Discuss - Addressing Offensive Climbing Route Names on Mountain Project

Wanted to share an update from onX on a topic that we know is important to MP, and invite constructive feedback and questions here to inform future updates on this important topic.

"In 2020, Mountain Project users identified over 6,000 climbing route names that they found offensive and derogatory. These routes have names that include racial epithets and offensive slang, and some cite traumatic historical events unrelated to climbing. The flagged routes in Mountain Project and other actions spurred various news articles, statements from climbing brands, and passionate acts of advocacy. But to date, only 164 of the flagged route names have been renamed. Offensive route names are still an issue, and according to a recent survey by the American Alpine Club (AAC) 82% of climbers believe it’s time to focus on diversity and inclusion within the sport. Nearly just as many (77%) believe that discriminatory route names need to be addressed. So what’s the hold up?

When a climber puts up a route for the first time, this first ascensionist (FA) chooses a name. The FA might go with something witty, or maybe tongue-and-cheek. But what feels “vanilla” or brushed off as juvenile humor among some, may be blatantly vulgar or offensive to others. In other instances, a route named after an inside joke among a few, might incite strong feelings to those who lack context.

When onX acquired Adventure Projects–including Mountain Project–in late 2020, a team of onX members made up of climbers and other outdoor recreationists discussed ways to resolve the route naming issue. Our goal was to avoid delivering a prescriptive top-down strategy to a community that has worked hard to address route names for some time, and instead develop a community-driven solution that would involve the expertise and viewpoints of many. So instead of operating in a silo, onX joined a group of route publishers, climbers, and DE&I advocates organized by AAC and its initiative Climb United.

Climb United calls this group the Route Name Task Force, and it includes Alpinist Magazine, Climbing Magazine, the Climbing Zine, Gripped Magazine, Mountaineers Books, Sharp End Publishing, Wolverine Publishing, and Mountain Project (onX). The Task Force also invited climbers to share many different points of view, backgrounds, histories, and experiences. 

Over a series of meetings this spring, the AAC gathered the group’s feedback on how route name publishers can preserve the history of the sport while effecting positive change. Following these discussions, the AAC published community-driven Principles and Guidelines to help guide the process of route naming and promote a more inclusive climbing culture.  

As a next step, the Route Name Task Force invites all climbers to join a public forum on Thursday April 22 at 6 p.m. MDT and to share feedback on the Principles and Guidelines through a survey. From there, Climb United will publish the first version of industry-wide Principles and Guidelines for publishing climbing route names. The Route Name Task Force will also continue to convene to discuss progress and new challenges. Climb United is an ongoing effort, one that will require all community members to adapt and learn.

At onX, our mission is to awaken the adventurer in everyone, but we can’t do that until we help ensure that the outdoors is a welcoming place for everyone. Addressing offensive route names on Mountain Project is one step in that direction, and we’re actively developing a strategy to review the platform’s flagged routes and will work with FAs when renaming is necessary. While not all 6,000+ identified routes may require renaming, we will commit to reviewing each, and will also review others that may not have been included in the initial effort. This approach will incorporate Climb United’s Principles and Guidelines as well as the routes’ FAs. We look forward to hearing your feedback in the Public Forum and through the Climb United survey. More to come."

https://www.onxmaps.com/blog/addressing-offensive-climbing-route-names-on-mountain-project

I'm glad Mountain Project is free. Thank you.

Otherwise...

Great work, thanks for the update and transparency!

Since they canceled the orig event in the link above and some might not see that there's another link to a new event in the details of the original canceled link...

Here's the single click-through link for the eventbrite event:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/guidelines-for-publishing-climbing-route-names-a-community-forum-tickets-150972648255

This better not lead to arbitrary renaming if the FA isn't on board. I really don't care if MP wants to keep names redacted, or even censor the name out of it's database. But actively imposing a new name would be a step too far.

I’m with Zippy. Exhaust all options before a unilateral renaming. And allow that, once in a while, the best option can be to leave it as redacted on MP.

Edit: Is onX automatically messaging contributors when a route name in their contribution is redacted for some period of time?

To take from the Supreme Court Community Standards definition on obscenity modified for this purpose:

This standard applied would be:

whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole is offensive and derogatory

I think the easiest way to do that is have panel of 100 diverse climbers, surveyed. If the majority (51 or more) people find it offensive and derogatory the route should be renamed or redacted.

Changing route names because some people are offended by an off color or graphic name is lame. Changing route names because they are derogatory should be done.

Blah Blah Blah Gimme free onX hunt

I'd like to direct you to a post I previously made about this:

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/119140972/you-can-now-flag-a-discriminatory-name?page=4#ForumMessage-119144211

So when we're actually serious about it, then great.  If it's going to be one-sided, then not interested.

I guess I'm curious too...when I come across an offensive route name, my typical reaction is "wow, the person who named this must be a pretentious ignoramus!  What a buffoon!"  Are we not content to let people's idiocy shine the light on their own lack of tact?

AAC = lol

gtfo

Bill Lawry wrote:

Edit: Is onX automatically messaging contributors when a route name in their contribution is redacted for some period of time?

I am very interested in onX’s answer to the above question.

If onX is really serious about this, the person who first shared the name is the hands-down first step in this matter. Anyone in software would agree it is an easy matter to gather up pairings of “shared by” user with the redacted route’s name and sending each a message with a request for considering a name change.

Doing less than the above, if so, has the appearance of ego being involved - collectively or not.

Some contributors may not be visiting MP much.

Edit:  onX posted here that less than 3% of 6000 redacted route names have been changed.  For how many of those 6000 were the individual contributors literally messaged about community concern? It would be an inexpensive and courteous thing to do and need not compromise some of these bigger plans. 

Just had an exchange with an FAist who's route name is currently redacted.  They have not been contacted by onX/MP - not even a notice or heads up.  This hints at a possibly huge oversight on the part of onX, especially given the bigger plans announced in this thread. It has the appearance of a power grab.

Importantly, 3% stat derived from onX numbers above is absolutely meaningless if onX hasn't attempted to contact the FAist through the "shared by" contributor (e.g., notice of action or heads up).  In my example, the "shared by" contributor did the FA.  And he sounded willing to consider another name.

Bill Lawry wrote:

Just had an exchange with an FAist who's route name is currently redacted.  They have not been contacted by onX/MP - not even a notice or heads up.  This hints at a possibly huge oversight on the part of onX, especially given the bigger plans announced in this thread. It has the appearance of a power grab.

Importantly, 3% stat derived from onX numbers above is absolutely meaningless if onX hasn't attempted to contact the FAist through the "shared by" contributor (e.g., notice of action or heads up).  In my example, the "shared by" contributor did the FA.  And he sounded willing to consider another name.

MP Moderators wrote:

At onX, our mission is to awaken the adventurer in everyone, but we can’t do that until we help ensure that the outdoors is a welcoming place for everyone. Addressing offensive route names on Mountain Project is one step in that direction, and we’re actively developing a strategy to review the platform’s flagged routes and will work with FAs when renaming is necessary. While not all 6,000+ identified routes may require renaming, we will commit to reviewing each, and will also review others that may not have been included in the initial effort. This approach will incorporate Climb United’s Principles and Guidelines as well as the routes’ FAs. We look forward to hearing your feedback in the Public Forum and through the Climb United survey. More to come.

I agree, Bill, a notice or heads-up to listed FAs for routes that are currently showing as "Redacted" on MP would be nice. I think that's a great suggestion and I don't know if it has been considered by the folks at onX yet. Based on everything I've read from onX reps here in the forum and in my limited interactions with onX staff, I absolutely do not believe there's any sort of power grab taking place and believe the onX team is committed to this effort. 

I appreciate the onX team taking a measured and not-rushed approach at trying to get this as right as possible before taking any actions on MP.  

On another note, I've established a number of routes in the past couple of decades. As a FA, I've taken the personal responsibility of reviewing the route names I've come up with and considered whether or not the names may be considered racist or overly offensive. I don't feel it's incumbent on members of the onX/MountainProject staff to contact me about my route names. I'd contend this FAist you've talked to could take this action on their own instead of waiting to hear from onX. A comment by the FA on the MP route page or contacting the admins for the area with the new name would be a great way to go.

Jason Halladay wrote:

On another note, I've established a number of routes in the past couple of decades. As a FA, I've taken the personal responsibility of reviewing the route names I've come up with and considered whether or not the names may be considered racist or overly offensive. I don't feel it's incumbent on members of the onX/MountainProject staff to contact me about my route names. I'd contend this FAist you've talked to could take this action on their own instead of waiting to hear from onX. A comment by the FA on the MP route page or contacting the admins for the area with the new name would be a great way to go.

I probably wasn't clear enough as this misses my point.

We all know that

• an offensive name is in the eye of the beholder;
• as humans we often don't realize how offensive we might be - especially us older white guys;

So an FAist can innocently create an offensive name and then go about their merry way with other FAs, largely ignoring / missing any aftermath in MP.

The above was my example. To resolve it in a general sense, someone needs to reach out to the FAist.

My comments about "power grab" and the like have been about appearances, not about what onX is actually intending to do.  Let them answer?  Am hoping to convince them they can be more interactive without risking anything.

In trying to figure out how much I should be alarmed about how the specious "3%" is being leveraged, I condensed onX's ~650 words into ~100, hopefully making it easier to grok the original post. I've quoted the paraphrases just to emphasize that they are derived from onX's statements - not because they spoke those exact words.

Hopefully someone will somehow let me know if I have something wrong.

MP Moderators wrote:

"In 2020, Mountain Project users identified over 6,000 climbing route names that they found offensive and derogatory. These routes have names that include racial epithets and offensive slang, and some cite traumatic historical events unrelated to climbing. The flagged routes in Mountain Project and other actions spurred various news articles, statements from climbing brands, and passionate acts of advocacy. But to date, only 164 of the flagged route names have been renamed. Offensive route names are still an issue, and according to a recent survey by the American Alpine Club (AAC) 82% of climbers believe it’s time to focus on diversity and inclusion within the sport. Nearly just as many (77%) believe that discriminatory route names need to be addressed. So what’s the hold up?

"Why haven't 97% of the routes on MP with flagged names been renamed?  Many want them changed. "

When a climber puts up a route for the first time, this first ascensionist chooses a name. He or she might go with something witty, or maybe tongue-and-cheek. But what feels “vanilla” or brushed off as juvenile humor among some, may be blatantly vulgar or offensive to others. In other instances, a route named after an inside joke among a few, might incite strong feelings to those who lack context.

"There are many possible explanations of why the FAist chose a name that in fact is offensive to some."

When onX acquired Adventure Projects–including Mountain Project–in late 2020, a team of onX members made up of climbers and other outdoor recreationists discussed ways to resolve the route naming issue. Our goal was to avoid delivering a prescriptive top-down strategy to a community that has worked hard to address route names for some time, and instead develop a community-driven solution that would involve the expertise and viewpoints of many. So instead of operating in a silo, onX joined a group of route publishers, climbers, and DE&I advocates organized by AAC and its initiative Climb United.

Climb United calls this group the Route Name Task Force, and it includes Alpinist Magazine, Climbing Magazine, the Climbing Zine, Gripped Magazine, Mountaineers Books, Sharp End Publishing, Wolverine Publishing, and Mountain Project (onX). The Task Force also invited climbers to share many different points of view, backgrounds, histories, and experiences. 

"onX joined Climb United to find a community-driven solution.  It consists of many commercial entities and various advocates of a welcoming environment. Climbers are invited to share their thinking."

Over a series of meetings this spring, the AAC gathered the group’s feedback on how route name publishers can preserve the history of the sport while effecting positive change. Following these discussions, the AAC published community-driven Principles and Guidelines to help guide the process of route naming and promote a more inclusive climbing culture.  

As a next step, the Route Name Task Force invites all climbers to join a public forum on Thursday April 22 at 6 p.m. MDT and to share feedback on the Principles and Guidelines through a survey. From there, Climb United will publish the first version of industry-wide Principles and Guidelines for publishing climbing route names. The Route Name Task Force will also continue to convene to discuss progress and new challenges. Climb United is an ongoing effort, one that will require all community members to adapt and learn.

"Progress has been made.  The Principles and Guidelines (P&Gs) are still open to input.  Eventually, all Climb United members will have to follow them."

At onX, our mission is to awaken the adventurer in everyone, but we can’t do that until we help ensure that the outdoors is a welcoming place for everyone. Addressing offensive route names on Mountain Project is one step in that direction, and we’re actively developing a strategy to review the platform’s flagged routes and will work with FAs when renaming is necessary. While not all 6,000+ identified routes may require renaming, we will commit to reviewing each, and will also review others that may not have been included in the initial effort. This approach will incorporate Climb United’s Principles and Guidelines as well as the routes’ FAs. We look forward to hearing your feedback in the Public Forum and through the Climb United survey. More to come."

https://www.onxmaps.com/blog/addressing-offensive-climbing-route-names-on-mountain-project

"MP - via onX's membership in Climb United - will follow the P&Gs when finalized.  onX will work with FAs of the 6000+ routes and any other routes that are outside of the finalized P&Gs."

To avoid misleading folks, OnX should edit the first paragraph of the OP to say something like ...

“For the redacted 6000 route names, onX does not know how many have FAists who know of the redaction and/or who know that the route was flagged as offensive on MP. It could be as few as the 164 for which the names were changed but is probably higher.”

... unless onX has a better understanding of how many FAists are aware.

Edit: Let me know and I’ll delete my related posts. 

Commercial entities are not in any way in control of what people name climbs.  Redacting of route names is being done for commercial purposes.  A "Route Name Task Force" is indeed an attempted power grab.  Route names are content that MP wants for free, they don't have any right to other peoples' work.

I'm all for inclusion and respect, but if you're going to just rename something without contacting the FAist, you may as well be one of those people who pulled down the obelisk in the Santa Fe Plaza. Look how that brought everyone together.

Jason Halladay wrote:

 I don't feel it's incumbent on members of the onX/MountainProject staff to contact me about my route names. I'd contend this FAist you've talked to could take this action on their own instead of waiting to hear from onX. 

Jason, 

It is great that you give so much care and thought about your route names. I sincerely mean that.  We are not all so gifted.

And I think this misses one of the primary tenants about how we determine what is offensive. I think the majority have asserted - and I agree - that it is not whether the name creator thinks they have avoided being offensive. It is about what the readers think.

As a professional, doesn’t your training say to most times let the offender know and ask them to stop? Wouldn’t you want someone to tell you if one of your route names offended them?

Bill Lawry wrote:

Just had an exchange with an FAist who's route name is currently redacted.  They have not been contacted by onX/MP - not even a notice or heads up.  This hints at a possibly huge oversight on the part of onX, especially given the bigger plans announced in this thread. 

Yeah, this seems like an error for sure. My guess would be that the vast majority of those 6000+ route names were just ambiguities, like the "Slow Children" thread. The bulk of this issue could be resolved with quick, even automated emails to the submitter (if they're the FAist as well).

I get the desire to go about this 'right,' and understand that onX has bigger fish to fry having just acquired MP. But I'd guess that there are a very few people who posted offensive route names on purpose, as 'political' speech. Lumping that small minority of FAists in with people who just had an unintentional ambiguity in a name makes this look like a much larger issue than it really is. I'd bet clear communication between MP and FAists would clear up most of those 6000 redactions, making it clear what a relatively small issue this actually is. 

Groans from me. As a newer female climber in Joshua Tree half the fun has been the route names and learning their history.  It’s been so nice to be able to let my pc guard down and enjoy the irreverent.

But now, walking around here, I’m thinking “Well, we can’t let Loose Lady stand, can we?  And what about Sexy Grandma?”  As a grandmother of a certain age I might resent this!  

In all seriousness I do have pretty uptight friends who would object to many of these names.  I dunno, maybe a community vote...