UKC

What reasons are considered acceptable for a crag moderator to reject new route submissions?

In reply to bpmclimb:

I'd suggest most unimportant variations (you can always log these on the main line). Even shitty gap fillers could be put in a neighbour. I put lots of poor grit stuff on Offwidth to help stop pointless future claims and prevent misidentifaction in complex areas without topos and to my horror these are now listed ticks on UKC. It would also be nice if a few wild areas remained undescribed so that folks can go and explore without guidebook pressure.

In reply to bpmclimb:

No description or way of knowing what or where the route is.

In reply to Offwidth:


Eh?

In reply to JJL:



That's when you get trapped under the Lancashire Brick

In reply to Offwidth:


I know what you mean by this but i am of the opinion that you may as well describe everything (if you don't people are bound to claim the stuff) and if anyone doesn't want 'guidebook pressure' they can simply not buy the guide.

In reply to Offwidth:

I've literally never felt that in my life. Is it nice to pick a route and go for it? Yes. Does it mean I climb precisely the level of difficulty/excitement/boldness I want to climb? No. Often not. Knowledge is power

In reply to Offwidth:

I remember going to Black Crag in the Lakes without a guidebook once. I hadn't been climbing that long, but had lead a few extremes on grit.

I did one climb that was quite a fight, I though it felt at least HVS. My mate turned up later that day with a guidebook. Turns out it was only severe!

Later that day I was keen to do an E2, but bottled it and top-roped it instead. It turned out to be a total path, and I really regretted not going for the onsight.

I guess the pressure goes both ways if you read a guidebook.

In reply to Smelly Fox:

I'm not talking major crags. Mainly relatively minor wild bouldering venues that have some issues (access or otherwise). I see no harm at all in not describing everything in detail (or sometimes even anything) with the benefit of reduced local issues and enabling those who want it to retain some genuine spirit of exploration. Your experience shows a good example of how guidebook knowledge isn't always the power we might wish.

In reply to MischaHY:
The population evidence is against your experience: knowledge is seemingly much less important than fashion in climbing. The crags are very much non-uniform in popularity in a way unrelated to real quality, with anything from very worn hot spots to the sadly neglected gems. Guidebooks normally try and encourage spreading the load to good routes that could do with more traffic but often in vain. On the other hand more sensitive good areas sometimes get included (with mixed feelings) and access or damage issues occur almost immediately because the new traffic (following the herd) lacks the respect required for the venue. I think climbers need to think harder about how and why we describe things and sometimes, pretty rarely, that means not describing is the best option.

In reply to bpmclimb:


I applied the highly objective metric of leaving it out if it was trivial crap. If I felt more charitable, borderline fillers-in got a brief mention in the text rather than a full description.

In reply to bpmclimb:

The more of the following reasons, the more likely I am to reject it.

No indication of location in relation to other routes
No description
Misspelling of existing route
No response to email requesting clarification of above information
Claims of a new way to scratch your ar*e, sorry I meant bouldering

In reply to bpmclimb:

The FRCC in the 70's were unlikely to accept a new route done by anyone not in the Lake District 'Club', even by such luminaries as Paul Ross. We found that our new routes were described in the worst possible way, like a point of aid was reported even when it was merely used for cleaning on sight and then free climbed. Even if we went back and did completely free ascents the next day, the FRCC would claim their members ascents as the first free ascents.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Mis-spelling of existing routes is a complete pain. I end up faffing about to transfer the ticks. No description to new routes is also a pain, or even when there's a description, not saying where the route is in relation to existing routes - I email the contributor and leave the route "daggered" until I hear back. Most annoying is when I don't get a reply.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

They get 48 hours from sending the email then it's deleted

In reply to Bob:

I leave everything in - I want as much info as possible for the authors of the definitive guide we're working on.

In reply to bpmclimb:

The logbooks aren't the same thing as a new routes database submitting routes for inclusion in a new guidebook. I always assume that new routes have been added because the submitter wants to record what they have climbed. So I will never reject anything (unless it's a duplicate, or on the wrong crag).
If insufficient information is provided to identify the route I'll put it in an "unknown" buttress at the end until such time that they answer my email requesting more information.
The exception would be if insufficient information is given, and it's not been ticked in any logbooks, I'd delete these - though it's only happened once or twice.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

For pointless variations what stops them recording this as a note on the main line. The database could expanded into several pointless variations per route if moderators are too tolerant. Even a classic like 3PS only has one listing despite two very different finishes (one of which... with very bold 4c padding.... is the main reason why it gets the current E1 grade). I think the site would benefit from policy on this.

In reply to Offwidth:

It's not my place to decide what's a pointless variation, the guidebook authors can make that call - and as Mark Kemball said, the more information that is on UKC, the more information they've got to help them. The UKC logbooks are somewhere for logging routes, I hope that UKC wouldn't introduce any policy that prevents people doing this.

I might think twice about this if I came across something like your 3PS example. But I haven't so far - and most of my crags are fairly obscure so it's unlikely

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Yet it is if you include them as a route to be logged ( if you disagree maybe you can tell me what stops a moderator doing this at present?).

If Mark was managing the update of a peak guidebook he might think different as most of his new lines will be worthwhile where almost nothing 'easy' on a popular grit crag will be.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I agree. The UKC database is a personal logbook, not a guidebook.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Another vote for pointless variations. Bouldering eliminates and SDS variations are really difficult to moderate. I stopped moderating anything with a lot of boulder problems as a consequence. Does every non-SDS route need a SDS variation? Also 'new routes' with no proper description as to where they might be. 'New routes' at foreign crags are also a problem if the submitter hasn't properly verified the route with anybody local who knows the area.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Most new routes unless top end especially on grit are at best shit.
I have seen people trying to claim going up one route and finish up another.hardly a new route .
Boulder problems are equally as bad.

In reply to all:

Thanks for the replies. As one might expect, I suppose, the criteria seem to vary a fair bit between moderators. Actually, there were some recent additions (at Staple Edge Quarry) that prompted my post - I'd be interested in any opinions on those. (Apologies in advance to the FA for making a sort of test-case of these routes).

In reply to bpmclimb:

Those three new boulder problems?

Do you remember us joking about those scraps of rock near the mineshaft?

Personally i would just leave them in red/daggered until you (if you) check them out.

I predict they are crap but you never know............

In reply to mark s:

Yeah but UKC is a logbook not a guidebook.

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:

It is, however, a very useful resource for guidebook writers.

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:
UKC is also not a service to individuals with obsesive compulsive listing requirements and some of the attitudes on display here risks the logboks for popular crags becoming so cluttered that they lose useability. As I said earlier, the retentive can already put their potentially uncountable variations and even new lines that are shit onto the notes for the current main line or the route next door. To be clear, I actively encourage the inclusion of good new lines before the next guidebook is due as thats a big plus for the logbooks but providing a universal tick list including all the crap isnt.

In reply to Mark Kemball:
It depends on the area. I can see this would apply for you but I found the new lines facility for Froggatt more often a pain than a real use and sympathised greatly with G Hoey when he had to check all such stuff submitted on peak grit. The big plus for me was climbers comments on existing routes from regular commentors: which helped cut through some of the (incorrect) inherited view on grades and route natures.

In reply to Offwidth:


Can you give any examples of where this has happened?

I don't moderate any popular crags so it's not been an issue for me


Personally I'd rather see everything including the crap. Then the guidebook writer can either include it, ignore it completely, or prevent further claims by saying something like 'several routes have been claimed in the next section of rock but all are without merit'.

If I climb a new route, whether mine or (much more often) someone else's, then I want to log it in my logbook to record that I've done it. If I think it's crap then I'll add a comment to that effect. If UKC applied any filtering as you suggest then I'd no longer be able to do this so would no longer use the UKC logbooks.

In reply to mark s


In some instances these hybrid routes are worth including as separate routes, a good example is concrete chimney at Gogarth, no new ground but arguably the best "route" of its grade in Wen Zawn.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Yes link-ups aren't usually worth recording but can be of value if they make a line better such as more direct, more consistent or create a relatively amenable route up an otherwise hard cliff.

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:


Agreed

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:


Yes, those. I also suspect complete rubbish, as well as being v0 and 2m high! But, as you say, you never know. Maybe they are mini gems.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Agreed, i have put up a few amenable indirect starts to existing routes that have really hard first third then an amenable 2/3 top section. This is where the first ascentionist of the original was looking for hard climbing and i have found a more balanced easier version that if anything is probably likely to be more popular.

In reply to Michael Gordon:
If the link up is better than the two routes it combines, then to me it is possibly more important as a climb than its parents. I think we give too much attention to the first ascent at times. Guidebooks of course often superceded old climbs with new better variants. My concern is with rubbish combinations and other such crap filling the logbooks.


In reply to, Simon, Caldwell

No good examples other than the occasional crap 'new' routes as most moderators on popular grit crags either through ignorance or intent dont do what you say and follow the line I prefer by ignoring the rubbish. However we are heading this way if your stated attitude prevails and we give obsessive climbers the opportunity to log everything they want. For most routes on such crags I know a variation and for every listed boulder problem, numerous variations and at least one unlisted problem. Its not all one way with me: there are really good problems I know (mainly lower grade) not yet on the UKC logbooks that I would like to see included on the UKC database (some are already on Peak Bouldering and/or Offwidth) as they are not easy to link to a neighbour route or problem. Yet if its rubbish I cant see why its not sensible to do the job in the current entry (eg the manky and loose unlisted gully to the right is diff; the arete can be climbed as an eliminate on either side; a sit start is a grade harder etc).

In reply to Offwidth:


Because if the hypothetical current entry is E1 then you need to tick an E1 if you've actually climbed a Diff.
If the current entry were also a Diff then you might have a point. But personally, if the guidebook mentioned it then I'd add it as a separate route.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
... and what about the way more common variation issues (since they are the real threat to unnecessary over-expansion of logbooks, especially for boulder problems)?

E1 only counts for the onsight anyhow so most genuine E1 ticks are not properly applicable at the grade. So, frankly I wouldn't care much even for your very unlikely example where someone seriously would want to log a shitty diff gully. What next... logged descents??

In reply to Offwidth:

What sort of sad individual would log descents?

<goes off to make logbook private>

In reply to bpmclimb:

Bearing in mind that the UKC is a global database, and that some countries don't really understand the 'importance' of climbing as an activity, then it is worth considering the indirect impact on climbing culture that publishing new routes in certain countries might cause. I'm thinking that this is not the scenario you originally envisaged, but it is one that UK climbers might consider when adding 'new' routes to foreign countries.

In reply to Willi Crater:


What do you mean?

In reply to Offwidth:


Agreed. There can occasionally be a good case for some routes superseding others.

In reply to Bob:



That seems a bit harsh to me. Dyslexia is the first thing which comes to mind.

In reply to Martin Haworth:



Eh? What previous route did the first pitch of CC?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I presume the hybrid route 'concrete dream' (linking the first couple of pitches of concrete chimney in to the last pitch of dream of white horses) is being referred to, not concrete chimney.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Namely that the country's government might try to impose climbing restrictions where none previously existed. I know of at least one occasion where this has occured, or rather is occurring.

In reply to Timmd:

When a route is rejected there is an option to say what existing route it's a duplicate of, so any logbook ticks are moved.

Though when I climb a popular route and come to add it to my logbook, if I can't find it my assumption is never that it needs adding, but rather that it's already there with a different spelling. I imagine if I were dyslexic then I'd be even more careful to check.

In reply to remus:

That's correct, I did mean concrete dream, but typed concrete chimney by mistake.