Sarah Simon wrote:Bubba Suess wrote:This is totally nit-picking, but ought canyons at least be equivalent to Mountains and Areas? Keep the physical features at the same level. Pages like this, which has lots of climbing beta should be worth as much as a mountain.
Bubba, while I agree that the canyon pages add value to this site, I also believe that canyons are ancillary to the purpose of this site - SummitPost. If we keep physical features at the same contribution level, does that mean we start adding Rivers and thus develop a PaddlePost element to the site? It's important that we maintain focus.
That cat is already out of the bag. Canyons were added with SPv2 and are part of the fold. All I am advocating is that physical features all be treated the same. There are canyons posted on here that have as much climbing beta as a mountain page i.e. here and here. There are also places like this that were added to SP early on and given the same treatment as mountains. Again, all I am advocating is parity between physical features.
Sarah Simon wrote:As for points for photos and albums... I'm ok with granting some points for photos and albums, but the points awarded should be miniscule compared to more substantive contributions (Areas/Ranges, Mountains/Rocks, Routes, etc.)
As for Routes...if anything's under-appreciated on this site, it's our routes. They are the utility workhorses of this community.
This I agree with completely.