Mountain Project sold again

C Gwrote:

Everyone already has access. These sites are just pointing everyone to the goods rather than letting exploration be the gate keeper of the outdoors. We are moving toward an “old faithful” model, where the best is made the daily centerfold on people’s Instagrams for a fleeting moment... for an ever increasing and indefinite number of people. Starts with sage brush, becomes a trail, turns into a wooden walkway... the experience and rawness is destroyed in the process.

Essentially this thread is advocating for less/removing information and if climbing areas already have 1000 people at them what is another 5 people who benefit from GPS. If mountain project were to disappear one day that would be a form of restricting access because only people who already knew about climbing would essentially be able to climb. I think old faithful is a great example. We have a majestic display of nature. Does having 10,000 people look at it takeaway the experience? Absolutely. Is it worth lessening the experience so more people can enjoy it? I think it is. If you travel more than half a mile off the road in yellowstone you will see absolutely no one (or this was the case for me this summer when parking lots were nearly full). Is it worth returning old faithful to be more immersed in nature where only 100 people can view it a day. Or is a better model letting hordes of 10,000 people look at it while that group of 100 people can simply walk half a mile for the more meaningful experience?

I grew up inside a national park. The park has seen a 20 fold increase in traffic over my life. My favorite running trail in the woods I ran every other day has been reshaped into what is essentially a 10 foot wide path. This definitely lessens my experience but now handicap people with limited access can enjoy some semblance of nature. I can just go run on one of the many alternatives and have the same experience. 

I also think that people need to reflect about their own climbing experience. If mountain project/guidebooks were to no longer exist most people in this forum would never become climbers. The number of people who proclaim that mountain project has destroyed climbing yet use it is ironic at the very least. Some of these people then complain about their raw experience being ruined without making any effort to actually seek out a new raw experience is frustrating. These people are also ruining that raw experience themselves but excluding themselves from being part of the crowds.

As for the obligation to make areas public. I agree there is no obligation. But people then feel an obligation to keep them a secret (though for sometimes good reason) which is where I draw a line. I do think there is an obligation that if someone wants to be recognized as the FA that they actually apply some level of effort to be recognized as FA (guidebook, word of mouth, internet). We don't give an oscar to the best actor that didn't have their movie released?

Edit: To parachute, that is fine. But if someone wants to be recognized, they should make a semblance of effort to be recognized. Even something as much as, I climbed a random rock near milepost 4 on x road is better than nothing. Or make it clear the ethic is to post nothing.

Edit: to Chaorkee. I don't disagree with your stance if the ethic is to leave it as unknown that is fine. But often there is a paradox of people wanting something to be unknown but also want to be recognized for credit. I also think your situation is in the minority. 

What if you feel no obligation to make it public, no obligation to keep it secret, and could care less about any recognition as FA?

You document everything and GPS coords for every rock in a  boulder field types are going to regret your murder of the unknown, one day. 

For me, withholding route info is not an attempt to control a route or area. I may not even climb some of them ever again. Frankly, for many I have forgotten what we called a lot of them.

For me, withholding route info is for the express purpose of leaving them for others to find. 

My only ask is, please, if you do find them, consider doing as I did, climb them, call them what you want but please consider not publishing. So the next climbers can come along and find them again. 

My friends, its the journey that counts and the journey for a lot of these backcountry routes doesn't start at the base of the first pitch. There is sublime joy in sussing out "those rocks" you sense are up on top of that ridge, and then every step from that point forward being a step into the unknown. Incredibly satisfying. I am only wishing to preserve, in my case a small slice, of that opportunity for each of you to experience too. And if you all get better at leaving things as you found it and tamp down that impulse for "credit", plenty more will have those opportunities.

There is still some room for the unknown, if we just don't lose sight of it.

Shane Andriewrote:

Risk is an exposure to something, generally something worth mitigating.

Outcomes are expected or actualized results. 

Outcomes which are in doubt are something you expected to happen but something is now putting it at risk of not being achieved.

Ha!  You made me smile, Shane.  Okay, let's debate.

There's two main kinds of risk. Mountaineers call them Objective and Subjective.  Objective risk is something, such as an earthquake triggering an avalanche, that you have little control of and is inherent in the activity of mountaineering.   In everyday life, a driver crossing the center line and crashing head-on into you is an objective risk.   There is little or nothing you can do to mitigate it, except try not be there, so let's just set objective risks aside and talk about subjective risks.

Subjective risks are risks you assume when you choose to participate in any activity.  You aren't taking any risks until you do something, and if you do something, there's always an outcome. You can not, as you have above, separate them.   Even quilting carries the risks of stabbing yourself with the needle (that's an outcome) or sewing the piece in wrong and having to cut it out (an outcome).

Doing something that has significant risk is called "adventure" and the more risk, the greater the adventure.  The greater the adventure, the greater the personal satisfaction, which is why we climb.

So, you can go to the gym and top-rope 5.8s for an hour and you'll get zero adventure and zero personal satisfaction because you know how to get there and doing a gym 5.8 is piss easy.

Or, you can drive to a new area, hump up the hill, find the crag, find the route, lead the crux at your limit, get scared, squeal "watch me!", crank like mad, onsight it, cheer on your second, etc. and get home after sunset.  A worthwhile adventure because you were not sure you could find the crag, lead the crux pitch, etc.  The final outcome and intermediate outcomes were always in doubt.

I actually like your phrase for the experience of adventure btw.

Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted.   

Kevin Beverly wrote:

Here's the crunch base link to the new partner:
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/onxmaps/company_financials

"onxMaps has raised a total of $20.3M in funding over 1 round. This was a Series A round raised on Feb 16, 2018.onxMaps is funded by 5 investors. Millennium Technology Value Partners and Bessemer Venture Partners are the most recent investors.onxMaps has a post-money valuation in the range of $50M to $100M as of Feb 15, 2018, according to PrivCo."

Good find. I guess the headline is now "Mountain Project sold to [VC-owned] group for maximum future exploitation of user-contributed data".

Companies of this sort aren't there to support, maintain, or grow a community, whatever lip-service you might hear. They exist to monetize. Everything is about ROI once VC gets involved. Nick probably cashed out for a pretty penny. Now, in exchange for selling out ~20 years of community content (which the TOS claims MP owns), he should have the financial freedom to travel and enjoy the outdoors whenever and wherever he wants. Thanks for your donations!

TL;DR: Your route/area/beta/photo contributions are nothing more than value for shareholders.

If all the knowledge about all the public places is made available it will slow down the "loving our climbs to death" so many climbs are getting beaten to death with high volume because so many people fear sharing knowledge of alternatives.

PUBLIC LAND=PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE  that's literally why its public, its not for private citizens to make these decisions.

Ti ckwrote:

If all the knowledge about all the public places is made available it will slow down the "loving our climbs to death" so many climbs are getting beaten to death with high volume because so many people fear sharing knowledge of alternatives.

How do you view the practice of intentionally, maximally increasing the number of these people, for-profit? Businesses don't maximize their revenue by providing a better experience to a small, existing customer base, they maximize revenue by maximizing the number of potential customers. Corps that monetize the outdoors and their shareholders would be most happy if 100% of all people on planet earth could be converted to climbers, hikers, campers, skiiers, and mountain bikers - and they will promote these activities to draw in as many future customers as possible. Now, they'll obviously never get to 100% because not that many people want to do it. But what about 1%? Maybe we're already getting there in the US. 2%? 5%? 10%? There aren't enough routes in the world to support that kind of user base. Certainly not enough large, high-quality ones, and certainly not without crowding that would destroy the "natural" experience.

Regarding natural areas, I've camped in some pretty far-flung places in CO, UT, NV, etc, looking for a remote experience, and still come across people in all of them -- it's legitimately hard to get out of sight of people these days. Areas that were completely abandoned in the 1990s are getting regular visitors in 2020. Just look at the junk show with that obelisk. This may seem like hyperbole, but it's absolutely a problem right now, and the only evidence needed is to witness the change in traffic decade over decade, or experience the fact that it's almost impossible to climb some of the best routes in reasonable weather without a conga line that erodes the quality of the experience. Spreading people out isn't going to create another Yosemite that's within reach.

I don't know what anyone can do about this, but I certainly take a negative view of investors trying to monetize an irreplaceable resource. They will destroy everything in pursuit of the almighty dollar, and future lovers of these beautiful places will be left wondering how it all happened. It seems only logical to oppose the people and companies that are selling us out.

I just wonder about all those people who were so happy that Nick was fixing the project when all the while Nick is Nick and hes in this shit for Nick. Money money money!

Dallin Careywrote:

Please, show me where "outcome is in doubt" is.

"Risk" inherently involves an outcome that is in doubt.