UKC

Regular UKC contributor Paul Sagar has used his recovery period following a recent accident to frustrate himself by giving the new Peak Limestone Rockfax guidebook the once-over.

I've made a fair amount of use of the updates in the app recently - lots more crags suddenly appeared and I agree with Paul there is now lots more for the "6a on a good day" sport climber like me to go at, without having to do some sneaky printing at work of Gary Gibson's website when no one is looking! Top tip to other "6a on a good day" sport climbers, go to Moss Rake, the only place in the UK I've onsighted a 6b, so they must be super soft! 😀

I am either going to buy the guidebook, or get the 50 quid annual sub to the app, just trying to decide (sorry Alan not both! But deffo one of them)

Rockfax will tell directly but I don't think you can use the app on a computer (don't actually know about tablets etc. I have a cheapy Fire and never thought to check if it works on that).

I love climbing guides and have a bookshelves full of them going back 30 years to when I started climbing (I have some older ones that were given to me subsequently also), but for someone living on the edge of the Peak who pops out on a summer evening for some climbing, the app is pretty great. I'm saving weight now and not taking out the books. Last week I went out on my own to Baslow on monday to solo some easy routes (Peak Gritstone East) and half heartedly do some bouldering (Peak Bouldering) - but just had my phone, not two big books! Tuesday I went to Aldery (Peak Limestone), then it rained so we went and had a look at Staden Quarry (some of the minor walls aren't included there though, it was good Dave had his BMC guide. On Wednesday I went to Darlton Quarry (Peak Limestone but possibly only on the app - not in the book?) to do some sport climbing. Having so much info on your phone is great.

Hi Mike. This is something we would like to do, and we are looking at it at the moment, but it is not as easy as it first appears so isn’t likely to happen any time soon.

Sorry I can't be more definite.

Alan

This sounds like another well polished slick Rockfax production. It's hard to miss the irony in that 'welcome changes to this new edition is the inclusion of more low and mid-grade sport crags' and the popular crags like Horseshoe Quarry and Masson Lee are mentioned.
Only 2 years ago Alan posted an 'open' appeal to Gary G to slow down, take a little more time and care and show more respect..
(https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/gary_please_slow_down_and_show_...)

I've yet to read the publication but wonder if Gary has been given the recognition for these areas in development that Rockfax is now undoubtedly reaping the rewards from, financially or otherwise.

I personally find it rather depressing he's now shutting down the website sportsclimbs.co.uk due to the data copying that has been going on over to the UKC database from users who probably don't realise, or understand the implications of doing so.

Perhaps Rockfax should heed to their own advice, slow down and take more time and show respect when it comes to guidebook production.

Gary Gibson gets an explicit mention and is singled out for thanks in the acknowledgement section, and www.sportclimbs.co.uk is explicitly mentioned and recommended to readers. He gets more prominence in the thanks of the book than anybody else. So I don't think what you say is particularly fair. Also, only three (I think) new Gibson-pioneered crags are included here vs. the last edition, so this is hardly replacing sportclimbs.co.uk and Gary's extensive topo provision there.

p.s. a quick flick through the book indicates "F.A." "Gary" and "Gibson" are probably the most frequent words (and most frequently found together) in tens of thousands of words of text, so again, not accurate to say he hasn't been acknowledged for his work.

And of course a photo from El Chorro, coz I can!

That's all very well, but has the issue of wholesale copying of route descriptions from the sportsclimbs website been properly addressed and acknowledged? I recall a rather spiteful article,two years ago, by AJ, about the development of Ravens Tor in Dovedale,where those words of "slowdown and show some respect" were used by him. I responded at the time, as I had recently climbed many of the said routes and  I thought it very hypocritical. "Not very fair",is perhaps the phrase that should be used for that! Has there been a public apology to Gary,now that those routes appear in the new Rockfax guide? Perhaps we could do a count of exactly how many of Gary's routes,never mind 'new Gibson pioneered crags' get into the UKC logbook and then into the guide without very thorough checking? Was Gary consulted about these routes and this information beforehand? It appears to me that there has been a considerable amount of criticism,regarding Gary's approach to development from Alan James, but when it comes to profiting from a guide by including his route descriptions, things are different.Disingenuous to say the least.Perhaps a public apology would clear the air?

So what about the BMC guidebooks featuring GG routes? He's bolted the routes to be climbed I would assume, so omitting them from the guidebook would defeat the purpose of the rampage bolting? 

These are really questions for Alan, not me - I don't work for UKC or Rockfax, I just freelance write occasionally.

However, aren't all guidebooks except for the super local ones covering relatively unknown areas, the product of guidebook writers taking information from other people and detailing routes put up and (in the case of sport climbs) equipped, by others, at their own voluntary cost and effort? Wouldn't what you say be true of e.g. all Climber's Club guidebooks? What makes Rockfax especially out of order here?

Gary Gibson clearly loves putting up new routes. My guess is he gets pleasure at the idea that other people could climb these routes. I doubt he bolted a bunch of 1-star 5-6a+ climbs in quarries just so he could climb them himself, or hold a monopoly of the topo on his website. Also anybody who puts up a climb in the UK now knows it's going to go on UKC, so he can't be surprised about this. (FWIW, I think that's awesome. A database of every climb in the whole country, available to all of us, for free?! That is SUCH an incredible resource.) Why would Gary be angry with Rockfax giving a his routes exposure, so that more people climb them? If your point is about money - well, I don't know anything about that so not for me to say. But if Rockfax = more people climbing Gibson's routes...what's the beef?

The 'article' you are referring to is linked to above, and was a forum post. Alan is in fact highly respectful in his tone, and it is specifically about issues to do with retrobolting trad lines and squeezing too many lines on to specific crags. Quite a focused issue - and hardly relevant to what's been raised here.

I've become a serious climber too late in the day to really understand the hate against Rockfax, it seems more a product of beefs people have about things that aren't really the guidebooks. I don't get it.

Hi Paul, thanks for your reply and taking the time to review the book.
I said in my first post, I've not read it yet so cannot comment on the contents. I'm glad to hear that Gary is acknowledged, rightly, throughout the book, as I'm sure many other local activists are. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of criticising his work publicly on one hand and then publishing a book celebrating it in another. I'm sorry if you don't think that's 'fair' but these are the facts. 
The website is a different issue regarding the ukc database, something that you've mentioned in the review has been used to update grades and ratings. I don't expect the guidebook will be a replacement to the website, guidebooks generally aren't.. but the information being lifted directly onto the ukc database is something that should be addressed. It's a shame you didn't acknowledge that in your review.

As for your comments around guidebook writers and the routes put up by others, i'd recommend you talk to the local clubs and guidebook writers in your area on their views of it. It's a complicated and emotional subject of which Rockfax are well aware. The majority of local, BMC and Wired guides are published with the writers working closely with the local activists, communities and clubs that have been involved for generations and put in much voluntary work. They [Rockfax] have done an excellent job cornering the market and have undoubtedly made the local (and national) guidebook writers 'up' their game from a publishing perspective but you should really make some time to understand why they've picked up resistance from certain areas of the climbing community. 

I believe the BMC have worked very closely with GG to ensure the information is correct in their guidebooks, Niall has done a great job in that respect. 

Good spot. I'll be partly to blame for missing that. At least you get a description with the topo to backup the information. Interestingly these lines are E2 and E3 in the other guide? Not that anyone's tried them this century. 

What Alan James originally raised was the very specific issue of Gary over-bolting some crags and not cleaning them properly (dangerous) and retrobolting some lines in ways that made climbing on a section of rock worse, not better. This is NOT the same as criticising his work overall. It is quite coherent - and not in the least hypocritical - to ask somebody to carefully consider how they are equipping some specific crags, whilst also being grateful and appreciative of the work that person is doing overall. You are accusing Alan of something he just isn't guilty of here. 

UKC and Rockfax are owned by the same people. UKC logbooks and Rockfax are integrated together - as is abundantly clear to anyone who uses the logbooks and sees "Rockfax description" as part of any climb that is covered by Rockfax. How on earth can it be morally questionable for Rockfax to then take the vast wealth of voluntarily uploaded user data - uploaded in full knowledge that it's to a Rockfax-affiliated site - and then use that data to improve the information available to climbers? This is crowd-sourcing at its best, improving the situation for all of us. I just do not see what the problem here can possibly be, unless you want guidebooks to be worse?

As for the idea that Rockfax steals its information from other guides, I won't comment on that because I do not know how Rockfax put together their guides. As I say, I'm freelance here and it's not my purview. However there often seems to be the implication ('for profit guidebooks', 'cornered the market') that Alan is sitting on a great pile of treasure accumulated from selling guidebooks. I strongly suspect that this is not the case.

Also, it's not like selective Rockfax guides have driven out the local guides. I have CC, Ground Up, Wired, guides etc for all the areas I climb in regularly (so most of North Wales; Peak; Wye Valley, south coast) - what I find is that I use a range of guidebooks as suitable to my purposes. Rockfax provide a certain kind of product, other guides fill in where Rockfax doesn't. I can see why, if you're written a guide, you might want it to be the only guide - but others might be interested in a slightly different kind of product. I've always taken Rockfax's main ambition to be to produce high quality guides that improve the standard of guidebook writing and are thus a contribution to helping climbing thrive. Again, this is because I don't find it plausible that Alan has become some sort of robber baron millionaire from the sales of these books. So I find the hostility perplexing, because it imputes bad faith where as far as I can tell there is only good faith, even if inevitably people will disagree about specifics (e.g. how many lines to bolt on a poor bit of rock at Raven Tor).

There are very obvious competitors for this book: the recent and excellent BMC definitive guides. I am surprised the reviewer did not even mention these let alone make a case for one or the other or, more likely, who should buy which.

As a 'regular contributor' to UKC and user and reviewer of Rockfax guides, you seem blissfully unaware of an ongoing issue - where Rockfax and UKC get 'their' data from and the use of it in their guides.

I have personal experience of this, I produce guides for my local area, I post them up online and they are downloadable for free. I and my club do not charge for the work I have done.

Some folks who download my guides then decide they will upload the data onto the UKC database. I doubt UKC ever upload the data themselves, it's 'users' taking it upon themselves to 'share' it.  I'm being tongue in cheek when I say UKC gets others to do their dirty work. Of course, once the data is uploaded then the cat is somewhat out of the bag.....

Personally I am quite sanguine about this. However, if I was charging for the download and using the income for whatever, Hut maintenance, further crag development, site maintenance costs or the like, I don't think being pissed off would be an unreasonable response. This is why the producers of definitive guides get annoyed. The unhealthy side of the guidebook competition is that monies which would otherwise have been directed back into the sport go into a business. The benefit is that the competition has seen a general improvement in the quality of guides.

I can confirm that no one from UKC has ever asked me if it is OK that my material is being used to load their database (From which they derive an income) I have no reason to believe they ever do, and wonder what they would do, if I asked that they remove it?

But you must know all this stuff surely? 

Steve

There are a couple of things in this thread. I'll try and clear up this one once and for all since there is no substance to it.

UKC Logbooks has lots of user-contributed data, especially where new routes are concerned. People who are enthusiastic about climbing some new sport routes in the Peak area are also keen to keep their UKC Logbook up to date. So when Gary develops a new crag people who enjoy these routes then upload them to UKC.

A couple of years ago Gary informed me that there were some route descriptions being copied verbatim onto UKC Logbooks. We had a look and it was obvious that there had been a bit of cut and pasting going on by people who enjoyed the routes but also wanted to make sure others could by keeping the Logbooks clear and up to date. We do state that they shouldn't do this when uploading new routes but it is possible to miss. We located a couple of individuals that were doing it and removed a set of descriptions and asked the people to stop. They were fine with it.

Unfortunately, it turns out that quite a few more people were doing it but in a less consistent way which made it much harder to find. I was only informed of this a couple of weeks ago. Tech guy Andy and I then spent a couple of days comparing the two data sets and we think we have now removed them all. We have also beefed up the upload process to make it more obvious that people shouldn't copy this data.

Gary has been informed about this and apologised to, and has replied that he is satisfied. None of these descriptions ever got anywhere near being added to the new guidebook. The grades we used came from Logbook votes or our own experience. We acknowledge the incredibly useful resource that is Gary's website in the book as well.

To end up at the conclusion that this was in any way a bad thing is to completely misunderstand what happened. It was fans of Gary's routes, who are also fans of UKC Logbooks, being a little over-enthusiastic. 

Alan

+1

This should surely have been the main point of the review.

Hopefully, that has been answered above Andy.

I stand by everything I wrote in that thread and would write it again. Indeed Gary himself reverted the name of one of the routes after our discussion since he accepted that the bulk of the climbing had been on an existing route. 

As a guidebook writer, we have to be able to impart our opinion onto the routes otherwise we aren't doing our job. This includes pointing out bad routes as well as good ones.

I think all the other stuff about copying has been addressed.

Alan 

"So what about the BMC guidebooks featuring GG routes? He's bolted the routes to be climbed I would assume, so omitting them from the guidebook would defeat the purpose of the rampage bolting? "

That would be funny if it wasn't so ignorant. Gary was one of the main authors of that BMC guide.

Except I did mention them. Helps if you read a review before you criticise it. 

There is no substance to it but 'quite a few people were doing it'? I'm glad you've acknowledged the problem and removed the copied data but clearly there was an issue. 

I didn’t go into extensive* comparison between the BMC two volume definitive guides and the Rockfax guide because 

1) they are clearly different products because one is a two volume definitive guide and the other is a selective 

and

2) engaging in a protracted comparison between the two will be a) boring and uninformative on the main point of substance (one has more routes in it than the other) and b) it would likely push me into saying that one is “better” than the other which I think is a waste of time because they are different sorts of guidebooks and both are good so what is the point, leaving alternately c) not taking a position on which is “better” in which case what is the point of comparing them at all other than to tell people what they already know - one is definitive and one isn’t. 

 

* exception being that at sport crags eg Masson Lees the BMC grading and star rating can be a bit weird IMO, which I alluded to in the review. 

So I do better in future, could you point me to the reviews of books you’ve done in the past, that show me how to get it right?

Paul I think you've taken this as a personal attack on your review, when it's meant to be more of a critique of the unhealthy side of the guidebook production that Steve mentioned. I'd urge you to look into the guidebook community as a freelance writer and more importantly, a climber. This looks like a great guide and i've no doubt there will be more glowing reviews published on the horizon but to not acknowledge the controversial side isn't doing the review justice in my opinion. 
And as we all know opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and most of them stink.

I'm not sure what your point is. 

The objective of the review should be to help people to decide whether to buy the book or not. The only way to do that is to compare it with the alternatives for someone who needs a guidebook to the area. Personally I have no pre conception about which is best. 

Your point about selective vs definitive is largely spurious - unless this new guide is far more selective than the previous edition then both sets of guides cover all the routes even a local is likely to do at the majority of the crags; they are really quite similar in scope and it is not obvious which one any particular person should buy (as a local at the time, I bought all of them previously.)

Perhaps you thought my post was a bit short and blunt. Unfortunately the strident nature of your other posts on this thread does not inspire any empathy so I was not inclined to write it in a more nuanced fashion.

Edit: after your last post to flaneur I just re read the article to check I hadn't missed a paragraph or something. You categorically did not attempt to compare the guidebooks, unless you mean the paragraph about the general benefits of photo topos and keeping routes in order, which was very relevant 15 years ago and on which points all the current guidebooks are equivalent as far as I'm aware.

It's not a bad article but it's a crap review for actually helping someone decide what book to buy. 

No-one has tapped in more route names to the UKC database than Chris Craggs, Mark Glaister, Adrian Berry and myself (with the possible exception of Dannyboy who is incredibly prolific). That is because we tap them into Rockfax guides which make the bulk of the dataset that the Logbooks system is built on, certainly for the popular areas covered by our books. Until very recently the process was only one way - data went from Rockfax to UKC, we didn't have an easy method to get it back the other way.

I think we have had this discussion before Steve. You may regard money going to huts for club members, crag maintenance, and further crag development as reasonable. Others might think that creating an amazing free news and articles website with vast Logbook facility and inspiring photos and videos, and a forum which you are now using, as something of a service, especially if that system also funds crag maintenance and environmental projects. There are also the great benefits that a business approach gives like the ability to push technical developments, keep books up-to-date and in print, develop the world's best climbing app.

All of these are good things no matter who does them and I have yet to see any tangible effect of what you describe as "The unhealthy side of the guidebook competition". 

If copyrightable material of yours is being used then we can remove it, as I have stated in my earlier response. As regards route names being uploaded - isn't that actually also a good thing? Surely you are enthusiastic about the area you write about, and people who climb the routes and want to complete their logbooks are also enthusiastic about them and want to celebrate their ascents. By doing this their friends find out about them and the word is spread. Also, the central information database is built up and opinions can be formed on grades and star quality. I fail to see how any of this is actually a bad thing for climbing.

Alan

“The integration of Rockfax guidebooks and UKClimbing logbooks also means that, where required, grades and star ratings have been updated from the last edition, generating as accurate as possible a picture of route quality and difficulty (something I've found to be much more variable with the BMC 2015 and 2017 definitive guides, especially for sport climbing).”

Is what i wrote. I didn’t go into further comparison because the piece is already 1,000 words long and as a general rule in journalism that is about the top end for something not specifically long-form/in depth. 

I get that it isn’t the review you wanted to read. No review can cater to every taste, though. And FWIW, I’ve gone down the comparison route, instead of you complaining about the lack of comparison, I’d have somebody else slagging me off for allegedly unfairly belittling the Rockfax/BMC, depending on which was their preferred fave. 

, I’d have somebody else slagging me off for allegedly unfairly belittling the Rockfax/BMC, depending on which was their preferred fave. 

That has been going on for nearly 20 years but if you are writing a review, I'd think it's best just to do it properly and have a thick skin. Back in the day the Rockfax books were a huge improvement, many people seemed to think they would be the death of the definitive guide. That never happened and in the end all guides got much better. But now they are all good and should be judged against each other on their individual merits. 

But that isn't what we do with stand-alone reviews so had Paul submitted that, then we would have ask him to re-do it. The reason for this is that single-product reviews that compare themselves to other products tend to be divisive and piss off even more people as Paul rightly responds above.

We reserve our group tests for this sort of thing where we actively look at comparable products and report on a group of them using a standard set of criteria. It is unlikely though that we would do that for guidebooks since there would undoubtedly be some accusation of bias towards our own products.

Alan

Of course, you are now doing that on the thread associated with the review.

So go ahead, acknowledge the controversy, tell me all about it, I am all ears.

Alan

Haven't purchased the new guide as using the app which is good but in fact UCK logs are better as they contain more route information and beta which doesn't seem to display in the app, but better crag topos in the app.

I was going to say something similar. The new Rockfax edition lists no fewer than 9 other non-Rockfax Limestone peak guides (not bad for a company that is supposed to be hell bent on cornering the market). Should I have compared the 2020 Rockfax to all of these, too?

ok, the BMC is the most recent. But this was a single product review in line with standard UKC single item product reviews, as Alan says.

You can see comments about individual routes in the app by clicking on the information "i" by each individual route. I've decided that might not actually be such a good idea though because most of the comments seem to be people saying "I found this really hard"! it seems we are much more likely to note our difficulties than our successes! 

Thanks but the comments are only a small proportion of what are on UKC

Yes I think they are the ones identified as beta, not just personal comments, but I know what you mean. I have checked UKC on my phone in the past to get maximum beta (normally to convince myself I'm not about to hurt myself! ).

Hi Alan,

Thanks for the response I appreciate it. Yes, we have been here before! The background was for Paul's benefit rather than yours.  Our respective arguments and position are well-rehearsed now.... As I said, personally I am sanguine about the uploads from my guides, for exactly the reasons given.  For what it is worth my personal view is that UKC and Rockfax, overall are worthy, indeed worth paying for, (Check my status...) but perhaps not righteous  

I'm also mindful that you do try to give something back, (Where you can.) We are where we are, I suspect it's not going to change substantially now. 

While I'm not concerned about the uploads of my material, I'm reassured by that you would remove material if it was requested. (Is there no way to check before uploading and you be proactive, rather than expecting the author to chase it up?)

Regards,

Steve

It would be really tricky. There aren't many descriptions submitted every day but there is no way the system could automatically check the source material since it could be anywhere and in any form. I can't imagine how long it would take a human to check every single possible source for a single route description.

As mentioned, we have put some steps in to try and prevent it happening again. Anyone doing it now really does need to ignore a huge warning telling them not to do it.

Alan

Haven't brought the guide but had a quick flick through, and it looks nice.

One of the most noticeable things not mentioned in the review compared to the previous edition is the use of 'White Spot' routes to denote the very hardest routes. Is this something new for Rockfax or just something I haven't seen beforehand. Either way I think it is a useful feature to distinguish between the 'black spot' routes many climbers now seem to be achieving, particularly in sport climbing and the more elite 'white spot' routes. I do however think the white spot doesn't stand out enough on the page. Perhaps a bolder outline would help?

Hi Graeme

We introduced this with the new edition of the Spain : Mallorca guide published in March this year and rolled it out across the app at the same time. 

The degree to which it stands out or doesn't depends on the topo. For example, the white numbers jump out of the WCJ Cornice page because the crag is a bit darker than the sunny rock on the Raven Tor page. We did think of using a 4th colour but couldn't really come up with one that seemed logical. It would probably have been better to have slipped blue into the sequence between green and orange but that would have messed everything up in existing books.

Alan

It's interesting that you're getting so much flak for not comparing the two, because having just done a quick search of my own reviews of the 2 x BMC guides I didn't draw any parallels with Rockfax whatsoever and it wasn't mentioned once in the thread that followed - make what you will of that...

Much like you I've always tended to focus on the product/publication to hand within the review itself and if comparisons are to be made it tends to be with the previous edition. Whether this is right or wrong is another question altogether, but I for one feel for you as I know how much time and effort goes into writing a guidebook review - they're not easy (and writing a RF vs. BMC head-to-head review would, judging from this thread, be an even tricker and more emotive review to write than this one!!).
 

I think two people mentioned that ...

I agree, an additional colour would be great but inserting blue now would alter the consistently more between all your existing products. It would also confuse many existing users due to the system changing going against their learned and engrained behaviour of looking for orange or red spots for a particular grade range. This to me is more important so the white spot is a good compromise.

Weird that I missed this. Because I thought I specifically looked for it, knowing the change was coming having seen it trailed on the forums. 

What seems to have happened is that I had a brain fart: I noticed that all the 7a-7c+ climbs are still black spots (i.e., grades I might one day have a realistic chance of climbing!), and didn't notice that the 8a and ups are now white spots (or rather, to my eyes, small black circles) because for some reason I thought white spots were coming in at around the 7c mark, and then thought to myself "oh this must have gone to press before they made the white spot change". So didn't mention it. My bad.

As it happens, I have the new Majorca guide and should have noticed the change in that one...but I haven't used it because our Majorca trip got cancelled because it's 2020, and it was too depressing to read it in the light of that. So I'm blaming this on coronavirus!

It's funny because now I'm looking at the book and thinking how on earth did I not see that? Probably it's a function of the fact I don't much look at routes graded in the 8s! But yes, I'm sure this is a very welcome change for top-end climbers, and will be welcomed as the new standard for future Rockfax guidebooks.

True - I may have overstated that somewhat, but both were quite pointed and I know how personal these things can feel. Either way, your comment is fair cop - it was only two people (two more than I had too - I'm just jealous...).

No, that was actually my point

I apologise if that was your intent but your post doesn't indicate that he was a main BMC author.

On the subject of the BMC definitive guide, I'd be very surprised if the authors didn't themselves make extensive use of the earlier Rockfax and the UKC databases when putting that together...

I mean, maybe they didn't, out of some sort of principle of original research. Which I think would be a bit mad. Surely more plausible is that the BMC guide in part built off UKC/Rockfax work - which, I think, is absolutely fine, and I'm sure Alan thinks it's fine too. The idea that Rockfax is some unique vampire, whereas no other guidebook writers make us of UKC resources, ever, strikes me as...unlikely.

With respect Paul I think that you are missing the point entirely.The 'beef' as you put it isn't about, your review or money, but you maybe need to know much more of the history than you appear to be aware of.Try reading the StevesBlake reply for that. I am also not anti Rockfax either and don't hate it at all, in fact I have personally contributed photos and written a review or two and I own a considerable number of Rockfax guides.I think that overall they have set the bar and contributed to a much higher standard of guidebook with their work.

My query is about 'respect' and I suggest that there is  an 'economy with the truth' on that matter.Public criticism asking Gary to show respect and slowdown, with his new routes then profiting from their inclusion in a guide, perhaps requires a public apology especially if a private one has been given, as I note it has, in a post by AJ on this thread.It appears that you are taking sides on this issue, as I admit I am, but the issues are related and the inclusion of  criticised routes on 'a poor bit of rock on Raven Tor' is testament to that. Gary has put up many of the  easier grade bolt routes in this new guide.Without those routes, I very much doubt that a lot of sport climbers would purchase the guide.The information was freely available on sportsclimbs.Alan can wash his hands as much as he likes and protest that it is Rockfax users putting the information onto UKC, but he knows that it is ultimately his responsibility as to what goes on. He also knows that Gary is the man he is and his prolific new routing has not always been perfect.Taking with one hand and hitting with the other is hypocrisy in my view.It is not respect.

Absolutely. I hope all guidebook writers use it. Be pretty stupid not to.

Peak Limestone is a great example of an area that has benefitted from more than one company/organisation covering it. For a lot of the last 30 years Rockfax coverage has been the only source of information for a lot of Peak Limestone crags. During this time the BMC has radically revamped its guidebooks and the space to do this was created by Rockfax being there to cover the information gap.

In more general terms, the vast majority of new climbing development since 1990 has been sport climbing and bouldering. The effort of documenting this has predominantly been made by independent publishers like Rockfax, Vertebrate, Ground Up and a number of smaller single-book bouldering guides. 

All this is good though and something that should be celebrated, not feared. Statements like ...

"the unhealthy side of the guidebook competition is that monies which would otherwise have been directed back into the sport go into a business."

... need either justifying, clarifying or retracting since they gloss over the effort of independent (commercial) guidebook publishers as if it doesn't count for anything.

Alan

"Without those routes, I very much doubt that a lot of sport climbers would purchase the guide.The information was freely available on sportsclimbs."

I very much doubt that. A guidebook, at the crag, is so much better to have than either an at-home print out, or attempting to look at a browser on a smartphone. I still vastly prefer books to the Rockfax app, which is itself a massive step up from web browsers on a phone. I suspect many people feel the same. To say people wouldn't buy the new Peak Limestone if it did't have three new low-end sport climbing quarries, because they'd get those topos off GG's website instead, is daft. What would happen is that new-comers and those climbing lower sport grades exclusively would buy the guide book and just to go Masson, Harpur and Horseshoe...like they were already doing.

In fact in the last few years, I can only think of one time I met another party at a crag not using either a relevant guidebook (by any publisher) or the Rockfax app for topos. That was at Ban-Y-Gor, where the sport climbing was particularly poorly documented in published guides until quite recently. A couple of guys had brought a laptop with the topos screen-shotted. Every other sport climber I've ever met uses either a paper guide or the app. Maybe I've missed dozens of people using GG's website instead and who are refusing to use printed guides/the app...but I doubt it somehow.

You are conflating all sorts of things here Andy.

The copying or the text of Gary's route descriptions by UKC Logbook users is one thing. That has been dealt with and I offered Gary and apology for that since it was, as you say, UKC's responsibility to make sure our data was not copied. Problem hopefully solved.

The criticism of two routes on Ravens Tor in Dovedale is something completely different. 
(Thread here if interested - https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/gary_please_slow_down_and_show_...)
If you read that section of the new guidebook then you can see that we have written those routes up trying to create the best climbing and show respect for the existing lines. I stand by the right of a guidebook writer to offer an opinion on the quality and viability of a route. The criticism was of routes, not the person.

Beyond that I don't follow your logic. You seem to be saying that because I criticised those routes I shouldn't include them in the new book? Or are you saying that because I criticised two routes then I shouldn't include any of Gary's routes in the new book?

Alan

As the author of the extract...

"the unhealthy side of the guidebook competition is that monies which would otherwise have been directed back into the sport go into a business."

... need either justifying, clarifying or retracting since they gloss over the effort of independent (commercial) guidebook publishers as if it doesn't count for anything.

Here we go again......

By way of justification.... Many Rockfax publications (Whilst acknowledging their technical excellence) have exploited the content of the definitive guides which have been compiled over decades by volunteers. The monies raised by sales of the definitive guides is used to produce more guides, repair huts and all that other club stuff. Whereas, the sale of your Rockfax guides, and monies raised by UKC, pays for..... Your business, salaries, and development of your guidebooks, Apps, maintenance of UKC etc.

I have acknowledged above that you do now make a major contribution to climbing in the UK and elsewhere, and that RF and UKC are of value (And FFS I subscribe!). But you can't just bat aside, that to get where you are now hasn't come at a cost to the definitives and that you trod on a lot of toes to get here.

I could use a number of alternatives for unhealthy; downside,  regretful, unfortunate, drawback, but 'purleeese!' You protest too much.

Peace,

Steve

I thought many of them barely broke even?

But lets say they were profitable - what about those climbers who sent their new routes off to the magazines or to the journals, for those routes to be put in guidebooks and then sold back to them? Maybe that money did go to club huts or whatever but huts that maybe the original climber couldn't use if they weren't a member. This is getting a bit ridiculous of course, but I think the argument against Rockfax was pretty silly 20 years ago and seems completely ridiculous now. 

My first new routes went in West Midlands Rock - should I ask Cordee (IIRC) for some of the profits - I suspect they owe me about one and a half pence! Then the bloody SMC collected up my next massive contribution of first ascents and first winter ascents (sarcasm - it was about half a dozen) and had the cheek to sell them back to me in guidebooks! And the only days they'd give us at the CIC always corresponded with a big thaw and massive avalanche threat!

Consider that the first 12 Rockfax guides took 11 years and covered sport climbing, bouldering and non-UK sport climbing in fast-developing areas (and Pembroke which was also fast developing). I'd venture to say that we chucked a fair amount of original info into the pot before we branched out into the likes of PGE. Add in the bouldering and sport climbing guides since and I think you will find that we have recorded significantly more original content than stuff previously covered by other books but that fact is often missed.

What is that cost though? Which books haven't been produced? What developments haven't happened? What historical record hasn't been recorded? Which company has run off with money without reinvesting it into cool stuff for climbers?

If you do get a list from that then try writing another list about the good things have happened because of innovation and investment that more guidebook competition has brought about.

I get the bitterness and resentment that some people feel which you elude to by using words like 'exploit' and 'treading on toes'. I don't get what the tangible bad things are. What is actually worse in British climbing because of the efforts of commercial guidebook producers?

Alan

Fair enough. What I meant is that if you bolt routes and you don't expect your topos and descriptions to be copied and used then you are a bit delusional, if anything you should like it as your routes will be climbed, and probably as you intended. This referred to the earlier comment of his topos and descriptions being copied by the way.

Alan,

We are going round in circles here and I am going to step off the roundabout. In leaving this debate I would point out that:

I am not bitter, I have been annoyed in the past though....

I don't think you, UKC or Rockfax are the Great Satan, though some folks probably do....

The bitterness you 'get' in some folks is for reasons you are well aware of.  Offsetting your marvellous creation against that probably won't work

I've already acknowledged that you are 'worthy'....

If the world does change for the better in the next couple of months and you are up visiting drop me a line. These things are all much clearer over a pint - Plastic glasses of course. 

Steve

I think that maybe you do follow the logic Alan but many younger readers will not.

"The criticism was of the routes not the person", you say.Really? "Show some respect ,slow down",is a route is it?

If your intention was not to be personal, perhaps you should choose your language more carefully? 

The guide itself is the usual, very polished publication.

I only wish for fair play.

Everything is polished: the lovely publications, much of the rock and even many of Gary's sport belays (people should have better practice on these, and I know this pissed a few equippers off).

The thing is Steve, I am not, that is why have tried to get to the bottom of it.  I have asked this question about ten times to different people over the past few years and I have yet to receive an answer and you are just adding to the count here. 

We are in full agreement on this.

Alan

I've stayed out of these discussions for the last few years (let's face it they've been going on a while!) as I like Rockfax guides, I don't think Rockfax owes anyone anything other than its paying customers decent guides, and my initial concerns that RF would cannibalise all other guides proved unfounded. However, the following conversation has always stuck in my craw (it must have, it's from 6 years ago!) and makes me read the above and wonder if you are being completely straight:

"Alan James - UKC and UKH UKC Supporter29 Jul 2014

In reply to Tyler: 
 

Well those descriptions are pretty terse but if there is a problem then I am sure the moderator will change them.

Bristly Ridge appears as a scramble and as a winter climb, hence twice.

Alan"

(from  https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/moderator_amnesty-572431)

My comments about not comparing the guides was pointed as I think it's the only way to do a proper review to help the reader decide what to buy. I think in this case it would have some value, especially because in the current environment it is not so easy to just pop into a shop and browse the books to see which you like. For someone without a guide at the moment, they genuinely have very little way to decide which to buy.

After seeing Alan's comment I looked back at your peak lime south review and realised that it hadn't included a comparison either so I can see that I owe Paul an apology.  I do think this is failure of ukc policy though, if the objective was to be informative. I suppose ultimately the point of ukc articles is to generate readers and it is ok as an opinion (or marketing) piece, it just isn't what I would call a proper review.

To be clear my point did not originate at all in any long-standing angst about Rockfax, I've been defending them on here since the early 2000s.

Paul - apologies for the criticism of your article, but I do think your response to others' comments on your articles should be less strident. It comes across very condescending and combative.

Si

Sorry Tyler, but I am not quite sure what you are saying here.

I don't have a NW Bouldering guide here so I can't compare the descriptions you reference. If they are still the copied version then I am happy to remove them. A quick check has shown that they were uploaded by at least 8 different people. 

Judging by my reply, which I don't actually recall TBH, I think I was probably relying on our moderators looking after this sort of problem. Experience has shown us that this doesn't always happen though.

Alan 

😂😂😂

my first Fax was North Wales Limestone and Bouldering a long time ago many purchased since, and they accompanied and enabled first trips to many overseas destinations. The production values are amazing...but...the high glossy sheen (Of the guides, not the holds) and unified layout means that if you defocus your eyes a little, you have no idea which guide you’re looking at! I think I’m probably not in their core market anymore😩, as this is probably the best recipe for selective guide production. Chamonix was the straw that broke this camel’s back. 

Really? I'm saying that when it has been pointed out to you that route descriptions have been copied wholesale from other guidebooks for complete crags into the UKC database you have been dismissive of it and not acted. 

I doubt anyone would expect you police every entry but when it is drawn to your attention (I'm certain I mentioned it a second time but may be mistaken) I'd have thought you'd want to act. 

Hey Si,

No worries, that's a fair response and do appreciate where you're coming from - I just think it's really tricky to write such a thing, plus it would set something of a precedent.

Were I to tackle the subject I'd undoubtedly be branded as biased, so maybe I wouldn't be the person to do it, but here's my take on it anyway:

If I were new to climbing, or a first time visitor to the area, and on a budget I would undoubtedly go for the Rockfax Guide. It offers pretty comprehensive coverage of the area and does so within a single volume.

If I were more experienced, or more flush with cash, I would probably have more of a dilemma, because ultimately the big question is "what does one guide have in them that the other one hasn't (and vice versa)?". Here's my attempt to break that down off the top of my head:

Rockfax

• Selective, although does include 99.9% of the crags people are likely to visit, focussing on the sport + trad climbing (no bouldering)
• includes Moss Rake, Deep Rake, Hidden Quarry and Horsethief Quarry, all of which which have never featured within a printed guide before
• Lammergeyer Buttress and Moat Buttress and  have all received a major update in light of recent developments, with other crags such as The Cornice and Ravens Tor having received more minor updates based around recent re/retro-bolting efforts
• Lots of lines, grades and stars updated across the board, but most notably Wolfscote Dale
• includes FA info besides the route themselves
• Price £34.95

BMC

• Provides definitive coverage of all the routes (trad and sport) and boulder problems, aside from the more recent developments since they were first published (see above)
• Coverage continues further south to include Pleasley Vale
• Contains nice historical sections, outlining the developments within each of the various areas
• Extensive first ascent information at the back of the Southern Guide
• Price £28 + £25 (£53 in total)

If money were no object then the answer is obvious - I'd buy them all (and get myself a copy of Peak Rock whilst I was at it).

I know this may not answer all the questions, but hopefully it goes some way towards highlighting the differences.

Ok, have had a deeper look into this. I can confirm this is more cock-up than conspiracy. I have removed those descriptions. 

I think we underestimated how ineffectual our warnings to people not to do this actually were and we also assumed that crag moderators would correct it which probably isn't a fair expectation.

If anyone finds any of these now then pleased link to a single example and we can check it out.

Andy is now putting in an extra level of protection in addition to what we had already done last week. This should ensure that, if it does happen again, then the person doing can't fail to be aware. It should also enable us to track people doing it more effectively.

Overall I don't think anyone is doing this for any reason other than wanting to clarify and complete information. It has certainly never been part of Rockfax information.

Thanks for bringing it up Tyler and apologies we hadn't acted more decisively years ago. 

Alan

These things almost always are, I think there's even a saying about it!

No need to apologise to me, I was just complaining on behalf of the guidebook writers union

No problem - don't worry I have a very thick skin. I probably come across as strident and combative in my replies because I'm quite a strident and combative person In part this is a function of the fact it's my job to argue with people for a living.

Qué?Ahh you mean the dodgy practice of top-roping through the lower off gear?

FWIW, whenever I've uploaded climbs to the UKC data base I've generally been too lazy to add a description, as far as I can remember. However, I can very much see myself thinking "wouldn't it be helpful if I copied the guidebook description" - thinking I was doing everyone a favour. For those not involved in guidebook production and writing, it can be easy to simply not realise why this would indeed be a problem.

So the changes you are suggesting will I think help people not make the mistake of thinking they are doing a good thing by copying descriptions.

I am certain this is the reason. As I said above, over-enthusiasm and never malicious. The fact that the Rockfax descriptions are all public probably doesn't help.

Alan

Changes now made. You need to tick the blue box in order to submit a route description.

Alan

Gary may or may not reply here but I know that he was annoyed that many first ascent details are inaccurate or incomplete - routes credited to wrong person, or not all persons involved in the FA being mentioned.  The vast majority of this info is in the 2017 BMC guide and in addition is actually already on UKC. 

To be fair, some instances of route description being duplicated can arise if the first ascensionist sends the same wording to BMC and Rockfax and/or enters it onto UKC database. I have seen examples of this

Hi Nick. There are certainly odd errors in both books, and I have already corrected a handful in the app version (changes not public yet). There are some problems with the routes since 2017 since these are inconsistently recorded on UKC. I contacted Gary a couple of times to get some of this information but this coincided with the worst of his recent illness so he was not able to help.
 

We can make any changes to the app version and UKC of course. I suggest UKC is the place for the full list of people on the FA to reside since there isn’t always room in the book version.
 

Alan