Guidebooks: likes and dislikes?

I am helping an old head with the design of a guidebook. When discussing nuances, often neither of us have a "right" answer. Thus I've come to MP.

- Generally what are things that annoy you that guidebooks do or don't include?
- What are some things that you love about certain guidebooks?
- do people prefer guidebooks with standardized L-R listings or for routes to be listed as makes sense for the crag? ie: If there's a crag that you approach at the right most point, how would you want those routes listed?

Any and all info is appreciated

Gotta have da cover flap that functions as an integrated bookmark.  

Put some foldable legs on the back cover, so you can turn the guide book into a table for serving tea in the tent when its raining.

Undefined metrics have annoyed me. A guidebook I have uses a skull to mark danger, with some climbs having one and some having three, but no indication of how much danger the skull represents? Am I gonna die? Am I gonna die thrice as much? 

I think most people have a L-R world view when looking at print media, so I would vote for L-R in the guidebook regardless of the approach.  This was changed in our local guidebook to Lander a few years ago and makes it easier (at least for me) to get oriented at the crag.

Most guidebooks these days are great: route lines drawn on a big photo of the cliff, helpful descriptions of the character of each pitch, etc.

Something I like: a top-down relief of the cliff with the route numbers and approach trail positioned accurately can be even more useful than the photo topo for finding a route (even if the photo is more helpful for scoping where the route actually goes). 

Something I dislike: almost everyone who tries to reverse-engineer 'inch size' trad rack suggestions gets them wrong. If you have a specific rack in mind, just say that. Every time a guidebook author says 'cams to 3"' I have to guess whether they think a BD #3 is 3" (it's not) or they actually meant 3" (or even worse, conflating a #4 with 4”).

I love a good photo with the route lines drawn over.

Approach/parking/descent maps are appreciated.

I like when the route numbers are different colors indicating sport or trad

L to R

Squamish select has a good page near the front that breaks it down nicely- if you’re looking for X this is the crag for you. Want Y? Go here.

Love sun/shade notes for the area.

An old school guidebook will get it done but these are the luxury items I appreciate. 

Definitely need interview pages with local legends.  That gets the stoke going for sure

I like what squeezing the lemmon does re sport / trad where it has letter codes for "has bolts", "can place gear", "has anchors". Then you can correctly specify a route that is mostly bolted but has a couple of optional placements without having to argue whether it's trad or sport.

Index at the back of routes by name, by grade / style, by crag name.

A clear unmistakeable waypoint from which to orient oneself to the routes on the cliff. No use of the word “obvious” to describe a feature eg  after you pass the obvious grey boulder next to the obvious tree beside the trail turn up into the obvious gulley until you get to the obvious crack system.

Usually once I can find one route on the page, the other routes become more clear. But finding that one first route can be hard with unclear directions.

I generally look at the mountain project for an area before going and if I have pressing questions or the Beta looks bad, then I get the book. A book these days has to provide more than whatever one can find on the internet. Either stories, photos, previously undocumented crags, etc.. 

Examples Skaha: Book includes detail about seepage from rain, pictures and complete topos for each wall
Index: The book is just pretty
Squamish: Much more comprehensive
Smith: Much more comprehensive
Alaska Anchorage: Good stories and specific niche beta
Mojave Limestone: Some areas have too many options and this book helps you figureout which things you should or shouldn't because mountain project has way too much information to sort through 

I might be in the minority, but I love reading about the rest day activities and rainy day ideas. Honestly, i like fluff in general.  Its a really fun way to explore the the (generaly climby) vibes of a place and support local businesses. I know people who think it's lame, but I love guidebook with a lot of fluff lol. If I just want route beta, mtn project or gunks app or rakkup is generally more than enough. Guidebooks should be about fluff and culture :)

(And *maybe*  mention a climb or two)

TJ Bindseilwrote:

Definitely need interview pages with local legends.  That gets the stoke going for sure

+1 And a historical section that outlines the areas climbing development, ethics and prominent players thru the years.

Likes: 

• Logical overview maps of areas and thorough directions 
• Correct grammar
• Historical information via route descriptions, essays, and introduction
• Awesome action photos

Dislikes:

• Slash grades (even worse: slash numbers)
• Photo of the author on the cover
• Confusing maps/directions
• The author's routes getting undeserving focus and more stars than other routes 

Features that I like:

• An introduction section with the following:
  • History
  • An overview of local amenities (camping, toilets, rest days, etc.)
  • Discussion of local/general ethics
  • Description of general hazards in the area (e.g. snakes, poison oak)
  • An explanation of the symbols and figures used in the book (i.e. 3 stars means good, R means you'll break your foot, etc)
• GPS coordinates in addition to written directions
• Check boxes next to routes
• Information on what route is featured in every photo (including cover photos)
• Humorous stories in route descriptions and essays

Features that I dislike:

• Beta spray in route descriptions

Personally I think that routes should be sorted in the order that you would approach them when hiking in. If that is ambiguous or impossible for whatever reason L-R makes sense.

Must have cliff direction stated, so one can figure out sun/shade aspects.

Schematic map at front of book showing location of cliffs relative to others, and to the trailhead/parking.  Subsets of this map for large, very spread out areas (e.g Joshua Tree, Red Rock).

Mileage specifications for road pullouts from some logical reference point.

dislike guide books that do not have gps coords for the area and for each crag one of the biggest problems for the new pikes peak guide book by phil w

Kevin DeWeese wrote:

Lack of topos for multi-pitch routes. 

Photo overlays are fine/great IF it's a single pitch crag, but not for multi-pitch routes unless there is significant text description of each pitch regarding where the route goes, especially if there are slab sections or mixed sections. 

I agree with this.  Just got the new Tuolumne guide, which only has photo overlays, and I can already tell I'll be supplementing it with the old Reid guide.  To be fair that new book is already so huge that it would be impractical to add topos for everything.

Lots of good suggestions here.
But the thing that is most helpful for me is making sure the print is high contrast with a sharp edged font. So that I can read the route info without digging out my reading glasses. I’m sure there are plenty of other senior climbers that would agree. And please don’t overlay descriptions over photos. 

Heavy on detailed approach beta, light on detailed route beta. I want to be able to reliably find the climb and then mostly find my own way to the top. Love historical and geological info in there. But by far the most important thing I need out of the guide book is how to find the climb, what grade, and is it worth climbing compared to the rest of routes in the area. That approach beta can come in whatever form is best for that area- gps coordinates, actual topo, hand drawn topo, written descriptions- all can work. 

A section detailing good places to go for families, when it rains, when it's cold and when it's hot are awesome. 

Also descriptions of sun by section: does this place get morning, afternoon, or full day sun?