular, maybe a smidge above the word of mouth category. An MP listing could list a couple classic routes, or none, and clearly state that using XYZ resources (guidebooks and local channels) should be employed for using such an area. Generally minimal information on MP so that people can still get psyched, but are inclined to invest in guidebooks and the local community.

3) An area, probably like those that Max was referring to initially and others that are more “secretive.” They don’t belong on the internet.

If it’s well known, it’s type 1. If it has a guidebook and not type 1, it’s type 2. Otherwise it’s type 3 and keep it off the internet. Something like that.

Edit to add: in regards to Pnelson’s excellent point, the admins and their knowledge of the community are in the position of deciding which category an area fits into. 

Doctor Drakewrote:

1) A place like Yosemite or RRG or the Gunks. Basically a high traffic area that is approaching or is universally known. Such areas deserve mostly complete information on MP and of course clear advertisement of related guidebooks. None of the “Yosemite is a valley in California with big cliffs” crap. If you’re going to write a description, it should be complete.

2) A place that is not as popular, maybe a smidge above the word of mouth category. An MP listing could list a couple classic routes, or none, and clearly state that using XYZ resources (guidebooks and local channels) should be employed for using such an area. Generally minimal information on MP so that people can still get psyched, but are inclined to invest in guidebooks and the local community.

Eh I feel like you may be overstating the detrimental impact of MP. Like a bunch of people have also said, I own a lot of guidebooks and like guidebooks, but still use MP for beta often. It would be pretty lame if we relegated all not super classic areas to only listing a couple of routes. Also, a guidebook in yosemite is a lot more essential than your average area, because of the challenge of relying on shitty online beta for a 20+ pitch wall.

I think it's a pretty self-regulating system right now. If you're stopping by a crag for a day, you rely on usually sub-par online beta. You go somewhere often, you'll probably buy the guidebook. Also, talk of MP ruining a crag seems super overblown. I've seen crags on here that I've literally never seen anyone else at get removed because admins thought it should be secret. Unless you live in area with a really tight supply of good rock (ie. bay area), 99% of people aren't gonna go check out some dumpy secret crag.

Doctor Drakewrote:

I’ll try to sum up my position. My utopian view of MP is where there are three types of areas.

1) A place like Yosemite or RRG or the Gunks. Basically a high traffic area that is approaching or is universally known. Such areas deserve mostly complete information on MP and of course clear advertisement of related guidebooks. None of the “Yosemite is a valley in California with big cliffs” crap. If you’re going to write a description, it should be complete.

2) A place that is not as popular, maybe a smidge above the word of mouth category. An MP listing could list a couple classic routes, or none, and clearly state that using XYZ resources (guidebooks and local channels) should be employed for using such an area. Generally minimal information on MP so that people can still get psyched, but are inclined to invest in guidebooks and the local community.

3) An area, probably like those that Max was referring to initially and others that are more “secretive.” They don’t belong on the internet.

If it’s well known, it’s type 1. If it has a guidebook and not type 1, it’s type 2. Otherwise it’s type 3 and keep it off the internet. Something like that.

Edit to add: in regards to Pnelson’s excellent point, the admins and their knowledge of the community are in the position of deciding which category an area fits into. 

This, as a New Mexican, I’d actually be psyched about. Outside of Owen’s bouldering book, our State hasn’t seen a decent guidebook in almost 20 years. A policy like this would certainly keep our neighbors away from our little local choss piles. 

Kevin Beverly wrote:

El Rito on any given weekend there are more people from Denver than NM. Especially bad during the height of the pandemic. ...  People coming to obscure areas in NM and blowing them out is something we deal with a lot more than other areas I guess due to our proximity to Denver, Colorado Springs, etc. 

It's worth considering that there are simply more people, and almost certainly more climbers, from metro Denver than from all of NM. And yes, those populations will travel. Not sure if this was your point or not, but I've never bought the idea that a climber who has crossed state lines is somehow worse than one who hasn't. If you want to keep crowds away that's fine, but access shouldn't be based on what political boundaries you live within. 

All that, of course, assumes no pandemic restrictions, etc. Things right now are strange/difficult and for better or worse there are extra rules about travelling from CO to NM and vice versa. No excuse for not behaving well in that regard. 

Pnelsonwrote:

This is why it's important to have admins who have a good sense of the ins, out, intricacies, and idiosyncrasies of their climbing areas on here. Not every area needs to be documented, for a million reasons, and admins should have the good judgement and experience to know what should be documented, and what should remain word of mouth.

This gets back to my original point:  I’m in complete agreement with your statement, but official mp policy isn’t.  Currently an admin who suppresses beta for an area on public land without access issues is ‘breaking the rules.’  I think this should change and that it should be up to admin discretion. 

djkyote wrote:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1499328/colorado-added-back-to-nm-travel-quarantine-order.html

2 week quarantine to come to NM with a Greenie plate

Understood. Maybe you're just emphasizing my point, but I think I clearly acknowledged that there are currently extra restrictions for interstate travel, and that my comment was for the more general non-pandemic times. 

Max Tepferwrote:

This gets back to my original point:  I’m in complete agreement with your statement, but official mp policy isn’t.  Currently an admin who suppresses beta for an area on public land without access issues is ‘breaking the rules.’  I think this should change and that it should be up to admin discretion. 

Th problem is how exactly do you define that line between 2 and 3.  it basically comes down to opinion, which generally isn't a concrete method of determining these types of things.

I’m not sure it needs defining.  It doesn’t seem crazy to me to allow admins (ideally well informed local climbers as was said upthread) to make the call.  It’s like the distinction between art and pornography: you know it when you see it. 

Edit to add: if it’s totally borderline and is a really hard call, just bump it to 2. 

"Developing" a cliff and not figuring out "access" in this day and age is negligence. Trying to keep it secret isn't helping anyone, this isn't the 70's anymore. 

Forthrightwrote:

"Developing" a cliff and not figuring out "access" in this day and age is negligence. Trying to keep it secret isn't helping anyone, this isn't the 70's anymore. 

I used to feel this way, but trust me. If you have a good, so-called secret crag that you developed or became aware of, keep it that way. You'll thank me in years to come.

Kevin Beverly wrote:

Exactly the point since NM lacks resource to deal with the influx of climbers from out state. Roy has turned into a bedroom community for CO Springs during the winter months.  Keeping crags off of MP and out of guide books is the only user management strategy we have. Our local access fund group is largely useless. 

Is the Roy climbing on state or some sort of federal land? I feel like other small, rural, towns have come to appreciate/benefit from becoming climbing destinations after the initial resistance. 

Anyway, I feel like this is starting to derail the thread. I think I see your point, not sure I agree with it, but best wishes. 

I see a lot of people have been violating the rules of Fight Club.

Forthrightwrote:

"Developing" a cliff and not figuring out "access" in this day and age is negligence. Trying to keep it secret isn't helping anyone, this isn't the 70's anymore. 

Nope. I don't climb to benefit you or anyone else. I climb to be away from other climbers. I'd rather be social at the bar. 

Easy to do. Have a sacrificial local area on MP, and climb elsewhere with a tight crew who can keep it quiet.