If SP needs revamping and more dinamic features we can all agree, i think. But let's not say the problem is lack of possibility to add technical routes, because all instruments are there to write them.
Separating technical climbing and hiking would be suicidal for the community, braking it up into groups.

As the thread goes on, i see the point people asking for change (partial and optional wiki) are making, and if i am not mistaken, in the end it all comes down to users not committed enough to the high standards and updating necessities of pages.

A partial, yet useful solution to this problem might be a new user tutorial of SP explaining clearly to new users the fact that contributing is a commitment and not just adding random pics, that management of the pages is required and that if unable to maintain pages, they can be put up for adoption.

Everyone will keep doing what they want, as the world goes, but clearly stating the communities expectations might help new users understand to what extent they wish to contribute.

* Adding an open section at the bottom of each beta page, between the last field and the image gallery, for edits and corrections. This would allow important updates to be more visible but allow page owners to maintain their vision of the page with minimal effort. This would probably be the easiest change to implement as well.

This sounds good, and I assume that if the changes/corrections are encorporated into one of the main sections, then the original author can go ahead and delete them from this new field?

I'm opposed to an open edit of existing content. A lot of bad or misleading information can show up, cause harm, and be attributed to the original author.

I'm OK with adding an open section at the bottom of mountain/rock/range pages, but the reality is we already have that with the "comments" page. Every time I use a page to visit some place new, I always read the comments in addition to the main page. Good page owners will incorporate updates and factual information changes from the comments to their pages. If they don't, the comments stand for themselves. I've noted a couple of times where I've posted updated information in the comments and the page owner has updated the main page within a short period of time. I appreciate that!

I'm quite opposed to passing value judgments on open edit of pages based solely upon the score. SummitPost is a great resource for the outdoor world, but the scoring system does little to indicate the true quality of a page. Old pages of reasonable quality often have low scores. New pages that may just get by usually have high scores because everyone votes a "10".

SummitPost is a GREAT resource for all of us, and I feel privileged to have made some small contributions along the way. Let's not turn it into Wikipedia.

Perhaps we can tweak the open edit at the bottom of the page concept. There may be some benefit to splitting the open edit section into a beta section and a current conditions section. That way route info would not be lost in weather updates and the like. Although the default location is at the bottom of t page, the page owner could then place either section wherever it fits best into the overall framework of the page. They could make the current conditions section the first one if they wanted to, thereby making the most current info the most prominent. It would also stand to reason that the font or color of the section head would indicate that it was an open edit section so it was immediately obvious where people go to add their updates.

asmrz wrote:Bob Sihler, The issue as I see it is not inactive people, but overactive people who post stuff that does not pass the mustard....

It's those damn high-pointers! We need to get rid of the damn high-pointers.

I haven't had the time to read more than the first 5 pages of the thread yet, but I see a recurring, but faulty, point being made by many of those who don't like the idea of wikifying SP.

They argue that "I don't want people to edit my well maintained, up-to-date pages. It'd be disrespectful to allow people to improve my already superb page.".

The thing is, if your pages are well maintained and well written, why would anyone feel the need to edit them? The pages that are going to be edited are the ones that are bad. Take a look at the mountain Kaskasapakte. That page sucks. I don't qualify as page owner, since I haven't climbed it, but I could contribute some info on getting there, since I've been in the area a couple of times. I'd edit it if I could, but I can't. Someone else may have good pictures, but with the current system, he can't get them included in the page.

Once again, those of you who spend a lot of time and effort creating awesome pages DO NOT NEED TO WORRY about getting a lot of edits. It's the guys who own pages but do not maintain them, or who are quite simply really bad at maintaining them, who will get edited. And that's what we need.

MigTigman wrote:Alois Smrz has been at this climbing deal far longer than most if not all, here on SP. The man is a mentor to many up and coming climbers/mountaineers in So Cal as well as around the world, knows and has experienced more than 99.9% of all the people here on SP. That includes all the Staff. Where I come from, I was taught to always listen to and consider the wisdom of the older wizards. They have somewhat of a clue as to what they are doing and talking about.

I would highly recommend that the Staff here on SP take Alois's recommendations to heart and not blow him off. To lose such an asset would be the wooden stake in the heart. But then again, if the point is as he mentioned, to create a Hiking site, then do as you wish. If so, I suggest you change the name to Trailpost.org.

A mountain has many ways to its summit, be it is a hiking trail or an 18 pitch 5.11d to its summit (in reference to the sphinx in peru). I think if someone wants to summit they should know all their options.. do not separate hiking routes from climbing routes on a peak. maybe narrow search options for snow climbs, ice climbs, trad. climbs, sport climbs, class 4 hiking and lower

I'm glad this issue is being discussed, the many of these ideas have been floating around for a while and I'm glad change is being considered. I agree with many of the ideas that are brought forth.

I think once a decision is made, maybe get into the topic of rating photos. This has been a hot topic as well in the past and reform would be nice.

I'm glad to see SP evolving the way it is and I hope it continues to be a place where people with all different kind of interest and technical abilities can use and enjoy the site.

Rockclimber77 wrote:

MigTigman wrote:Alois Smrz has been at this climbing deal far longer than most if not all, here on SP. The man is a mentor to many up and coming climbers/mountaineers in So Cal as well as around the world, knows and has experienced more than 99.9% of all the people here on SP. That includes all the Staff. Where I come from, I was taught to always listen to and consider the wisdom of the older wizards. They have somewhat of a clue as to what they are doing and talking about.

I would highly recommend that the Staff here on SP take Alois's recommendations to heart and not blow him off. To lose such an asset would be the wooden stake in the heart. But then again, if the point is as he mentioned, to create a Hiking site, then do as you wish. If so, I suggest you change the name to Trailpost.org.

A mountain has many ways to its summit, be it is a hiking trail or an 18 pitch 5.11d to its summit. I think if someone wants to summit they should know all their options.. do not separate hiking routes from climbing routes on a peak. maybe narrow search options for snow climbs, ice climbs, trad. climbs, sport climbs, class 4 hiking and lower

I completely agree. Sorry, but the suggestion to separate trail routes from technical climbing routes for each mountain, in my opinion, has more to do with elitism than anything else; "don't mix my elite technical route with your garbage hiking route". BOTH are routes to the summit and both should be listed on the mountain page. It's not like each mountain has so many routes that you can't find the technical ones. Most times, you can tell whether or not a route is technical just by looking at the route name.

As other's have pointed out, the current search parameters already allow you to search on; Route Type, Rock Difficulty, and Grade. The Route Type field is used to specify Hiking vs Trad Climbing, etc. If you are searching for a technical route, all you have to do is specify the search parameter. This already exists. What else do you need?

The basic problem is that very few people are posting technical route pages. Don't blame the hikers for that. Blame the technical climbers.

Lionel wrote:How would we prevent vandalism if a wiki type editing system was installed? Would it need to be approved by the author or an elf to take effect?

I suspect there might be some 'vandalism' from some of the more commercial orientated people that regularly create profiles on the site, posting ads, fake reviews etc. But then again if such things aren't already turning up in 'Additions / Corrections' maybe it wouldn't be a problem, and also it could just as easily be removed by someone else. Leaving approval to the author would allow one to fall foul of existing problems with lazyness / absence and leaving it to elves would be a time consuming processes I imagine. Not sure if this has come up already but a lot of wiki sites have 'Discussion' pages as a tab to the main page where people chat about potential changes and existing issues. Perhaps that's an option in some fashion.

guhj wrote:The thing is, if your pages are well maintained and well written, why would anyone feel the need to edit them? The pages that are going to be edited are the ones that are bad.

Not quite true. Opinions and tastes differ. I recently had somebody complain vehemently that one of my class 4 routes described on an Alaska mountain/rock page was 5.7 (I'm quite sure the problem was his routefinding). If he'd been able to edit, he'd have changed the text, and we'd be in a tug of war. And there are people who are quite certain that all Appalachian mountain are jokes and should not be on SP, while others are steeped in the history and atmosphere of the smaller ranges.

With that said, I want to be able to designate some of my pages or page sections as wiki. I don't want to be forced to do it on every page, but I want to have that check box. In the right situation, it would be a great option to have available. BTW, pages or sections that are wiki should have a special, snazzy little logo or symbol that appears next to their title on the page itself and in indexes, saying prominently that they are wiki.

Alpinist wrote: Sorry, but the suggestion to separate trail routes from technical climbing routes for each mountain, in my opinion, has more to do with elitism than anything else; "don't mix my elite technical route with your garbage hiking route". BOTH are routes to the summit and both should be listed on the mountain page. ....

There are four proposals circulating on this issue, and I think people are conflating them:
1) Segregate the site into a Mountain Project-like area for technical climbers, and another area for lowly hikers and scramblers (asmrz).
2) Don't segregate the site but insist that all "route" pages be technical or close to it (knoback).
3) Don't segregate the site but in future don't have a "route" category, just have a "technical route" category, with other routes just written into mountain page text (me).
4) Don't segregate the site but have two kinds of routes listed on the mountain/rock page: "technical routes" and "other routes."

The consensus is clearly against number 1. Number 2 didn't get much traction and its main proponent has left SP. Number 3 has just one proponent, so faggedaboutit. But why not number 4?

Yes, you can do an elaborate search and make sure you don't encounter nontechnical routes. But what genuinely irritates a fair number of people, rightly or wrongly, is that they see a mountain they like, they click on "Northwest Ridge" under routes, and they find themselves reading about how many switchbacks there are on some trail. Have a technical routes category over in the left margin, and the site will be a little friendlier for them. Why not?

[Edited for clarity]

chugach mtn boy wrote: Number 3 has just one proponent, so faggedaboutit.

Not just one but at least two I've been in favour of either 3 or 4. (See my comments on Michael's article, page 2)

I think the arrangement (by mountain) in Secor's CA Sierra book works pretty well.

In many areas, technical climbers really want to know the non-technical routes for descent; e.g., most who do the Swiss Arete on Sill come down by the L-couloir. Basically, any mountain that doesn't involve a lot of simple, long raps down, is going to be a good candidate for having the technical routes near the non-technical routes.

On the other hand, climbs for climb's sake could be isolated, in places like Red Rock NV, where a lot of people simply rap down. But the non-technical routes to nearby mountains often have the best maps and info relevant to access.

It seems that since it is the easiest, "Adding an open section at the bottom of each beta page, between the last field and the image gallery, for edits and corrections."

would be a great first step. I would think that if people put information in that field the author of the page could choose to include or not include more of that content. Discussions could be had between owners and new posters. I have had these kinds of discussions with other members and people have always been most interested in presenting the most accurate information possible.

Ultimately if the owner is inactive or has no say in it for a set period of time. It may be helpful if the "new poster" can become a partner in the ownership of the page so that the rest of the page can be upgraded also.