UKC

I have been thinking about this a lot recently and it struck me that having any privately owned crags (where there is no formal access agreement) in the UKC database is a bad idea.

Given the exposure offered by the internet compared to just an entry in a (probably just local) guidebook it is much more likely for landowners to become aware of activity there, get the willies and shut it down.

Any thoughts?

In reply to The Pylon King:
I have been contacted by representives of the owners of a small crag on Mendip stating that they do not want climbers on their land.Although it is only a tiny crag this situation could affect possibly more significant venues,worrying.

In reply to The Pylon King:

We have had this crop up on a few occasions over recent years from both sides - climbers not wanting their sensitive crag publicised, and land owners not wanting access to their land publicised.

In the latter case our line has always been that it is better to have clear and updateable access information, that can state that there is no right of access, than no information at all. This has always been accepted by the land owners seeking to protect access to their land.

The problem with a printed guidebook is that once it is out there, it can't be changed. The presence of a web site like UKC which can be updated I would see as a plus point in any access negotiations, especially where the guidebook was wrong.

There is of course also the BMC Regional Access Database which lists most of the crags as well so any discussion about the UKC Logbooks will also apply to the RAD.

There is also the reality that publicised access, and actual access are not always the same thing.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Guidebooks defer to a check on RAD before climbing these days, only a lazy user would ignore this. UKC has been a great help on access but a problem from the user perspective on UKC is pretending it's completely different because it can be updated quickly: the site isn't without problems from lazy users either. You are right that UKC does help advertise issues and its great that you link to RAD direct under each relevant page but some problems are as follows: the access information written on the UKC page can be way out of date (as some crag moderators are not very active); few are on the ball enough to match the speed of urgent news updates from RAD (your news items have been very helpful here, if people read them). To help with this, like the guidebooks, I'd like to see every relevant UKC logbook page more formally advise climbers to check RAD before climbing, preferably at the top of the page. Finally, there is the issue of the logging of climbs: it would be better if logged climbs on crags with known access problems could be hidden. When landowners look and see recorded activity, it will annoy them.

In reply to Offwidth:

Yes good points.


This is exactly what i was thinking.

In reply to The Pylon King:



It would probably be better to not allow logging of climbs on thge crags in the first place.

In reply to timjones:


yeah but how do you do that?

In reply to The Pylon King:


Is it any harder than hiding them?

In reply to timjones:
Many climbers use UKC to log all their climbs and it would be very annoying if this stopped on 'banned' crags. Its easily possible to prevent the user information attached to 'banned' crags being public.

In reply to Offwidth:


If you're looking to avoid annoying landowners then it would seem better to block logging rather than allowing it and hiding it from the landowners eyes. The inability to log climbs on a few crags seems like a pretty minor issue.

In reply to timjones:

I agree but its amazing how OCD some climbers are!!

In reply to timjones:

It depends on what you enjoy and how much you care about your logging. Eastwood is an example where the crag gives a very reliable venue in certain conditions and as such gets loads of visits. Both methods are easy and achieve the same ends but one annoys the visiting climbers more so why would UKC want to annoy climber using their site for the sake of it? Another benefit is that if access improves one day the info could then be public again.

In reply to timjones:



Not quite sure in what way it would be better - assuming all the landowner could see was a crag page with a note that access is (currently) banned. Any information about logged ascents could only be available to the ascentionist. Isn't that enough to achieve the desired effect?

In reply to timjones:

A nice idea, but I think itd be needlessly annoying for people who had climbed stuff on banned crags when they werent banned. Itd be a bit of a historical blow as well, it can be very cool looking back over the logbooks and seeing the FA or early repeaters in there.

In reply to deepstar:

Could you tell me which crag, please? Email through site if you don't want it public... Got a few small crags I was planning on new-routing in March...