I'll comment on this latest thing that you guys are discussing (Chugach and Borut). Okay, I was just looking at the featured page, which is the Südpfalz area page. I guess opinions will vary, I already stated that I think it's a great page that can also use enhancement by some technical climbers when they show up. This is in accordance with my own feelings about Summitpost. I think that someone should post "what they have," because it serves as a kind of coral reef which will get routes and mountains attached to it. Therefore, the fact that a hiker makes a page about a region more famous for climbing doesn't bother me. In my opinion it's better than nothing, as long as it doesn't obscure or denigrate other uses.
Now, looking more closely I do see that Gangolf has a bunch of mountain pages under that area page. I happened to click on one randomly (Hohle Felsen
). It looks like Gangolf scrambled up the easiest way to the summit. It's a very detailed page, showing clearly that the author has hiked around the area a lot. It talks about a rockfall in 2003 that made some routes unstable. But since the author doesn't climb or buy climbing guidebooks, he can't tell us the route names to avoid, only the area to avoid on the rock. There are links to rock climber web sites to tell us more information (mostly German, though).
I'm just not able to get upset about this page. As for the technical requirement that the author reach the summit, I clicked on other mountain pages in the sector and see that many of these summits have a hiking route to the top. Gangolf didn't always sign a summit register, but he offers very detailed hiking directions to the top and copious photos from up there.
I dunno, I guess if I look at every single mountain (there are a LOT) I might find some where he didn't stand on the summit. This would be a great waste of a valuable evening's time. But Borut it seems that you found some, and based on what you say is a general, long accepted site rule, then I guess you've got a valid bone to pick.
The thing is, for me, I've never been a fan of that rule. I've got a friend who spent weeks working on an amazing page for a Himalayan peak that he is working on an expedition to in the next few years. He made the page to consolidate information, psych himself up, make the dream more real. I did this once years ago for the same reason, making a page on North Peak of Index where I scanned in all the AAJ articles and all kinds of stuff I found to give myself energy for the climb (thank god it was on my own private site in a hidden area). Anyway, he fell afoul of this rule and had to either remove his page or accept being a pariah. I think he's gone the pariah route. I say it's a big waste of energy to do that to people.
I didn't mean to become an "insider" (the way Dow talks at me), yet here I am defending the "big gorilla" of the site.
I've been a pariah here at least two times and I'm sure it'll happen again. I've always held that in general content is good. If somebody makes a page on a Columbia Gorge peak and focuses too much on the damn flowers (because that's their thing) and not enough on the southwest access route, I really don't care. Thumbs up, I say. Let somebody else come and add a route page.
Let me finish by saying I know there is a lot I don't understand. Borut, you made so many incredible pages. I only have a paltry few. It may be that you've encountered incredible anguish and difficulty from the problem of "page owned by someone who didn't climb it," and therefore have strong justification to make this an issue. Go on ahead then. I just felt I needed to respond to basically innuendo from Dow and now from you that seems to put many pages of valuable content into a bad light. The innuendo sounded serious. But then I looked at the pages, and responded with details of what I found. I don't mean to be difficult.