|
|
|
|
karlbaba
May 25, 2003, 7:01 AM
Post #26 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
Greg raises a lot of good points. I think we could look at it both ways, If Dale's opinion about OZ had been available on a first ascent registry, folks might not have added the extra three anchors in the first place.
Thought should be given to potential responses that first ascent parties could consider. They might say, for instance, that they would like their routes untouched except to replace bad bolts, except for route X which could be enjoyed by more people if no more than two bolts were added on pitch 5 by an established local. (emphasis on established local)
Stories related to the first ascent would be welcome and opinions about local ethics would be helpful as well.
The preface to the database would be a good place to educate folks about the politics of ethics and how they relate to the local climber community, land managers, and so on.
People who bolt without knowing what they are getting into are a problem, but the registry could be more effective at solving the problem than making it worse. Folks who have learned at free-for-all sport areas could learn about the different attitutudes toward pro and anchors at more traditional crags before they "make their mark" where they shouldn't.
First ascenders who advocate retrobolting their own lines or suggesting that others do so, could stimulate a debate on that issue in advance before folks take action on it and a bolt war gets started.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
roninthorne
May 25, 2003, 12:12 PM
Post #27 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 659
|
After earlier, stronger reactions to this issue, I went away and thought about it some more, as most ADD patients will. I sorted out personal issues from the core discussion, and boiled it all down into simple terms.
One last time, no rhetoric or flame: FA Registry: as a historical archiving tool: good. As a simple "Red Light, Green Light" for retrobolting: bad. As a source point for contacting FAs to discuss possible alterations to routes: good idea, probably won't always work that way, but it's worth a try.
/R
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 25, 2003, 4:07 PM
Post #28 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Greg raised some very thought provoking ideas. His main theme seems to suggest that a public database of this sort could likely make the rebolt/retrobolt issues worse, not better. Never even considered it from that side personally. I need to think on it some more.
Who "edits" this database by the way? Who controls it? Who owns it? What if they dislike the comments of the FA party and seek to clean up their grammar, their use of language, their opinions? What if they just don't like the FA party, their methods, ethics or personalities. I wouldn't even know to ask these questions if there weren't so many established precedents from which to choose.
And what about FA parties who don't have computers or don't participate in internet climbing forums?
The very worst outcome possible is that the comments of the FA party are erased or changed by some over zealous self-appointed guardian... we would be far better off with no database at all if that happens even once. Kind of like the death penalty... you can get it right 99% of the time. One innocent death renders the whole thing immoral, that kind of notion.
I am more confused than ever!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
May 25, 2003, 8:00 PM
Post #29 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: It's simple: If you don't know what the first ascentionist thinks, don't alter the route in any way. Even if the FA wanted something retrobolted, i wouldn't reccomend doing it because it takes away from the character and adventure of the climb. Anyone who thinks otherwise is disrespectful and selfish.
That pretty much sums up my view on the subject.
This is a very confusing issue, but the basic concept is appealing and could help prevent some problems.
It could provide contact information for FA parties. But their views need to be tempered by the overall consensus of the community.
I for one feel that we need to discourage convenience anchor’s on mixed climbs. Cleaning up the mid dihedral anchors on the OZ would be worthwhile trash removal.
What constitutes unnecessarily runout out is such personal thing that I don’t think you will be able to find a consensus on what is appropriate. Certainly not on an internet forum with an emphasis on sport climbers. To many people think that bolts are what keep you safe, when nothing could be farther from the truth.
Replacing bad bolts is a very valuable service to the climbing community that we should all support. However retrobolting routes should rarely if ever be done, even with FA permission. An FA takes place in a defined moment in history and tends to take into account the prevailing wisdom of the moment. Looking and judging that route in light of current popular tendencies is inappropriate.
A new route that violates the current ethos of an area should be chopped. A old route that violates the current ethos of an area should for the most part be left alone.
Possibly one of the most useful aspects of this registry would be to establish and publicize a consensus on the ethos of a particular area.
|
|
|
|
|
ljthawk
May 26, 2003, 12:16 AM
Post #30 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2002
Posts: 245
|
Quick question,
Shouldn't something like this be handled by the active local climbers? At least in the southeast, if someone wants to find out about the history of a route and what the FA's views are, there is a rich wealth of knowledge and people to contact; most I would bet have never or rarely visit this site. Local climbers know more about relevant access issues, ethics surrounding the area, and are more capable of researching out the details if needed.
Here's an example. Not too long ago someone posted recent bouldering pics of an area that is closed. Such pictures sends the message that the place is open. Currently some local climbers are trying to work out access for everyone with the land owner so it isn't "stealth access" The person who posted the pictures was contacted by a local and asked to remove them, he agreed and offered to help with the efforts to officially open the area up. No one at RC.com caught the pictures or denied their approval, even though the area explicitly says "Closed" on the RC.com web page.
That is just an example of a potential situation of posting pictures raised. I can't imagine what a database of "He Said, She said" for all, local or not, to use as guidance on what to do in an area or a specific climb with respect to fixed anchors. Fixed anchors are best left to the local climbing community to manage and police. If a non local wants to develop in an area, they should contact local climbers beforehand, not get their information off the internet.
Just a thought,
L.J.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
May 26, 2003, 4:05 AM
Post #31 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
What I am proposing is something of a tool that could be used by active local climbers and future generations.
Word of mouth is a lot of what we have now and it works and doesn't work. I've lived in Yosemite for 20 years, year-round, yet, except for a few cases, I'm not comforable saying what the intentions or opinions of most first ascenders here are. How many X rated routes are that way because of boldness, craziness, poverty? It would be fun to know instead of guess. 90 years from now, we'll all be dead. We often say that the first ascent party's wishes should be respected as a general rule, but soon we won't have a clue what their wishes were.
Maybe the future generations will care what the climbers of today thought, maybe they won't. They will at least have better view of what we are going through now if we write it down.
There is certainly something to fear in cataloging the thoughts and opinions of first ascent parties. They might not agree with us or our ethics! And clueless gumbies might invade with powerdrills. This sort of thing is happening anyway. I would rather take my chances with openness and the truth than assume keeping things to ourselves will have the best result.
Peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
May 26, 2003, 4:14 AM
Post #32 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
In reply to: Greg raised some very thought provoking ideas. His main theme seems to suggest that a public database of this sort could likely make the rebolt/retrobolt issues worse, not better. Never even considered it from that side personally. I need to think on it some more. Who "edits" this database by the way? Who controls it? Who owns it? What if they dislike the comments of the FA party and seek to clean up their grammar, their use of language, their opinions? What if they just don't like the FA party, their methods, ethics or personalities. I wouldn't even know to ask these questions if there weren't so many established precedents from which to choose. And what about FA parties who don't have computers or don't participate in internet climbing forums? The very worst outcome possible is that the comments of the FA party are erased or changed by some over zealous self-appointed guardian... we would be far better off with no database at all if that happens even once. Kind of like the death penalty... you can get it right 99% of the time. One innocent death renders the whole thing immoral, that kind of notion. I am more confused than ever! DMT
Most of those questions haven't been worked out yet.
If such a database were on Rockclimbing.com, I would think that folks could write whatever they wished (perhaps abiding by whatever profanity rules the site has) and that nobody would mess with it. Other local sites and guidebook authors could copy that particular info (if it could be checked anyway) The less censorship the better. It's the internet, let the information get out there and try to use good judgement in assesing what to do with it.
As for first ascenders without net access, I would hope friends and other climbers would contact significant folks and help them state their opinions and tell their stories. A good way to link our own past with the present.
Some means of weeding out trolls and frauds would be helpful though.
Peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
ptone
May 26, 2003, 5:05 AM
Post #33 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2003
Posts: 350
|
First, I think that this is a great idea.
Reading everyone else's comments brought up some really good points to consider, and I think it is cool to see people working together, the more the better in this.
It is a hard question, the idea of moderators etc. Would definitely have to be impartial.
As far as trolls or frauds, even back-ups or witnesses share the responsibility of karma, and usually that is enough eh?
I don't see this as being about (retro)bolting permits, or area access, or even ethics on a popular front.
My opinion (small as it may be) is that the way something like this would work best is to keep it very simple.
Maybe something like:
FA names and witnesses names of blah, in blah, on the date of blah, and with a blurb (blah blah), and contact (optional) and preferences (if desired) for or about future manipulation.
Just a registry, simple, clear and unemotional, without comments by second ascenders or yahoos or anyone. Save that stuff for when you finally send the thing, and check it off or write it up on RC.com routes or whatever!
peace
-p
|
|
|
|
|
neadamthal
May 27, 2003, 3:13 PM
Post #34 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2002
Posts: 245
|
i had to add this...
i think this is a great idea, regardless of what i babble on about below...
In reply to: The element of risk should be kept for those who enjoy the added danger. If you aren't up to creating a new route in good style, then let somebody else have the enjoyment of being the first.
the element of risk is there whether there is more protection or not. you determine what risks you take by the amount of gear you place or use.
personally i feel that routes should be accessible to anyone able to climb that grade. simply making mentally harder by refusing to allow bolts to be added is selfish and arrogant.
"i soloed that climb, so that's the only way it should ever be done!"
get off your freakin horse! just cause you're a cocky bastard who is willing to risk your life for a thrill doesn't mean you should have the say in whether others can climb it safely.
i realize that what i'm saying is very controversial, but i'm sticking to my guns (even though i don't own any! :wink: ). yes, there is grey area (ie, adding bolts where natural pro is available is not acceptable) in this debate, i think safety should be foremost in ALL our climbing endeavours. if you want the added thrill, just don't clip in.
nuff said. (like this is going to change ANYTHING to do with this subject/practice!!!)... :lol:
and here comes the opponents...
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 27, 2003, 3:23 PM
Post #35 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Most of those questions haven't been worked out yet. If such a database were on Rockclimbing.com, I would think that folks could write whatever they wished (perhaps abiding by whatever profanity rules the site has) and that nobody would mess with it.
Thought about this some over the weekend Karl. It seems to pass the "What harm?" test. I'm sure if the folks here decide to do this, they'll do it right. So why not? I'd contribute, if I had an FA worth reporting that is...
If there isn't adequate interest, perhaps the ASCA or the new bolt group at Climbing might take it up?
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
roclimb
May 27, 2003, 5:00 PM
Post #36 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 452
|
It seems like a nice idea, but only if the first ascentionist agrees. Ive put up a lot of routes and even once went back and added a bolt to a route of mine in PA because I fealt no one would ever climb it in its existing state.
I also feal that a lot of routes are important to stay R rated. If someone did the FA in that state that means it can be done using minimal fixed gear. A lot of the sport of climbing is mental. any gym pixie can go out and lead a 5.11, 5.12 nicely bolted sport route but you can distinguish the more skilled climber by the guy who can pull the same grade and keep a calm head on R rated.
~Rob
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
May 28, 2003, 3:05 AM
Post #37 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
Tim, one of the RC.com guys, has offered to work on the code. I haven't heard from Trevor yet. Chris Mac has offered his support. I'm sure he could play a positive role as he has worked with lots of FA parties and grappled with difficult bolting ethics issues.
Once a basic structure is ready to go and basic issues are worked out, I'll post links to this discussion, along with an overview of the idea to various internet forums and rec.climbing so a larger sample of the climbing community can have input as this evolves.
Then we'll let it fly, and try to fine tune things quick enough to keep it a positive contribution to our sport
Peace
karl
PS Personally, I think that what FA climbers would like to contribute can be as individual as they are. If they want to just state the facts, fine. If they want to go on about local ethics and their view of climbing, great! If they want to tell us they did it on a bet, or get lost, or were drunk, or scared, it should all go in the annals of our history. I've studied enough history to know that there are tons of lies in most history, at least distorted perspectives. The more voice we give to the folks who made the history, the clearer we can see it down the line.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
iamthewallress
May 29, 2003, 1:33 AM
Post #38 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
Karl,
I think that all that most of us need to know about the first ascentionist is found in the back of the guidebooks. Adding bolts to a line that has been up for many years is something that one should probably only do because they feel very strongly about the route in question. If someone really feels strongly that Pieces of Eight needs to have more bolts, then they should have enough initiative to find Scott Burke's contact info and ask him about it. I think that posting that Scott would like to see more bolts on his line is lowering the bar for folks who want a super safe route, but don't have the vision to find good unclimbed lines or the initiative to go put up the whole shooting match on lead. I think people's time would be better spent digging the mud out of any one of a gazillion presently chossy, but otherwise probably quite moderate cracks that abound in Yosemite.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
May 29, 2003, 2:16 AM
Post #39 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
Hi Melissa
I posted that Scott was considering going back to Pieces of Eight himself and adding a few bolts. It would still probably be R rated and fearsome, just not a total death route like it is now. Can you name two people who have done it? Who cares if the bar is lowered from X to R by the first ascender himself or someone he chooses. If a few new bolts showed up on the route, how would we know to chop them or respect them if we didn't know what the FA Party had in mind.
The idea of a first ascender registry is not to be a retrobolter dating service but to catalog the opinions and views of first ascenders for future generations.
We are in touch with the 70s and 80s climbers and their views now, but that will not last. People are learning to climb in the gym now. (I've only been once) and their mentality will inevitably overcome the sport without a balanced perspective. The past will be forgotten if not recorded and us old codgers won't be here to wag fingers at those who take change to extremes. Better to have a dialog about it than a bolt war.
I believe an FA registry is not a threat and will result in more preservation than change. The FA party can be totally specific about what changes are acceptable if any, and by whom. I'm sure that even liberal FA parties will say that only established locals should alter their routes in keeping with local consensus ethics. Even with that, local ethics aren't going to accept a route that they wouldn't accept anyway.
Did you know that gardening cracks is illegal in Yosemite? Yup.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
trevor
Anonymous Poster
May 29, 2003, 6:29 AM
Post #40 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2006
Posts: 0
|
OK, I'm here finally to provide my opinion. Sorry it took so long. There are a couple of issues here:
Should we provide the information at all if it could possibly be wrong? I think the general consensus (which I strongly agree with) is that more information is better than none at all. We'll go with that for now because the pluses outweigh the minuses.
Private or Public Although RC.com is technically a private organization, there are some things that will always stay in what I call public domain. And also, there are no public organizations that have the resources and the critical mass to pull something like this off. Even trying to think objectively, I can't think of any public organization that would be able to pull this off right. RC.com may be as public as you can get. After all, we've survived for years providing information for free and I don't see us stopping that tradition.
Can we technically pull this off? Yes, RC.com could add some fields to the Routes database to track this sort of information. In 1997, I thought about adding a field for FA...but I just didn't realize that the database would become THE official routes database for climbing at the time. I also didn't understand the importance of the data either.
When will we do this? I'll talk to Tim about it and see if he has time. Otherwise it will have to wait a month or two. I'm still working on Gear Reviews and a few other things. So if there is a PHP programmer out there willing to code this, then send me a PM.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
May 29, 2003, 10:19 AM
Post #41 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
Thanks for the support Trevor.
I'll post the link to this discussion on a few other forums in the next week or so. I think it's important to give the climbing community a comment period before we get started.
Tim has been very supportive. If he gets busy before we have a structure in mind, that's OK. It's better to wait a bit to give the idea a chance to be refined, accepted, and "bought into" by the community. Plus, it's peak climbing season and hard to put in the time right now to do it right in a short time.
A challenge is to make the information fairly easy to input by a variety of people without making it prone to internet trolls and frauds. My first idea would be that to input information, someone would either have to be a member of Rc.com posting about their own ascent, or be the manager of an area of the database, or be approved to post FA data by the manager. Folks who post fraudulent data should lose their membership. I would hope the local communities will keep an eye out for suspicious stuff and, as a group, we could weed out any misinformation. I also hope that local sites and guidebook authors would be able to use FA data from rc.com.
Peace
Karl
(who is up a 3 am cause his Ibuprofen wore off after too many days of climbing in a row)
|
|
|
|
|
iamthewallress
May 29, 2003, 7:07 PM
Post #42 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
In reply to: I posted that Scott was considering going back to Pieces of Eight himself and adding a few bolts. It would still probably be R rated and fearsome, just not a total death route like it is now. Can you name two people who have done it? Who cares if the bar is lowered from X to R by the first ascender himself or someone he chooses. If a few new bolts showed up on the route, how would we know to chop them or respect them if we didn't know what the FA Party had in mind.
We'll be going up soon and bring the drill to replace the bolts. I'm surprised with all of the cracks shown on the topo that it really is X. I thought the topo designated it R. My partner also had a hard time imagining that bolts would be added in places that were not the logical drilling stances or before cruxes (resulting in contrived run-outs rather than ones that exist because the rock was permissive enough or the stances were poor enough to cause the FA to forgo breaking out the hammer). He felt that Scott generally put up really good routes with bolts only when you really need them. I guess we'll find out. I'll post back what we think about it after finding out first-hand.
Paradise Lost (whose retrobolting we were discussing elsewhere) was supposed to be our training route for Pieces of Eight. When I told J, my partner and the leader of the bold run-outs, that Scott had said that he would like to see bolts added ot Pieces of Eight, he really got worked into a lather. He's saved that route for years until he knew that he'd be ready to except that route on it's own terms. I think that after the route has been there for 17 years (FA was in '86 I believe), Scott has missed his window of opportunity to add bolts. Probably more so now that he has disappeared from Yosemite (I could be wrong about that though.) Not
all routes need streams of folks up them to be worthwhile preserving. And, as I've posted elsewhere, there are lots of routes that the average Joe/Jill can get up in the vicinity.
DNB has hairy run-outs as well, but with training, it's something that a weekend climber can aspire to, train for, and eventually accomplish. And a whole lot of folks do every year. Paradise Lost is a step up from the DNB, and Pieces of Eight is a step up from that and therefore, will be accessable to fewer. I think that's OK. Fewer people deserve Pieces of Eight because it takes a much bigger commitment to achieve it.
In reply to: Did you know that gardening cracks is illegal in Yosemite? Yup.
Removing enough of the infinately renewable mud pack from an area that gets little traffic is a form of civil disobedience that I guess I find preferable to drilling in a high profile, heavily developed area.
It's also illegal to fix lines, leave bail sling, or trundle loose rock. Still, all of these things have their place, and even the park service turns a blind eye when practised in a reasonable manner.
Sometimes more information is the better thing. I just hope that if this database allows FAs to go on record saying that they wouldn't mind seeing retrobolts on their classic routes (often once they have softened with age and are no longer in a position to the routes without someone else putting the extra bolts up for them), then there will also be a place for the people who have been climbing or aspiring to climb those routes for many years to say that they think it's BS and that they'll alter the added hardware.
I'd rather see topos made that show what was original on first ascent, so
that people can respect the history and style of the first ascent more than the changed present day ideals of the first ascentionist.
|
|
|
|
|
mungeclimber
May 29, 2003, 7:54 PM
Post #43 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2002
Posts: 648
|
All,
I've done a fair amount of contributing to guidebooks and it is tough to get good FA info most of the time. I would love to be a part of this. I'm a bit of climbing guidebook nut and climbing history buff. I also run two climbing websites, but would be willing to take on administering/moderating/investigating the FA info in the dbase when it is up.
PM whenever you need an extra set of eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
May 29, 2003, 8:08 PM
Post #44 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: I think that after the route has been there for 17 years (FA was in '86 I believe), Scott has missed his window of opportunity to add bolts. Pieces of Eight is a step up from that and therefore, will be accessable to fewer. I think that's OK. Fewer people deserve Pieces of Eight because it takes a much bigger commitment to achieve it.
Sometimes more information is the better thing. I just hope that if this database allows FAs to go on record saying that they wouldn't mind seeing retrobolts on their classic routes (often once they have softened with age and are no longer in a position to the routes without someone else putting the extra bolts up for them), then there will also be a place for the people who have been climbing or aspiring to climb those routes for many years to say that they think it's BS and that they'll alter the added hardware.
I'd rather see topos made that show what was original on first ascent, so
that people can respect the history and style of the first ascent more than the changed present day ideals of the first ascentionist.
Wow, you are the Wallress! Neat perspective.
I dunno. Mixed bag for sure. There are tons of classic routes that have been retro bolted. And, there are some that remain head point test pieces. Glad that there's both.
Maybe less is more, usually.
But sometimes, folks just go ahead and retro bolt. I think its less often now that those type of bolts get chopped.
Couple of interesting quotes recently, that I found amusing. One was a letter to Alpinist, thanking them for putting death back in climbing (or some such). Good chuckle. Another was the PBS Nova special with Krakauer and the boys down in Antarctica. He quoted someone like Amundson (or ?), who said that adventure was for folks who didn't plan well, or were foolish (that's at least the gist of it). There were constant comparisions to Amundson's trip versus Scott's trip. Krakauer mused that we might make all kinds of excuses for exploration, but that we really all seek some sort of adventure, and maybe the danger as well. All this juxtaposed on the perfectly executed and non epic of Amundson's trip. Interesting perspectives.
So, part of me could look at these runout, R or X rated test pieces as done deals. You makin' a subsequent ascent isn't really doing anything new, other than proving you can muster up whatever to follow in someone else's bold foot steps (no mean feat in some or most cases!). Adding additional protection maybe takes away less, because the climb is already done. That adventure has been had. There is no unknown, other than wondering if you can follow or stand on some giant's shoulders (or for me, nip at their ankles!).
So maybe, its sorta much ado? Opening up runout routes to a wider audience by reducing the risk versus just repeating someone elses FA. The orginal FA being were the real action was in the first place, and once done, is gone forever.
Only one chance for an onsite! Er something.
Melissa, great perspective! How dare these old mellow climbers take their FA's down for the masses (!)...depriving subsequent proud followers of their achievements the ever slight glimpse of how the route was first done...wow...great thoughts...
Fun stuff. Hope things are great!
Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
May 29, 2003, 10:37 PM
Post #45 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
I doubt Scott would be bringing his route down for the masses. Just guessing, probably along the lines of Stoners, which is no picnic.
Perhaps the topo rated it "R" I think Scott called it a death route because he felt the bolts couldn't be trusted anymore.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
roninthorne
May 31, 2003, 6:52 PM
Post #46 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 659
|
While I keep reading claims that this DB isn't a retrobolting dating service, the subject keeps coming upo, and being rationalized, in this thread. so I gotta ask...
If it's okay to retrobolt because the adventure has been done, the FA completed, then doesn't it follow that I should be able to, at will, take chisel and maybe a grinder up and "improve" or "open up for the greater climbing community" those pesky, hard-to-protect 5.9+-and-harder crack climbs? I mean, they've already been done in the original style with the original protection, by the FA party...
And, again, where does "opening up" a climb by adding bolts become "gridbolting", and who decides the difference?
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
May 31, 2003, 8:00 PM
Post #47 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
I think it is significant, though I can't quite articulate exactly why and how, that the bulk of this thread is being taken up with discussion of retrobolting and bolting ethics in general.
The greater value of Karl's proposed registry is in the historical content. I would hope that comments about retrobolting, etc., would be strongly discouraged. Depending on how the registry is finally structured, for the FAers to submit entries, I hope there is no text box to fill in referring to subsequent treatment of the route. That just opens up a Pandora's box for everyone to read and misinterpret. And, it doesn't allow the FAer to later change his/her mind; if someone has acted on the initial comment, then it's too late to say, "Wait, no, I mean..."
While I agree in principle with the notion that more information is better, I encourage the utmost caution in proceeding down this road. Again, please keep in mind that you can't unring the bell.
One way of looking at the development of new projects that works for me sometimes, is to consider what I don't want the final product to look like. For this, one thing I would strongly discourage is interactivity within the registry. Consider the worst case scenario, in terms of results and effects, for the different ways the registry could be structured and the different content that could be solicited. And then, I would urge, go with the one that would cause the least disturbance. It's easier to modify up than it is to try to modify backwards. Do the least harm, wait; move forward slowly, wait; move forward again, etc.
The registry should not be open to comment and discussion like a forum. There should also be a way to ensure the validity of the submission, meaning that it needs to be ascertained that the submiter 1) is who he or she claims to be; and 2) has a valid claim to the FA in question. There will have to be a procedure for managing disputes. And, that probably means a final decision-maker. Any volunteers?
I would also strongly suggest that there be a clear and consice statement at the heading of every page of the registry, when viewed, that addresses the matter of respect for the FAer and the local ethical standards, and that "any and all ethical standards, as well as land ownership and public land management policies, are fluid and therefore subject to change, and may possibly conflict with the comments and style of particular FAers as reflected in the registry. The issue of altering or modifying a route is purely a local issue, and RC.com (or whomever) takes no responsibility for, nor takes a position of approval or disapproval of the comments contained herein."
Again, it seems to me that the "heat and meat" of this thread has been in discussion of bolting ethics, blah, blah, blah, and if the registry is open to commentary about that, by the FAer or anyone else, it is going to be counter-productive to climbing inetersts. And, there's no question that RC.com is regularly viewed by land management authorities, some of whom clearly have an anti-climbing agenda. If the registry stirs up the hornet's nest even more, and does so publicly, then it has done no one a service.
As a potentially great repository of climbing history, I say, "Go!" But, with caution and great forethought, as well, please.
|
|
|
|
|
wildwombat
May 31, 2003, 8:19 PM
Post #48 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2003
Posts: 4
|
Wow, what an excellent conversation! Thanks, Karl.
The movie, Vertical Frontier, on the history of Yosemite climbing is a must see. Not only is it a fabulous documentary chronicling Yosemite’s golden age, it provides a framework for the things that climbers are doing now. A friend who has been bumming around the Valley bought it for his parents to try to get them to understand what it is he’s been doing with his life for the past 3 years. Fantastic stuff.
A section on climbing history built into the routes database on rockclimbing.com would be fun. I love reading the types of stories in the Supertopo books about the style and stories behind the FA. They are quite simply excellent reads. However, if the specific intent is to find out whether or not it would be OK in the eyes of the FA party to add a bolt here or there to an existing route… I think that the current system is as good if not better than having a database. Maybe some things should be fluid and dynamic, rather than set in stone (or in a database) to be recorded for all posterity.
Route preservation is a tough thing. Things change. Rocks fall. Natural gear behind a flake used to protect a 10b move. The flake fell leaving no gear, and a 12c move. If living, perhaps a FA who would previously have been violently opposed to a bolt next to the flake could be persuaded that in this case some additional gear was appropriate to preserve the route as a whole. If not living, maybe the climb really has fallen into the public domain, and a consensus of local climbers is the way to go about figuring out what to do. The FAs database entry, however, would remain staunchly opposed to a new bolt… would people really abide by that? Which gets back to Melissa’s point. It does seem that after a while, the route ownership by the FA expires. For example, FA or not, I don’t think anyone could bolt the Hollow Flake on the Salathe wall and have those bolts last. Not even da Vinci should try to “fix” the Mona Lisa at this point.
But then again, maybe the point is to find out who WOULD want bolts added to their route, and where. Perhaps you’d want the prospective bolter to be connected enough to the local scene to A) know the FA party, B) be willing to contact the FA party, C) know someone who knows someone who heard the FA say that he’d like an extra bolt in this one spot, anyway, or D) know enough to leave well-enough alone.
T
|
|
|
|
|
tim
May 31, 2003, 9:11 PM
Post #49 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
See, that's why this is such a pain to implement correctly.
If the real FA'ist says 'This is a great route, and deserves a better anchor than the 5/16" single-bolt piece of crap that we put in after we broke our 3/8" bit', then you have a situation where Greg Barnes or one of his like-minded posse can go up there and fix the problem. But that is ONLY true if the FA'ist typing in the comments, is really the FA'ist who climbed the route.
My thoughts were initially just "well, we should have them join as members, and then if they start spewing crap like 'ITS TIME TO RETROBOLT THE BACHAR YERIAN!!!1 -- Jonny Rock' there can be some background checking done". But Karl pointed out that a lot of people aren't going to go to the effort of signing up. (although it sure as hell would make us iron out any bugs in the signup process real quick...)
I'd love to think that E.C. Joe or Herb Laeger or Fred Beckey could find some redeeming value in having an identity on this site. I mean, it's not like they need partners or are looking for dating material, but this sort of a registry could perhaps provide some historical context to discussions about "man that thing is a fucking DEATH ROUTE, it NEEDS BOLTS and LOTS OF THEM" when someone studly like Beckey points out that not only does the line not need bolts, it didn't even need sticky rubber on the NOSAR-supported first ascent, before the roads into the area were built...
I don't know whether it'll work out. I added fields to the routes database to support this type of implementation -- people who made FA's (or make new FA's) speaking for themselves. I don't see why it would be any less valid for Tim Kemple or Harrison Shull or Brandon Thau to say "we want this to stay bold, and you should expect any bolts to get chopped" about a modern 5.13X fright-fest. Do they "own" the rock? No. But if our little subculture of climbing enthusiasts wants the respect of landowners and federal custodians of public resources, we need to at least give the appearance of respecting each other, and presenting a unified front.
Perhaps another useful addition to the routes db would be an Access section, noting that you'll probably get a face full of rock salt from Clem's blunderbuss if you try to cross his property on the way to the cliff, or conversely that there's free camping year round and nearby water. There are some areas that I added to the routes DB with purposely shitty directions because I had NO idea whether it was a good idea to provide them. "Contact the guy that gave ME the beta" was about all I put in...
Finally, I'm really wondering what the best course of action for integrating the Access Fund into our community, may be. Do we have Access Alerts grouped against the Routes DB entries they affect? Do we present them by their relevance to a user's declared Location? Both? Neither?
Many things to do here. On a bright note, Khanom is coming back into the fold (Eric -- the guy that implemented a lot of the nice features that emerged just prior to the phpbb2 switch-over) so perhaps if it becomes a hot issue and something valuable to our partners, he can be convinced ($$$) to bust out something excellent.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jun 2, 2003, 1:16 AM
Post #50 of 70
(6463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
After reading many comments during this "Public Comment Period" (mostly on Rockclimbing.com) it is obvious that concerns about retrobolting are foremost in people's minds, and the advantages of knowing the FA party's opinion about the any potential route changes in the future are not particularly valued.
Folks seem to want the FA party's take on history and the local area, and some interesting stories about their routes.
Personally, it seems to me like parents telling the school, please don't give our teenage daughter any sex education! It will just make her want to go get drilled!
It is true, though, that information has consequences. Obscure Routes that get "supertopoed" skyrocket in popularlity and big wall routes that get "ASCA'ed" are morelikely to become trade routes.
But this isn't about me so...
I think it would be wise to get first ascender's general comments under the listing of their name, and anecdotes about their specific routes can go under the "FA notes" for each route if they care to share stories.
No enouragement should be given to comment on bolting issues particular to the route and hopefully each general area can have a link to a local ethics summary, reprinted with permission if possible, from the local guidebook or paraphrased by a local. No blanket "will or intent about my routes in general" should be asked for either.
I wouldn't prohibit talk of bolting or chopping cause I think free speech is critical, but the introduction to the registry can shape how it is used. If we don't make it about bolting, it won't tend to be. I think the concerns expressed over retrobolting issues should be respected.
The issues and problems that arise from bolting issues still be with us though. Perhaps a better understanding of the past will help. Even if it doesn't, we will have a better history than just the polished accounts of the sponsored folks detailing their cutting edge climbs.
Peace
Karl
I'll listen for more feedback and response to this proposed refinement of direction but, so folks get a better idea where we are going before they get all concerned, I'll edit my first post to reflect this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
