yatsek wrote:So could there be a seventh bar for Best Routes in the Best New Stuff corner?

I have always wondered why Routes are not included in the Best New Stuff section on the front page. I tend to use the Best New Stuff to look for new posts as opposed to going to the "What's New" tab. It is just a habit that I started from when I first started using SP - not saying one is better than the other - just my preference. There does seem to be a bit more info to quickly screen items of interest as compared to the What's New format, and I like that.

If it is a space issue, it would seem to make more sense to have the Best New Routes quickly available on the front page instead of the Best New Articles, since one, Routes are more important, and two, there just aren't that many Articles submitted.

Thanks, Mister Yatsek !

Up until now, I always thought THIS was the seventh bar...

Personally, I'd prefer to see SummitPost be the most all-inclusive, universal site on the web for info on mountains and climbing. This means that all pages should be maintained by the most competent person possible. For the most part, that means that the mountain page maintainer should have personal experience with the mountain involved, and that includes having climbed it. It also means that we should have well written, informative, and well asssembled pages; that means the maintainer should have good sources of info and be adept at using the great tools that SummitPost makes available to them. I've seen members be critical of pages for eastern US mountains that are hard to photograph and hard to make pages for; they just aren't that spectacular. When possible, I've contributed photos and info to improve theose pages. The info for some of those mountains is also available elsewhere, but I think it should be here as well; SummitPost should be as complete a resource as possible, even if it just repeats info in guidebooks and history books. There are also peaks that none of us will ever likely climb. I think that they should be here too; if they are not we likely will never think of climbing them. Even if none of us ever think of climbing them, they should be here to honor those who have climbed them and to showcase their beauty and grandeur. On the other hand, route pages should never be posted by those who haven't done them. Mountain pages can be simply for the sake of the mountain, but route pages must be for the climbers.

I have changed my views on this from:

Heck no, no pages on this site that are not FIRST HAND. I felt this way because SP was a very unique site. Beta like ......... "..when you are standing at the base of a tall Penis shaped flake, look to your left, you will see the opening, go into it....." is priceless and can only come from someones who has been there. Holding to this strict standard meant that SP was slow to expand and did not contain ALL THE MOUNTAINS but at least you knew you could trust your future, possibly your life, to it.

Now I have changed to this:

We, SP MEMBERS, deserve to have pages for all climbs, all mountains, all scenic vistas, all trails, ocean passages and anything anybody wishes to page. Just because you have not CLIMBED, AT ALL, means you can't put up beautiful pages with excellent research. I am sure that some folks might slip down in points, but others will skyrocket to the top of the SP summit. Think of it, we can finally fill in the holes.

I am down, how about you?

How would you reconcile that with the likelihood that one year later some other member who HAS climbed it might like to put up a page. That is the issue.

What you suggest could lead to a better site today, but a worse one a year from now.

mrchad9 wrote:How would you reconcile that with the likelihood that one year later some other member who HAS climbed it might like to put up a page. That is the issue.

What you suggest could lead to a better site today, but a worse one a year from now.

I happen to agree with Chad here. I asked this question sometime back regarding "routes" too. Most resposnes were definetly "routes" must be climbed to submit pages, but not on the mountain pages. That doesn't make sense to me.

mrchad9 wrote:How would you reconcile that with the likelihood that one year later some other member who HAS climbed it might like to put up a page. That is the issue.

What you suggest could lead to a better site today, but a worse one a year from now.

He was being sarcastic.

Buz you went and spoiled the discussion.

So Buz i assume you are one of the new mods?????

I am serious, I don't know how many on this site now have real life climbing credentials.

We have a page on here about K2.

I read what he says about it and its true info.

That was, is, the true value of SP.

Was not being sarcastic.

A page is better if written by someone who climbed it.

But if Buz and Guyzo feel so strongly about it, why don't one of you put up some pages for unclimbed peaks? Climbed it or not, it would really add to your list of pages.

So far in this discussion most who have argued that a page should be put up by someone who hasn't climbed it, have very few pages of there own.

Guyzo wrote:Buz you went and spoiled the discussion.

So Buz i assume you are one of the new mods?????
I am serious, I don't know how many on this site now have real life climbing credentials.

We have a page on here about K2.

I read what he says about it and its true info.

That was, is, the true value of SP.

Now you're definitely being sarcastic!

mrchad9 wrote:Was not being sarcastic.

A page is better if written by someone who climbed it.

But if Buz and Guyzo feel so strongly about it, why don't one of you put up some pages for unclimbed peaks? Climbed it or not, it would really add to your list of pages.
So far in this discussion most who have argued that a page should be put up by someone who hasn't climbed it, have very few pages of there own.

Some of us don't really give a rat's ass about points or lists of pages owned. I've volunteered info and photos for other peoples' pages because I want to see SummitPost have the best (and most complete) info possible.

I've provided photos and info too Buz- nor do I give two shits about points.

But it is a lot more work to actually put a whole page together, than to send someone some photos and information. Trust me.

It is just an observation. No one who does all of the work putting many pages together seems to be advocating for what you are. It seems like their opinion deserves some weight.

mrchad9 wrote:I've provided photos and info too Buz- nor do I give two shits about points.

But it is a lot more work to actually put a whole page together, than to send someone some photos and information. Trust me.

It is just an observation. No one who does all of the work putting many pages together seems to be advocating for what you are. It seems like their opinion deserves some weight.

Cheap shot.

Did you even read what I'm advocating for?

I think we've beat this dead horse enough. You are not going to change your mind and neither am I. So why don't we just agree to disagree and let it go?

I wasn't trying to take a cheap shot Buz. Honestly. Yes I read what you said. All of it. What you underlined there is relevant, not a shot.

I really think people who submit pages should have more say in this than those that dont. For example, people like Bob Sihler, Marcsoltan, Dow Williams, Dean, Gangolf, vancouver islander, and so on. They are doing the work to create pages, they should have more say in the 'rules'.

Some of them have weighed in, some haven't. Those that have have said you should have climbed the peak first, or at least gotten to within moments of the top. I have just a few pages, but agree with them 100%

Since a compromise was found for the initial issue (I would have just prefered it to be formulated another way than in this thread), I am going to give a try on this topic.

The question should be perhaps formulated into 2 other questions, such as :
- When are route pages necessary ?
- What kind of information in a peak page require having been on top of it ?

As for the first one, it is perhaps now a bit different than it used to, since the GPS route feature has been implemented. However, without talking GPS, there are 2 ways to write peak pages:
- Including route information in it
- Making routes into separate route pages.
Both ways are widely used in SP and I guess widely accepted. Some systematically create route pages for any access to a mountain, even if very short, some never post routes.
I usually write route information into a "Routes" section that I add into most of my peaks, since almost all of them are easy/medium hiking destinations and there is no roman to say about them. However, I've made a couple of route pages for few specific ones.
In my opinion, a route page is needed :
- When it is a rock-climbing route, which requires a certain amount of information. I am not a rock-climber, however I know this discipline is quite strict speaking security and some data are just mandatory.
- When the hiking route is so rich in description, that its length would be disproportioned into the peak page. Can be for various reasons: complicated route, or lots of things to describe and comment in it.
The peaks mentionned in the start of this thread belong rather to the usual category of peaks I use to post, so in this case, YES, I recognize I should have climbed them, or added a mention about the fact that I didn't hike these routes.
However, despite some points require the use of hands and have some exposition, the area in which they belong to is not an area of big mountains. OK, again I was not there, but I read a lot and if it was so hard, I would know it.
Then it comes to the topic of how difficulty is perceived by each of us. But, I agree on the principle: from this point of view, it was a bad idea to post these mountains from me.

But let's now talk about mountain pages, out of the "terrain point of view".
A mountain is its description, seen from other mountains. A mountain is geology, a climate.
A mountain is history, first ascents, in summer, in winter, by women, history of the climbing routes. It is a name, its signification, possibly other names in other languages and their signification as well. A mountain is also legends and anecdotes linked to it.
A mountain is a lit of possible accomodations; guarded, unguarded, shelters of all sorts, places where camping is allowed or forbidden. A list of permits, seasonal closures and NP rules of all sorts. A mountain is an access by road, train, bus. Rescue phones, useful inks. Possibly a map if putting that map is possible and allowed.
I am not sure all mountain pages of those who voted "A mountain must be climbed" here contain all these details.
Finally, a mountain is also a description of the panorama from the summit. One of the few things, apart from the routes, which requires having been on its top. Who does it ?