...by all criteria a trip report, not a route description. It doesn't matter too much, but the difference exists - a route description has a structure and more 'objective' facts, so you might consider re-classifying it. Anyway, the trip report is very good. Thanks for sharing it!
Both. When I write a trip report, I usually write it in such way that if someone wants to make it, all information is in it. Topos like "turn right, then turn left, then turn right" have for me something indigest. I prefer to give a bit of life :)
There is also the issue about map mistakes, which is a key element of the route descrition, and which is another reason why I turned it into a story.
But soon, I'll arrange the page layout with some more "techincal illustrations", so it will look more like a route description. Thanks anyway for compliment about the text (pleinty of grammar to improve too...)
I'm sorry but I writen about the rules about the strucuture of the range of Pyrenees and finally is good after a lot of work in the last 2-3 years and I can't change now another time. In the introduction of the web of the range I said the most correct way to add peaks, routes, huts, canyons, etc.
It's not correct to attach all these thing to the main page of the range, it's not logical to attach more than 300 objetcs to this page. All the objects must be attached to its Areas as Ordesa-gavarnie, etc not in the page of Pyrenees range.
The area Pre-Pirineo Huesca, is "pre" pirineo, the translation is under, near, above, previous... but it's not Pyrenees!!!!! it's wrong to attach the canyons and routes of another area as Ordesa because are completely differents. They're maps differents, this peaks and canyons are very far of pre-pirineo, it's not correct
In my opinion a canyon is a child of a peak, I think Monte Perdido is a parent of the Ordesa's canyon not a child but it exists have several opinions about it. In summipost the majority of canyons are attached as child of an area (I think is the most correct), a massif or small range (o.k. as well) or even a peak, but as child. It's my opinion.
I'll dettach all your wrong attachments. I'm sorry
You can write to me if you have any doubt about the structure of Pyrenees
Vid Pogachnik - Sep 14, 2008 4:55 am - Hasn't voted
This is......by all criteria a trip report, not a route description. It doesn't matter too much, but the difference exists - a route description has a structure and more 'objective' facts, so you might consider re-classifying it. Anyway, the trip report is very good. Thanks for sharing it!
visentin - Sep 14, 2008 5:03 pm - Hasn't voted
This is...Both. When I write a trip report, I usually write it in such way that if someone wants to make it, all information is in it. Topos like "turn right, then turn left, then turn right" have for me something indigest. I prefer to give a bit of life :)
There is also the issue about map mistakes, which is a key element of the route descrition, and which is another reason why I turned it into a story.
But soon, I'll arrange the page layout with some more "techincal illustrations", so it will look more like a route description. Thanks anyway for compliment about the text (pleinty of grammar to improve too...)
Rafa Bartolome - Sep 16, 2008 3:56 pm - Voted 10/10
PyreneesI'm sorry but I writen about the rules about the strucuture of the range of Pyrenees and finally is good after a lot of work in the last 2-3 years and I can't change now another time. In the introduction of the web of the range I said the most correct way to add peaks, routes, huts, canyons, etc.
It's not correct to attach all these thing to the main page of the range, it's not logical to attach more than 300 objetcs to this page. All the objects must be attached to its Areas as Ordesa-gavarnie, etc not in the page of Pyrenees range.
The area Pre-Pirineo Huesca, is "pre" pirineo, the translation is under, near, above, previous... but it's not Pyrenees!!!!! it's wrong to attach the canyons and routes of another area as Ordesa because are completely differents. They're maps differents, this peaks and canyons are very far of pre-pirineo, it's not correct
In my opinion a canyon is a child of a peak, I think Monte Perdido is a parent of the Ordesa's canyon not a child but it exists have several opinions about it. In summipost the majority of canyons are attached as child of an area (I think is the most correct), a massif or small range (o.k. as well) or even a peak, but as child. It's my opinion.
I'll dettach all your wrong attachments. I'm sorry
You can write to me if you have any doubt about the structure of Pyrenees
visentin - Sep 17, 2008 2:05 am - Hasn't voted
PyreneesYou are right ! You have made most of the structure of the Pyrenees so you know it better.