UKC

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Please tell your new developer to add "number of bolts" to sport route listings as their first task. thanks

In reply to Nick fox:

That's not a problem the developer can solve. They'd need the data to exist, which I don't think it does. I've never seen any guide that routinely gives that info and I don't think it's a problem Rockfax would or should be putting huge effort into.

In reply to Luke90:

Chicken and egg; the developer adds a field to the database with a default blank value and updates the web view, then users can fill it in.

Sounds like a quick feature to add and also a feature that adds little value…

In reply to Luke90:

Local guide to me has it some routes.

In reply to Nick fox:

Let's take more and more interest and adventure out of climbing..

In reply to wbo2:

I've seen a Swiss guidebook mark them on the topo when its a hybrid trad/sport route.

In reply to Luke90:

At least some of the GWR (https://greatwesternrock.co.uk/) guides have the number of bolts in. It helps that the people producing it are the ones bolting the routes for the most part. They're pretty comprehensive and have a couple of innovations, including bolt numbers (e.g. '[6b]') and a face from smiley to sad based on quality of rock/safety of bolting. 

There's an example of one of them here: https://i0.wp.com/greatwesternrock.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/1980071...

In agreement that it would be good to have a function to add the number of bolts to sport routes in the logbooks. 

In reply to climberclimber321:

Then throw your guide away.  This is for sport climbing you know?

In reply to climberclimber321:

Yes, because when I think of adventure climbing Horseshoe Quarry is the first thing that springs to mind. 

In reply to Nick fox:

All great until some relies on information that is inevitably going to have multiple errors (as with all guides). Routes can change, with bolts getting added, extensions or whole routes added that get confused with another route without confusing different existing routes. I would rather make my own judgement and carry a couple of extra draws than blindly following an exact number given in a book or app and find I'm short. It's easy to do this based on the length of the route and looking up and counting the number of bolts you can see in most cases. No guide should be a substitute for experience and proper judgement.

In reply to Luke90:

Quite common in Spanish guidebooks I use here.  Siurana (the "crimp cover" one is one of the best produced sport guides ever IMO) and Rodellar guides sat next to me on the shelf here do.

Bit weird this thread about a job has been hijacked but it's UKC after all so I'll join in.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Couldn't you apply that same argument to any guidebook description?   We all know no guidebook should be taken as gospel (most of them put something to that effect near the start).
It's really quite useful to know how many bolts - of course you always take a couple extra in case it's not accurate. 
Flicking through this Rodellar guide there's a 35m route with 15 bolts right next to a 40m route with 12!  (Both 7c+) So obviously not only does it tell you roughly how many draws to take, it tells you that one is a fairly run out route.

Also there's plenty of people who might find themselves one day with only x number of draws (maybe you left others in a route somewhere else or your friend has yours that day) and you want to know which crags are good for x number.

I don't know why people would be so resistant to recording information about a sport route it seems pig a headed "change is bad" attitude.

In reply to PaulJepson:

One of the original reasons we stopped including bolt numbers was because we did so for the first two Dorset guides published in 1994 and 2000. These were written by Pete Oxley who, more than almost anyone else, can lay claim to being the person who knows most about bolting and bolt numbers in Dorset. However, when we spot-checked a few of these numbers when working on the 2005 edition, we were shocked by how many were inaccurate by one or two, or had changed. We took the decision then that, if we couldn't get it right in Dorset with an author like Pete, then it was going to be impossible to guarantee that it was accurate elsewhere.

No bolt number information is significantly better than slightly inaccurate bolt number information.

This isn't a slight on Pete - he did an amazing job with those books and bolting efforts - it is simply an indication of how difficult it is to accurately document the number of bolts on routes. A lot of the points I made several years ago about why we don't include specific route lengths apply as well - https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/guidebooks_should_omit_specific_sport... . You are trying to put a critically important precise figure on something which is very difficult to get 100% accurate and changes over time.

I also feel that climbers should be making their own assessment of aspects like precise route length and bolt numbers and if you give information that purports to be 100% accurate (but isn't) then some people will inevitably end up trusting it when they shouldn't.

Alan

In reply to PaulJepson:

I can't say that I've found that particularly useful. Routes change with traffic (or lack of) and weathering, and there are a handful of their routes where I've really disagreed with their smiley faces. If you want a super sanitised experience, go indoors.

In reply to Nick fox:

I've got a great life hack for you:

Look up the route. Count the bolts. Rack that many draws. Throw on a couple more if you like.

In reply to Luke90:

Schweiz Plaisir guides give the number...

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Is that a couple more than you can see, or a couple more than there are? (Asking for a friend,  as they say.)

In reply to Fraser:

If your eyesight is shit, and/or you can't count, take a few spares. If that's not working out for you, get a cheap pair of binoculars. Or an abacus.

In reply to Eduardo2010:

Thats the ones I was thinking of that mark them on the topo.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Sounds like you should also add some chill pills to your own rack! My point was that for several reasons, you can't always see all the bolts on a route, be that for poor eyesight, route length or rock architecture.

In reply to Fraser:

I would go further and say that on most crags, you can't see all the bolts. We were at a crag in the Peak Taddington a couple of weeks ago which had around 4 bolts per route and we couldn't see them (small grey glue-ins on identical coloured rock).

If you are the person who is supposed to be counting these then you will not be able to do it from the ground accurately. You would need to climb every route and note it down as you climb them. Nobody can do this over a period of time that would work for a guidebook.

There will be organisations and groups who maintain accurate lists of bolts in their area and these can be accurate at the time of writing. We have such a list for Horseshoe Quarry where I am involved with the maintenance of the bolts but in many places the bolting and maintenance is much more ad hoc and disorganised.

Alan

In reply to Fraser:

You're often left 'assuming' that there will be a bolt between the very spaced ones you can eyeball, because.......surely there must be one hidden in there somewhere! Otherwise it's super run-out!

And I know there aren't many sport climbs ~>30m in the UK but when there are, it's anyones guess how many draws to take. I definitely can't see bolts that far away, especially amongst limestone which often has various things shimmering in it. 

Look at the description, notes and logs for Still Nice and Still Sleazy (6a+). I think there are at least 15 mentions of numbers of bolt/quickdraw required. 

In reply to Fraser:

Then you'd rack a couple extras, surely. 

Is this actually a problem that anyone has? Genuine questions: How often are people setting off without enough draws? And after doing it once, how many people don't learn and go on to do it a second time?? And would knowing the number that were there when the book was printed be more likely to solve the problem, or cause it?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Whilst I absolutely get that you might not want to go through the trouble and risk of putting them in guidebooks, would it not be helpful to add them as an option in the logbooks on here? You can put in the quality, height, pitches, and any symbols of routes. Why not a number of bolts as an option on sport climbs? It can also then be edited (or proposed to be) by people if found to be inaccurate.  

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I’m not sure it needs to be 100% accurate - but when I’m looking at a guidebook it’s very helpful for me to know whether a 32m route has 11 bolts or 16. And it’s often quite difficult to tell from the ground, especially if they’re more runout higher up. 
I know I should be able to stick clip the latter if I get stuck (I don’t often climb with a rope gun to send up and get the gear back) whereas I’m only going to get on the more runout route if it’s well within my grade - so I do a lot more projecting where the local guidebook gives you a reasonable idea on bolting. 

In reply to Nick fox:

We discussed doing this for the new Scottish sport climbs guidebook, but decided against it for two main reasons:

1. The amount of time and effort it would take to get the information reasonably accurate for the whole of Scotland (given there's no existing record of it for the vast majority of crags) would have been massively out of proportion to how useful it is. I would have lost the will.

2. What Alan James said:

Even if we did miraculously get it fully accurate at the time of publication, it would be wrong by the following week.

Plus, to be blunt, it seems like an unnecessary level of spoon-feeding. Schweiz guidebooks are one thing - routes there are often multi-pitch and run-out. For standard single-pitch sport crags, it would be solving a problem that doesn't really exist. If looking up from the bottom doesn't give the information you need, just divide the height of the route in metres by two and take a couple extra. Worst case scenario you have a few spare on your harness by the top. It's unlikely to be the difference between success and failure.

In reply to Nick fox:

I can see why this got so many down votes, it is quite blunt. However agree somewhat: it would be very useful if there was a note for the crag saying roughly how many quick draws are are required. As standard i'd take 12, so it's hand to know if that will be enough. Not the end of the world of it's wrong of course, you can just lower off and harvest from lower bolts, but it's a bit of a pain

In reply to PaulJepson:

That is possible but it doesn't get away from the fundamental point that it may not be right which I am about to address in my reply to Indignancy who suggests that "it doesn't need to be 100% accurate".

Alan

In reply to Indignancy:

It is only worth doing if it is accurate since wrong is much worse than nothing. You are using it for a general assessment which is fine and I can see it is useful, but not everyone will do that and many will rely on it.

Alan

On lighter note...

I have the rice theory of Quickdraws. This goes that, when you cook rice, you assess how much you need for the people you are cooking for and then always add an extra bit. The extra bit is precisely equal to the amount left in the pan at the end of the meal. The same is true of quickdraws. Make your assessment and add a few extra and the number left on your harness when you lower off will always be the same as the extra ones you carried.

Solid theory proven by years of study!

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Does the same not apply for route lengths? They're often wrong and can be the difference between lowering off the end of a rope or not. 

In reply to PaulJepson:

Or the description.

Or the grade...

In reply to PaulJepson:

er yeah, that is why we don't include them. 

Wrote about that here - https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/opinions/guidebooks_should_omit_specifi...

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Again, I'm talking about the logbooks on here (as I said previously, I understand the reasoning and reluctance to entertain the idea of them in guidebooks). I suggested it would be useful to have the number of bolts as an optional field in the logbooks, the same way as the pitch lengths are included.

The arguments so far against this also apply to several other criteria, which are currently included in the logbooks.

In reply to Nick fox:

As with any database, there needs to be a purpose for recording each piece of data and someone needs to be responsible for inputting that data and keeping it up to date.

I don't see either a purpose or an owner for this information.

Number of bolts is roughly proportionate to route length and route length can be generally described for each sector of the crag (e.g. a wall about 15 to 20m high). Exceptions can be stated in general crag info (e.g. some routes in the quarry are sparsely bolted). Simple descriptions like this combined with route grades, rock type etc. are enough to plan a visit to a crag. More specific information can be obtained when you are at the crag looking up at a route.

I think it's a lot of effort for not much benefit. Obviously adding the data field is very simple but who is going to enter the data?

In reply to PaulJepson:

You can always just tell yourself you can't possibly need more than 15 quickdraws for a 30 metre route. Even if there might (Kalymnos!) be more bolts than that.

In reply to Nick fox:

I never know how many draws I'll need for a trad route but it always seems to work out just fine.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

There's always a bit extra rice in the pan and none left over when I'm eating it 😂.

My usual tact is to take one draw every 2m of route if I can't see many bolts, this usually ensures I have more than I need. And if I really care about the extra weight I'll have done other routes nearby and done my research!

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I just checked this to see if I remembered correctly, and I have, in Hong Kong Rock we I used through the Rockfax App, both individual route lengths and number of bolts are included. When we visited and climbed there at Easter this was quite helpful as we only took a 50 mtr rope a dozen quickdraws for reasons of baggage bulk, but I completely take your point that we then became dependent on those figures being correct (although of course I always made sure there was a knot in the end of the rope as I always do).

I know the app now works as a platform for third party guidebook publishers now, and Hong Kong Rock is available as a non-Rockfax paper book, but using it in the app feels very much like all other Rockfax books (and app only guides) with the standard look. 

In reply to AlanLittle:

Come and do my new route at my secret crag. The clue is in the name 🤣

Heaven 17 *** 32m, 7b+

E

In reply to Fraser:

Is it really such a chore to carry a few extra just in case?

In reply to AlanLittle:

It is notable that in Kalymnos they do sometimes give the number required but only when the number is exceptionally high ie the sort of amount a team might not have with them (19+)

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

No it's not, but it's easy for the crag moderators to add the number of bolts to the relevant route description page on here.

In reply to Enty:

Not quite descriptive enough?

Resin 8 (7a)

In reply to Jimbo C:

 It's very little effort. The moderator would just select the number of bolts from a drop-down menu when they're filling in the rest of the data on a new route. Exactly the same as is currently done for route length,  grade etc when the route is first added to the database. Whilst it will happen occasionally, the chances of the number of bolts changing after this point are pretty slim. 

In reply to Fraser:

I think you are missing the point. Adding a data field isn't a big problem, knowing how many bolts there are so that the information is accurate is a huge effort which almost no-one ever gets 100% right.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I get your point, I didn't miss it, but when new routes are logged for the first time, it would be an easy field to populate 100% accurately. I always add it to the crags I moderate and include this data in the route description, along with the type of lower-off. It's really not rocket science. I'm not talking about adding the info retrospectively, just for any routes that are being added to the database for the first time. All the other fields have to be populated when the route is being added and it's easy to do the route and count the bolts.

I do understand why you don't add it to guidebooks but for the database on here I don't see the problem. It seems I'm in the minority here but for what it's worth, plenty of folk have told me how useful they find the number of bolts on the UKC route page where I've added it.

In reply to Nick fox:

I have a few guidebooks (Chateauvert and Orpierre come to mind) that give number of bolts and I like it. It’s helpful in knowing how many draws you might need for a visit to a crag or sector and also it’s good to know you’re not carrying any dead weight if you’re trying to onsight something at your limit. It doesn’t worry me that there might be the odd error.

I do think think this debate is a bit ridiculous, how many draws you take is a matter for informed judgement and experience.

Dogging a project: The weight is neither here nor there.

Attempting an onsight: It would be pretty stupid to fail because a shortage of draws, rather than fatigue or being a bit useless.

Attempted flash with draws in place: Take one or two on each side of your harness. You may want to lengthen a difficult clip. They will be useful to sort out the lower-off.

Redpointing: See 3.

They don't weigh very much.

In reply to Pedro50:

True but that’s not going to happen very often, and virtually never if you have a habit of carrying say (stated number of bolts) +1 draws

No but they do weigh something and it might help psychologically/as a placebo knowing you’re not carrying more weight than absolutely needed. To me it feels satisfying and encouraging when I see there’s say two clips to go and I’ve just two (or 3) draws left

In reply to Jimmy D:

Well exactly!

In reply to Fraser:

If you are very active at the crags you moderate, I can see that it would be easy for you to capture the data for new routes at your crags. I was thinking of the wider data set of routes that already exist (which must number in the 100,000s).

Crowd sourcing would be the only way to realistically capture all the data, but would people count bolts and log it when they go out? I don't think that's a realistic expectation and I don't think it would add a lot of value (for me).

In reply to Luke90:

"A55 Sport Climbs" lists the number of bolts when known for most routes.

Guidebooks are for recoding information.

Loads of foreign guides list number of bolts. 
It’s super useful.

Two routes of the same length and grade in the same crag often have VERY different numbers of draws. 

Accuracy argument is bs. Grades aren’t accurate and never can be. 
Vast majority of UK trad guides list the length of routes - almost never accurate to the metre. 
So it’s clearly not an argument that the number  of bolts can’t listed if not accurate. 12 or 12 bolts doesn’t matter, but 12 or 17 really does!

Honestly think most people arguing against must rarely climb long routes in Europe. 
 

there really isn’t much info to write about sport routes unlike trad. Why so much resistance to a 2 digit number being added to a route description. 
 

why not let people log the number on UKC so it can be accurate and up to date. 
Nothing less subjective than number of bolts !

In reply to dinodinosaur:

This is my usual tactic too. Seems to work pretty well

In reply to AymanC:

As a first stab at this, it would be easier to mention the maximum bolts required for most routes at a location.

Something like "up to 10 bolts except for route X which has 14"

What's the actual driver for needing to know? Is it unnecessary weight when climbing, or keeping the sac light for the walk in/out?

With todays lightweight draws, how much difference does two or three draws make.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

At crags with very long routes it may actually be a matter of not having enough draws with you in your sack. In which case you you might well choose not to do the route.

Perhaps more useful for CRAG description to recommend the number of draws needed for the longest routes?

In reply to Michael Hood:

In answer to your question, see my first post here. 

Guiebooks are supposed to be a record of information on a climb. And people find it useful. It’s so common in Spanish guidebooks. 
 

I find th resistance here so odd. People are happy to know how many m long a route is, how many pegs something might have, whether it’s run out or not, but heaven forbid a tiny number next to a grade. 

For many years being poor I only owned 12 QDs so it was nice to know which crags I could get to the top of 

In reply to AymanC:

It's quite simple really. If a route is 40m long don't set off with 8 qds. If it's 12m long don't take18. Just a bit of common sense and self reliance.

In reply to AymanC:

I'm not resistant to it as such, I've just never felt the need.