by Luc » Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:19 pm
Although there is some good stuff there, Mountain Project seems to have poor quality control and a lot of bad pages (at least in the areas I frequent, such as southern Utah). As in a huge percentage. There doesn't seem to be much quality control there, but I don't use it that often. From a quality standpoint, I'd hate to see SP go the way of Mountain Project.
by Scott » Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:52 pm
On Mountainproject, if you see issues, how about you send an email to the area/route owner with CC to the area admin?
by Luc » Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:07 pm
by yatsek » Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:30 pm
Luc wrote:If I want technical rockclimbing info I'll go to MP, no second thoughts.
For peaks and alpine routes SP has a lot of detailed beta not found elsewhere.
by lcarreau » Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:57 am
by Josh Lewis » Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:04 am
Buz Groshong wrote:We really should restrict it to photos that are attached to objects.
Scott wrote:it may be able to be hidden (Josh can tune in on this).
by Luc » Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:07 pm
Josh Lewis wrote:Regarding MountainProject. They allow quality to fall pretty low, Mount Baker could be so much better. SP wouldn't put up with this.
by Josh Lewis » Mon Jan 13, 2014 3:35 am
Luc wrote:SP should produce offline viewable condensed route data, including topo overview. Because of the iPhone, it should probably be an application since I don't think pdfs can be saved and viewed away from coverage.
by Mark Doiron » Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:31 am
Luc wrote:...SP should produce offline viewable condensed route data, including topo overview. Because of the iPhone, it should probably be an application since I don't think pdfs can be saved and viewed away from coverage.
by Josh Lewis » Mon Jan 13, 2014 6:08 pm
by Marmaduke » Sun Jun 15, 2014 3:27 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests