UKC

We would like to get a bit of feedback on the idea of a scheme for a single registration card for climbing walls.

Proposal

You apply once to get a single card with a QR or barcode that allows you access into all/most climbing walls in the UK without you having to fill out their own forms and complete a competency test each time you visit a new wall.

How it would work

You would initially fill out a form online with all your details and then carry out the competency test at the first wall you went to. You would then be given a card. Each time you visited walls after that you could just flash the card and get in as if you were a regular visitor.

Questions

1. Would such a scheme be of interest to you?
2. Would you pay to use such a scheme? If so how much?

NOTE - Any charge would not replace the membership/joining fee that some walls ask for.

We are just looking for general feedback to see what people think. The ideas are very flexible around this so you can ask specific questions but I probably won't have an answer. We are mostly interested in finding out the interest level amongst users of climbing walls.

Alan

PS. We are aware that some other organisations are working on this idea. This question isn't specifically being asked for UKClimbing.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

1 Yes

2 Yes. The fair break even admin cost plus a small contingency amount. A good way to administer the scheme would be to assess annual costs and give any remaining 'profit' to climbing related charities. 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I saw this question on another forum but it isn't specific enough.

The key point it isn't clear on is whether getting this card would save me money i.e. if I pay a few quid every year for the card can I climb at a bunch of different walls with no per-wall registration charges so that overall I come out ahead.    If I have to pay for the card and the normal wall registration charges so all it saves is doing a belay test then there is no point.

I'd also prefer to have something like this as a benefit of MCofS/BMC membership than a separate scheme with an extra cost and another card to carry.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Are you saying it would get rid of:

1. Filling in forms to give the wall your details
2. Signing consent forms and/or waivers
3. Paying a membership fee or joining fee or whatever each wall calls it
4. Taking a competency test

For every wall in the country?

If yes, I'll first salute the cat-herding genius who makes it happen and then sign up. I'd be willing to pay a small yearly fee but probably not all that much because I don't visit new walls very much these days. Most walls I would visit already have me on their database, even if it's from a decade ago. Given the queues and admin that it potentially saves walls, it would seem more logical for them to pay a small fee to sign up.

In reply to Luke90:

This would not replace a membership/joining fee which are charged by the walls at their discretion. It would also only work on walls that joined the scheme although that is anticipated to be a lot of them.

Alan

 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I'd pay a small annual fee to cease having to completely re-register with the depot every year. Let alone anything else. Oh and the (lack of) migration of data onto new systems is very frustrating. 

Depends how much though. You don't visit new walls all that often. 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

If all it saves is a one-off competency test the first time I go to a new wall, and costs extra, I'm not interested. I've had to do two competency tests in the last six years, and for one of those was only asked how many pints I could have in the bar before climbing. If it saved me paying additional annual registration fees, I'd be more interested. 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Yes I'd be interested (so long as getting one is a one-off; less so if one has to renew it yearly).

I guess I'd accept a £5 "admin fee" to get such a card, but as a first pass I'd expect walls to cover the costs of it, presuming that it saves them money (less admin, fewer competency tests).

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Sounds like a great idea, but one that should be funded by the walls, rather than the climbers.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Count me in if this absolutely does not involve a f**kin iPad on the counter at the wall. 

In reply to whenry:

what was the correct answer in case I'm asked

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Yes, I'm interested. Is the stumbling block whether the insurers of one wall accepting the competency test of another given the variation in them. I've done iPad videos to laminated flash cards.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

If I have to tap away at the same ROCKGYMPRO app on a cocking iPad one more cocking time I'm going to lose it.

 

Well, not really, but I have fat fingers.

 

Shurely climbing walls could be persuaded to offer free registration for people with these cards? I've already lost the cards for half of the walls I've been to and just resort to "hullo, sorry, can you search by surname. What do you mean you changed your system this year? To iPads? Again? Oh, ok."

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I like the theory and would be willing to pay a small amount just to avoid the  hassle of registration/tests but since I use only three or four walls it would have to be a fairly nominal amount.

The only downside would be missing out on the fun of watching your E6-pioneering mate with decades of experience having his competence questioned by a bairn who has not started shaving yet and does not actually recognise a bowline (tho he did later insist he had heard of them, just never seen one)

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

This would make great sense if you could solve the problem of registration fees (tax) at walls.

I'm working away from home over the next few days and was hoping to climb. The local walls in the towns where I'll be staying charge between £5-10 to register!

Im not going to pay £15-20 to climb  at somewhere I will likely never visit again...

 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Yes a good idea if it could be organised via the BMC, so  that it was regulated and hopefully only one fee applied. I've been on about this for some time, and often wonder why do some walls have an annual registration charge and others don't.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Did you overhear me at MCC last week? Why has this taken so long!? I came to the conclusion that it was to do with insurance and every wall had to have you registered their way in order to comply. I would be interested depending on cost, took me about 30 mins to go through the whole process at MCC. Having to register every year at the Depot is very frustrating too. 

In reply to neuromancer:

Quite. I'd contribute to a fund for walls to install proper keyboards on their fscking ipads

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

1. No, of no interest to me

2. I don't see filling in a form for a wall I haven't been to before as to onerous, so I wouldn't pay anything.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

A good idea in principle, but if it was a cost in addition to admin fees / joining fees it would be of little use to me. I probably use 7 different wall within one year and spend less than 15 mins (if that) form filling in that period. But I must say the iPads at the Depot are a pain in the arse to use, so I'm sure there will be plenty of interest. 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Inevitably this means sharing data. How will that work under GDPR?

In reply to Hidden:

Always struck me as a very odd approach, to actively discourage visiting or occasional climbers from seeing how good your facility is by charging them considerably more than they charge most others. Most business tends to do the opposite, i.e. to discount first purchases in the hope of gaining more regular business as a result.

I've lost count of the number of times I've not visited some walls, when I would like to have done so, simply because it would cost so much for a one-off visit.

In reply to AlanLittle:

Oh good god, yes!!!!!!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I think it would need an umbrella organisation, explicitly referenced during the data collection or card issuance process, to which data holding rights are voluntarily granted.

I don't see it as being a big hurdle in theory. Which umbrella organisation it is could potentially make a big difference to people's willingness to take part, but if it was the BMC or a trusted non-profit of some kind that pledged not to sell your data under any circumstances then I think it could be workable.

In reply to john arran:

Data sharing is not just about GDPR though, why would I want to share my members data with, for example, the Depot, when they are looking at opening a wall in Sheffield.

 

In reply to john arran:

Yeah but John, that wall in Baghdad was outside the safe zone so you would have needed at least 3 Hummers packed full of Marines

 

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

No - data privacy pips convenience

 

and no to annual membership charges - WTF are these justified by?

In reply to john arran:

Well I would have to re-register all of my members and check that they have given me their explicit permission to pass on their data. That's a pretty big hurdle. And every wall that you are already registered would have to do the same.

 

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

You wouldn't necessarily be sharing data, only respecting an issued ID card. There's no reason why a competitor should know anything about anybody that doesn't turn up at their facility with a card. Of course, there should need to be a facility by which presented cards could be verified, presumably online and by means of a scanned/typed ID no. being sent to an online portal and coming back with a yes/no answer as to whether it's genuine.

In reply to gravy:

We don't charge an annual membership/registration fee so I cannot answer on other's behalf.

In reply to john arran:

Fair enough, you know a lot more about how databases operate than I do

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Not sure every wall would need to do the same. One verification that a valid card has been issued and the details are the same as your records show should be enough. If it's a customer that hasn't been to your wall before you'd probably need to download the key data from the central store and retain it on your system, but that should be a whole lot easier than forcing people to register afresh.

The difficulties I see would be when it comes to changed addresses or other data, where data synchronisation could get tricky.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I don't think the proposed system would involve any climbing wall having to share their database with any other wall. My reading was that some independent third party would hold details of whichever climbers choose to sign up to their scheme and when one of those climbers turns up to the Works, you would scan their card and access that climber's data from the third party. If that same climber then visited the new Depot, the Depot would also get their data from the third party but they would have collected that data anyway without the new scheme, just with more onerous paperwork. I can't imagine why it would be set up in a way that required you to share any of your existing customer data and, in fact, that would surely be prevented by GDPR. Have I missed your point?

Edit: This conversation largely seems to have happened before I actually posted.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

It sounds a bit pointless really.. how often do folk visit new walls, and how long does it really take to fill in a membership form and tie a figure 8/demonstrate belaying? Certainly doesn’t seem worth paying for, especially if you still have to pay the joining fee at any new walls.

In reply to FreshSlate:

You'll still have to do that but you would you basically just be putting your signature to the waiver, you wouldn't need to put in your name/address/details again.

In reply to john arran:

Does anyone really see a huge black market in fake cards to get into walls?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

As the parent of a young climber this would be a godsend.  We probably visit about 15-20 different walls a year and some we have to re register for each year.  A card would save me a pita however other than a ONE OFF payment to cover the costs of issuing the card and holding my info I would resent any other charge.  At the end of the day, from a walls perspective we would be making their life easier too so it shouldn't become some kind of extra tax.

 

 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

If it could be expanded to include an instructor data base I'd be very interested! Though I use walls rarely when I do its short notice and can be anywhere close to where I'm working. for example Small group of clients on intro to climbing, weather is shall we say not conducive to the learning experience. So lets spend a more productive time at a local wall going over the basics. Upon arrival every wall I've been to needs to see original paper copies of Quals, insurance, etc plus a form that takes me 20 mins to fill in at least. Before you know it the first 40 mins is wasted and the clients aren't happy, producing your AMI or MTA card with the quals on makes no difference. Bit of a rant there but anything to streamline the process would help

M

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax

 

Of no interest to me and I certainly wouldn't want to pay for something with no gain.

It strikes me as nothing more than a money making scheme of little practical  merit.

In many ways, similar to the cscs card construction workers are required to have. 

 

 

In reply to Gustavo:

I wouldn't envisage anything being "required to have". Rather, a simple additional question asking whether you would want your data passed on to Organisation X in order to streamline future registrations at other walls. If you're not interested, you really shouldn't need to have to consent - but in that case you may later need to navigate ipads and possible queues at other walls you may end up visiting.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

1. Yes if free.  Walls should fund it as it would save them staff costs.

2. No, I would not pay, not even £1.

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

More of an insurance thing I'd have thought. If passes werent verified: anyone could borrow their mates card and get in to the wall, drop their partner from the top (because they cant actually belay) and paralyse them. The wall has failed to ensure they are competent to use the facilities and the insurers will not be very happy.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

 

Who then is the question being asked for?

 

 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: Sounds like a good idea to have a central database for wall competency. 

Id pay a fee to cover costs plus a margin, say £10.

would you use the database for marketing purposes?

 

In reply to remus:

I take your point. But if it is to verify id then it needs a photo which can be checked at the counter (as my registration at my local wall already has) otherwise checking the card was genuine would serve no purpose because it would only  confirm  it was a gen card but not necessarily the gen user? Or am I missing something?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I visited 10 or so gyms in the last year, I have seen enough shocking belaying (some gyms better at keeping an eye on climbers than others) that I would be against anything that might let people who did a climbing introduction course walk into a random gym a year later unchecked. I would be interested to hear from gym managers/staff as to how many people come in saying they are competent but then can't tie a figure of 8 or belay correctly, I have seen a fair few from just spending time climbing in gyms. 

I also don't see a viable business model here, the cost to set up a database accessible nationwide to subscribed gyms as well as creating software for them all to access it and then to maintain it all would cost an amount that the charge for joining/membership would be than the vast majority would be willing to pay.

edit: Being an active member on UKC probably puts most of us in a position we have climbed enough to never forget the basics but consider how many wall visitors climb once in a blue moon or did a handful of times then not for a prolonged period, these people could carry a card and have completely forgotten 90% of the important safety points we (mostly) have ingrained. 

In reply to Pineappledog:

An alternative to all this business model stuff is for RPG to permit a scanner to read QR codes which could contain a simple link to a human readable/editable file of the most frequently asked questions (name address dob blah blah blah) and you scan to populate the fields - any unanswered questions still get asked.

In fact the existing walls using RPG should simply export this data to a plain text file on request. You print the QR code and scan it at the new gym and 90% of the annoying ipad entry is solved.

But TBH I couldn't be arsed even for this - perhaps it is because I've already tediously entered my details in just about every gym there is around the country already.

If the wall permits advance entry of the forms (and many do) then this pretty much works already because keyboard entry and your own (trusted) browser pretty much mean it is already done.

As someone mentioned above the standard of technical ability is pretty poor and a universal membership is not going to help.

 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

We now have such a thing, it took many years (even with limited amount of Gyms) to make it happen.

But it works now (for most of the gyms with roped climbing).

Webpage (in finnish) here:
http://urheilukiipeily.fi/varmistuskortti/

The belay-card is the very same you use to "charge" your climbing credits and it works on all the gyms listed on the page (ie. the ones where it is valid anyway). Simple RFID-thing.

I seem to recall Sweden also having a similar system.

And yes, you do need to pay for it (for the test, that is). But not much and considering previously you had to anyway pay for s gym specific RFID card anyway. 

In reply to remus:

It's no different in this respect to how cards work for individual walls at the moment though is it? You can register at a wall, pass any tests then give the card to your mate who hasn't registered and hasn't passed any tests.

Some walls take a photo for their records, which this new system could do too. Or at some point you've just got to trust people.

You've also got to supervise your wall properly, just because someone passed a competency test some time in the past doesn't mean they will be belaying competently on a particular visit to your wall. Again, I don't see how a system changes this, except that you'd have a single competency test for many different facilities, rather than the many and varied tests we have now.

I don't climb at enough different places for this new card to really work for me but if it was free I'd use it

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

1. yes

2. yes, but I would expect it to be included in my ABC individual membership

In reply to HeMa:

We have the same in Norway, there are two cards available. One purely for top roping, which is popular with parents who want to belay their kids, but aren't that interested in climbing and a lead climbing card for everyone else. There are also provisional cards that you can get that allow you to practice before taking the test, but I don't think anyone has ever got one of these as most people do it all in one day or over a two evenings.

It essentially involves a course at the climbing wall followed by an exam where you are expected to do a buddy check,  demonstrate your belaying competence, lead safely, fall off a few times, catch a few falls and answer a few questions. The whole point being that you can show you are capable of climbing safely and unsupervised. It's far more detailed than any intro-exam I've encountered in the UK.

Its quite common to see folk have these cards attached to their harness/ chalk bag as a simple way of signalling to wall staff (if there are any!) that they have one. There's nothing fancy about them, just your name and issue date, so long as you have it, or can produce one when asked you are free to climb at any wall.

It took 5 years of indoor climbing here before I bothered to get mine and this was only because I was asked by some wall staff to assist a beginner on a course without a partner... Only to reveal I hadn't actually taken it myself!  Since, I have only been asked if I have one once, so for private people its more of a nice thing to have than an absolute necessity.

https://klatring.no/brattkort

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

The only thing that may be a problem is the variability of the competency test between walls. Some walls are very strict while at others the test is a token gesture. To make it work there would need to be a national standard test with all the checking and admin involved. It could all get very complex and admin rich, with little benefit to anyone. 

It could, of course, result in a highly paid managers job with a team of undercover competency checkers, travel expenses etc. So good for the economy?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Hi Alan, its one of those ideas which sounds great until you get into the practicalities such as:

- The competency test - does the wall let you use bowlines, for instance ?

- What happens if/when I don't have my card with me ? right now its not a problem as all the walls I visit have my records.  Would a single registration be available to all participating walls ?

- When I give my emergency contact details to one wall, am I consenting to every wall in the country having access to that information ?

I think its a well meaning initiative that maybe a bit too fraught with practical details and too few resources available to administer it properly.

In reply to neuromancer:

Whoever created that rockgympro app must laughing all the way to the bank. It feels like it took half an afternoon to cobble together and it's popping up in more and more walls. I love a tablet for lots of things but data entry is not one of them...... 

 

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

I don't mind clicking a button to do a disclaimer but it's the filling in the entire form annually that gets me. Thanks. 

In reply to GrahamD:

The requirements are universal (so fig 8 for tying in). As is the content (see my post and GarethSLs ones above, principals are the same, and I'd guess also fo Sweden).

The "fee" (atleast in Finland) is for the test and card. Naturally, if you have the card, you do not need to do the test anymore. So you do not need to pay for such a test (as you've already taken one). Now, if you forgot/misplaced the card... well you might get in, or you might need to the test (and attached fee, is that wall has such policy).

That information is not stored (AFAIK) where I live. Now could it, yes... but then you'd need to have a db that all gyms could access. Might work, or be a nuisance.

Yes and or no... it depends on what you wish to accomplish...

If simply a country wide "belay card", not much is needed... If the whole nine yards... well, it can get problematic.

In reply to GarethSL:

Yup, same two tier system here...

And AFAIK also in Sweden.

In reply to HeMa:

I just love it seeing when people convinced something could never work face the realisation it is working welll somewhere already

In reply to HeMa:

Yeah, two different levels. Bottom roping and leading. No forms, quizzes or tests on visiting different places. The only pain is doing the course or if already experienced getting someone to sign you off, but most clubs have people who help sort this pretty quickly. 

 

 

In reply to HeMa:

I took the Norwegian belay card test a few months ago at the Oslo Klatresenter. My girlfriend is Norwegian and we visit enough that it seemed a good thing to do. We did not have to do a course, just book the test. We had asked as experienced climbers if this was ok.

The test was as described above by HeMa. We can now log in to the Brattkort website and see our test results and the name of the registered instructor that took us, etc. It seems to be the same system they use for NGB qualifications, and the like.

However, this is 'just' a belay certificate - you still have to fill in a form at the wall, you just won't have to do a test, which in this case is about 30-60mins long. The forms in Norway, at least in the gyms I've been to are much smaller than here (sometimes there is no form!), perhaps there is less chance of litigation, or the law is just different. I think it depends on the wall and their policy, but my understanding is that some walls in Norway will not allow you to belay unless you have a Brattkort.

IANAL, but if we had a similar system in the UK and an accident occurred, I could imagine the wall where the accident happened, the body that issued the belay card, and the wall were the test was carried out all getting sued and having to prove it wasn't their fault.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

As you obviously know, you did state this in your OP.

This highlights the fact that people just do not read things. If the forms were not part of a legal thing it would be highly amusing to see what you could put on one of these forms and get people to agree to as they skip along ticking.

Personally I feel that these forms are more about protecting the walls against litigation than from protecting users against falling to their doom. However as that is the world we live in, I fully understand it.

Whilst I can see the rationale for your idea, spending 5 mins filling a form in when you go to a new wall is hardly onerous, therefore I cannot see that it is really needed.

However if it was my scheme and I was going to be getting £5 per person every year, and getting all that data, I would be all for it.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I can certainly see the advantages and yes I would be prepared to pay the admin fee

However if I go to a bouldering wall and prove my competency to them, how is that applicable at a lead wall ? And what if I register at a lead wall, then have or cause an accident at a bouldering wall ? I could claim that the peculiar dangers of bouldering weren't drawn to my attention, and therefore the wall is liable. 

I would expect more resistance to this plan from wall owners than users

In reply to HeMa:

What you are describing is something different to what I think was being proposed, ie not having to fill in forms for independent walls.

What you are describing is a belay competency certificate which doesn't allow any leeway for walls to apply their own policies (eg their staff are competent enough to recognise a bowline).  If you forget your card, presumably the local wall has no record of you and you have to go through the process again (and pay again ?).  It sounds as though each wall still has to get you to fill in the form for medical disclaimer, emergency contact number etc. which is actually the ball ache part of the process.  Otherwise these details must be stored centrally and be available for any wall in the country to access.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

It seems a good idea in theory but for most of us, we've been to all the walls we're likely to go to any time soon so it would rarely be of any use to me.

Which comes to what is worth paying for it? Well, I might go to a new climbing wall maybe once a year or less on average, so to save me 10mins a year I'd pay maybe 50p per annum? 

I think what would be better is if climbing walls signing up to this scheme did the work. So there would just be a shared database of users which all climbing walls can view. You give your name at the desk, maybe show a membership card of any other wall you're already signed up with and it'll show you on the database as J. Smith, member of 5 climbing walls and registered competent at wall XYZ on so and so date. You'd still have to pay to sign up as a member at the new wall if needed but you can at least skip the competency bit and they'd already have your details. 

Cost wise, I think the climbing walls should bare it, as they do now via their membership fee's etc. After all, it's saving them time as well, they can get more people through the door more quickly and don't have to have staff doing tests all the time. 

In reply to GrahamD:

As an aside, would you seriously refuse to climb somewhere that insisted on using a figure 8 to tie in?

The staff would need to be exceptionally competant in my view to recognise the variety of bowlines and confirm they are tied correctly at a glance. It's the key reason the figure 8 is so good indoors and when under instruction... very easy to spot if incorrectly tied. Most people indoors, in my experience, still do not buddy check, so such things can be very important for accident reduction.

In practice presumably you could choose to use the card or go through the rigmarole and use your bowline.

In reply to Offwidth:

Don't get fixated by the bowline, please.  I prefer to climb using a bowline and so I don't particularly want to pay for the privilege of not being able to use one at my regular wall.  Alan asked for feedback, I've given mine.

 

In reply to GrahamD:

Yet, all (or nearly) all the walls are independent in FIN, SWE, and NOR.

Some require more paper filling, others none...

But all non-bouldering walls require the belay test. So you need to do that anyway (it takes around 15 to 20 mins and might not be available as you stroll on).

See above, I never claimed it was such or all. But it does streamline the process a lot more. Filling out a ligality waiver takes like 5 mins max... doing the belay test, see above 15-20 mins plus possible wait time.

Oh,  no annual membership "fees"  for clients. Other than the test (& card) fee, whne you get it.

Now could you improve on it... yes. But as stated, it already takes away the biggest time consuming step... And you can also "charge" your climbs on it and register it (the same time you fill out the forms).

So it's a blanket fest for the 1st time (5 mins). After that nada...

Not centralized storage, so indevidual gyms can store what ever they wish on their system (using the RFID ID from the card). Like ICE,  age, sexual preferences and whotnot.

 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I'm not sure it would help, the few number of walls I go to, one hardly bothers even asking if you can climb, belay or think.

The other asks me to fill a form in randomly regardless of the card they issued me depending upon who's on the desk. 5 to 15 minutes to book in FFS!!!

They also don't know how to fill the forms in, when completing a consent form for my daughter, even though we'd done this 2 weeks previously and they'd issued me with a card, told me to enter my details on the front of the for (it didn't state the name to use), she then told me I needed to fill the back in too, this did make it obvious that I as the responsible person was signing for the person on the front.

I filled in both bits with the same details, rather than get a new form and delay our climb further. She didn't notice

My wallet is getting full of plastic though, so maybe it's good idea. If it worked.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

You could think of it as a service to your customers by making their life easier when they visit walls in other parts of the country and a means of attracting visiting climbers to your wall when they are in Sheffield.

At the end of the day it is not your data, it is each individual climbers data that they have shared with you and it seems tight to restrict it's useage when it could make their life easier.

 

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I think the whole point is that I wouldn't register with you and you wouldn't hold my data.

I would register on a central database which you could then query for the relevant information when I visted your wall.

As a customer I find this dea very appealing and if customers like it then wall owner win at the end of the day.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

As a long time floor walker and desk bound wall gatekeeper I find the idea of trusting random other walls to sign off people to climb a nonstarter. I've seen too many accidents and had too many people fail tying in and belay checks to trust a system like this. As a climber I don't really want every wall in the country to have access to my personal data.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png

In reply to timjones:

 

I don't.  It totally relies on the internet being available in order to use the wall and worse, my details and my emergency contact details are available to anyone at any other climbing wall.

Yes

No

In reply to GrahamD:

I'd set it up rather differently to that, details would only be supplied to a wall on a time limited basis at the point that you present your card on arrival.

Compared to the current Rock Gym  system used by many walls where you have to grant permission for your electronic signature to be used on unpsecified documents until you withdraw your consent in writing it has the potential to be a huge improvement

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

 

Yes

I would suggest a small one-off registartion fee with a small fee being charged to walls each time they access the database, they may choose to pass this fee onto the cusomer but it should only be pennies.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: .works a treat in Norway.  So about blinking time

 

In reply to Alan James - UKC and U

 

Call me a cynic, but this appears to be designed to provide an income for the as yet unnamed organisation going to sell the cards +/- sell our details to other commercial organisations.

In reply to nacnud:

Yeah, all those bits of paper are meaningless*...

CWA, CWAA, CWLA, SPA, LLA, HML, ML, WML, IML, MIA, MIC, IFMGA, etc. etc.

Who knows who the examiners were, or what their competency was...?

I still suspect insurance may well be the stumbling block for this idea, unless it is supported and regulated by someone like the BMC.

Now, weren't the BMC recently trying to find a way to engage more with/be seen as a useful organisation by wall climbers...? Could this be just their opportunity for that engagement...?

* as someone who isn't entirely convinced by bits of paper, I find myself in the odd position of defending them...

In reply to captain paranoia:

I have a whole bunch of those bits of paper too, but working in walls takes away a lot of faith you have in people not doing stupid things.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I feel very strongly that this isn't the way we should be going as an industry.

I saw the ABC post about this and instantly thought it was just a money making scheme.

Firstly all climbing wall registration fees are a rip off to the customer. There is no extra cost involved, every wall has someone on reception pretty much all of the time, a small amount of this time is spent processing new members whilst simply manning the desk.

Anyone moaning that filling in a form once a year is too much hassle needs to give their head a wobble, your about to put your life in danger for a bit of fun, the least you can do is prove that you know what you're doing. You have to give nearly as much information to order a pizza online as you do to use a climbing wall.

 
From the walls perspective;
How do I know the customer was checked by a competent person to get the card? Was it the MIA wall manager or the apprentice who started last week? Will the card state the credentials of the assessor, or will this be another course instructors need to go on? Some places may not do a formal test with everyone, but the staff will most likely be watching as you start climbing to make sure you're ok.

How to I prove to my insurance that I have done everything in my power to ensure that people are competent?

How much will it cost to join the scheme?

How will this save admin?

If it means people no longer need to register with each place then the business are essentially throwing away all future marketing potential. Whilst some people may not want marketing, others will want to keep up with offers that places have available.

I cant see how this saves anything other than the competency test, people will still need to register with each wall so what is the point. 

This idea seems to forget that each climbing wall/ chain is a separate business with its own set of regulations and insurance stipulations. 

Ultimately I think that if you take away some of the responsibility from the people facing the customers someone will eventually slip through the net. 

In reply to GrahamD:

Plenty of ways around both of those issues. Each participating wall could have an encrypted store of all cardholders updated periodically, maybe overnight each day. Software could enable this encrypted database to return single member details only upon scanning/typing a membership number, and where such data may not be needed during normal use (such as emergency contact details), retrieval of it could potentially require a separate authorisation level, and such access could be recorded and published to deter non-essential access.

Another option would be to store all information only on the card itself, using a chipped card, so there would be no need for any central data store.

The system would take quite a bit of careful design but there's no reason it couldn't be made workable and entirely responsible.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

So just to be clear, will this end up costing me money or saving me money?

If the latter, then it sounds good, please explain more.

If the former, then what a bloody stupid idea! A paid for card that reduced the entrance fee to walls nationwide would be much better. 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

If this opened up the possibility of paying one fee for access to all walls joining the scheme then that would be very useful. 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

We've all been crying out for this for years, and now that basically ALL the walls use the same waiver and software (RockGymPro) it would be absolutely trivial (for RGP) to implement. All they'd need to do is give each person an RGP ID, which must exist in their systems already, to pass to each new wall they visit. And allow a new wall access to their data when they turn up, scan their tag and give consent.

Obviously it mustn't be in the interests of the RGP people, or they'd have done it already. Maybe work on talking some sense into them directly. Find out their reasons. They must be good ones. If they won't do it, then go ahead and launch your thing. They'll probably respond with their own system and force you out of the market, but we'll all be better off either way.

In reply to john arran:

 

All that and I've gained what, exactly ? right now I can turn up at my regular wall, without a card and climb there and its the same with pretty much any other wall I use.  This expensive data base malarkey doesn't appear to improve my situation unless I'm missing something ?

 

In reply to nacnud:

Certainly in sweden it can only be signed off by an instructor, not a leader or supervisor level award. They aren't random the assessors name is on the card.

The fact that you have witnessed so many accidents might imply the current system of training, or verifying user competency is failing and that the people in walls who currently check people's ability aren't sufficiently skilled themselves? (Devils advocate).

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: some more detail on how it works in Norway, as some of the comments here seem a bit 'quaint/paranoid'.  You take an exam - if you prove you are a competent belayers you pay a nominal fee, go in a central database, get a card.  Lose it, you get a replacement. The person doing the examination will need to have attended a course and be ''pproved'.  People do fail this course, and punters also routinely fail so it's not just paper pushing.

 

I don't see why insurance is regarded as a big problem? Why's this?

For me it is very useful.  Last night I went to a wall I don't usually use.  Pay my money, wave my brattkort, off I go.

  Near my children's house, is a sports centre with a comparatively small wall.  Some leading routes and a bouldering cave. It's unmanned.  You want in, you show a brattkort to reception, and you can climb for free. No card, no climb. Without a card system this can't work

 

In reply to GrahamD:

You're dead right. As long as you only want to climb at your local wall there's essentially no advantage for you in joining such a scheme.

But if you were visiting people in another part of the country and fancied a climb while you were there, such a thing could potentially save you: time registering, possible belaying test, possible delay before belaying test could start, and possibly most importantly the cost of doing a belay test.

It's true that not everywhere requires such things now but they're becoming increasingly common, which is sad but a reality we need to work around.

In reply to summo:

25+ years of hanging around walls is the reason I've seen so many. Most common accidents in descending order: falling off while bouldering (bad setting, wall construction or user error), not clipping in while using autobelays (no buddy checks), getting hung up on something while lowering on autobelays (bad routesetting or instructing), bad belaying (complacency or lack of user knowledge). Most common way people try and fail to kill themselves, not doing up harnesses (normally caught by buddy checks).

In reply to Idunno:

 

I don't think your insurer has any reason to care whether you do or not.  You may feel a moral obligation to do so, but I don't think you have a legal duty of care there.

If anything, I think from the insurers point of view getting too much into the business of assessing the customers' competence could be counterproductive - it may actually increase your liabilities if you assess someone as competent and it later transpires they aren't so much.

All that is required to minimise the wall's legal liability in the event of an accident (and the point of the so-called 'disclaimer') is to establish that the customer is sufficiently experienced to understand the risk they are taking on, and that the only thing preventing them from being killed or injured is their own skill and diligence.  Look at any instance where a wall has successfully been sued and it's a beginner under instruction who could reasonably claim not to have understood the risks.  For everyone else the principle of "volenti non fit injuria" applies and they have no claim to make unless the wall were clearly negligent in some way.

 

In reply to john arran:

Except that's not the case - it seems that what's being proposed would be an additional cost, and you'd still have to pay to register at a new wall.

 

In reply to whenry:

I didn't mention the cost of registration elsewhere, as at this stage that seems not be a likely saving, but if it means not having to take a test (with associated cost) then it possibly would be a financial saving, and the time savings I outlined could make it worthwhile for you in any case. Which part of my reply do you think is "not the case"?

In reply to john arran:

I'm not sure that there's a cost to taking a test - it's never been separated out from registration at any centre I've been to - and the test is always part of the registration process, so I was conflating the cost of registration with an assumed cost of taking a belay test, and assumed you were too.

I'm not aware of any centre that has a separate charge for a belay test, so I'm not aware that you'd be saving any money.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

1. Would such a scheme be of interest to you? No

...but hear me out, I think I have some interesting points:

I don't visit enough walls regularly enough for filing in the odd form to be a problem. The forms don't particularly bother me.

Almost without question, if I did sign up for it, the very next time I was unexpectedly at a new wall (visiting friends somewhere maybe), that wall would not be part of the scheme, which would be more annoying than if the scheme didn't exist at all!

"We are aware that some other organisations are working on this idea." Having two-or-more different completing 'universal' access cards would be almost as bad as having none at all. There needs to be at most one of them, done right.

I'm highly skeptical of the likelihood of this all being implemented in a secure, sensible and usable way.

As regards data sharing, a wall would need to confirm (likely online) via some sort of ID number or QR code: my photo, what I had been assessed as capable of doing (incl. possibly at which wall, when), and nothing else.

A wall checking my competency would have no need whatsoever for any of: name, address, e-mail address, date-of-birth, shoe size, mobile number, do I want their newsletter etc. etc. I'd be downright suspicious of any supposed requirement to share any of that information with walls to check/prove that I can belay.

You'd need some way card-holders could logon to a centralised system I imagine, so that when you lose your card you could order a new one. I'd expect a pretty obvious line between 'this info is so we can send you a replacement card, and it is kept private' vs 'this (more limited) info is shared with walls, to check your competencies'.

If there were a need for something like emergency contact info, I'd expect it to hide behind a big red button in the centralised web site. I'd get an e-mail whenever it was pressed saying: "BigJugz Staines climbing wall accessed your emergency contact info at 8:34pm today". If I'd not just got home from having been briefly unconscious on the floor at Staines, I could then follow up whatever mischief they were up to. I'd expect that emergency button to not even be available to BigJugz Staines unless I'd recently been logged in the system as signing in at that wall.

In reply to summo:

Most near misses and accidents I've seen in 30 years of wall use are due to lack of attention or deliberately following known banned process (eg: do not miss clips or do not belay too far out from the wall); not through lack of ability, skills or knowledge. Some wall users do lie about experience on the form, some don't remember after being taught and assessed but after not climbing for a while. I think anyone using ropes who hasn't visited in a while (over a year) should be re-assessed down to the 3rd party risk if nothing else. 

In reply to wbo:

good info ... a couple of Qs

do you pay if you fail the test ? 

how long before you can retake it ?

In reply to PM:

if i were a suspicious person i'd be led to wonder if the idea is data collection about user habits so that data could be sold...

I think a similar system to those described in Norway/Sweeden would be good but think it maybe too late to get such a thing off the ground  (ie universal for all walls) and maybe too regimented to be accepted by lots of people.

In reply to GarethSL:

When I were a lad, NOT falling off was considered a sign of competence

In reply to Howard J:

Indeed, but falling safely is a useful skill to have nonetheless!

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

One issue is that virtually every wall will have different T&C's, they might be very similar but they will be different. As a wall owner I need to know that you have accepted my T&C's, I don't really care that you have accepted the Foundry's T&C's. So I require you to fill in a form.

I also want to capture some of your data for all sorts of reasons including knowing who my customers are, so I require you to fill in a form.

We don't do competency testing unless you are a novice. If you are an experienced boulderer (and an adult) we let you climb.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I assume Alan's proposition is that you would get all of that same data electronically. The customer would give it to the central organisation and you would collect it from them. The technical details haven't been spelled out but it could be done in a variety of ways.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

how do you determine whether a new customer is experienced at mucking about on very small rocks?

In reply to GarethSL:

?

I don't think falling off 'safely' is necessarily a choice. Holds spin, feet slip. Surely the whole point of good belaying is that the climber may fall off at any time and they should always be alert as to the possibility of this.

In reply to Luke90:

That means that you as someone signed up to the scheme has given consent for your data being given to an unknown number of climbing walls.

In reply to Jon Greengrass:

We ask them a couple of questions.

(We don't care if they have experience on small rocks, we are more interested in whether they have bouldered indoors as one of our main dangers is getting landed which more of an indoor thing.)

 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Yes it would interest me.

 

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

 "We ask them a couple of questions"

 Q1 - Do you always wear a beanie.

A1 - No.

Q2  - Shirt on or off?

A2 - On.

"On your way bonny lad, you're no boulderer! "

In reply to Andy Gamisou:

Its worse than that, they have comfy chairs!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

If they set it up sensibly, only the walls that I visit and use my card at will get my data i.e those that I would have had to give the same data to anyway more laboriously.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

1. Yes

2. Definitely worth a tenner

I've been through this process at at least seven new climbing walls in the last twelve months. One of them (a multi-discipline sports centre) made me sit on a sofa for half an hour waiting for someone who was 'qualified to assess a tie-in knot' to finish teaching a class. They were mostly near far-flung crags that were being unexpectedly rained on, with long drives in my immediate future and closing times imminent, so I didn't have all day to muck about with an ipad. An regular nuisance I would pay a one-off fee to avoid.

In reply to lithos:

You can't collect data you don't ask for. There's no reason for the proposed system to have any user identifiable information whatsoever. Just an ID number attached to an RFID card and that's it. A data query returns a single result, the ID is either valid or it isn't.

Now if the system starts asking you so much as your name, date of birth and postcode, I'd be suspicious.

 

In reply to planetmarshall:

I think you'll be disappointed and suspicious. As Graeme illustrates above, climbing walls will still demand basic data about their customers. If the system's going to be any use in reducing form filling, it will have to store the data climbing walls ask for in order to transfer it to them.

In reply to Luke90:

I think I'm a member at about seven walls. None of them have ever posted me anything (and for that I'm glad). Begs the question: why do they need my home address at all?

In reply to planetmarshall:

Would likely need a photo somewhere too, otherwise whoever was holding the card would be presumed (possibly incorrectly) to be the capable person. Without a photo and just an ID number on a card, the card used could be your uni flatmate's, your Mum's, etc.

In reply to Luke90:

As explained above, there are ways around this. One is to store such data on the cards themselves, so that walls can only access it when that person comes to their facility. Another is to store all data centrally but to encrypt it and have a decryption key on the card, which would facilitate lost card replacement if there was also a password or other such way for each cardholder to establish common identity.

These issues are not intractable from a technical viewpoint.

In reply to PM:

Since we don't have national ID cards, an address helps to establish customer identity. In the case of any subsequent liability claim, this could be very important.

It isn't the only way to do so, of course, but it's a common and well accepted one.

In reply to john arran:

Even that would be unnecessary. A one way hash of some personal identification details can confirm identity without that information ever needing to be centrally stored, encrypted or otherwise.

In reply to john arran:

I see. Makes sense, ta.

In reply to john arran:

Yeah, I saw your posts above and I agree on the technical possibilities. I was being a bit loose in the way I described it but what I meant was that in some way, at some point, the new organisation will have to ask for your data. It may be that they find a way to handle it so that they don't have ongoing access to it themselves but they will certainly have to ask for more information than planetmarshall wants to give. I wasn't disputing your suggestions, just being unclear in responding to a different point.

In reply to Luke90:

They will almost certainly ask, and people will probably give it. After all, we're conditioned to fill in this kind of information without thinking, not realising - even given recent events - how valuable it is.

However, what information does a climbing wall really need (and by that, I mean need to actually store) in order to confirm your identity and send you the odd marketing email - assuming you forgot to check, or uncheck, that box?

In reply to planetmarshall:

I'm pretty sure the walls would want, and indeed need, to retain more details of those who have visited their facility than simply the fact that their identity was confirmed. If you aren't going to get that info from a card or from a central store, they'll need to collect it again directly from the customer - which rather negates the whole point

In reply to john arran:

I understand why they might want to, but I don't see why they should need to. I get your earlier point about liability claims. In such a case there could be a facility to (exceptionally) dig the required details out of the centralised system. Personally, I don't think that possible liability claims are justification for the walls to need to independently and routinely keep a record of (for example) my home address, provided there existed a way for them to access it promptly in exceptional circumstances.

If there are other good requirements for walls to have your home address I'd be interested to hear them, as I've already been convinced from 'walls don't need that info at all', down to 'they need it in some limited situations'.

Having one central system with tighter controls around such data would (from my point of view) be preferable to the status-quo of every wall keeping the same info in their own records. Nicely implemented encrypted CMS at wall A, Excel spreadsheet on a USB drive at wall B*, Google Docs with the password 'password' at wall C*…

(* I'm at least 10% sure that no walls do it like this.)

In reply to PM:

Thank you for your perceptive comments. It's always good to have opinions questioned, even if you end up sticking with them, but your comments definitely add value to the discussion.

... even if you massively underestimate the likelihood of a wall keeping customer data in an Excel spreadsheet on a flash disk! 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

The guys who wrote the iPad app most of the bouldering walls are using could implement this in about 10 minutes.

Step 1:

Make the climber IDs provided by the software unique across all walls that use their app (for example by adding another couple of digits to identify the wall you first registered at.  If you do it like that you can 'upgrade' numbers that are already issued by sticking in two more digits.).  After that when you go to a wall and they ask 'whats your number' the same number will work everywhere. 

Step 2:

Add a tick box at the bottom of the screen when you finish signing up "Save my details to save time when registering at other walls".  If you select it you get asked to enter a password to protect your information and then your details get stored on the app-company server as well as sent to the wall you are registering at.

Step 3:

At the start of the sign-up process when you go to a new wall a button "Use my stored details."  If you click it you type in your climber ID and password and the form gets filled out for you.  You just need to click at the bottom to accept the terms and conditions.  You don't get a new number, instead your original number starts to work at that wall as well.

 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Good idea. I’m sure the cost would reflect the amount people feel would be worth it. I’d go with the flow on that.

In reply to lithos:

I'm not sure what info you need to store other than full name , date of birth and have you passed yes/no.  I guess you need a photo id when you pass the test to stop you doing it for someone else.  Re. the poster above from an 'old hand', how do I trust the person who gave the card out - well you can't just pitch up, say I've worked at a wall for a long time and I'm safe to allocate cards (or not) - you're going to need to do a course before you're good to do this.  Are your staff that well trained?  Perhaps the variability of staff quality explains the fascination with disclaimers, insurance and T and C's

 

In reply to PM:

I kind of agree, I've had nothing posted to me from a climbing wall ever. I think they use it more as part of your ID, e.g. they can distinguish the multiple John Smiths they have by asking their address or if they can't find you by name so search by postcode.

I've registered at countless climbing walls over the years and I suspect only a single one has my up to date address. If you object to it being collected you can always just make an address up, it's what I do when random websites request my date of birth, it's all completely unverified information anyway.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

They already have a similar feature in Rock Gym Pro (the software you're referring to) but as with most things RGP, you have to pay extra for it. It's already quite expensive. I think their system only works for companies with more than one wall as it is now, they don't have a global database for all the walls. As you say though, it wouldn't be a great deal of work to change this.

Being able to work with RGP is a big hurdle of this idea since they could make it hard/impossible for a 3rd party to submit information to the waiver form at any time.

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

Yes, I had a glance at their website and it seems like their main version is already in the cloud and they have a more expensive one for operators with multiple walls.  So they can do this any time they like.

Although their prices look high it's not exactly a huge market.  Can't be more than a couple of hundred potential customers in the UK.  If they get 30% market share in the UK that's less than a hundred customers giving them $200 a month, a chunk of which will be going to AWS or whoever is providing their cloud.

Even though the software is fairly simple it would be hard to make much money as a UK only business.

Yes - someone like BMC/ABC trying to bring in a new scheme would need to offer a really good deal to RGP or they could easily lock them out from a big chunk of the market.   If I was RGP and thinking about how to make data entry smoother I'd be thinking about a partner with global presence like Facebook 'Sign in with Facebook' or Apple/Google to let customers sign in by waving their phones near a sensor.  

 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

No need to "partner" with Facebook or Google for the 'Sign in...' stuff. It's already a working API that just needs to be incorporated in the App to make it possible.

In reply to HeMa:

Facebook API info

https://developers.facebook.com/products/account-creation

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I'm with the "pointless" brigade... The last two boulder gyms I've visited, I've signed up in two minutes on my phone the evening before, and been handed a card on arrival.

Why would anyone pay an annual subscription to avoid occasionally demonstrating they can tie a knot and use a belay device?