UKC

Hello everyone,

We've been thinking about creating a page similar to the very popular winter conditions page for mountain rock as it's notoriously hard to judge if routes in the mountains are wet or dry. A few weeks ago I spent a night rehashing a version of the winter conditions page to display summer rock routes. This is what we have:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/mountain_conditions.html

The hard part about creating a page for mountain rock is it's not quite as simple as including all routes in a certain grade system (the winter page just shows all routes climbed in the Scottish Winter grade system). For this new page we are currently including all ascents in the British trad grade that happening on crags >550m - a value that I've come up with after some tinkering that seems best at picking out "mountain crags".

The main things I'd like some feedback on are:
1. Do you think this would be useful?
2. Do you think this covers crags that you would consider "mountain crags"? (mention any crags that you know have seen ascents recently that maybe should appear here and also any that are appearing that you feel aren't really "mountain crags")

After that just some general feedback would be good.

Thanks

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

Hi Martin,

I think it's a great idea. Whether it's useful - well a beta is the best way to find out

Notable omission is Dinas Cromlech. Maybe you could scale the altitude threshold with latitude? (i.e. the altitude threshold increases the further North the crag is).

In reply to SenzuBean:

It's a tough call that, as I wouldn't necessarily classify the Cromlech - or any of the low-lying crags in the Llanberis Pass - as mountain crags, at least not when compared to Cloggy, Cyrn Las, or Craig yr Ysfa.

Guess a similar analogy north of the border would be Glen Nevis, it's valley cragging really - quick approach, easy access, and quite reliable conditions when compared to the high stuff.

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

V. useful, but as Rob says capturing a fair amount of non-mountain crags (e.g. glen clova). Would be curious to see the >600m, >650m for comparison. As with the winter cons page imagine the list length will oscillate between very few (monsoon/thaw) and loads (dry weekend/full winter). Regional filters very useful - can these be saved as a preference?

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

Can you remove Australia? As that doesn't fit within the criteria of a mountain crag?

I'm of the opinion that although the Cromlech isn't in the same league as Cloggy, Craig Yr Ysfa or Llech Ddu (The latter two aren't on the list but to my mind should be?) it wouldn't be wholly inappropriate to include it... the corner and wall to its right suffer from drainage so its always good to know if its been climbed on recently if you are wishing to do one of those routes.

To me the list looks a little small, so maybe the altitude could do with being dropped a bit? It feels like there are some missing in N. Wales and I am sure there must be quite a few missing from the Lakes and Scotland?

Great idea though!!

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

I'm totally thick when it comes to techy things like this, but would it be an idea to add extra tick boxes to the current logbook entries whereby when I've logged the partner and style details I can tick a box for " bone dry/damp/ minging" and one perhaps for vegetation- " brush/secateurs/chainsaw".

In reply to Duncan Campbell:

For some reason it had been registered with an altitude of 1200m. Considering Snowdon is only 1085m - and generally considered to be the highest mountain in Wales - we've changed it, unless something tectonic has happened since I was last in Wales.

Thanks for the feedback.

Duncan - Australia I've just removed. The crag altitude was set to 1200m! Thanks for that

Viv - What I'll maybe do is have an altitude filter that the user can select down to about 450m. In fact I'm pretty keen on that idea so I'll try adding that right now. With regards to saving, I could possibly sort something out that when you set a filter and return that filter will be saved. Leave that one with me and I'll get back to that at some point.

Update: Altitude filters have now been added.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:
Very good idea. Most proper mountain crags need more traffic these days so a running record of climbable conditions would be highly useful. The bit we need most is when northern into NE aspect crags come in (except maybe early or late season). On the mini mountains of grtistone, make sure all the high N to NE facing grit crags are in ... less need to bother with other aspects unless they are unusual in some respct (ie probably delete Downfall Area, except Great Buttess which is useful, and certainly delete Dovestones Tor but include Kinder North, Ravenstones, Wimberry, Wilderness, Shining Clough. Oh and add tree shaded slightly lower north facing if you can: Guisecliffe, Hawcliffe, Horsehold Scout, etc.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

Thanks, altitude + region filter does great job of honing in on real mountain crags. Re regional filters would maybe be useful if could select combinations - e.g. Scotland + lakes, or wales + pennines + lakes? Can the chosen filter options (days, altitude, region) be displayed above the list?

Cheers

In reply to vscott:


Sounds like a good idea. Try that. Is that what you are looking for?


Another good idea. I'll see about coming back to that one.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

We were climbing at Hind Crag at the weekend, which at 350m is a fair way below your altitude threshold but "feels" very much like a mountain crag, with long routes (up to 188m). Certainly more of a mountain crag than somewhere like Gaitkins, which qualifies due to altitude but has more the feel of a valley outcrop on top of a hill!

I guess it's inevitable that you'll miss some that ought to be there, and include some that don't really fit

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

Another excellent addition!

What would also be nice is a Euro ice page too, its a bit tedious saying the same things over and over again in threads for Rjukan, cogne etc.

And then of course we would need one for the Alps in summer...

Then the Himalayas

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

Great idea, should really help to get more people on mountain routes that need the traffic.


An Alpine conditions page as proposed by others would be another great addition, could be Alpine summer and Alpine winter conditions pages.
Also, when are we going to have Alpine routes added to the "recent top ascents" page?

In reply to Martin Haworth:




Seconded!

In reply to Martin Haworth:

The Alpine page is coming. It's another I threw together one night a few weeks ago. When I get round to checking it over with a few folk and polishing it off I'll make another post about it.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

FFS Martin, stop messing around with that silly Android App and start working on the good stuff

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

Never mind all that, how about mending the UKC mapping pages...

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

yeah f*ck the app off Martin - guidebooks work just fine - this sort of stuff would really revolutionise my climbing!!

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

Bear in mind that just because a route has been climbed does not necessarily mean it was dry/clean!

In reply to Michael Gordon:
I said this when I updated the winter conditions page so I'll repeat it here. Don't base plans solely on what is reported on UKC.

The conditions page is not, and never was, intended as definitive guide as to what is "in" and what isn't. It's just another tool you can use to help you make decisions on where might be good. Look at the comments people are leaving, use it with a weather forecast and apply common sense.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

Great idea and crags look about right.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

How about adding a drop box / menu or a text input into the logbook where we can give a brief indication of the conditions on a route.... E.g. Wet, dry, partially wet etc that can show up as green, red, yellow next to the ascents.

Would also work for an ice page: brittle, wet, butter...

Or UK winter: black, perfect... Not in condition etc

Or the alps: errr, snow? No snow?

In reply to GarethSL:

It's an idea I've had as well which I think it would be exceptionally useful. I've not got the time to develop something like that right now as I'm pretty busy with the Rockfax Android app. I'll have a chat with the team though and see what they think.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:
Nice work Martin!

Speaking from my experience of Wales, as mentioned I'd perhaps add in Cyrn Las and Llech Ddu as mountain crags. And for a left field choice, although low down in the Pass, if the routes up the centre of Craig Ddu are dry and climbable, then anything is...

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

Half of me says good idea. The other half says too much easy information. I want routes to get enough traffic to stay clean, but I like to have a crag and certainly a route to myself.........

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

1. Excellent idea if it can be done Martin - and your trial page is good.
2. I wouldn't worry too much about the odd 'not very mountain-y' crag creeping in if it means getting info on stuff like Etive Slabs, but if this is too much of a pain (bringing in too many other crags) then just go for it.

Overall, I think anything that gets more people climbing mountain routes (and keeping them clean) is a good thing. Even if the end solution on here isn't perfect it'll be a big help.

Ta,
D.

In reply to Robert Durran:
I've had this debate with a mate who is of the same opinion. We saw one other party on the Shelterstone on Monday and it was a beautiful and scorching hot day. I hardly think this page is going to mean you'll be queuing for mountain routes, especially in Scotland.

As you say, a lot of the mountain routes could do with some traffic, but you also want the solitude that comes with a day out on these routes, and I totally understand that. If bumping into some folk every once in a while is the cost for clean mountain routes, I'll take it. There's always going to be certain crags (most venues away from the honeypot crags?) that will offer a more adventurous and remote feel away from people, and that's a good thing.

The other point I'd raise is some people think this page removes the adventure of going out, having a look and seeing what comes of the day. Personally I'd disagree. I wouldn't say looking at a weather forecast removes any of the adventure from a trip to these places, if anything it encourages it. I think it's the same with this resource. It's essentially a tiny amount of information your seeing - someone has climbed a route. Hopefully that will encourage people to go out, visit these places and have an adventure instead of just sitting talking about it.

(Robert - I include the last bit even though I know this isn't what your getting on about, it's just other have and I didn't want to post twice.)

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:


It's different in Winter, as there aren't really any roadside Winter crags ( only one I can think of ), whereas in Summer mountain routes are vying for attention with a lot of stuff that is far more accessible.

In summary, I don't think it's going to start getting crowded at Carnmor any time soon.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

How long do ascents stay on the list? Sorry if I've missed this?

In reply to jon:

By default, up to 5 days. I'll add something to make that clear. You can use the filtering options to change that though. Just click the filter button on the right.

In reply to planetmarshall:


That is an excellent point. Routes you have to walk to are often getting dirty because everyone is getting distracted by the easy options or are bouldering or bolt clipping. I do have (nostalgic?) misgivings about the easy access to winter information resulting in mobbed honeypots and partially removing the mystique and required nose for the more obscure, but you are right - I doubt this rock thing will cause too many problems.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

How about a "mountain crag yes/no" flag against each crag that could be set by the moderator. You could default to Yes if above 550m, but this would give an easy way of including lower crag and excluding higher ones.

It would also provide the basis of a whole series of threads complaining about the inclusion/exclusion of particular crags.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

Good idea.

The altitude thing is a funny one however. Take the example of Corvus in the Lakes (Raven Crag, Borrowdale) which doesn't feature as, surprisingly, the crag is at 330m per UKC. However, personally, I'd have said this was a mountain crag.

Also High Crag in Buttermere wouldn't qualify - alt of 450m apparently.

In reply to Skyfall:


A more useful criterion might be time or distance from the road (and being in a mountain area) rather than height.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:



Yep - that's great. thanks

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

Excellent idea! I really would like to see it continued. I am constantly browsing the winter equivalent.

I can remember at least 2 occasions when either my partner or I had to repeat routes (Spartan Slab in my case and Ardverikie Wall for my mate Clare) due to my preferred routes running with water.

It's bound to help,

cheers,

M

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

"It would also provide the basis of a whole series of threads complaining about the inclusion/exclusion of particular crags." Brilliant no traffic is bad traffic for the advertisers....

I think your other idea of a tag or similar for crag mods is a great one. (I'd say default off but with a possibility to turn on) .... plenty of low wooded crags and even low north facing quarries would benefit.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

I have some time tonight to work on this. If anyone has any additional input on the conditions page let me know here.

In reply to Offwidth:

It seems like the logical conclusion of this is just to have all crags in? I mean you might say it's "obvious" whether or not stanage is "in" but from 200 miles away and looking at forecast it's not necessarily.

So the ultimate would justbe to have a recent ascents page with many user filterable options such as area, altitude, aspect...?

In reply to bigbobbyking:
I hear what you're saying but there are a number of things I don't like about this.

1. The page becomes to generic and the user needs to understand more details of how to configure the filters to get the results they need. Not that hard, but some people might struggle.
2. There will almost certainly be filter configurations that return a massive set of results. Too much information as just as useless. Page load time would be horrible. The list goes on really.
3. It's going to be open to exploit. It would be stupidly easy for someone to harvest important logbook data over time.

The list goes on really, but that's the reasons that immediately jump out at me.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

Ive been wanting a summer conditions page for ages, great idea! Looking forwards to this very much.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

Great idea, how about only listing climbs that have a technical grade, others may have been climbed in wet conditions?

In reply to ellis:

So exclude all the easier mods, diffs, vdiffs etc? I'll probably keep them on there because a lot of the time the comments when climbed in the wet say so, which is good feedback.

After looking at this page over the last few weeks its clear when there has been rain across the country as all the routes listed are in this grade range.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

Great idea!

Just one thing, not sure if anyone has mentioned this already but is it possible to be able to access the mountain rock conditions page via the logbooks drop down?

Same for the new alpine conditions page?

In reply to Elsier:


Yeah, ill sort something out for that today. Might build a landing page for the conditions pages and link to that just so we dont clutter the menu too much. It's on the todo anyway.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:

Martin, is it just possible to set this up for any crag/area? I would actually use it most for peak limestone! However it's obviously useful for mountain rock if not.

The existing beta version would be improved if it was split/subtitled by area or country.

In reply to ellis:


Can you only include climbs below HVS as I'm not interested in anything harder?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I'll add a grade filter tomorrow.