Just a minor suggestion:

I'd suggest changing the new "Route" section when you add a mountain page to "Routes Overview".

Although people can change it themselves, I think having it read "Routes Overview" would give more incentive to list all the known routes on the mountain, rather than just one route or only the one he/she climbed. Also, having it read "Routes Overview", at least in my opinion, would encourage page owners to add a seperate route page or pages. This might not be necessary for some hill that has a walk up trail, but when more detail is needed, I certainly like to see route pages (and some pages that need them are sorely lacking). It used to actually be required under the old FAQ's when adding a mountain page.

To me a route page should be good enough to use that I can print it off, stick it in my pocket and take it on a climb and use it as the primary source of information for the climb. A route page should contain the necessary details to do that and should be at least equivalent to a good guidebook.

It would also be nice (but not always necessary) if page maintainers would add route pages for different routes they have climbed on a mountain, rather than just throw a few sentences in the "Route" section on the front page. A few sentences is more of a "Routes Overview" than it is an embedded route page.

For those that say that too much beta ruins a climb, I can see that, and no one has to use the route page. When a mountain page is added, unless it is just a short walk, an erupting volcano closed to climbing, or something else unusual, there shouldn't many good reasons not to add a fairly detailed route page (and a "Routes Overview" as well).

For mountain pages, I think that a "Routes Overview" section by default would be better than the "Route" section by default. Of course page maintainers can taylor this to their will.

Take a look at this page Scott. Three approaches shown, and two summit routes. How many pages should I have done it in?

http://www.summitpost.org/mount-florence/650446

Take a look at this page Scott. Three approaches shown, and two summit routes. How many pages should I have done it in?

That's completely up to you, but if I were to use this information on a climb, I would either have to print the whole mountain page or do a lot of cut and pasting to a separate document to get the information I wanted.

My own preference would be that you add a route page for the route you climbed. That way I can just hit print and stick it in my pocket.

The page you linked is very good without the route page, but even better with it (at least in my opinion).

There is nothing wrong at all with having all the route information on the front page, but having the section just called "Route" discourages (to me at least) addition of route pages as well as discourages adding a list of all known or multiple routes (which in the case of your page, you did; so no problem).

I understand... but I think many people have their own preferences. When looking at a webpage... mine is personally for me to be able to see everything on one page (in most cases, not all). That way I don't have to go back and forth.

Can print it out, and discard any unneeded pages. Otherwise... yes... I often copy and paste sections of people's pages into a document. But that is usually just to get multiple routes on a single page.

That said... I think your approach makes a lot of sense for technical routes. But I don't have any of those...

: - (

I understand... but I think many people have their own preferences.

Of course. That's why it was just a suggestion.

When looking at a webpage... mine is personally for me to be able to see everything on one page (in most cases, not all). That way I don't have to go back and forth.

Yes, I understand completely. That is what we do sitting at home because few of us have our computers with us on the mountain. The stuff I actually like to take up the mountain is just a printed route page (which is used after I already made the decision to climb the mountain), and the background information, weather links, etc. isn't needed by then.

Of course this is just personal preference and was only a suggestion. Everyone does it different anyway. I already know how I do my pages and won't change them, but most of the time when I'm actually ready to climb a peak, assuming that I do use someone's information, I prefer a printed route page. Opinions may vary.

I make separate route pages when I know there are multiple ones, even if I have only used one of them. However, if there is just one feasible or likely route, I describe it on the main page to keep everything together. If, though, someone does add another route description, then I go back, post a route page, and put in a routes overview section on the main page.

Yes, opinions vary. Myself, I think that a lot of route pages on SP are just clutter when they represent the only way that just about anyone would use.

I do agree that one should be able to print a page and go, which is why I'm no fan of route pages that say "See main page" for the trailhead directions.

I completely agree with Scott.

Mountain ≠ Route
Route ≠ Mountain

Having separate mountains from routes leverages the well-designed structure and hierarchy of SummitPost.

I sometimes (rarely) include the route in a page if:
1. It's such a small & easily accessible peak that a route map plus distance, elevation gain and YDS class are all a beginner peak hunter would need to summit the peak.
2. There really isn't enough to say on a separate route page to make a unique entry worthwhile. (e.g. from the parking lot, walk directly up hill 500 feet northeasterly to the summit.)

Otherwise, I leverage the structure of SP to separate my route from my mountain. There is almost always more than one way to summit a peak. I would prefer in most cases that routes stand alone. The alternative is that the route Sarah took gets lumped into main Mountain page, while the routes others took get added as routes. Not leveraging the native SP structure makes searching and organization more messy and difficult.

In the future, I would like SP to support a chart breaking down the frequency of routes used to summit a peak. So, for instance, I would like to see what % of climbers used the Keyhole to summit Longs Peak vs. other routes (Clark's Arrow, The Diamond, etc.) This system would break from the get-go if the Keyhole Route was lumped into the Longs Peak mountain page.

The SP structural hierarchy is a beautiful thing, why not use it?

A chart showing the most frequent routes used would be cool, but I think impossible to implement since only very rarely do members sign route pages.

mrchad9 wrote:A chart showing the most frequent routes used would be cool, but I think impossible to implement since only very rarely do members sign route pages.

You are such a crank!

I, for one, would actually sign route logs if it contributed to this chart and I think we would see increased signing of route logs from others, as well.

PS: Change your username to Mr. Curmudgeon, por favor.

MrChad's new avatar:



I don't LIKE mountains!
I don't LIKE sunshine!

Montana Matt wrote:

Sarah Simon wrote:In the future, I would like SP to support a chart breaking down the frequency of routes used to summit a peak. So, for instance, I would like to see what % of climbers used the Keyhole to summit Longs Peak vs. other routes (Clark's Arrow, The Diamond, etc.)

Please submit this idea to the UserVoice forum Sarah! I like it and think it would be fun to implement

I can't. All my votes and "suggestion opportunities" are gone until another issue is closed and some of my votes are freed up. Sorry.

You can change your votes Sarah.

mrchad9 wrote:You can change your votes Sarah.

<sigh>