This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
"The most effective way to counter the criticism, and to demonstrate that the CC is serious about Gogarth, is to get what information we can out there for people to see, and quickly. This could be started by making the old guide available on-line (not impossible?), backed up with the draft information (easily available) on newer climbs, of which there are about 200. " said Mike Bailey.
Full report in the news..... http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
Full report in the news..... http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
It does take direct action and a will to inform people -
good argumesnt about lack of editing and and sand baggers.
But will anyone actually produe the toilet seat guide we all have been waiting years for?
we have see several regional guides come out a couple of times in the same period.
Why has Gogarth been forgotten?
Lets hope we see the guide sooon to put a stop to gossip of a promised new Gogarth Guide.
I want to have a copy my green ones falling apart I need a repacement within the year with a good graded list...
Good luck to all concerned..
It does take direct action and a will to inform people -
good argumesnt about lack of editing and and sand baggers.
But will anyone actually produe the toilet seat guide we all have been waiting years for?
we have see several regional guides come out a couple of times in the same period.
Why has Gogarth been forgotten?
Lets hope we see the guide sooon to put a stop to gossip of a promised new Gogarth Guide.
I want to have a copy my green ones falling apart I need a repacement within the year with a good graded list...
Good luck to all concerned..
With regards the news item on Gogarth is it not Iain Peter rather than Peters.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: It is very good to see this positive progress from the CC, especially from someone as nice as Mike, who probably shouldn't be worrying himself too much at this time.
It is great that the CC is starting to realise the degree of frustration that many climbers, local and otherwise have with the situation. Talk or indeed words on a forum are cheap, I eagerly await some action from them.
As for the lack of editing on the wiki, this is a problem that I can't defend other than saying that myself and Dr Evil do have a reasonable amount of experience of climbing at Gogarth. There are also facilities for moderators, administrators and the founder to back track any information changes, and if neccessary stop anyone other than those who we invite to edit the main text.
Of course we don't pretend to have the experience of the CC editing team, but you are more than welcome to join the wiki project as moderators, and get as much information as possible on the site, at which point I will happy start restricting the editing to all but a trusted few.
We are all just climbers who want the best out of a difficult situation.
It is great that the CC is starting to realise the degree of frustration that many climbers, local and otherwise have with the situation. Talk or indeed words on a forum are cheap, I eagerly await some action from them.
As for the lack of editing on the wiki, this is a problem that I can't defend other than saying that myself and Dr Evil do have a reasonable amount of experience of climbing at Gogarth. There are also facilities for moderators, administrators and the founder to back track any information changes, and if neccessary stop anyone other than those who we invite to edit the main text.
Of course we don't pretend to have the experience of the CC editing team, but you are more than welcome to join the wiki project as moderators, and get as much information as possible on the site, at which point I will happy start restricting the editing to all but a trusted few.
We are all just climbers who want the best out of a difficult situation.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Calling all Gogarth devotees. Ever wanted to write a guidebook? Well now you can. Get on the wiki and start writing. Don't be shy. ANYONE who has done any of the routes can write up the descriptions. The Upper Tier section is almost finished and the others are underway. It's free. If the CC want to use the info to publish a guidebook then they are more than welcome to help themselves to it.
The site is pretty rudimentary at the moment but it does open some interesting possibilties like a database of images of every route on the crag, logs of the climbs, concensus voting on stars and grades, on-line webcams etc
Even if it is shit then it will be better than what currently exists ie nothing
http://gogarth.wetpaint.com/
Calling all Gogarth devotees. Ever wanted to write a guidebook? Well now you can. Get on the wiki and start writing. Don't be shy. ANYONE who has done any of the routes can write up the descriptions. The Upper Tier section is almost finished and the others are underway. It's free. If the CC want to use the info to publish a guidebook then they are more than welcome to help themselves to it.
The site is pretty rudimentary at the moment but it does open some interesting possibilties like a database of images of every route on the crag, logs of the climbs, concensus voting on stars and grades, on-line webcams etc
Even if it is shit then it will be better than what currently exists ie nothing
http://gogarth.wetpaint.com/
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Would the most effective way to counter the criticism be to tell people what stage the guide is in, what format it is in, how much is done, when it will be published etc - and get cracking with writing and publishing it??
All this web stuff seems to be missing the point IMO. I think people just want a good, honest, normal, print guide...
Would the most effective way to counter the criticism be to tell people what stage the guide is in, what format it is in, how much is done, when it will be published etc - and get cracking with writing and publishing it??
All this web stuff seems to be missing the point IMO. I think people just want a good, honest, normal, print guide...
In reply to Fiend:
Isn't all the criticism Mick's?
With the wiki, sure we can write our own description, but unless I climbed a route yesterday in which case it's fresh in my memory in any case, I'm going to have to go back and look at the original description in the CC guide and rewrite 'start at the big boulder and climb the crack' to 'climb the crack starting above the big boulder'.
Isn't all the criticism Mick's?
With the wiki, sure we can write our own description, but unless I climbed a route yesterday in which case it's fresh in my memory in any case, I'm going to have to go back and look at the original description in the CC guide and rewrite 'start at the big boulder and climb the crack' to 'climb the crack starting above the big boulder'.
In reply to Paz:
I can't find any criticism that is Mick's. I think you need to look again.
Alan
> Isn't all the criticism Mick's?
I can't find any criticism that is Mick's. I think you need to look again.
Alan
In reply to Paz:
The idea is that after the inital route descriptions have been posted, ideally by the first ascentionist or someone who has done the route recently. That information will then be open to editing by everybody else who has done the route and a concensus can be arrived at, maybe.
The information will be freely available on-line, up to date and free of charge to anyone who wants it. Anyone who wants to contribute can do so.
Instead of a guidebook, you will take your iPhone to the crag. You will be screwed if you run out of battery half way up the main cliff though.......
The idea is that after the inital route descriptions have been posted, ideally by the first ascentionist or someone who has done the route recently. That information will then be open to editing by everybody else who has done the route and a concensus can be arrived at, maybe.
The information will be freely available on-line, up to date and free of charge to anyone who wants it. Anyone who wants to contribute can do so.
Instead of a guidebook, you will take your iPhone to the crag. You will be screwed if you run out of battery half way up the main cliff though.......
In reply to Fiend: All I want is a good, honest, normal, print guide fiend.
Living locally I am aware of the slow progress that has been going for over 4 years now. A few months before christmas 'Smiler', soon to be president of the CC was at a NWSCAG meeting trying to find out the fact that were laid out by those involved to him publically at the meeting. He assured those present he was going to sort out the situation, but things happen slowly with committee's.
I lieu of a guide, which appears being written of geological time scale the Gogarth Wiki Guide is a chance for keen climbers like yourself to get your hands on information. On top of this it promotes Gogarth, Anglesey and the whole of snowdonia rock climbing by raising awareness of the great climbing resources that I am sure you will agree with, the area has.
The 'web stuff' as you put it has not missed the point it has helped to continue to ruffle the feathers of the CC, and keep the pressure on them to inform the climbing public, something that they have not choosen to do at present.
If the guide won't be published till 2009 then so be it, some accurate info is all we want. Much has been spouted about them and us with the CC and normal climbers. But we are all the same , we want the same thing, we suffer from the same work - life pressures.
What the new site does is bridge an information gap, and allow true interaction between climbers and the information we use.
PS You Got mail
Living locally I am aware of the slow progress that has been going for over 4 years now. A few months before christmas 'Smiler', soon to be president of the CC was at a NWSCAG meeting trying to find out the fact that were laid out by those involved to him publically at the meeting. He assured those present he was going to sort out the situation, but things happen slowly with committee's.
I lieu of a guide, which appears being written of geological time scale the Gogarth Wiki Guide is a chance for keen climbers like yourself to get your hands on information. On top of this it promotes Gogarth, Anglesey and the whole of snowdonia rock climbing by raising awareness of the great climbing resources that I am sure you will agree with, the area has.
The 'web stuff' as you put it has not missed the point it has helped to continue to ruffle the feathers of the CC, and keep the pressure on them to inform the climbing public, something that they have not choosen to do at present.
If the guide won't be published till 2009 then so be it, some accurate info is all we want. Much has been spouted about them and us with the CC and normal climbers. But we are all the same , we want the same thing, we suffer from the same work - life pressures.
What the new site does is bridge an information gap, and allow true interaction between climbers and the information we use.
PS You Got mail
In reply to dr evil: Do you get a signal on Main Cliff!
In reply to dr evil:
LOL! Mate, take your phone with you but on sea cliffs save your phone battery for calling out the coast guard, trust me on this.
That's a good idea but right now you've got the same problem as every other website in the world - lack of content. Why couldn't you just have used the logbooks anyway?
In reply to Alan:
I meant more Mick's fault there is this who ha, than Mick's criticism. There wasn't a specific criticism he made, but his lack of any was my point - that he was just doing a follow up to what was a complete non non story in the first place, and if he wanted to know more about the deal with the guide he could've contacted any of several people on here. I'm only explaining myslef, I've gone on enough at Mick already today.
LOL! Mate, take your phone with you but on sea cliffs save your phone battery for calling out the coast guard, trust me on this.
That's a good idea but right now you've got the same problem as every other website in the world - lack of content. Why couldn't you just have used the logbooks anyway?
In reply to Alan:
I meant more Mick's fault there is this who ha, than Mick's criticism. There wasn't a specific criticism he made, but his lack of any was my point - that he was just doing a follow up to what was a complete non non story in the first place, and if he wanted to know more about the deal with the guide he could've contacted any of several people on here. I'm only explaining myslef, I've gone on enough at Mick already today.
In reply to Paz: There were a few reasons that I particularly didn't want to use the logbooks, which I don't wish to divulge here, the main one being that the site needed to be free, indepedent and able to offer more than a few bits of information.
We do lack content to a certain extent, but with around 200 new routes with there description on line, most of the upper tier online, a graded list on line as well as a few new crags and a growing number of other route description, I think the site is doing alright seeing it has been less than a week since it conception.
Stop moan about the lack of content and get typing PAz
We do lack content to a certain extent, but with around 200 new routes with there description on line, most of the upper tier online, a graded list on line as well as a few new crags and a growing number of other route description, I think the site is doing alright seeing it has been less than a week since it conception.
Stop moan about the lack of content and get typing PAz
In reply to Dringo:
Would do but my Gogarth guide's elsewhere and I can't remember where the routes start! Didn't realise you had all this other stuff.
Would do but my Gogarth guide's elsewhere and I can't remember where the routes start! Didn't realise you had all this other stuff.
In reply to Fiend:
The most up-to-date guidebooks these days are a combination of the two, both print and web based: a database of routes with descriptions with a facility to vote on grades and add your opinion AND a fantastic colour guidebook.
The old model.......a committee, volunteers, text based only and usually late is dead.
Mick
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> All this web stuff seems to be missing the point IMO. I think people just want a good, honest, normal, print guide...
The most up-to-date guidebooks these days are a combination of the two, both print and web based: a database of routes with descriptions with a facility to vote on grades and add your opinion AND a fantastic colour guidebook.
The old model.......a committee, volunteers, text based only and usually late is dead.
Mick
In reply to Paz:
Not at all. I'm reporting what climbers are saying and doing....and not doing.
You of course Paz, in this medium, have full liberty to question the Editor of this site and the writer of most of the news.
And usually I respond.....sometimes almost instantly. I am accountable for what I do and take full responsibilty for my actions and words, my shortcomings and my successes.
Mick
> (In reply to Fiend)
>
> Isn't all the criticism Mick's?
>
> Isn't all the criticism Mick's?
Not at all. I'm reporting what climbers are saying and doing....and not doing.
You of course Paz, in this medium, have full liberty to question the Editor of this site and the writer of most of the news.
And usually I respond.....sometimes almost instantly. I am accountable for what I do and take full responsibilty for my actions and words, my shortcomings and my successes.
Mick
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I do appreciate the right to reply, and I'm never really sure of the relation ship between rockfax and UKC, I like the responses to my criticism's on rockfax's guidebook's as that's pretty exceptional customer service
Maybe that was what you said last time, when I let it go. But the perfectly correct reason why I gave you still stands - it's winter, and it's not easy checking routes in winter, least of all at gogarth, least of all if you don't have many local people helping you out or if they've all got invovled in a different guidebook. You'll notice the word if - I know nothing.
The web based side has certainly helped you with the route checking, but you use it at the risk of getting beta. It think it's useful because it tells you what people don't do.
What I've gathered though is that what I want from a guidebook maybe isn't the same as other people. I want accurate info, particularly on the less well travelled routes. If anything its less crucial on the classics, I'd be happy trusting the info of a half cocked magazine article, with a felt tip pen line on a dodgy photo, if I knew the route was a classic that gets done and I had some idea where it went. I don't really want to criticise Ground up productions, but as an example why do I need to buy a new guidebook to tell me where Cenotaph Corner is when it's probably visible from Google Earth?
So there's more to this than a simple point, there's something to do with the impression casual observers get when you use 'Climber's Club' and 'Controversy' in the same capitalised thread title. Was that to try and make some new friends, to give them a bit of useful publicity?
I do appreciate the right to reply, and I'm never really sure of the relation ship between rockfax and UKC, I like the responses to my criticism's on rockfax's guidebook's as that's pretty exceptional customer service
Maybe that was what you said last time, when I let it go. But the perfectly correct reason why I gave you still stands - it's winter, and it's not easy checking routes in winter, least of all at gogarth, least of all if you don't have many local people helping you out or if they've all got invovled in a different guidebook. You'll notice the word if - I know nothing.
The web based side has certainly helped you with the route checking, but you use it at the risk of getting beta. It think it's useful because it tells you what people don't do.
What I've gathered though is that what I want from a guidebook maybe isn't the same as other people. I want accurate info, particularly on the less well travelled routes. If anything its less crucial on the classics, I'd be happy trusting the info of a half cocked magazine article, with a felt tip pen line on a dodgy photo, if I knew the route was a classic that gets done and I had some idea where it went. I don't really want to criticise Ground up productions, but as an example why do I need to buy a new guidebook to tell me where Cenotaph Corner is when it's probably visible from Google Earth?
So there's more to this than a simple point, there's something to do with the impression casual observers get when you use 'Climber's Club' and 'Controversy' in the same capitalised thread title. Was that to try and make some new friends, to give them a bit of useful publicity?
In reply to Paz:
No, it is a value judgement based on observations, written and aural, first hand and second-hand. I have spoken to some CC members, most who did not want to be credited. The CC Gogarth Guidebook was last published in 1990 (reprinted in 2003). A new edition has been in the works for a long time.
The CC have, at the moment, a monopoly on the definitive record of routes at Gogarth. They have a responsibility to the UK climbing community and beyond to publish a new guide.
It is the opinion of many that they have not taken this responsibility seriously and are letting the UK climbing community down. A vibrant and active UK climbing scene, which I'm sure we all enjoy, relys on the timley publication of up-to-date and modern guidebooks (color and photo-topos please).
Many people are putting pressure on them to get their act together. These days because of the internet and open sites like UKClimbing.com, organisations like the CC can no longer hide behind closed doors, they are now accountable, as are the individuals concerned, whether they like it or not.
I'm sure, because of all the noise, pressure and discussion (nay dialogue), that the publication of this guidebook (by whoever, hopefuly the CC in my opinion) will now be expediated.
I'm happy to be part of this process of reportage of this 'controversy'.
Mick
in New York
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> So there's more to this than a simple point, there's something to do with the impression casual observers get when you use 'Climber's Club' and 'Controversy' in the same capitalised thread title. Was that to try and make some new friends, to give them a bit of useful publicity?
No, it is a value judgement based on observations, written and aural, first hand and second-hand. I have spoken to some CC members, most who did not want to be credited. The CC Gogarth Guidebook was last published in 1990 (reprinted in 2003). A new edition has been in the works for a long time.
The CC have, at the moment, a monopoly on the definitive record of routes at Gogarth. They have a responsibility to the UK climbing community and beyond to publish a new guide.
It is the opinion of many that they have not taken this responsibility seriously and are letting the UK climbing community down. A vibrant and active UK climbing scene, which I'm sure we all enjoy, relys on the timley publication of up-to-date and modern guidebooks (color and photo-topos please).
Many people are putting pressure on them to get their act together. These days because of the internet and open sites like UKClimbing.com, organisations like the CC can no longer hide behind closed doors, they are now accountable, as are the individuals concerned, whether they like it or not.
I'm sure, because of all the noise, pressure and discussion (nay dialogue), that the publication of this guidebook (by whoever, hopefuly the CC in my opinion) will now be expediated.
I'm happy to be part of this process of reportage of this 'controversy'.
Mick
in New York
In reply to Paz: 'if he wanted to know more about the deal with the guide he could've contacted any of several people on here'
Really? There has been a complete absence of information from those involved with the production of the CC guide as to why it has been delayed for so long and what problems have been encountered.
We are, as Samuel Beckett might have put it, Waiting for Gogarth.
Really? There has been a complete absence of information from those involved with the production of the CC guide as to why it has been delayed for so long and what problems have been encountered.
We are, as Samuel Beckett might have put it, Waiting for Gogarth.
In reply to dr evil:
Speaking of this I have an appoitment to make with a man with a twin engined rib very soon to take photos of some areas of the cliff around Porth Dafach.
To extend that trip to take in the rest of the area wont cost much more in time, effort and cash.
I will do my up most to get these images online for adding route lines etc...
Im even up for surface pictures to indicate difficult approches ie, Fly Trap
East Island, Wen Zawn main cliff . etc ...
>
>
> The site is pretty rudimentary at the moment but it does open some interesting possibilties like a database of images of every route on the crag,
>
> The site is pretty rudimentary at the moment but it does open some interesting possibilties like a database of images of every route on the crag,
Speaking of this I have an appoitment to make with a man with a twin engined rib very soon to take photos of some areas of the cliff around Porth Dafach.
To extend that trip to take in the rest of the area wont cost much more in time, effort and cash.
I will do my up most to get these images online for adding route lines etc...
Im even up for surface pictures to indicate difficult approches ie, Fly Trap
East Island, Wen Zawn main cliff . etc ...
In reply to Ian McNeill:
Nice one, bring it on!
Nice one, bring it on!
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: It would appear from the thread on the CC website that there are moves a foot to review the situation. It sounds like you and me may well be recieving a letter.
I was interested to read that the Publications Sub Committee want to keep new route information 'Private' and not published on their website. I have never heard anything so ridiculous and quite frankly against the ethos of climbing and climbers.
For a site only a few days old and built by a growing team of volunteers I think the wiki site is coming along quite well. I do anticipate and fear the CC trying to close it down. Which would be a shame.
I was interested to read that the Publications Sub Committee want to keep new route information 'Private' and not published on their website. I have never heard anything so ridiculous and quite frankly against the ethos of climbing and climbers.
For a site only a few days old and built by a growing team of volunteers I think the wiki site is coming along quite well. I do anticipate and fear the CC trying to close it down. Which would be a shame.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
The CC has a responsibility to their members surely. What monopoply is this, if I chose to write a guide book to Gogarth - do you think they could legally stop me or you if we redescribed each pitch?
Does 'many' = you and you Rockfux boys, do I detect a bit of oportunistic trouble making here?
You are having a larf aren't you, what's up Alaim let you off yer leash.
Bwa - ha ha ha ha, you can not be serious
What if they were produced gratis by a volountary method to a defined standard that permitted transfer of quality route info between user applications.
Of the new routes at Gogarth, how many are within the bounds of the standard punter?
Bwa - ha ha ha ha, you can not be serious
Mick, you make me puke! but then you always did.
Cheers
-John
> The CC have, at the moment, a monopoly on the definitive
> record of routes at Gogarth. They have a responsibility to
> the UK climbing community and beyond to publish a new guide.
> record of routes at Gogarth. They have a responsibility to
> the UK climbing community and beyond to publish a new guide.
The CC has a responsibility to their members surely. What monopoply is this, if I chose to write a guide book to Gogarth - do you think they could legally stop me or you if we redescribed each pitch?
> It is the opinion of many that they have not taken this responsibility seriously
Does 'many' = you and you Rockfux boys, do I detect a bit of oportunistic trouble making here?
> are letting the UK climbing community down
You are having a larf aren't you, what's up Alaim let you off yer leash.
> A vibrant and active UK climbing scene,
Bwa - ha ha ha ha, you can not be serious
> relys on the timley publication of up-to-date and modern guidebooks (color and photo-topos please).
What if they were produced gratis by a volountary method to a defined standard that permitted transfer of quality route info between user applications.
> Many people are putting pressure on them to get their act together.
Of the new routes at Gogarth, how many are within the bounds of the standard punter?
> open sites like UKClimbing.com,
Bwa - ha ha ha ha, you can not be serious
Mick, you make me puke! but then you always did.
Cheers
-John
In reply to JohnBoy:
No they couldn't stop you. Yes they do have a responsibility to their members but also the greater UK climbing community as 'guardians of route information' for so long. It isn't only CC members who buy their guidebooks and surely it is only good customer service to produce guidebooks in a timely manner and make them always available.
Not at all. See Alan's reply on the CC forum.
He wrote:
"The finances of UK guidebooks are something I have spent a lot of time on over recent years and I am certain that it is possible for the CC to produce profitable guidebooks, with professional design input, without many changes to the current system. I would be more than happy to offer advice to the CC on how to go about this.
I would also like to add that I am not saying this so that I can poach CC titles/areas for Rockfax, or even land ourselves some sub-contract work - we would turn down any such approach at the moment anyway since we are too busy. I am happy to offer advice because I feel that a healthy club guidebook sector is beneficial to UK climbing in general. "
http://www.climbers-club.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=531
That is hardly trouble-making, more like a geniune offer of help.
I'll ignore the rest.
Best regards,
Mick
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> [...]
>
> The CC has a responsibility to their members surely. What monopoply is this, if I chose to write a guide book to Gogarth - do you think they could legally stop me or you if we redescribed each pitch?
>
> [...]
>
> The CC has a responsibility to their members surely. What monopoply is this, if I chose to write a guide book to Gogarth - do you think they could legally stop me or you if we redescribed each pitch?
No they couldn't stop you. Yes they do have a responsibility to their members but also the greater UK climbing community as 'guardians of route information' for so long. It isn't only CC members who buy their guidebooks and surely it is only good customer service to produce guidebooks in a timely manner and make them always available.
> Does 'many' = you and you Rockfux boys, do I detect a bit of oportunistic trouble making here?
Not at all. See Alan's reply on the CC forum.
He wrote:
"The finances of UK guidebooks are something I have spent a lot of time on over recent years and I am certain that it is possible for the CC to produce profitable guidebooks, with professional design input, without many changes to the current system. I would be more than happy to offer advice to the CC on how to go about this.
I would also like to add that I am not saying this so that I can poach CC titles/areas for Rockfax, or even land ourselves some sub-contract work - we would turn down any such approach at the moment anyway since we are too busy. I am happy to offer advice because I feel that a healthy club guidebook sector is beneficial to UK climbing in general. "
http://www.climbers-club.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=531
That is hardly trouble-making, more like a geniune offer of help.
I'll ignore the rest.
Best regards,
Mick
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
No they are a climbing club first, I wouldn't join a climbing club if I had an obligation to produce a climbing guide, it get's in the way of the climbing. It's a bit of a money spinner surely, that's all, they are to be admired for their publications in the past, in my opinion.
What like Rockfox - cherry picked routes for the visiting climber with his GTI and his way rad attititude, what about the remote crag miles from any where with way hard or way easy dull routes on. It's not about the median attitude, I think I may quote you, 'Climbing is a broad church' - that cannot be encompassed by your or Alain's brand of corporatism.
And a cheap shot - Rockfix in particular
Thought you might.
Have a good time in NY
Cheers
-John
> No they couldn't stop you. Yes they do have
> a responsibility to their members but also the
> greater UK climbing community as 'guardians of
> route information' for so long. It isn't only
> CC members who buy their guidebooks and surely
> it is only good customer service to produce
> guidebooks in a timely manner and make them
> always available.
> a responsibility to their members but also the
> greater UK climbing community as 'guardians of
> route information' for so long. It isn't only
> CC members who buy their guidebooks and surely
> it is only good customer service to produce
> guidebooks in a timely manner and make them
> always available.
No they are a climbing club first, I wouldn't join a climbing club if I had an obligation to produce a climbing guide, it get's in the way of the climbing. It's a bit of a money spinner surely, that's all, they are to be admired for their publications in the past, in my opinion.
> it is possible for the CC to produce profitable guidebooks
What like Rockfox - cherry picked routes for the visiting climber with his GTI and his way rad attititude, what about the remote crag miles from any where with way hard or way easy dull routes on. It's not about the median attitude, I think I may quote you, 'Climbing is a broad church' - that cannot be encompassed by your or Alain's brand of corporatism.
> a healthy club guidebook sector is beneficial to UK climbing in general.
And a cheap shot - Rockfix in particular
> I'll ignore the rest.
Thought you might.
Have a good time in NY
Cheers
-John
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: I found this great quote on the CC website.
1. The costs to the BMC have resulted in turning a healthy profit into a loss. Is the Club membership ready to lose its handsome annual 'dividend' and instead provide a subsidy to its guidebook production? A professional officer would doubtless increase efficiency and cut some incidental costs, but it is inconceivable that he/she could come near to paying his/her way in financial terms.
Would it be right in that we are actually paying for the Climbers Club to exsist? Considering many of the contributor to the process aren't members. Does the CC have a moral high, when someone says that the guidebooks get them a handsome dividend.
I may be misquoting an ill informed member of the CC, or idea someone not associated with the CC.
1. The costs to the BMC have resulted in turning a healthy profit into a loss. Is the Club membership ready to lose its handsome annual 'dividend' and instead provide a subsidy to its guidebook production? A professional officer would doubtless increase efficiency and cut some incidental costs, but it is inconceivable that he/she could come near to paying his/her way in financial terms.
Would it be right in that we are actually paying for the Climbers Club to exsist? Considering many of the contributor to the process aren't members. Does the CC have a moral high, when someone says that the guidebooks get them a handsome dividend.
I may be misquoting an ill informed member of the CC, or idea someone not associated with the CC.
In reply to Dringo:
My mate Nez did the Malham section of the Yorkshire Limestone guide.
He had to pay us in pints of Landlord for the information we gave to him!!!
The Ent
My mate Nez did the Malham section of the Yorkshire Limestone guide.
He had to pay us in pints of Landlord for the information we gave to him!!!
The Ent
In reply to Dringo:
Tricky one this. I personally don't begrudge anyone like the CC for making a bit of money from their publications. To make it 100% altruistic operation (ie. no author fees nor club profit) would ultimately probably remove any motivation.
Keep in mind also that 'handsome dividend' is probably less than half a full time employee's salary. The CC probably sell around £50K of books a year. Take production and distributions costs out of that and there isn't that much left.
Alan
> Would it be right in that we are actually paying for the Climbers Club to exsist? Considering many of the contributor to the process aren't members. Does the CC have a moral high, when someone says that the guidebooks get them a handsome dividend.
Tricky one this. I personally don't begrudge anyone like the CC for making a bit of money from their publications. To make it 100% altruistic operation (ie. no author fees nor club profit) would ultimately probably remove any motivation.
Keep in mind also that 'handsome dividend' is probably less than half a full time employee's salary. The CC probably sell around £50K of books a year. Take production and distributions costs out of that and there isn't that much left.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Hello Alan
So...... A route description isn't worth that much? It's basically given away by the first ascensionist and reworked and checked by someone else, is that correct?
It's a service. Rockfax provide a formatted piece of information in a predescribed format. The FRCC, SMC and CC provide that service under a different business model perhaps a bit more highly informational and extensive. But aren't you all doing the same.
Mick's argumentative attitude again makes no friends for Rockfax nor adds much to the debate, however I don't doubt your genuine motives.
I actually think a few climbing data modellers need to sit down and define what a route is and set a standard for what the attributes of a climb is, then all interested people can write to that standard, commercial or amateur and the general climber will beneift
But hey that ain't gonna happen is it!
-John
Hello Alan
So...... A route description isn't worth that much? It's basically given away by the first ascensionist and reworked and checked by someone else, is that correct?
It's a service. Rockfax provide a formatted piece of information in a predescribed format. The FRCC, SMC and CC provide that service under a different business model perhaps a bit more highly informational and extensive. But aren't you all doing the same.
Mick's argumentative attitude again makes no friends for Rockfax nor adds much to the debate, however I don't doubt your genuine motives.
I actually think a few climbing data modellers need to sit down and define what a route is and set a standard for what the attributes of a climb is, then all interested people can write to that standard, commercial or amateur and the general climber will beneift
But hey that ain't gonna happen is it!
-John
In reply to Dringo:
Jeezus. What a totally stupid thing to say.
Mick, what the f*ck are you playing at? This is all really lame. Get a proper job.
> Would it be right in that we are actually paying for the Climbers Club to exsist?
Jeezus. What a totally stupid thing to say.
Mick, what the f*ck are you playing at? This is all really lame. Get a proper job.
In reply to JohnBoy:
Err... 130 years down the track and we're still not quite sure what a route is?????
Err... 'attributes of a climb is'... 'beneift'...
Would this standard include literacy?
Mick
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC)
> I actually think a few climbing data modellers need to sit down and define what a route is
Err... 130 years down the track and we're still not quite sure what a route is?????
> and set a standard for what the attributes of a climb is, then all interested people can write to that standard, commercial or amateur and the general climber will beneift
Err... 'attributes of a climb is'... 'beneift'...
Would this standard include literacy?
Mick
In reply to JohnBoy:
That would agree with my suggestion that the asset of a guidebook is its presentation of the information, not the information itself.
I don't see anything argumentative in Mick's approach that isn't more than echoed in some of the replies from prominent CC people on their own web site at the moment.
I am not sure that such a scientific approach is really necessary or desirable.
Alan
> So...... A route description isn't worth that much? It's basically given away by the first ascensionist and reworked and checked by someone else, is that correct?
That would agree with my suggestion that the asset of a guidebook is its presentation of the information, not the information itself.
> Mick's argumentative attitude again makes no friends for Rockfax nor adds much to the debate, however I don't doubt your genuine motives.
I don't see anything argumentative in Mick's approach that isn't more than echoed in some of the replies from prominent CC people on their own web site at the moment.
> I actually think a few climbing data modellers need to sit down and define what a route is and set a standard for what the attributes of a climb is, then all interested people can write to that standard, commercial or amateur and the general climber will beneift
I am not sure that such a scientific approach is really necessary or desirable.
Alan
In reply to Al Downie:
Al, are you not getting your reply-ees confused here?
It appears to me that Mick's contributions are just helping the debate progress.
Alan
> Mick, what the f*ck are you playing at? This is all really lame. Get a proper job.
Al, are you not getting your reply-ees confused here?
It appears to me that Mick's contributions are just helping the debate progress.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Yes, it's the coherent framework in which small amounts of information is presented.
Oh come on, Mick is a devisive foil to your inclusive personna, like Cannon and Ball but less likable!
Disagree totally, then anyone could contribute, an open data format, people could swap info in a prescribed format. More importantly people could write apps to manage their route lists independant of particular services. As someone who has supported the 'bell curve' of grade voting and a 'scientific' approach I find your recoil from such a scientific ordered approach a bit strange.
But hey, open format, vendor neutral, application independance probably won't go down too well in UKC land will it?
Cheers
-John
> That would agree with my suggestion that the asset
> of a guidebook is its presentation of the information,
> not the information itself.
> of a guidebook is its presentation of the information,
> not the information itself.
Yes, it's the coherent framework in which small amounts of information is presented.
Oh come on, Mick is a devisive foil to your inclusive personna, like Cannon and Ball but less likable!
> I am not sure that such a scientific approach is
> really necessary or desirable.
> really necessary or desirable.
Disagree totally, then anyone could contribute, an open data format, people could swap info in a prescribed format. More importantly people could write apps to manage their route lists independant of particular services. As someone who has supported the 'bell curve' of grade voting and a 'scientific' approach I find your recoil from such a scientific ordered approach a bit strange.
But hey, open format, vendor neutral, application independance probably won't go down too well in UKC land will it?
Cheers
-John
In reply to JohnBoy:
Massive contribution there Mick. Thanks!
Tw*t!
> Err... 'attributes of a climb is'... 'beneift'...
> Would this standard include literacy?
Massive contribution there Mick. Thanks!
Tw*t!
In reply to Dringo:
The CC's existence is guaranteed by the members' (currently about 1300) subscriptions, the income from their huts and their guidebook publishing. Volunteers, and they can be found right the way through the club, are just that: they are willing to give up their spare time to help maintain the huts, write guidebooks, and administer the Club's affairs. Non members have also voluntarily offered their services, particularly in helping in the production of guidebooks. No-one has forced them to do this, most see it as a way to contribute to the sport they love. The main beneficiaries of this are actually those who buy and use the guides.
It is acceptable, and ultimately helpful, to question, as I have done, guidebook policy, or failures to keep to deadline, but I would never question the integrity or the sheer hard work that goes into the production of a CC or any other definitive guidebook.
Do you also consider that you are actually paying for Alan James to exist? Of course you are. He accepts the risks, provides the books, you buy them, and he takes his profit. Have you got a problem with that? I f you think that you're not getting value for money, you can always vote by keeping your wallet in your pocket..
One final point: you only have to look at the success of YouTube and MySpace to realise that at some point in the near future, the whole business of hard copy guidebooks will be turned on its head. Your own initiative, could well lead to all guidebook information becoming freely available via the web, possibly paid for by advertising revenue. Which will bring us all back to where we started over 100 years ago,(minus the ads) of climbers sharing their climbs and experiences with other climbers. Tous ca change.....!
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) I found this great quote on the CC website.
>
> 1. The costs to the BMC have resulted in turning a healthy profit into a loss. Is the Club membership ready to lose its handsome annual 'dividend' and instead provide a subsidy to its guidebook production? A professional officer would doubtless increase efficiency and cut some incidental costs, but it is inconceivable that he/she could come near to paying his/her way in financial terms.
>
> Would it be right in that we are actually paying for the Climbers Club to exsist? Considering many of the contributor to the process aren't members. Does the CC have a moral high, when someone says that the guidebooks get them a handsome dividend.
>
> I may be misquoting an ill informed member of the CC, or idea someone not associated with the CC.
>
> 1. The costs to the BMC have resulted in turning a healthy profit into a loss. Is the Club membership ready to lose its handsome annual 'dividend' and instead provide a subsidy to its guidebook production? A professional officer would doubtless increase efficiency and cut some incidental costs, but it is inconceivable that he/she could come near to paying his/her way in financial terms.
>
> Would it be right in that we are actually paying for the Climbers Club to exsist? Considering many of the contributor to the process aren't members. Does the CC have a moral high, when someone says that the guidebooks get them a handsome dividend.
>
> I may be misquoting an ill informed member of the CC, or idea someone not associated with the CC.
The CC's existence is guaranteed by the members' (currently about 1300) subscriptions, the income from their huts and their guidebook publishing. Volunteers, and they can be found right the way through the club, are just that: they are willing to give up their spare time to help maintain the huts, write guidebooks, and administer the Club's affairs. Non members have also voluntarily offered their services, particularly in helping in the production of guidebooks. No-one has forced them to do this, most see it as a way to contribute to the sport they love. The main beneficiaries of this are actually those who buy and use the guides.
It is acceptable, and ultimately helpful, to question, as I have done, guidebook policy, or failures to keep to deadline, but I would never question the integrity or the sheer hard work that goes into the production of a CC or any other definitive guidebook.
Do you also consider that you are actually paying for Alan James to exist? Of course you are. He accepts the risks, provides the books, you buy them, and he takes his profit. Have you got a problem with that? I f you think that you're not getting value for money, you can always vote by keeping your wallet in your pocket..
One final point: you only have to look at the success of YouTube and MySpace to realise that at some point in the near future, the whole business of hard copy guidebooks will be turned on its head. Your own initiative, could well lead to all guidebook information becoming freely available via the web, possibly paid for by advertising revenue. Which will bring us all back to where we started over 100 years ago,(minus the ads) of climbers sharing their climbs and experiences with other climbers. Tous ca change.....!
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Nonsense - he's just gleefully stirring up shit. If there *is* a debate to be had, it's something that the CC has to undertake internally. I've said my piece along with everyone else, and I hope they'll come up with the goods, but Mick's just trying to undermine the club's efforts and reputation in the worst, lowest, tabloid-journalist way. It's not doing the club any good, and by virtue of its association with UKclimbing, I think Rockfax stands to be tarnished too.
> Mick's contributions are just helping the debate progress.
Nonsense - he's just gleefully stirring up shit. If there *is* a debate to be had, it's something that the CC has to undertake internally. I've said my piece along with everyone else, and I hope they'll come up with the goods, but Mick's just trying to undermine the club's efforts and reputation in the worst, lowest, tabloid-journalist way. It's not doing the club any good, and by virtue of its association with UKclimbing, I think Rockfax stands to be tarnished too.
In reply to Al Downie:
What? You mean like hanging a door or changing a car engine. Done that, along with slaughterman, milker, climbing wall builder, teacher, and dumpster monkey....amongst others. And I have the T-shirts to prove it.
I have several jobsat the moment Al .
I'm Editor of UKClimbing.com. This is my full-time job, and I mean seven days a week. I'm in New York whilst I write this, although I am usually based in Kendal.
Just written and had had Bishop Bouldering published (by Wolverine Publishing).
Working on my Eastern Sierra guide.
And I have another role lined up.
But this isn't about me Al.....besides I'm off sledding with my daughter.
Cheers,
Mick
> (In reply to Dringo)
> [...]
>
> Mick, what the f*ck are you playing at? This is all really lame. Get a proper job.
> [...]
>
> Mick, what the f*ck are you playing at? This is all really lame. Get a proper job.
What? You mean like hanging a door or changing a car engine. Done that, along with slaughterman, milker, climbing wall builder, teacher, and dumpster monkey....amongst others. And I have the T-shirts to prove it.
I have several jobsat the moment Al .
I'm Editor of UKClimbing.com. This is my full-time job, and I mean seven days a week. I'm in New York whilst I write this, although I am usually based in Kendal.
Just written and had had Bishop Bouldering published (by Wolverine Publishing).
Working on my Eastern Sierra guide.
And I have another role lined up.
But this isn't about me Al.....besides I'm off sledding with my daughter.
Cheers,
Mick
In reply to Al Downie:
Nonsense Al. UKClimbing.com has the biggest readership and the most content of any climbing media in the UK.
That may be a huge paradigm shift for some, but you'll come round to it in the end. (I'll leave off quoting statistics at you....but just lets say that the majority of climbers in the UK have access to the internet and this site)
This is not about throwing mud around in anyway at all. The CC Gogarth guidebook is in the climbing public's interest. We are reporting on it. It is a news story.
More intimate perhaps and more voices are being heard compared to the traditional climbing print media - but I'm sure you will agree that is a good thing. Yes there *is* a debate and you are part of it.
I'm sure it will have a happy ending and the climbing public will get a Gogarth guide soon and I hope, most sincerely, that it will be published by the CC.
The CC forums are in the public domain.
Rockfax tarnished. You are joking. They publish excellent guidebooks.....along with many guidebook publishers in the UK.
Best regards,
Mick
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC)
> [...]
>
> Nonsense - he's just gleefully stirring up shit. If there *is* a debate to be had, it's something that the CC has to undertake internally. I've said my piece along with everyone else, and I hope they'll come up with the goods, but Mick's just trying to undermine the club's efforts and reputation in the worst, lowest, tabloid-journalist way. It's not doing the club any good, and by virtue of its association with UKclimbing, I think Rockfax stands to be tarnished too.
> [...]
>
> Nonsense - he's just gleefully stirring up shit. If there *is* a debate to be had, it's something that the CC has to undertake internally. I've said my piece along with everyone else, and I hope they'll come up with the goods, but Mick's just trying to undermine the club's efforts and reputation in the worst, lowest, tabloid-journalist way. It's not doing the club any good, and by virtue of its association with UKclimbing, I think Rockfax stands to be tarnished too.
Nonsense Al. UKClimbing.com has the biggest readership and the most content of any climbing media in the UK.
That may be a huge paradigm shift for some, but you'll come round to it in the end. (I'll leave off quoting statistics at you....but just lets say that the majority of climbers in the UK have access to the internet and this site)
This is not about throwing mud around in anyway at all. The CC Gogarth guidebook is in the climbing public's interest. We are reporting on it. It is a news story.
More intimate perhaps and more voices are being heard compared to the traditional climbing print media - but I'm sure you will agree that is a good thing. Yes there *is* a debate and you are part of it.
I'm sure it will have a happy ending and the climbing public will get a Gogarth guide soon and I hope, most sincerely, that it will be published by the CC.
The CC forums are in the public domain.
Rockfax tarnished. You are joking. They publish excellent guidebooks.....along with many guidebook publishers in the UK.
Best regards,
Mick
In reply to JohnBoy:
If you haven't noticed John, this is about a guidebook to Gogarth. It is about helping to keep the great tradition of UK climbing alive....great guidebooks help to do this. They inspire....they tell us where are heroes have tread so that we can follow in their footsteps (without giving us all the beta) so that we can have great adventures of our own.
Cheers,
Mick
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> [...]
> But this isn't about me ....
>
> Oh please....!
>
> -john
>
> [...]
> But this isn't about me ....
>
> Oh please....!
>
> -john
If you haven't noticed John, this is about a guidebook to Gogarth. It is about helping to keep the great tradition of UK climbing alive....great guidebooks help to do this. They inspire....they tell us where are heroes have tread so that we can follow in their footsteps (without giving us all the beta) so that we can have great adventures of our own.
Cheers,
Mick
In reply to JohnBoy:
Interesting to note that you seem to have deleted your last post, re Mick and Alan. Speaks highly of your character.
I'm a bit busy at the moment, but if you're ever around in Liverpool, give me a shout and we'll meet up.
Mick
> (In reply to JohnBoy)
> Massive contribution there Mick. Thanks!
>
>
> Tw*t!
>
>
> Tw*t!
Interesting to note that you seem to have deleted your last post, re Mick and Alan. Speaks highly of your character.
I'm a bit busy at the moment, but if you're ever around in Liverpool, give me a shout and we'll meet up.
Mick
In reply to JohnBoy:
John,
In that case, I unreservedly apologise for my penultimate comment.
Let's have a beer instead!
Mick
John,
In that case, I unreservedly apologise for my penultimate comment.
Let's have a beer instead!
Mick
In reply to Al Downie:
I think you are over-reacting here. At this point it seems to me that there is a lot of good stuff coming out of this debate which has only happened because of the public airing on UKC.
All Mick has done is start a couple of news items and associated threads. There is nothing in what he has written that is inflammatory in the way you suggest.
Alan
I think you are over-reacting here. At this point it seems to me that there is a lot of good stuff coming out of this debate which has only happened because of the public airing on UKC.
All Mick has done is start a couple of news items and associated threads. There is nothing in what he has written that is inflammatory in the way you suggest.
Alan
In reply to JohnBoy:
Not sure what you really mean by 'prescribed format'.
If you mean in a standard layout like: Route Name TAB Grade TAB Description TAB First ascensionist LINE Break - the that is exactly what we do and have been doing since 1998. I refer you to the MiniGuide - http://www.rockfax.com/publications/miniguides/how_to.html
If you mean using a prescribed format to create route descriptions then I disagree that this would be beneficial. A scientific approach to grade analysis makes sense but not to route descriptions.
You make some good points in your arguments but then always spoil it with this conspiracy theory nonsense. As for your 'removed' post; I hope we can put that one down to a moment of drink-fueled late night nastiness.
Alan
> Disagree totally, then anyone could contribute, an open data format, people could swap info in a prescribed format. More importantly people could write apps to manage their route lists independant of particular services. As someone who has supported the 'bell curve' of grade voting and a 'scientific' approach I find your recoil from such a scientific ordered approach a bit strange.
Not sure what you really mean by 'prescribed format'.
If you mean in a standard layout like: Route Name TAB Grade TAB Description TAB First ascensionist LINE Break - the that is exactly what we do and have been doing since 1998. I refer you to the MiniGuide - http://www.rockfax.com/publications/miniguides/how_to.html
If you mean using a prescribed format to create route descriptions then I disagree that this would be beneficial. A scientific approach to grade analysis makes sense but not to route descriptions.
> But hey, open format, vendor neutral, application independance probably won't go down too well in UKC land will it?
You make some good points in your arguments but then always spoil it with this conspiracy theory nonsense. As for your 'removed' post; I hope we can put that one down to a moment of drink-fueled late night nastiness.
Alan
In reply to Al Downie: 'If there *is* a debate to be had, it's something that the CC has to undertake internally'
Why?
The CC have kept the climbing world in the dark over the Gogarth guide, so I can't see why they should be surprised that people are trying to find out what's going on. We know that there has been at least one change of editor since work commenced on the new guide, but it is not common knowledge who the new editor is.
Maybe if the CC were less secretive they would incur less criticism.
Why?
The CC have kept the climbing world in the dark over the Gogarth guide, so I can't see why they should be surprised that people are trying to find out what's going on. We know that there has been at least one change of editor since work commenced on the new guide, but it is not common knowledge who the new editor is.
Maybe if the CC were less secretive they would incur less criticism.
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
I disagree. From where I'm sitting, it reads like he's got a chip on his shoulder about the CC and what it stands for, and he's totally loving this opportunity to celebrate a problem which the CC is already aware of, and is taking steps to fix. "Controversy"? Where is the controversy? That's entirely his own invention.
> All Mick has done is start a couple of news items and associated threads. There is nothing in what he has written that is inflammatory in the way you suggest.
I disagree. From where I'm sitting, it reads like he's got a chip on his shoulder about the CC and what it stands for, and he's totally loving this opportunity to celebrate a problem which the CC is already aware of, and is taking steps to fix. "Controversy"? Where is the controversy? That's entirely his own invention.
In reply to John2:
It's not a question of being deliberately secretive - it's simply that the CC's publishing system that has evolved is, in my opinion, completely inefficient and unweildy, and actually prevents them from working to deadlines, so any news they could issue would be unreliable. That criticism has already been raised internally as well as on here, and I'm sure it will be part of future discussions within the club.
One thing's for sure though, a Rockfax-sponsored forum is not an appropriate vehicle for the 'debate', with Mick Ryan choosing what contributions you get to see! I believe that, having had a sharp wake-up call, the CC should continue the debate internally (it's already going on), and your opportunity to 'vote' will come when the book finally hits the shelves.
It's not a question of being deliberately secretive - it's simply that the CC's publishing system that has evolved is, in my opinion, completely inefficient and unweildy, and actually prevents them from working to deadlines, so any news they could issue would be unreliable. That criticism has already been raised internally as well as on here, and I'm sure it will be part of future discussions within the club.
One thing's for sure though, a Rockfax-sponsored forum is not an appropriate vehicle for the 'debate', with Mick Ryan choosing what contributions you get to see! I believe that, having had a sharp wake-up call, the CC should continue the debate internally (it's already going on), and your opportunity to 'vote' will come when the book finally hits the shelves.
In reply to Al Downie:
Morning Al..early here.
We've run severa news items at UKC before about the Gogarth guidebook. This particular one was ignited by the publication of the North Wales Rock guidebook by the Ground Up team.
This is inspired "withey" to start this:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=227282
Several Welsh climbers then started online route databases...you know the rest.
This is a good solid news item for UKClimbing.com and we shall continue to follow it. We run quite a variety of news as you can see by our news page.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
This forum is not sponsored by Rockfax. It is not sponsored by anyone.
And no there is no chip on my shoulder, hidden agenda....just doing my job.
Off for a coffee,
Mick
Morning Al..early here.
We've run severa news items at UKC before about the Gogarth guidebook. This particular one was ignited by the publication of the North Wales Rock guidebook by the Ground Up team.
This is inspired "withey" to start this:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=227282
Several Welsh climbers then started online route databases...you know the rest.
This is a good solid news item for UKClimbing.com and we shall continue to follow it. We run quite a variety of news as you can see by our news page.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
This forum is not sponsored by Rockfax. It is not sponsored by anyone.
And no there is no chip on my shoulder, hidden agenda....just doing my job.
Off for a coffee,
Mick
In reply to Al Downie: Sorry Al, I'm not with you on this one. The CC's publishing team ignores their customers at its peril. I have no problem with an internal and confidential debate, but Mick and Alan are providing a genuine forum for climbers to express their views on the Gogarth problem, and we should respond.
If we only published guides for our members, then fair comment, but we don't.
I think that it's time for us all to forget our prejudices and agree on two simple facts: regular, accurate guides are an essential part of our sport and fair competition will benefit our customers.
I for one, will continue to use UKC on issues which I think will concern CC members.
If we only published guides for our members, then fair comment, but we don't.
I think that it's time for us all to forget our prejudices and agree on two simple facts: regular, accurate guides are an essential part of our sport and fair competition will benefit our customers.
I for one, will continue to use UKC on issues which I think will concern CC members.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
just being pedantic but when you say:
"Mike Bailey in a mixture of scathing comment about UKClimbing.com said,
"It has almost become a regular event now - every few weeks the UKC crowd decide to give the CC a good kicking over the non-appearance of the Gogarth guide...."
doesn't it need to be more than one thing for it to be a mixture....ie scathing comment and soemthing else?
just being pedantic but when you say:
"Mike Bailey in a mixture of scathing comment about UKClimbing.com said,
"It has almost become a regular event now - every few weeks the UKC crowd decide to give the CC a good kicking over the non-appearance of the Gogarth guide...."
doesn't it need to be more than one thing for it to be a mixture....ie scathing comment and soemthing else?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
The CC is just a group of individual climbers. It isn't some sort of commercial organisation, and the people who do the work do it on a voluntary basis. People join the CC to meet other climbers, use the huts and to go climbing, not necessarily to write guidebooks.
The whole discussion on their forums is well balanced, fair and reasonable, as anyone can see for themselves:
http://www.climbers-club.co.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=5&sid=63f7dcd8d539...
The CC is just a group of individual climbers. It isn't some sort of commercial organisation, and the people who do the work do it on a voluntary basis. People join the CC to meet other climbers, use the huts and to go climbing, not necessarily to write guidebooks.
The whole discussion on their forums is well balanced, fair and reasonable, as anyone can see for themselves:
http://www.climbers-club.co.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=5&sid=63f7dcd8d539...
In reply to Iain Peters:
And one of the best examples of CC guides (perhaps only?) that keeps its users informed and upto date has to be the Lundy guide.
Paul Harrison does a fantastic job (by publishing yearly PDF updates) of keeping Lundy climbers informed of what the current status of new and old routes is/was.
Its a total shame the idea has not caught on with other (CC and non-CC) guide book areas (eg. Pembroke - and yes I know there was a 2002 supplement published, but again a lot has been done since then [come on Paul, how about an online PDF update from you!?]).
And one of the best examples of CC guides (perhaps only?) that keeps its users informed and upto date has to be the Lundy guide.
Paul Harrison does a fantastic job (by publishing yearly PDF updates) of keeping Lundy climbers informed of what the current status of new and old routes is/was.
Its a total shame the idea has not caught on with other (CC and non-CC) guide book areas (eg. Pembroke - and yes I know there was a 2002 supplement published, but again a lot has been done since then [come on Paul, how about an online PDF update from you!?]).
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
I think the original comment was facetious, with barbed intent, but may have some merit if taken further.
I'd like to see ALL route information stored, and made available, centrally - the BMC are the people who should be doing this.
The Clubs need to move away from guidebook production and stick to running a Club - a meeting place for like minded individuals etc.
The BMC need to move away from the Peak centric guidebook production - become the custodians of the UK route data, and produce guidebooks where/when they see fit.
Any other would be guidebook producers should have free access to the route data, and create the masterpieces that climbers want.
>
> Not sure what you really mean by 'prescribed format'.
>
> Not sure what you really mean by 'prescribed format'.
>
I think the original comment was facetious, with barbed intent, but may have some merit if taken further.
I'd like to see ALL route information stored, and made available, centrally - the BMC are the people who should be doing this.
The Clubs need to move away from guidebook production and stick to running a Club - a meeting place for like minded individuals etc.
The BMC need to move away from the Peak centric guidebook production - become the custodians of the UK route data, and produce guidebooks where/when they see fit.
Any other would be guidebook producers should have free access to the route data, and create the masterpieces that climbers want.
In reply to Kipper:
That's the best idea I've heard on the matter - a single source for submission and research of ALL the raw data for anyone, including guidebook authors, to have completely free access. That would stop all the bickering and back-stabbing instantly. I fully support it.
That's the best idea I've heard on the matter - a single source for submission and research of ALL the raw data for anyone, including guidebook authors, to have completely free access. That would stop all the bickering and back-stabbing instantly. I fully support it.
In reply to Al Downie:
That is a good idea, but if you look at the BMC's RAD database an compare it's useability and how often it's maintained with UKC's databases, say the logbook, then I'm not sure it should be the BMC. Alan created or payed for, or something, a peak new routes site but (this was before PGE stirred up the hornet's nest) they weren't interested, so that's now on UKC. It's asking a bit much to expect Nick to create and maintain something for gratis given he's done something similar already.
Mick - you're getting a proper old school rec.climbing esque flaming. In your reply, can you just ask the Climber's Club what they want from keen volunteers in order to get the guide out as soon as possible? Why isn't the team Littlejohn spear headed who brought out the Lleyn guide, or even the Tremadog one rolling into action?
Who's the person who's done the most climbing there recently - Twid? It'd be great if someone like Nick Dixon took the project and made it their own, like he did with the Cloggy guide.
If they say that they just want to be left alone to do it in their own time, and would like the climbing commumity to bear with them and thank them for their continued support, then well, you might have had a point.
That is a good idea, but if you look at the BMC's RAD database an compare it's useability and how often it's maintained with UKC's databases, say the logbook, then I'm not sure it should be the BMC. Alan created or payed for, or something, a peak new routes site but (this was before PGE stirred up the hornet's nest) they weren't interested, so that's now on UKC. It's asking a bit much to expect Nick to create and maintain something for gratis given he's done something similar already.
Mick - you're getting a proper old school rec.climbing esque flaming. In your reply, can you just ask the Climber's Club what they want from keen volunteers in order to get the guide out as soon as possible? Why isn't the team Littlejohn spear headed who brought out the Lleyn guide, or even the Tremadog one rolling into action?
Who's the person who's done the most climbing there recently - Twid? It'd be great if someone like Nick Dixon took the project and made it their own, like he did with the Cloggy guide.
If they say that they just want to be left alone to do it in their own time, and would like the climbing commumity to bear with them and thank them for their continued support, then well, you might have had a point.
In reply to Paz:
Just from Al D, Paz, and John whatisface. Par for the course and as I'm flame resistant it is of little matter to me and more of entertainment value. Things are moving on very constructively it appears from what I have read and been told.
Mick
> (In reply to Al Downie)
>
> Mick - you're getting a proper old school rec.climbing esque flaming.
>
> Mick - you're getting a proper old school rec.climbing esque flaming.
Just from Al D, Paz, and John whatisface. Par for the course and as I'm flame resistant it is of little matter to me and more of entertainment value. Things are moving on very constructively it appears from what I have read and been told.
Mick
In reply to Kipper:
It is a great idea and about the 20th time I have heard it including way back in 2001. The problem is that the BMC are never going to get this done since even doing it from existing electronic text files that they might have access to is still an immense task.
We are actually far closer to doing this on Rockfax (by combingin with guidebook work) or UKClimbing (by user input) and, in reality, these databases are pretty much open for all to use anyway.
Alan
> I'd like to see ALL route information stored, and made available, centrally - the BMC are the people who should be doing this.
It is a great idea and about the 20th time I have heard it including way back in 2001. The problem is that the BMC are never going to get this done since even doing it from existing electronic text files that they might have access to is still an immense task.
We are actually far closer to doing this on Rockfax (by combingin with guidebook work) or UKClimbing (by user input) and, in reality, these databases are pretty much open for all to use anyway.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
I agree that to do this for all areas would be an imense task (if done by one person).
But if standards were set (not to hard to do - but maybe hard to apply?) and existing guide area authors were to apply themselves to those standards, it would be very doable. OK, there's an initial amount of work (ie. investment in time) that needs to be done to translate existing scripts into the appropriate format, but ideally you could/should be able to get that done by the existing authors or other volunteers (it works with open source software, so why not with climbing info).
From an implementation point of view, this is particularly feasible (ie. automatable) if you can exploit standards that guidebook producers (try to!) stick to when producing an end artifact.
But then again, I'm probably being very naive!?
ps.
I'm speaking from experience here having done this with the Outer Hebrides guide information that I have available for Pabbay/Mingulay.
I agree that to do this for all areas would be an imense task (if done by one person).
But if standards were set (not to hard to do - but maybe hard to apply?) and existing guide area authors were to apply themselves to those standards, it would be very doable. OK, there's an initial amount of work (ie. investment in time) that needs to be done to translate existing scripts into the appropriate format, but ideally you could/should be able to get that done by the existing authors or other volunteers (it works with open source software, so why not with climbing info).
From an implementation point of view, this is particularly feasible (ie. automatable) if you can exploit standards that guidebook producers (try to!) stick to when producing an end artifact.
But then again, I'm probably being very naive!?
ps.
I'm speaking from experience here having done this with the Outer Hebrides guide information that I have available for Pabbay/Mingulay.
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
'The BMC' are the climbers, and they can get it done with the same volunteers that they have now.
As much as I appreciate your database, I envisage something much more definitive and open - i.e. the British Library of route information. Only the BMC are in a position to be custodians of this.
You can feed into it, and benefit from it.
>
> .... The problem is that the BMC are never going to get this done since even doing it from existing electronic text files that they might have access to is still an immense task.
> .... The problem is that the BMC are never going to get this done since even doing it from existing electronic text files that they might have access to is still an immense task.
'The BMC' are the climbers, and they can get it done with the same volunteers that they have now.
As much as I appreciate your database, I envisage something much more definitive and open - i.e. the British Library of route information. Only the BMC are in a position to be custodians of this.
You can feed into it, and benefit from it.
In reply to Kipper: A truly national database - I like it, but how about an entirely independent operation, administered professionally and paid for out of Guidebook sales - the BMC, included and available to any organisation, publisher or individual?
If our (The CC) log books are anything to go by a lot of new route descriptions remain as scribbled paper entries, but a nationwide promotion on all the climbing media (and notices in huts/pubs and cafes) might get people to send details electronically as well.
If our (The CC) log books are anything to go by a lot of new route descriptions remain as scribbled paper entries, but a nationwide promotion on all the climbing media (and notices in huts/pubs and cafes) might get people to send details electronically as well.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
The trouble with the CC being open about why things aren't happening is that all too often it involves saying that such-and-such unpaid volunteer isn't getting on with the job. Now such-and-such may have all sorts of personal reasons, and in any case it's no way to get volunteers to do work. It's regrettable in a way but I don't think there's any way round this.
It's not at all a secret who the editor is - unless I'm out of date it's Ian Smith. I've said this several times on these forums on threads John2 was participating in, so I don't know why he's saying it's a great secret.
Before that it was me, as regular followers of these threads also know, and I'm afraid I don't intend telling the world why it made slow progress during my time.
While I see no reason not to put the new routes information on line (and in fact this used to happen with the Pete's Eats website; I don't know what happened to that) I don't think that's the problem with Gogarth so much as the fact that the man in the street can't get an up-to-date description of Mousetrap.
jcm
jcm
The trouble with the CC being open about why things aren't happening is that all too often it involves saying that such-and-such unpaid volunteer isn't getting on with the job. Now such-and-such may have all sorts of personal reasons, and in any case it's no way to get volunteers to do work. It's regrettable in a way but I don't think there's any way round this.
It's not at all a secret who the editor is - unless I'm out of date it's Ian Smith. I've said this several times on these forums on threads John2 was participating in, so I don't know why he's saying it's a great secret.
Before that it was me, as regular followers of these threads also know, and I'm afraid I don't intend telling the world why it made slow progress during my time.
While I see no reason not to put the new routes information on line (and in fact this used to happen with the Pete's Eats website; I don't know what happened to that) I don't think that's the problem with Gogarth so much as the fact that the man in the street can't get an up-to-date description of Mousetrap.
jcm
jcm
In reply to Kipper:
I am only going on past experience here. It isn't volunteer input that this project would be short of as far as the BMC are concerned, it is the professional technical input to create a system sophisticated enough. One look at the BMC's web site should show you that 'web' isn't that high on their priority list. The long awaited IT upgrade is still 'long awaited'.
UKC Logbook was actually initially envisaged in its early stages as a joint UKC/BMC initiative way back in 2001. It would still be just an idea if we hadn't gone our own way.
Maybe things are changing and if they did I would be happy to work with the BMC to create something useful, long-lasting and open as you suggest. However I first made that offer in 2001 as well and still there is no sign that the BMC is even close to thinking about starting such a project.
Alan
> 'The BMC' are the climbers, and they can get it done with the same volunteers that they have now.
>
> As much as I appreciate your database, I envisage something much more definitive and open - i.e. the British Library of route information. Only the BMC are in a position to be custodians of this.
>
> As much as I appreciate your database, I envisage something much more definitive and open - i.e. the British Library of route information. Only the BMC are in a position to be custodians of this.
I am only going on past experience here. It isn't volunteer input that this project would be short of as far as the BMC are concerned, it is the professional technical input to create a system sophisticated enough. One look at the BMC's web site should show you that 'web' isn't that high on their priority list. The long awaited IT upgrade is still 'long awaited'.
UKC Logbook was actually initially envisaged in its early stages as a joint UKC/BMC initiative way back in 2001. It would still be just an idea if we hadn't gone our own way.
Maybe things are changing and if they did I would be happy to work with the BMC to create something useful, long-lasting and open as you suggest. However I first made that offer in 2001 as well and still there is no sign that the BMC is even close to thinking about starting such a project.
Alan
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
it involved a third party to add details unlike the wiki ideas
http://wiki.northwalesclimbers.co.uk/tiki-index.php
and
http://gogarth.wetpaint.com/page/North+Coast
where such information can be added by the user cutting out the third party.
give it a go add new routes and information relating to a rote crag or area... on the above sites..
they will evolve with user input and interaction
feel free to register and contribute...
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
>
> While I see no reason not to put the new routes information on line (and in fact this used to happen with the Pete's Eats website; I don't know what happened to that)
>
>
it involved a third party to add details unlike the wiki ideas
http://wiki.northwalesclimbers.co.uk/tiki-index.php
and
http://gogarth.wetpaint.com/page/North+Coast
where such information can be added by the user cutting out the third party.
give it a go add new routes and information relating to a rote crag or area... on the above sites..
they will evolve with user input and interaction
feel free to register and contribute...
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: I wasn't saying that I didn't know who the editor was, John. In fact, the current state of the guides that are being worked on was made known to CC members in a recent newsletter. I was trying to suggest that maybe the club that has taken upon itself the task of producing a number of definitive guides should keep the climbing world in general better informed about what steps are being taken to update these publications.
It is very easy for someone such as myself who is not involved in the process to make critical comment, but similarly it must be very dispiriting for the volunteers who have checked and written up routes to see their efforts take so long to reach the climbing public.
You yourself used to regularly complain about 'pirate' guide book producers, but how are climbers to obtain up to date route information if the sources that you regard as having the right to produce guide books leave 17 year gaps between editions?
It is very easy for someone such as myself who is not involved in the process to make critical comment, but similarly it must be very dispiriting for the volunteers who have checked and written up routes to see their efforts take so long to reach the climbing public.
You yourself used to regularly complain about 'pirate' guide book producers, but how are climbers to obtain up to date route information if the sources that you regard as having the right to produce guide books leave 17 year gaps between editions?
In reply to Kipper:
But a significant proportion of BMC members (probably a majority, this is just a guess) are not climbers, they are hill walkers. Would they be happy to pay yet another increase in subs in order to pay for a huge database that they're not interested in?
> As much as I appreciate your database, I envisage something much more definitive and open - i.e. the British Library of route information. Only the BMC are in a position to be custodians of this
But a significant proportion of BMC members (probably a majority, this is just a guess) are not climbers, they are hill walkers. Would they be happy to pay yet another increase in subs in order to pay for a huge database that they're not interested in?
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
It wouldn't cost that much.
However your question does illustrate one reason why it is very unlikely to happen!
Alan
> But a significant proportion of BMC members (probably a majority, this is just a guess) are not climbers, they are hill walkers. Would they be happy to pay yet another increase in subs in order to pay for a huge database that they're not interested in?
It wouldn't cost that much.
However your question does illustrate one reason why it is very unlikely to happen!
Alan
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
I know.
I still think that the BMC should be the 'custodian' of the data, even if they don't provide the infrastructure and resources to create and maintain it.
>
> ... However I first made that offer in 2001 ...
> ... However I first made that offer in 2001 ...
I know.
I still think that the BMC should be the 'custodian' of the data, even if they don't provide the infrastructure and resources to create and maintain it.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...