Since a compromise was found for the initial issue (I would have just prefered it to be formulated another way than in this thread), I am going to give a try on this topic.
The question should be perhaps formulated into 2 other questions, such as :
- When are route pages necessary ?
- What kind of information in a peak page require having been on top of it ?
As for the first one, it is perhaps now a bit different than it used to, since the GPS route feature has been implemented. However, without talking GPS, there are 2 ways to write peak pages:
- Including route information in it
- Making routes into separate route pages.
Both ways are widely used in SP and I guess widely accepted. Some systematically create route pages for any access to a mountain, even if very short, some never post routes.
I usually write route information into a "Routes" section that I add into most of my peaks, since almost all of them are easy/medium hiking destinations and there is no roman to say about them. However, I've made a couple of route pages for few specific ones.
In my opinion, a route page is needed :
- When it is a rock-climbing route, which requires a certain amount of information. I am not a rock-climber, however I know this discipline is quite strict speaking security and some data are just mandatory.
- When the hiking route is so rich in description, that its length would be disproportioned into the peak page. Can be for various reasons: complicated route, or lots of things to describe and comment in it.
The peaks mentionned in the start of this thread belong rather to the usual category of peaks I use to post, so in this case, YES, I recognize I should have climbed them, or added a mention about the fact that I didn't hike these routes.
However, despite some points require the use of hands and have some exposition, the area in which they belong to is not an area of big mountains. OK, again I was not there, but I read a lot and if it was so hard, I would know it.
Then it comes to the topic of how difficulty is perceived by each of us. But, I agree on the principle: from this point of view, it was a bad idea to post these mountains from me.
But let's now talk about mountain pages, out of the "terrain point of view".
A mountain is its description, seen from other mountains. A mountain is geology, a climate.
A mountain is history, first ascents, in summer, in winter, by women, history of the climbing routes. It is a name, its signification, possibly other names in other languages and their signification as well. A mountain is also legends and anecdotes linked to it.
A mountain is a lit of possible accomodations; guarded, unguarded, shelters of all sorts, places where camping is allowed or forbidden. A list of permits, seasonal closures and NP rules of all sorts. A mountain is an access by road, train, bus. Rescue phones, useful inks. Possibly a map if putting that map is possible and allowed.
I am not sure all mountain pages of those who voted "A mountain must be climbed" here contain all these details.
Finally, a mountain is also a description of the panorama from the summit. One of the few things, apart from the routes, which requires having been on its top. Who does it ?