And woohoo if you don't think its right, or American, its life. Like my daddy always said, "life ain't fair".

dude, you need some more logic courses.... not everyone can have the glass half full? sorry if i'm nit picking, but you need help... to many logiacl fallacies.. have fun climbing....

Ethics is a personal thing, and while I may feel that I'm being ethical you may not think that I am. That's fine. If I think your not ethical and you think you are, that's fine too. We can't all have the glass half full.

Except that someone has posted directions under the name Rocky Ridge.

that's where you are WRONG. ethics are not personal, opinions are pesonal, ethics are communal. I personally think the runnout, no cams or chalk trad climbing ethics of some areas in the chezch are crazy, stupid, but i understand if i want to climb there those are the rules. the local ethic is what is agreed on by the local climbers as ethical or right for that area. Opninons are like assholes, everybody's gott'um yours just happen appear unethical, ie contrary to ethic established by the local community. trying to play the "i'll be the villiage idiot as long as i get people talking" martyr is lame as well. i'm glad this is about an area i don't frequent, b/c i hwould hate to see this much talk (attention, soon to come regulations) brought to some of my favorite bouldering spots.

If that is accurate (and I contacted the person the posted the area), then the area needs to be deleted. NOT because of the directions, but because the area is already represented in the database by the Hunters entry.

Posting a new area just to put up directions of an existing area is not the appropriate use of the RDB. This does nothing but make the database a pile of choss for users.

People want the RDB to be better, have more accurate information, etc, but doing things like this only degrades the RDB.

that's where you are WRONG. ethics are not personal, opinions are pesonal, ethics are communal. I personally think the runnout, no cams or chalk trad climbing ethics of some areas in the chezch are crazy, stupid, but i understand if i want to climb there those are the rules. the local ethic is what is agreed on by the local climbers as ethical or right for that area. Opninons are like assholes, everybody's gott'um yours just happen appear unethical, ie contrary to ethic established by the local community. trying to play the "i'll be the villiage idiot as long as i get people talking" martyr is lame as well. i'm glad this is about an area i don't frequent, b/c i hwould hate to see this much talk (attention, soon to come regulations) brought to some of my favorite bouldering spots.

don't be discouraged by the .coms they're often a place where contentious issues are thrown around... most climbers are really great people in person.
as you seem to be....

go to the gunks.... have some good experiences, and enjoy yourself...

Well, I understand what your saying, but the Hunters routes do not completely match the Rocky Ridge. If you look at Hunters, you notice that the majority of routes are in the Main section, or the private area. If we look at Rocky Ridge, all of the routes are on the public area. So its not an overlap as much as a neighboring site. While I agree that there is some overlap, there is a very significant difference, including the parking areas and routes. We can never stop people from trespassing if Hunters is the route, but we can guide people to the public areas with Rocky Ridge. My suggestion is to delete hunters altogether. It is a private area, it has incomplete information, there is no directions, there are no maps, the crags are hard to find and understand for beginners. Rocky Ridge has no routes yet, but it has clear directions and maps of the public areas where people can add the names and difficulties. There is parking far from the culdesac where the private drive goes. (In my opinion)

I guess that the ethics of climbers is to post a place to climb that is illegal but not tell anyone publicly how to get there. Warn others that they are being unethical when posting directions. Complain about the impact of other climbers for a private or public area. Once again, In my opinion.

An Area has multiple Sections of rock in it. Usually an Area isn't more than a mile or two in circumference. If you have to get in your car to drive to another part of the area, then we usually divide them into two Areas and group them together with the Region. This is especially common with Mountain ranges and Areas with thousands of routes like Yosemite.

A Section is a group of Routes. It's typically a wall or section of a wall; one piece of rock with several routes on it. Usually a section has between 2 and 15 routes on it and is made of the same type of rock.

Once again, your personal ethics are different than mine. This does not mean the the group ethics are different, well maybe a little. It just means I don't agree with the local group ethics. I have my own asshole, er opinion on ethics just like you do. Yes, my ethics do appear to be un ethical to the climbers here, but those climbers ethics appear unethical to me.

I'm sorry you feel that the village idiot thing is lame, but do you have a different opinion of me? I am new to rock climbing gear, ethics, terminology. I come from a background where I loved to climb things. I was never concerned with having the right shoes or correct color chalk to match the rock surface. I'm used to climbing with no chalk and no shoes on at all. So thats where my climbing ethics are coming from. Basically no experience with other climbers. Only in the last few months have I discovered what you climbers think. I have to tell you, it's mostly disappointing to me.

you not seeing my point, i disagree with the local ethic of some places i've climbed, but i haven't EARNED the right to try to change any thing. if i went down to Miguels and started spraying about what was wrong and what needed fixing and how the locals (the guys who develope and care for the place) should change things, i might just get punched. why, because on a larger scale i've done nothing to earn my strips so to speak. i havn't developed any routes, i'm working my first trail day this summer, i gave like $10 bucks to keep the southern region open, and what does this earn me, perhaps a few hours hanging (and learning from) and climbing with guys older/better than me. and a gain THERE ARE NO PERSONAL ETHICS (perhaps excluding alpinism, i got nothing there). there are personal opinions on ethics. but THE LOCAL ETHIC, something i've been tuaght is THE cardinal rule when it comes to ethics and such, is fundementally communal, established and policed by the community of climbers. You seem to have started climbing in a vacuum (as did I), and now attempt to replace the established, communal ethics, with you PERSONAL ideas. Selfish.

If you were violating the local ethic in ignorance you'd be the "villiage idiot", now you a the village asshole.

again, please remain in pa

You seem to have started climbing in a vacuum (as did I), and now attempt to replace the established, communal ethics, with you PERSONAL ideas. Selfish.

If you were violating the local ethic in ignorance you'd be the "villiage idiot", now you a the village asshole.

again, please remain in pa

I guess my biggest problem are our locals. What is the definition of local here? Are you a local if you go to college here? Are you a local if your born here and move out of state, stay, or live in the state? How long do you have to live here before being a local? Even if you are not an experienced climber, does that not entitle you to a say for the local area? What makes these locals the ones in charge?

no one is officially in charge and there is no formula to be a 'local', . 'local' doesn't mean geography always. We have RRG 'Locals" all over the place, guys who might only be here for a season, or month, but their contributions to the community give them a certian gravitas. Nor is it only about climbing hard. to quote one of our locals "you can be strong as s---, and still be a gumby climber." And i bet, if you climb there enough to demand a survay, you know who the locals are, if you don't your certainly not one of them. though i climb 2-3x week in the RRG, i don't consider myself a local yet, as of now, i am stricly a consumer. as long as you looking for neat rules and clearly defined sociological hierachies you will be frustrated with one of the more beautiful ascpects of the climbing community. i was tuaght simply to defer to more experianced climbers, even if i disagree vehemntly. i was pissed my parnter wouldn't let me belay with a grigri (the norm for RRG sport climbing) for like six months. even later i always wonderd why, this spring, 4 of us were out climbing a noob was belaying him on a grigri, he fell, the belayer clamped down on the lever and dropped him ( got up and was fine). the belayer, IN A HURRY, to develop as a climber, did what HE thougth was safer. That whole spiel to say, you never cause problems by defering to more experianced climbers. as long as your concered about the social ladder, you'll not a local. hell your not even a climber, just some one who climbs. Be humble, defer to older climbers (there still alive arn't they). you want the access for this area to be black and white but honestly, there are lots of things in climbing better left grey. i see jrathons point, attention, ESP TO LAND MANAGERS, LIKE A SURVAY, attracts regualtions. This is amerca, we are free to regulate everything. and regualations hurt access. better to keep a low profile and ensure they are never needed. and endangering access is always a breath of ethics (very close to black and white).

awesome!

locals are the community as a whole, from the most hard-core, to the 4 (to 9) year students, to the SC townies, to the huntington and jackson's corner folks (all 10), to the noobs (you). lump them all together, do your statistical survey, and there is your answer! but don't forget to count the hard-core guy's votes twice!

ha

I defer to the higher authorities on a lot of subjects, although directions to a public place are not one of them. So If hunters is private, directions should not be posted. However, rocky ridge is public and directions need to be posted. It could use a lot of experienced climbers help to become a great route section. I will defer to the ethics of the climbing community, if their choice is not to post directions on hunters. If they try to s--- down Rocky Ridge because it is too close to hunters, overlapping, incomplete, then I will not defer. I think thats reasonable, no?

It's not that Rocky Ridge is too close to Hunters, it is Hunters. They are the same place. You park in the same lot. Whether you go to the right or go to the left does not define an Area. They would not get seperate entries in a guidebook, nor should they have seperate areas in the RDB. That is the reason why Rocky Ridge should not be in the RDB.

The only reason it was created was that the OP wanted to post directions to Hunters, which could have been done several other ways without filling the RDB with duplicate entries.

The Hunters entry already has some really good route listings. If you want to post the routes on the public land, then they should be posted under Hunters. The only thing it is missing is directions, for reasons discussed time and time again on RC.com.