Just a minor suggestion:
I'd suggest changing the new "Route" section when you add a mountain page to "Routes Overview".
Although people can change it themselves, I think having it read "Routes Overview" would give more incentive to list all the known routes on the mountain, rather than just one route or only the one he/she climbed. Also, having it read "Routes Overview", at least in my opinion, would encourage page owners to add a seperate route page or pages. This might not be necessary for some hill that has a walk up trail, but when more detail is needed, I certainly like to see route pages (and some pages that need them are sorely lacking). It used to actually be required under the old FAQ's when adding a mountain page.
To me a route page should be good enough to use that I can print it off, stick it in my pocket and take it on a climb and use it as the primary source of information for the climb. A route page should contain the necessary details to do that and should be at least equivalent to a good guidebook.
It would also be nice (but not always necessary) if page maintainers would add route pages for different routes they have climbed on a mountain, rather than just throw a few sentences in the "Route" section on the front page. A few sentences is more of a "Routes Overview" than it is an embedded route page.
For those that say that too much beta ruins a climb, I can see that, and no one has to use the route page. When a mountain page is added, unless it is just a short walk, an erupting volcano closed to climbing, or something else unusual, there shouldn't many good reasons not to add a fairly detailed route page (and a "Routes Overview" as well).
For mountain pages, I think that a "Routes Overview" section by default would be better than the "Route" section by default. Of course page maintainers can taylor this to their will.