|
mojomonkey
Jun 8, 2009, 12:47 AM
Post #1 of 61
(17288 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
Isn't the tradition for Lost City that it remains undocumented? I like that tradition, it leaves it open for exploration and a little sense of adventure...
Edit: I don't mean having a section noting Lost City, but adding routes and putting descriptions and photos seems to be against the tradition for the area.
(This post was edited by mojomonkey on Jun 8, 2009, 2:12 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jun 8, 2009, 2:58 PM
Post #2 of 61
(17203 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
Unfortunately, I know nothing of this tradition of which you speak...
(honestly, I know very little about the Gunks)
Unless climbing is specifically forbidden, and/or the route description plagiarized, I am not inclined to delete the route description without the original author's expressed permission.
And....there are also photos attached to the route, which I do not wish to orphan.
(This post was edited by sbaclimber on Jun 8, 2009, 2:59 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Jun 8, 2009, 3:11 PM
Post #3 of 61
(17186 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
I'm no local, but I've understood that a few areas, most notably Lost City, were agreed to be left out of guidebooks to preserve some areas for a sense of adventure - eyeball a route, see if it goes without knowing where the crux is or what grade it will be. It isn't super secret, and it is hard to argue how much adventure there is since there is still chalk and likely people there to give you info. others think it is a selfish tradition to keep the place set aside for the locals. I've never actually climbed there, just hiked out on a rainy day to check it out.
I do like the idea of keeping areas undocumented, not every place needs such explicit info.
Others more involved will likely have better insight.
This tradition seems to be respected on other sites. From Mountain Project: "Two other Gunks climbing areas, Lost City and Bonticou, are undocumented by local tradition. Climbing here is by word of mouth; go with a Gunks local or perhaps get information at Rock & Snow, the local climbing shop in New Paltz."
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jun 8, 2009, 3:47 PM
Post #4 of 61
(17156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
sbaclimber wrote: Unfortunately, I know nothing of this tradition of which you speak... (honestly, I know very little about the Gunks) Unless climbing is specifically forbidden, and/or the route description plagiarized, I am not inclined to delete the route description without the original author's expressed permission.
|
|
|
|
|
jsh
Jun 8, 2009, 4:02 PM
Post #5 of 61
(17132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 118
|
That's more than a bit melodramatic, Marc.
In fact, it touches on one of the genuinely hypocrisies of LC: that's it's kept hidden to promote "adventure".
Well, "adventure", but - don't be placing fixed pro., either on rappel or even if you're 30' out on a blank face and adventurously balanced on hooks - because, of course, it's only pretend "adventure".
All the while, the folks who tell you you're not adventurous enough and therefore you must find adventure by their rules (wait, is adventure by someone else's rules really adventure? but I digress), are likely making their 143rd ascent of Arrow, and of course, complaining about the crowds.
It may have been adventure back in the day, but ever since electricity and indoor plumbing arrived, things have changed and continued to change.
I'd guess that LC isn't published more due to inertia and lack of motivation than any kind of active imaginary protection.
--
The thing that really strikes me about LC is the idea that locals will share info with you. I've been climbing in the Gunks for 12 years now; and I've had any number of interactions with people who shuffle their feet, look off into the distance, and make some vague remark about looking the other way from the steel bridge. Ask at the gear shop? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Which is in stark contrast to Farley, for example - where locals will publish their email on the internet, and volunteer to waste a Saturday on a stranger.
In other words - LC is kept secret by the locals for the locals out of self interest, and unpublished due to same. That's the relevant 'history' of which you speak. Climbers sure are nice to each other, eh?
(This post was edited by jsh on Jun 8, 2009, 4:29 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Jun 8, 2009, 4:04 PM
Post #7 of 61
(17124 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
marc801 wrote: sbaclimber wrote: Unfortunately, I know nothing of this tradition of which you speak... (honestly, I know very little about the Gunks) Unless climbing is specifically forbidden, and/or the route description plagiarized, I am not inclined to delete the route description without the original author's expressed permission. Historically, Lost City has intentionally remained undocumented. All published guidebooks have respected this local tenet and ethic, which has been mentioned in all the guidebooks. Publishing LC route info is similar to adding bolts to an established line.
Bullshit. Unless the crag's on private property you've got no ground to tell folks what can and cant' be documented. Ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
Smikey
Jun 8, 2009, 4:49 PM
Post #8 of 61
(17074 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2007
Posts: 19
|
Get the facts straight. Go talk with Hank at the Preserve. While the tradition may have started as a way incite a little adventure and or keep the crowds away, the preserve has requested this area to remain undocumented. (You know those silly land owners)
Anyone still crying? I’m more then happy to take outsiders to LC and share all that I know.
All that aside, why the hell do some feel every once of climbable rock needs to be documented?
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jun 8, 2009, 4:52 PM
Post #9 of 61
(17070 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
I'm just explaining the history, the local ethics, and how some of the locals would view this. I have no dog in this fight, now living 2400 miles away for over 8 years.
Personally I always thought the "cone of silence" (google it, kids!) around LC routes was kinda foolish and, by the 1990's, a quaint anachronism. There have even been climbing classes and instructional groups out there. So from my perspective, documenting LC doesn't bother me a bit. Others will no doubt feel differently.
I also feel the the bolting ethic at the Gunks is somewhat foolish and certainly not without hypocritical aspects. But that's a whole other discussion.
(This post was edited by marc801 on Jun 8, 2009, 4:54 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
toml
Jun 8, 2009, 5:13 PM
Post #10 of 61
(17046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 71
|
jsh wrote: I'd guess that LC isn't published more due to inertia and lack of motivation than any kind of active imaginary protection.
I believe the first guidebook for LC was written several decades ago (it would have been a chapter in the 1972 edition of Shawangunk Rock Climbs). It was never published due to the decision not to publish a guidebook to LC.
so that would be the opposite of inertia and lack of motivation - plenty of effort was expended to create a guide.
Not documenting LC is thus a local ethic that's actively stood for over 35 years. Marc's point about it being like retrobolting has some validity - once a guidebook is out there, you can't take it back. You permanently alter the experience for people, even those who choose not to use the guidebook - between the extra crowds, the traffic and chalk on the cliff, the spray from passing climbers, etc., it adds up.
|
|
|
|
|
agdavis
Jun 8, 2009, 5:16 PM
Post #11 of 61
(17044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2009
Posts: 310
|
knieveltech wrote: marc801 wrote: sbaclimber wrote: Unfortunately, I know nothing of this tradition of which you speak... (honestly, I know very little about the Gunks) Unless climbing is specifically forbidden, and/or the route description plagiarized, I am not inclined to delete the route description without the original author's expressed permission. Historically, Lost City has intentionally remained undocumented. All published guidebooks have respected this local tenet and ethic, which has been mentioned in all the guidebooks. Publishing LC route info is similar to adding bolts to an established line. Bullshit. Unless the crag's on private property you've got no ground to tell folks what can and cant' be documented. Ridiculous.
Haven't you been paying attention that this is about tradition, not legality?
|
|
|
|
|
toml
Jun 8, 2009, 5:37 PM
Post #12 of 61
(17013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 71
|
knieveltech wrote: Bullshit. Unless the crag's on private property you've got no ground to tell folks what can and cant' be documented. Ridiculous.
Actually, the crag is owned by Mohonk Preserve, a private organization. Mohonk Preserve does have grounds to tell folks what can and can't be documented.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jun 8, 2009, 5:51 PM
Post #13 of 61
(16981 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jsh wrote: The thing that really strikes me about LC is the idea that locals will share info with you. I've been climbing in the Gunks for 12 years now; and I've had any number of interactions with people who shuffle their feet, look off into the distance, and make some vague remark about looking the other way from the steel bridge. Ask at the gear shop? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Which is in stark contrast to Farley, for example - where locals will publish their email on the internet, and volunteer to waste a Saturday on a stranger. In other words - LC is kept secret by the locals for the locals out of self interest, and unpublished due to same. That's the relevant 'history' of which you speak. Climbers sure are nice to each other, eh?
This has been my experience as well. The folks at Farley are always willing to show people around. In fact, one of the climbers who put up several of the routes drew me a map of the place in a notebook I keep with me. But ask someone who's a local about LC and they start avoiding eye contact. It's foolish. I got my info from a friend, a ranger who is not really a local, and that was nice. But sit on a ledge with a local and start talking about it, well, the "weather is nice. It might rain later, though."
I respect the idea of not publishing the information at both LC and Farley, that's why I don't publish the actual routes at either place on my blog. But if someone asked me, I'd be more than willing to help. It's not so precious that a cone of silence is needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jun 8, 2009, 5:53 PM
Post #14 of 61
(16981 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
toml wrote: knieveltech wrote: Bullshit. Unless the crag's on private property you've got no ground to tell folks what can and cant' be documented. Ridiculous. Actually, the crag is owned by Mohonk Preserve, a private organization. Mohonk Preserve does have grounds to tell folks what can and can't be documented.
Huh? How so? If independent publishers can publish, for their own profit, seating charts of stadiums how can the Mohonk suppress the sharing of information? Seriously, I'd like to know how they do that. Especially since they are a non-profit, which is subject to far more transparency rules than a private business.
That's ridiculous. They can't stop me or anyone from publishing info on the place.
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Jun 8, 2009, 6:07 PM
Post #15 of 61
(16967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
jsh wrote: LC is kept secret by the locals for the locals out of self interest, and unpublished due to same. That's the relevant 'history' of which you speak. Climbers sure are nice to each other, eh?
JL
|
|
|
|
|
toml
Jun 8, 2009, 6:18 PM
Post #16 of 61
(16952 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 71
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: Huh? How so? If independent publishers can publish, for their own profit, seating charts of stadiums how can the Mohonk suppress the sharing of information? Seriously, I'd like to know how they do that. Especially since they are a non-profit, which is subject to far more transparency rules than a private business. That's ridiculous. They can't stop me or anyone from publishing info on the place.
I was replying to knieveltech's comment
knieveltech wrote: Bullshit. Unless the crag's on private property you've got no ground to tell folks what can and cant' be documented. Ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jun 8, 2009, 6:39 PM
Post #17 of 61
(16935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
toml wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: Huh? How so? If independent publishers can publish, for their own profit, seating charts of stadiums how can the Mohonk suppress the sharing of information? Seriously, I'd like to know how they do that. Especially since they are a non-profit, which is subject to far more transparency rules than a private business. That's ridiculous. They can't stop me or anyone from publishing info on the place. I was replying to knieveltech's comment knieveltech wrote: Bullshit. Unless the crag's on private property you've got no ground to tell folks what can and cant' be documented. Ridiculous. which it is.
by "which it is" do you mean that it is on private property or that it is bullshit? If the prior, then it' is only private to a degree: non-profits are afforded their status in return for providing a public good. It would be difficult to say the property is completely private.
Even then, if its the latter (where private companies can prohibit documentation), then that is total bullshit. I can pretty much write whatever I want, so long as I'm not maliciously slandering them or creating some sort of imminent danger.
If I wanted to publish route info, then I could. There's nothing the Preserve could do to stop me. They could try to tie me up in court, and that would slow me down for sure, but they can't legally prevent me from writing a guidebook to LC. If that were the case then we'd never have unapproved biographies, for instance.
toml wrote: Actually, the crag is owned by Mohonk Preserve, a private organization. Mohonk Preserve does have grounds to tell folks what can and can't be documented. |
|
|
|
|
qtm
Jun 8, 2009, 7:00 PM
Post #18 of 61
(16918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548
|
Just this past Saturday, my son and I hiked around Lost City, with the specific intent of looking for routes we could climb. Yes, we actually made the effort to hike around, scramble into damp crevasses, to really find out what's there.
I took a lot of pictures of route that I could do. And a lot of pictures of routes I wouldn't even think of trying. Some GPS coordinates that we can plug into google maps, and hopefully match up with long range photos taken from the top of the nears, that will show just how little of lost city we actually covered.
We had a great day. Can't wait to actually climb some of the routes we found.
I won't post details... I mean, why take away that sense of adventure? On the other hand, when you find guided TR parties of 20 besieging parts of the cliff, the non-documentation of the area seems a little pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
CapedCrusader
Jun 8, 2009, 7:32 PM
Post #19 of 61
(16897 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Posts: 58
|
In reply to: If I wanted to publish route info, then I could. There's nothing the Preserve could do to stop me.
Speech, as we all know, is well protected by the 1st amendment. However, honoring the landowner's request to not publish route info seems a reasonable courtesy, given the circumstances. After all, even though they are a non-profit, the preserve is under no obligation to let people climb at Lost City at all.
Refraining from publishing route info without the landowner's permission is among the Access Fund's guidelines on how climber's can demonstrate they are good neighbors.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jun 8, 2009, 7:40 PM
Post #20 of 61
(16889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
CapedCrusader wrote: In reply to: If I wanted to publish route info, then I could. There's nothing the Preserve could do to stop me. Speech, as we all know, is well protected by the 1st amendment. However, honoring the landowner's request to not publish route info seems a reasonable courtesy, given the circumstances. After all, even though they are a non-profit, the preserve is under no obligation to let people climb at Lost City at all. Refraining from publishing route info without the landowner's permission is among the Access Fund's guidelines on how climber's can demonstrate they are good neighbors.
Oh I agree with that completely, which is why I said above that I don't publish the routes. But to say they could stop me from publishing it is not accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 8, 2009, 7:43 PM
Post #21 of 61
(16888 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Sorry JSH, but I think it's a cool tradition, and I hope it continues. But as I've moved to Denver, and was never really a "local" (were you, by the way?) I have no dog in the fight.
Just the same, IMO, rc.com is the last entity that should be considering itself on solid ground to disregard that tradition.
If JSH is right (and I'm not saying she is) then the guidebook should come from a Gunks local. I'm very much of the opinion that, like them or not, local traditions should be honored. If they decide the tradition is an anachronism, then they can do away with it.
But it's definitely not rc.com's place to do so.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jun 8, 2009, 7:46 PM
Post #22 of 61
(16879 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
CapedCrusader wrote: After all, even though they are a non-profit, the preserve is under no obligation to let people climb at Lost City at all.
And while this is true, it is also only true to a degree. The Preserve could certainly close off certain portions of its land, but it couldn't close off all of it. If it did then then there would certainly be scrutiny over it's non-profit status. I mean, if it closed off it's land then what would be community benefit be? The community benefit is the reason for the non-profit status.
So yeah, it can close Lost City, but it shouldn't without good reason and, conceptually, likely wouldn't be able to if Lost City were all that made up the 'Gunks.
|
|
|
|
|
rangerrob
Jun 8, 2009, 8:24 PM
Post #23 of 61
(16843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2003
Posts: 641
|
This whole post is lame. What is so hard about the notion that not every place needs to be documented?? It's not hard to get info, and the people on here who have said that locals here avoid talking about Lost City are completely off base, and probably lazy to boot. Jesus Christ..you can see the whole damned cliff from the road. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to get there. I have found the locals here more than willing to share info, but you have to make the effort man. Go out there, figure out the lay of the land, then come back and ask. Most anyone will tell you what is what. There are plenty of routes out there I have led and I still have no idea what the "real" name of the route is. Who cares?? Is that why you climb? So you can attach a name to it? Give me a break, you people are lame.
RR
|
|
|
|
|
toml
Jun 8, 2009, 8:37 PM
Post #24 of 61
(16830 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 71
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: CapedCrusader wrote: After all, even though they are a non-profit, the preserve is under no obligation to let people climb at Lost City at all. And while this is true, it is also only true to a degree. The Preserve could certainly close off certain portions of its land, but it couldn't close off all of it. If it did then then there would certainly be scrutiny over it's non-profit status. I mean, if it closed off it's land then what would be community benefit be? The community benefit is the reason for the non-profit status.
Actually, non-profit status is just what it is. Perhaps you're confusing it with tax-exempt status, which is different.
From the Internal Revenue Service:
There are three key components for an organization to be exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the IRC. A not-for-profit (i.e., nonprofit) organization must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes.
To be tax exempt, an organization must have one or more exempt purposes, stated in its organizing document. Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC lists the following exempt purposes: charitable, educational, religious, scientific, literary, fostering national or international sports competition, preventing cruelty to children or animals, and testing for public safety.
No public access required. The Preserve does a great deal of scientific research and educational outreach. Closure of access for climbers would in no way remove their tax-exempt status. And even if it did, it would simply mean that any profits were taxable. So...if the Preserve had income greater than expenses, some of the surplus would go to the government, that's all.
And their non-profit status would be totally unaffected. They wouldn't suddenly become a for-profit organization.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jun 8, 2009, 8:40 PM
Post #25 of 61
(16826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
rangerrob wrote: This whole post is lame. What is so hard about the notion that not every place needs to be documented??
I said twice that I don't publish it.
In reply to: It's not hard to get info, and the people on here who have said that locals here avoid talking about Lost City are completely off base, and probably lazy to boot.
Piss off. I've had the described experience, so it's not off base. Another climber noted the same thing above.
In reply to: Jesus Christ..you can see the whole damned cliff from the road. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to get there.
Actually, it's a bit confusing for a first-timer. I got lost the first time I went out there. In trying to stay on marked trails, it was the faint climber's trail that I missed. But hey, I can see that for someone who has been there a bunch of times and knows the lay of the land real well how easy it can be.
In reply to: I have found the locals here more than willing to share info, but you have to make the effort man.
Where did I say that I didn't make the effort?
Yes, you're right, I did say in an above post that the locals were less than willing to share info.
In reply to: Go out there, figure out the lay of the land, then come back and ask. Most anyone will tell you what is what. There are plenty of routes out there I have led and I still have no idea what the "real" name of the route is. Who cares?? Is that why you climb? So you can attach a name to it? Give me a break, you people are lame. RR
Where did I say I needed a name for a climb?
Lazy? Do your homework a bit better next time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
