/ Sandstone logbook entries

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Rob892 on 24 Jun 2018

Is there a way to log sandstone top rope climbs without them being classed as trad/none in the logbook? 

 

daimon - on 25 Jun 2018
In reply to Rob892:

Hi Rob

If your logging them as a new route then do this as a sport French grade if posable.

Cheers

 

 

2
Sarah Cullen - on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Rob892:

Hello Rob, for information it was agreed at the last Sandstone Open Meeting that the official logging for sandstone routes will be held in the traditional way in the New Routes Book which will be held in the Bowles Rocks office.  Here you can class them as sandstone top rope climbs with English sandstone grades. Please don't hesitate to contact me should you require any further information.  Kind regards, Sarah Cullen, Harrison's Rocks Management Group (Chair).

Post edited at 07:01
3
Big Lee - on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Rob892:

No. 

There's no option for a route type being top rope in the UKC logbooks currently.

Munch on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Rob892:

Yeah it can be annoying. If you log a climb as top roped, it doesn't tick it off within a ticklist, so you have to either solo it or log it as "none".

Probably best not to start the whole french grade debate again! 

In reply to Big Lee:

> There's no option for a route type being top rope in the UKC logbooks currently.

It wouldn't make sense to have 'top route' as a style of route since that is a style of ascent. Any route described as top rope could also be soloed, for example.

In this case we have worked out a system that works pretty well, as long as you are happy with sport grades as the main grading system for the routes. Having said that you could also choose an E-grade. The only thing we can't deal with is choosing a tech grade for the main grade of the route.

Choose

Type of Climb > Trad
Then select the sport grade in the next drop-down menu, and add a UK tech grade if you wish.

Alan

4
In reply to Sarah Cullen:

> Hello Rob, for information it was agreed at the last Sandstone Open Meeting that the official logging for sandstone routes will be held in the traditional way in the New Routes Book which will be held in the Bowles Rocks office. 

I am interested to know what the benefits are in keeping a record in a book held on a single location in an office that is probably not open all the time. Is this really the best way to communicate new routes to climbers? Is any effort made by the people looking after the book to disseminate the information elsewhere?

Alan

1
Sarah Cullen - on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

Hi Alan, the general consensus at the meeting was that the recording of new routes should be publicly owned by climbers rather than privately owned by UKC / RockFax.  For anyone reading this who has an opinion on any sandstone issue, please do come along for a warm welcome to the BMC Sandstone Open Meetings (usually held in the bar at Bowles) where all sandstone crags are discussed. 

Kind regards, Sarah Cullen

6
In reply to Sarah Cullen:

> Hi Alan, the general consensus at the meeting was that the recording of new routes should be publicly owned by climbers rather than privately owned by UKC / RockFax.  For anyone reading this who has an opinion on any sandstone issue, please do come along for a warm welcome to the BMC Sandstone Open Meetings (usually held in the bar at Bowles) where all sandstone crags are discussed. 

Well, the information on UKC is not privately owned and we make no claim on ownership of the route descriptions submitted by users. I have written about this (posted again below) but I am sure you have already read that on Daimon's web site. 

You didn't actually answer either question I asked though.

Do you think this is the best way to communicate new routes to climbers?

Is any effort made by the people looking after the book to disseminate the information elsewhere?

Alan

 

UKClimbing Logbook data comes from a variety of sources and the copyright of that data remains with the individual, or company, that originated it. The grades and star votes are decided by user votes and have no overall copyright. Some logbook entries have a description field marked ©Rockfax. This means that the data came from a Rockfax guidebook author. It also has a second description field which is where users upload descriptions. This data remains the property of the person who uploaded it, and that information is retained in the database administration fields, but in reality user uploaded descriptions have no overall copyright. Recently a new system has been established to allow us to attribute a third party to the main description field with a copyright symbol. This is so that we can work with third parties and protect their copyright. We are working towards establishing a proper Creative Commons licence for UKC logbook and hope to have this properly established in the next year.

1
In reply to Sarah Cullen:

.. and just to illustrate how much better publicly accessible databases are for reporting new routes ..

Ian Lloyd-Jones put an excellent sounding new sport route in California in the Slate Quarries 5 days ago. 15 bolts and a great effort on his part - Welcome to the Machine (7a)

He hasn't directly told us about it but because it is there, and well documented, I am able to include it in the new Rockfax Slate guide which is going to the printers in 20 days time and will be published in September.

Alan

 

 

1
Graham Ad - on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

Hi Alan...

There's a certain amount of 'tradition' about this issue.

I cannot be sure what was happening prior to about 1978 but certainly since that time, there has been a 'new routes' book kept locally – initially behind the bar in the Crown Inn, Groombridge and more latterly, until its demise, at the Evolution Climbing wall. This formed a record of new routes, written up by the first ascensionist in their own words along, very often with some kind of background or context to the ascent - previous tries, styles of ascent, the characters involved and suchlike. It also attracted comments by onlookers,  those that doubted the feat or those that claimed the route 20 years ago etc., occasionally with illustrations or diagrams to ‘enhance’ the record. It was just that – a historical record of the first ascent. When a new guide book was written (by the Climbers' Club or Jingo Wobbly), the information was available as-is to the author to use as they saw fit.

Rockfax have now joined in with a guide book, I assume (but I’m open to correction), using the information as recorded and published in the earlier JW and CC guides as a basis (Daimon has stated that he wasn’t aware of the new routes book and didn’t consult it during his work on the new guide). Nothing wrong with that at all – the information is there to be read and used and it was only a matter of time before a commercial guide book concern became involved.

UK Climbing have supplemented the traditional means of recording new routes on Southern Sandstone with an on-line facility: although regarded by some as rather clinical (as has been alluded to in earlier posts), somewhat restrictive and prescriptive in what and how information is recorded and, of course, disenfranchising climbers who chose not to do everything on line.

I was a little surprised that without any consultation through the Sandstone Open Meeting forum, that it had 'been decided' that UKC was now the place for sandstone new routes to be recorded so I asked for (and the Sandstone Open Meeting agreed that) the new routes book to be reinstated and Bowles Rocks’ office was agreed upon as a location. The new routes book does not preclude climbers from entering the information on the UKC or Rockfax on-line record, but with respect, neither should Rockfax or UKC prescribe how climbers on Southern Sandstone should record their new route information.

The New routes book is there for anyone to use to record their route in whatever way they desire, using the grading system they chose.

I’m sure others will have opinions on the best way to disseminate new route information to climbers…

Regards,

Graham.

 

 

4
daimon - on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Graham Ad:

Hi Graham.

Referring to the use of the new routes book for the latest Rockfax guide. I absolutely had to refer to it. However, access to it at that time was very round the houses, and it was made quite clear that I was not able to borrow the book for the limited time I needed it, so I had to go to the house it was located in at the time. When Evolution closed (which is why the books were at someone’s house) the book was so called archived and was not available publicly for a prolonged period and we needed a way for people to be able to continue to log their ascents. Therefore, the most appropriate and instant method that people seem to be using anyway was for them to record them on UKC. It is worth noting that the new routes book was not available for a year and a half and in that time there has been about 30+ routes and problems recorded away from the paper book. Additionally, there were quite a lot of routes recorded on UKC that were not in the new routes paper book, and I could clearly see a departure from people using that book and moving to UKC, even before the book was taken out of the public domain.

Today people can easily record their ascents using UKC, and this is a great way to move forward, as the new routes are checked and inserted chronologically on the Logbook pages for all to see and also published on the Southern Sandstone Climbs website on the new routes page. This way, authors from any publication to southern sandstone can access it easily and so can those who are putting up new routes and problems. Having routes recorded in a book for old time sake is a very time consuming and restrictive undertaking for those who are not local to the area (or even local, to be honest) to get to the one location and record. It is much easier to log an entry on UKC, which people are. They can also comment on the routes easily and upload photos, videos and illustrations if needed. Many people also use video to illustrate their ascents which is very handy indeed. Try writing a YouTube video clip into a paper book.

Whether people realise it or not, and I expect not, I put a lot of effort into ensuring new route data is correct and published. This makes new route information instant for all to see and interact with.  Also having it in one place, which it is currently on UKC, is the best choice and introducing a book will just make life difficult for all. As Alan points out, someone can report a route close to a guide publication date and it can then be included in the new guide, no matter the publisher. This did, in fact, happen with the Sandstone Rockfax guide on a few occasions, but these routes if written in the paper book would have been lost to another edition.

I was at the open meeting, and the only active guidebook author present. I am someone who works hard to help communicate Southern Sandstone issues, new route information, code of practice and every aspect of sandstone climbing to people through a variety of Medias. I felt pretty much that people in that meeting wanted to step backwards and that if I wanted to check a route then I had to make a 70 mile round trip every time I want to check the new routes book (of which I have to do before 12 on a Saturday, as the office closes after that I do believe).

It just does not work anymore. Especially on southern sandstone where many climbers come from Brighton, London and the Kent and Sussex area and just cannot get to the paper book easily. The use of online recording is by far the preferred and best medium for recording new route data.

There is more information here concerning the matter here: http://www.southernsandstoneclimbs.co.uk/new-routes.html and alos in the spring report here: http://www.southernsandstoneclimbs.co.uk/2018/06/new-routes-report-spring-2018.html

Cheers.

 

1
Rob892 on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Big Lee:

> No. 

> There's no option for a route type being top rope in the UKC logbooks currently.

It's a shame as top roping some of the classic routes on sandstone can feel like quite an achievement and it's nice to keep a log. However at the moment it just goes in the bottom of the trad file. 

I would have thought it was more relevant to be classed as sport,  as they both don't have an objective grade. 

Or have a new class for sandstone! 

 

Rob892 on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Munch:

> Yeah it can be annoying. If you log a climb as top roped, it doesn't tick it off within a ticklist, so you have to either solo it or log it as "none".

> Probably best not to start the whole french grade debate again! 

And that issue

In reply to Graham Ad:

Thanks Graham.

I have no objection to a new routes book being kept at the Bowles Office. Ideally it would be beneficial to everyone if routes listed there could be regularly added to UKC although I acknowledge that routes added initially on UKC are unlikely to be transferred to that book.

Obviously we would prefer that routes are listed on UKC since we feel it is the best way of keeping a complete record of routes. New routes can easily be placed in context with existing routes (which has always been a major failing with od-style new routes books) and the database is available for everyone to access from anywhere. 

You suggest that keeping routes online is "disenfranchising climbers who chose not to do everything on line" where as your proposed solution effectively 'disenfranchises' everyone who isn't standing in the Bowles office.

So recording new routes on UKC logbooks is what we are going to promote via UKC and Rockfax. If someone comes onto the forums and wants to promote the alternative as the 'official' place they are welcome to do that, but they should accept that this may prompt some questions.

Questions, I would add, that haven't really been answered yet to be honest...

Alan

1
Rob892 on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

> It wouldn't make sense to have 'top route' as a style of route since that is a style of ascent. Any route described as top rope could also be soloed, for example.

Hi Allan. I'm not sures about this.  You could solo any climb anywhere? This is not normally the chosen method for first accents. 

> Choose

> Type of Climb > Trad

Why Trad? It seams the least relevant style of ascent

Just to clarify I'm just curious as to why the system is set up the way it is. I think in general the ukc logbook is brilliant, but doesn't really work for southern sandstone climbers that well. 

In reply to Rob892:

> Just to clarify I'm just curious as to why the system is set up the way it is. I think in general the ukc logbook is brilliant, but doesn't really work for southern sandstone climbers that well. 

Well it is set up the way it is because Southern Sandstone has the oddest, virtually unique, system of recording routes and grades, so we didn't design it with that in mind. At the moment we have added a work around which works for everyone as they record ascents since both sport and UK tech grade are displayed. We can and will improve this though.

I see what you (and Lee) are getting at by suggesting that a route could be designated as a Top-rope route, which would make it a separate category in your logbook. I can't personally see why I would want to do this but I accept others might.

> It's a shame as top roping some of the classic routes on sandstone can feel like quite an achievement and it's nice to keep a log. However at the moment it just goes in the bottom of the trad file. 

What do you mean by this? I am actually quite annoyed by my logbook showing the hardest trad route I ever did as an E7 which I top-roped. Underneath that are a whole bunch of leads which I am much more proud of.

Alan

Post edited at 18:11
Luke90 on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

> I am actually quite annoyed by my logbook showing the hardest trad route I ever did as an E7 which I top-roped. Underneath that are a whole bunch of leads which I am much more proud of.

I'm glad that bugs you as well, on the assumption that things you find annoying are more likely to make progress up the developer priority list. I think Paul mentioned a year or two ago that he might add an option to filter out top roped routes from the graphs. At the moment, the handful of trad routes I've ever top-roped dominate the graphs showing maximum grade achieved each year.

Rob892 on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

> Well it is set up the way it is because Southern Sandstone has the oddest, virtually unique, system of recording routes and grades, so we didn't design it with that in mind. At the moment we have added a work around which works for everyone as they record ascents since both sport and UK tech grade are displayed. We can and will improve this though.

Makes sense. 

> What do you mean by this? I am actually quite annoyed by my logbook showing the hardest trad route I ever did as an E7 which I top-roped. Underneath that are a whole bunch of leads which I am much more proud of.

I agree, top roping and trad have no right to be classed together. From my point of view nearly all my climbs are top roped on sandstone and it completely messes with my trad log and also means i can't view a top rope record. 

But I'll leave it there. Just wondered if there was a way around this. 

 

 

Munch on 26 Jun 2018
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

I'm not really sure why Daimon has come in talking about new routes and French grades, as this seems completely irrelevant.

My point, and I think Rob's it that Southern Sandstone top roped climbs don't really fit in anywhere. When I look at the graphs in my logbook, they all fall under the grade 'none'. This I suppose could be sorted by classing them as sport climbs, but then they aren't sport climbs, so that doesn't really work either.

The other problem being that when I log a route as top roped (the normal way of climbing the majority of SS routes) it doesn't register as climbed in any relevant ticklist.

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter, but it is very slightly mildly annoying.

1
In reply to Munch:

> My point, and I think Rob's it that Southern Sandstone top roped climbs don't really fit in anywhere. When I look at the graphs in my logbook, they all fall under the grade 'none'. This I suppose could be sorted by classing them as sport climbs, but then they aren't sport climbs, so that doesn't really work either.

Most of the grades shown as 'none' will now have been removed since the vast majority of the climbs are now linked through the Rockfax versions which have a sport grade.

They aren't classed as sport climbs, they are actually classed as trad climbs, but given a sport grade. This is a system we borrowed from other places in the logbook system (mostly in France) where trad routes are given sport grades.

> The other problem being that when I log a route as top roped (the normal way of climbing the majority of SS routes) it doesn't register as climbed in any relevant ticklist.

I can see this is an issue.

Alan

Munch on 27 Jun 2018
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

> Most of the grades shown as 'none' will now have been removed since the vast majority of the climbs are now linked through the Rockfax versions 

That would be good, but my logbook graphs still show 205 ''none' grade climbs under the trad heading

 

In reply to Munch:

> That would be good, but my logbook graphs still show 205 ''none' grade climbs under the trad heading

You must climb some pretty obscure sandstone. What crags are those at?

Alan

Brown - on 27 Jun 2018
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

I also have 288 none rated routes

Big Lee - on 27 Jun 2018
In reply to Munch:

> That would be good, but my logbook graphs still show 205 ''none' grade climbs under the trad heading

I think I know what this might be due to. The Rockfax grades override the grades that appear in the logbooks but not in the graphs. Ie unless the moderator goes through every logbook entry and matches the RF grades manually the graphs will be wrong. This was the case a month ago anyway when I emailed Paul about it in case he wasn't aware. Linking the grades to the graphs will make the graphs page really slow under the current system but a rework on a larger scale to fix this is on the to do list.

If it annoys you enough then you could also share moderation of whatever crag page and manually adjust everything yourself. You won't actually need the Rockfax guidebook since the forced RF grade is shown on the moderation page. It's just the case of matching this to the manual entry. 

Rob892 on 27 Jun 2018
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

> You must climb some pretty obscure sandstone. What crags are those at?

As far as im aware, it's the same for all sandstone routes on all crags

 

Rob892 on 27 Jun 2018
In reply to Big Lee:

> If it annoys you enough then you could also share moderation of whatever crag page and manually adjust everything yourself. You won't actually need the Rockfax guidebook since the forced RF grade is shown on the moderation page. It's just the case of matching this to the manual entry. 

If someone (munch) did do this, how would this work without an objective grade? Would you then have the issue described above with lots of 6a/6b trad routes being logged? 

Big Lee - on 27 Jun 2018
In reply to Rob892:

Yeah I presume the grades just need switching over manually to the French trad grades, which is easy to do, just tedious one at a time. 

Munch on 27 Jun 2018
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

> You must climb some pretty obscure sandstone. What crags are those at?

As Rob says, it seems to be the case for all the SS routes / crags

 

Munch on 27 Jun 2018
In reply to Big Lee:

> If it annoys you enough then you could also share moderation of whatever crag page and manually adjust everything yourself.

It doesn't really bother me at all, but I'm happy to chip in and help if needed.

 

Graham Ad - on 28 Jun 2018
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

> Thanks Graham.

> I have no objection to a new routes book being kept at the Bowles Office. Ideally it would be beneficial to everyone if routes listed there could be regularly added to UKC although I acknowledge that routes added initially on UKC are unlikely to be transferred to that book.

I'm sure many sandstone climbers will sleep easier in the knowledge that you have no objection to a new routes book being kept at Bowles Rocks - in accordance with the almost unanimous decision of the Sandstone Open Meeting. I've no doubt Daimon will be a frequent visitor to check and keep UKC complete and up to the nanosecond. 

> Obviously we would prefer that routes are listed on UKC since we feel it is the best way of keeping a complete record of routes. New routes can easily be placed in context with existing routes (which has always been a major failing with od-style new routes books) and the database is available for everyone to access from anywhere. 

That's clear. You have sound commercial reasons for wanting UKC to be up to date and the place where climbers go to get their information. A book in an inaccessible office where climbers can record their new routes in a grading system of their choice and comment on others' efforts isn't going to damage Rockfax/UKC.

> You suggest that keeping routes online is "disenfranchising climbers who chose not to do everything on line" where as your proposed solution effectively 'disenfranchises' everyone who isn't standing in the Bowles office.

So neither solution is perfect alone. Maybe the sum of the two is a good option as it would capture all?

> So recording new routes on UKC logbooks is what we are going to promote via UKC and Rockfax. If someone comes onto the forums and wants to promote the alternative as the 'official' place they are welcome to do that, but they should accept that this may prompt some questions.

Let the questions be asked. I don't believe we have to defend the decision to use a book.

Thanks,

Graham.

 

5
In reply to Graham Ad:

> I'm sure many sandstone climbers will sleep easier in the knowledge that you have no objection to a new routes book being kept at Bowles Rocks - in accordance with the almost unanimous decision of the Sandstone Open Meeting. I've no doubt Daimon will be a frequent visitor to check and keep UKC complete and up to the nanosecond. 

Misplaced sarcasm there. You accused us of being dictatorial, I said that was not what was intended, you make a sarcy comment. Cheap point.

> So neither solution is perfect alone. Maybe the sum of the two is a good option as it would capture all?

6 billion + a dozen = 6 billion and a dozen. Sum of the two!

> Let the questions be asked. I don't believe we have to defend the decision to use a book.

If Sarah, or anyone, comes on here suggesting a course of action for new routers on Southern Sandstone then I do think there is a need to answer questions about that. That is what she did, that is why I asked what the benefits were of the paper book system, and what efforts were being made to disseminate the information beyond the pages of that book. You can answer those questions if you wish, or ignore them.

Alan

1
daimon - on 29 Jun 2018
In reply to Graham Ad:

> I've no doubt Daimon will be a frequent visitor to check and keep UKC complete and up to the nanosecond. 

Erm, no. That point was in my previous statement. It will just mean there will be a big delay to information getting updated and to the climbers who use it. Additionally, there will also be conflictions of data which is of no use to anyone.
 
 

 

Graham Ad - on 30 Jun 2018
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

> If Sarah, or anyone, comes on here suggesting a course of action for new routers on Southern Sandstone then I do think there is a need to answer questions about that. That is what she did, that is why I asked what the benefits were of the paper book system, and what efforts were being made to disseminate the information beyond the pages of that book. You can answer those questions if you wish, or ignore them.

> Alan

Alan...

It was a cheap point - apologies - but I'm afraid you laid yourself open to it.

The point is that the 'change' to the new routes logging system was never brought before the Sandstone Open Meeting - the 'change' was a fait accompli by Daimon (and by association UKC). It is simply common courtesy and part of the reason for suspicion and suggestions of being dictated to. Therefore when "Sarah, or anyone, comes on here suggesting a course of action for new routers on Southern Sandstone" she is only asserting the long-standing facts leaving no need to answer questions about that.

Whether it's the 'best' system for Southern Sandstone is open to debate - but let's debate that at the SOM.

Regards,

Graham.

2
Rob892 on 30 Jun 2018
In reply to Big Lee:

Was surprised today when the logbook recognised Glendale crack as 7a! Has someone been busy or is this just a coincidence? 

Glendale Crack (7a 6b)

daimon - on 02 Jul 2018
In reply to Graham Ad:

> The point is that the 'change' to the new routes logging system was never brought before the Sandstone Open Meeting - the 'change' was a fait accompli by Daimon (and by association UKC). It is simply common courtesy and part of the reason for suspicion and suggestions of being dictated to. Therefore when "Sarah, or anyone, come on here suggesting a course of action for new routers on Southern Sandstone" she is only asserting the long-standing facts leaving no need to answer questions about that.

Hi Graham

I'm just quoting what I put earlier. 

"It is worth noting that the new routes book was not available for a year and a half and in that time there has been about 30+ routes and problems recorded away from the paper book. "

There was no change as such, but more a natural transition to a more modern and now used platform for recording routes. It's certainly a more open and organised way which is easier and more accessible for everyone. No one raised the recording of new routes at any of the open meetings so no issues arose. Additionally, I was the only one who was working with the data (which was a bit all over the shop, to be honest) at the time. So I took the decision to ensure new route recording could continue uninterrupted as no plans were being made for facilitating other means of route recording at that time. Awaiting for another poorly attended sandstone meeting to discuss this did not seem like a good cause of action. This was not something done out of disrespect, but purely as a cause of action to ensure a facility could continue to function.  Information concerning this was clearly displayed on the SSC website and also through news stories and additional communications of which I have never received any objections.

 

It's worth noting that we're now heading towards a 2-year mark whereby climbers have been purely recording routes on UKC with no paper book in existence. In fact, as noted in the Sandstone open minutes, the now-retired new routes book was again around someone's house for a period of time whilst they were checking route information against the Rockfax Guide, hence taking the book out of action (say if it was actually instated at that time) and away from the public. Checking new routes now and in its current state is instant and simply done online without disruption or removal of the facility.

Cheers

 

Post edited at 15:11

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