I sent you that email before I realized you were posting the route on SP. I can wait until you finish the page ;-) Is this the same route Roach call "The North Buttress"?
i'm not familiar with any of roach's books, so i can't really answer that question. i would assume its the same route though. i got my info from Climbing Colorado's San Juan Mountains and from the FA description in the CMC's Trail and Timberline.
I agree with the need to have more information. Looks like the page was lazily/hastily thrown together. If this is not your style, perhaps allow others to adopt page for the purposes of creating a more informative/descriptive one. This is the general trend of SP route pages. It is also what people looking to research a route would like to see (if we wanted adventure, we wouldn't look).
May I also recommend accepting criticism rather than rebuking the comments of others. These will only make your page better- an ego will only make it (and yourself) look worse.
I agree with the criticism here. This page is not executed very well. It does not meet the typical standard of SP pages. I am very interested in this route and the information you have provided here is barely more than I could have got from a topo map. I dont think this is the point of SP. If you are proud of the incompleteness of this page, as you seem to be, I suggest you dont post routes here anymore.
Andy - Aug 8, 2006 5:46 pm - Hasn't voted
OopsI sent you that email before I realized you were posting the route on SP. I can wait until you finish the page ;-) Is this the same route Roach call "The North Buttress"?
iceisnice - Aug 8, 2006 6:13 pm - Hasn't voted
...i'm not familiar with any of roach's books, so i can't really answer that question. i would assume its the same route though. i got my info from Climbing Colorado's San Juan Mountains and from the FA description in the CMC's Trail and Timberline.
Andy - Aug 8, 2006 6:28 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: ...Cool. I've read the Trail and Timberline description and that seems to be the same thing Roach describes.
iceisnice - Mar 3, 2011 3:09 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Page needs workNot sure what your deal is with routes needing to be detailed to death. Not my style. I put enough on to entice...but keep the adventure alive.
iceisnice - Apr 6, 2011 2:36 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Page needs workit was more like 2 minutes...I'm good with that.
SKI - Apr 8, 2011 6:46 pm - Voted 3/10
Re: Page needs workI agree with the need to have more information. Looks like the page was lazily/hastily thrown together. If this is not your style, perhaps allow others to adopt page for the purposes of creating a more informative/descriptive one. This is the general trend of SP route pages. It is also what people looking to research a route would like to see (if we wanted adventure, we wouldn't look).
May I also recommend accepting criticism rather than rebuking the comments of others. These will only make your page better- an ego will only make it (and yourself) look worse.
-Ski
Sent - Apr 19, 2011 2:46 pm - Voted 1/10
Re: Page needs workI agree with the criticism here. This page is not executed very well. It does not meet the typical standard of SP pages. I am very interested in this route and the information you have provided here is barely more than I could have got from a topo map. I dont think this is the point of SP. If you are proud of the incompleteness of this page, as you seem to be, I suggest you dont post routes here anymore.
nader - Dec 16, 2011 5:22 pm - Voted 2/10
Re: Page needs workI also agree with the criticism. The page hardly has any info in it.