/ Logbooks - shortcomings observed

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Jamie B - on 13 Jan 2013
Over the last few days, with lots of folk obviously looking out for ideas and inspiration:

One route soloed in decidedly sketchy condition and logged with the suggestion that it was a grade lower. Saw it the next day and it definitely wasn't - anyone going looking for an easy tick of a classic route would have had a shock!

The final pitch of one route climbed as a variation finish to another. Both routes logged without explanation, even although only the top pitch of the former was complete. Anyone trying to climb the complete line on the basis of it having been logged would have also got a shock.

I'm not totally against the logbooks, but we do need to be aware that we are completely at the mercy of the person who logged it - much reading between the lines may be required...
Rampikino - on 13 Jan 2013
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Caveat Emptor Jamie.

People use the logbooks for many different reasons and in many different ways.

Using the logbooks as a true guide to what is going on in the hills is a bit like basing your politics around what you read on Facebook.
Wesley Orvis - on 13 Jan 2013
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

sorted!!!!
off-duty - on 13 Jan 2013
In reply to Rampikino:
> (In reply to Jamie Bankhead)
>
> Caveat Emptor Jamie.
>
> People use the logbooks for many different reasons and in many different ways.
>
> Using the logbooks as a true guide to what is going on in the hills is a bit like basing your politics around what you read on Facebook.


You aren't suggesting that facebook isn't right?
Because Charlene said that Tracey said that Trevor"s boyfriend was a slag and slept with Simone, but simone's friend big Tracey said that Charlene was a whore and a liar.
Anyway it was a grade V and wasn't frozen. ..
Jamie B - on 13 Jan 2013
In reply to Wesley Orvis:

Thanks, I didn't want to name names and routes - people have been known to get upset - but you obviously figured it...
Clive H - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jamie B: A timely reminder Jamie, thanks for posting. It's actually quite a hard skill to give accurate route information and easy to slip into being misleading when trying to give helpful information.

Sticking to objective facts as best you can I find helps rather than giving too much opinion. Information from someone you don't know will always have to be used with more caution than someone who you do. I interpret "It was a bit thin..." very differently depending on who has said it.

We shouldn't shoot the messengers though, and you have been careful not to do this Jamie. The person giving the info on the soloed route was trying to be helpful and having repeated the route the next day I can see what he meant. However, having done that route numerous times in varied conditions it was, as you point out, not in particularly easy condition. Fairly standard I'd say. Good pick placements all the way, ice usually poor for screws but if one looks around carefully some good screws available in places. At one point ice a bit hollow sounding so needed a lighter touch.
Mountaineers have always used each others beta, even before UKC. Keep it coming.
Simon Caldwell - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jamie B:
I seem to remember there are some imminent-ish changes that will make it much easier to separate personal comments from public ones. So someone could update a log to say a route was in easy condition, meaning (for example) that it was easier than the last time they did it, without publishing the fact and leading others to think it was easy per se

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.