As an elf, and after discussing it with other elves, I'd like to propose to the general membership (and let you all decide) if there should be an official rule, rather than just a guideline, that for all future adoptions and page submissions that the owner of the page must have climbed or attempted the mountain. The only valid exceptions I can see are for an active volcano that is unclimbable, but that you can still approach, or a sacred mountain where the summit is closed, but you can still get close to the mountain. In those cases, the author should have gotten as close to the mountain as possible, even if not officially trying for the summit.

For the record, I do have two such pages. I'll point them out outright so I don't sound like a hypocrite.

Krakatau: http://www.summitpost.org/krakatau/197245



Arenal: http://www.summitpost.org/volc-n-arenal/152388



For obvious reasons, I did not attempt the summits, but my information is still first hand and I have been as close as you can possibly get (and have provide information on how to do so), therefore I am personally familiar with the mountains. (If anyone wants to summit those mountains in those conditions, I'll transfer those pages to you!).

Other than rare exceptions like this, the author should have climbed or attempted the peak.

(Note: In the past I also adopted some pages on mountains I did not climb, but they were either deleted or transferred out long ago. That's in the past and I thought I was doing good, but agree that page submitters or adopters must climb the mountains that they submit or adopt).

We won't be able to make everyone happy, but would members like to make this an official rule, rather than just a guideline? It is really hard to make a great page for a mountain you are unfamiliar with. Plagiarism has also been a problem. There have been many mountain pages that are cut and paste jobs.

Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.

It's already standard practice, at least in the last few years, to transfer mountain and route pages only to people who have climbed them or made a serious attempt, and I think we should continue that practice.

As for future pages, I back both as an elf and a contributing member the notion that people should not submit pages for mountains, routes, and canyons unless they have climbed them or made a legitimate attempt to do so. Likewise, people should not submit area pages unless they have been to those places and have firsthand knowledge of them. For example, if there were not already a page for the Grand Canyon, you would have no business making a page for it if your experience there amounted to getting off the bus at Yavapai point and asking some stranger to take a picture of you with your family.

I agree, but how would this be enforced? I have climbed (multiple times) the one peak that I have built a page for, but other than the photos there is no way I can prove it.

Of the two canyon pages that I own I have done one several times. The other one, on the other hand, I am not quite as familiar with. I have spent well over two weeks in it, but it would be nowhere near the quality of page that it is if I did not adopt it from Taco. It is just to much area for me to write a good description of without help from others.

I think as long as people are willing to branch out and get help from other contributers then the way the system is now is pretty good. If pages are crap they are voted down. The thing I am not in 100% agreement with is the "no duplicate pages rule." If there is a legitimate issue on a page and the owner is contacted several times and does not fix the page themself or hand over editor access to another contributor then the elves should allow a second page to be built and the page votes can decide which is better.

Route pages are one thing. (Big) Mountain pages are something else. Area/range pages are almost impossible to do well without extensive knowledge of the area. Bob Burd's page on the sierra is an excellent example, but the only reason it works is because of all the (sub) area/range pages that fall under it in the childrens list. It is just to big an area to cover. The mountain project layout works well for this, but summitpost is not layed out this way. Many people have gotten around this by contributing miny area pages(Marcsoltan, Dow), but these try to incorporate to much. They focus on climbs they have done and gloss over ones they haven't which I feel weekens the page as a whole.

End Rant

norco17 wrote:I agree, but how would this be enforced? I have climbed (multiple times) the one peak that I have built a page for, but other than the photos there is no way I can prove it.

I firmly believe we'll have to stick to the honor system. When money and sponsorships are at risk, some people might claim to have bagged a big peak or done a difficult route, but those that would go that far just to own a page on SummitPost I can only pity. There may be the occasional one, but I trust there will be few.

norco17 wrote:Of the two canyon pages that I own I have done one several times. The other one, on the other hand, I am not quite as familiar with. I have spent well over two weeks in it, but it would be nowhere near the quality of page that it is if I did not adopt it from Taco. It is just to much area for me to write a good description of without help from others.

I like to see top quality pages on SP, and to make that happen I see nothing wrong with building on what others have written. If the owner of a page doesn't want that, but is willing to hand over the page, it's always possible to erase the contents of the page so the new owner can start from scratch. On taking over old pages with content, you can always let the previous owner stay admin for the page after adoption, or start the page by thanking those that worked on the page before.
I see accepting help from others to make a page better as a positive thing. There may be members that are too focused on getting points for their work; at the same time there are plenty others that are willing to help out a bit, with or without getting credit for it, simply for the benefit of raising the quality of the content on this site. Of course, there is a difference in helping out a bit and ending up rewriting the whole page. I can see that in such a case it would only be right to let the person doing the job be admin or owner of the page. But there are members here that are willing to help out regardless of whether they get credit for it.

One big canyon may seem too big for one person to cover, but someone has to start the process and start the page. So you've built on what Taco wrote before. That means that your combined knowledge of the canyon is now captured in the page, which can only be a good thing. On a similar note, the biggest mountain ranges on earth do not have an area page for the range as a whole. The Alps has pages for the Western and the Eastern part, and there is a Canadian Rocky Mountains page, but there is no top page for the Alps, nor for the Rocky Mountains. I suspect that's because few will have felt comfortable enough in their knowledge of the whole range to write about it. The Alps and the Rocky Mountains really deserve the best pages possible, but it's going to be a whole lot of work to create them, taking the efforts of more than just one person. However, that may only happen in an ideal world. If this would mean that there will never be such a page, then perhaps it's better that it is created as a collaborative work by several members. And someone has to start it, to get the ball rolling.

norco17 wrote:The thing I am not in 100% agreement with is the "no duplicate pages rule." If there is a legitimate issue on a page and the owner is contacted several times and does not fix the page themself or hand over editor access to another contributor then the elves should allow a second page to be built and the page votes can decide which is better.

I'm a 100% supporter of the "no duplicate page rule". I don't think that allowing a second page and then competing in votes would work. To give just one example: a new page competing against one that has been around since the early days has no chance. In the early days of SP a lot less was generally required for a page to be judged good. Over time, many people will have voted for it, especially if the mountain is well known (some people appear to confuse page quality with mountain popularity when voting). The only way to compete with a new page against such an old one would be if those that voted on the old one would also vote on the new one, and with members coming and going over time that will never happen.

That said, there can indeed be a problem if a page is poor and the owner does not want to do something about it nor allow someone else improve it. I just don't think competing pages is the right way to deal with it. Feel free to disagree though, it's just my opinion.

Rob

I agree that no one should be able to put up a mountain/route/canyon/etc. page unless he or she has climbed it/traveled through it/etc. I don't like the "seriously attempted" loop hole. What happens if someone "seriously attempts" something, doesn't make it and then someone else comes along and does? I don't think anyone could come up with a universally accepted definition of "seriously attempt". However, if the mountain is something like an active volcano, that is truly unclimbable, as the examples presented by Scott, then I think it is ok as long as the author makes it clear.

As far as the no duplicate pages rule goes, if a problem such as norco17 suggests did occur, rather than have a duplicate page, the elves would simply transfer the existing page to a more suitable author who would fix it up.

An attempt is the minimum. I've asked to adopt a page in the past which I specifically stated that I had not done the route but was planning on it. I was respectfully declined which was a good call. I thought I was going to do it that summer, but it did not work out.

rgg wrote:I firmly believe we'll have to stick to the honor system.

I guess that is the whole point of my above post. Generaly if people are not familiar enough with an area they don't make the page. SP is a pretty good group for this. Maybe I am just questioning the reason behind this thread. Has this even been an issue lately. This is not rockclimbing.com with a bunch of blank pages. The contributors on this site generaly put a lot more work into there pages than other sites like mountainproject. I guess josh's post above is an exception, but he was not given the page and he himself admits that was a good call.

ZeeJay wrote: I don't like the "seriously attempted" loop hole. What happens if someone "seriously attempts" something, doesn't make it and then someone else comes along and does?

What if the peak is yet to see a succesful summit bid? There are a lot of climbers on this site that climb some pretty obscure things. I think on some of this stuff a partial page is better than no page. It might be that information that allows the next team to be sucessful. I gues we could always just use a trip report for that and not a mountain page.

There are a few mountain pages that are just the gateways to the route page (written by someone else), which is the real meat. I'd say that the owner of a mountain page should not give route information, either in the main text or in a separate route page, unless s/he has done or seriously attempted the route; and then any speculation should be clearly labeled as speculation.

MoapaPk wrote:any speculation should be clearly labeled as speculation.

Agreed. But what if someone climbed 100 feet from the summit? This is not uncommon. That person knows pretty much most of the way. A disclaimer could be made that the person who wrote this did not make the final 100 feet.

I agree, but how would this be enforced?

I don't think it would be need to be enforced, but be on the honor system.

For example, one you add a page there could be a note that it is a requirement that you have climbed or attempted the mountain. There should also be a note to remind the submitter to look for duplicates.

then any speculation should be clearly labeled as speculation.

I agree. Sometimes though, some speculation can be useful (at least in my opinion). Just make sure you call it speculation. A majority of the peaks I've added to SP aren't in any other guidebook, so the only info I have is my own (unless someone else adds something) and my own route.

I do try to include photos or other images of other possible routes, even if some speculation is involved.

For example on North Cathedral in Utah:

http://www.summitpost.org/north-cathedral/827726

South Ridge

The South Ridge Route (class 2+) is probably the easiest route up North Cathedral. The south ridge, which begins at the saddle between North Cathedral and The Cathedral can be approached from either the Right Hand Fork Bear River (west route) or the Left Hand Fork (east), but it is easier to reach the saddle from the Right Hand Fork. This route usually takes two days or more.

See the route page for details.

[img:827733:aligncenter:medium:South aspect of North Cathedral and perhaps the easiest route to the summit.]

Other Routes

The South Ridge is the only route I've climbed on this mountain and this mountain is not covered in any guidebooks or other websites.

The North Ridge of <b>North Cathedral</b> certainly appears to be a viable route, though thick timber at the north end of the ridge might be tedious. The most practical way to approach this ridge would be from the Left Hand Fork not far above the Right Hand Fork/Left Hand Fork junction and above and near the waterfalls. You could also approach the ridge from a few miles south of the waterfalls as well.

[img:827732:aligncenter:medium:North aspect of North Cathedral and the long north ridge.]

The <b>West Face</b> of North Cathedral also appears to be quite climbable and would make the most direct route up the peak.

[img:827731:aligncenter:medium:West aspect of North Cathedral.]

The <b>East Face</b> of North Cathedral is steep and undoubtedly loose. There would almost certainly be some interesting late spring/early summer snow routes on the face and in the shallow gullies, but climbing the East Face would probably be a rather unpleasant and perhaps even risky venture after the snow has melted.

[img:827730:aligncenter:medium:East aspect of North Cathedral.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other than the south ridge, which I have climbed, the rest is speculation since I have viewed all other aspects of the mountain and am familiar with the nature of the mountain. I think the speculation could still be useful if someone was looking for a route from a different direction.

• I think the majority of us here do abide in the honour system. It's the few bad cookies that create something...than promptly forget about it. And I'm sorry, but I don't use "Life" as an excuse. If things at home or work are so busy that someone can't contribute even small, regular changes at minimum, 1x-2x a week, then don't create something to begin with. It brings the legitimacy of the site down. I understand we all have good intentions but as "they" say, "The best laid plans..."
  
• I'm also a staunch believer in if you haven't hiked it or climbed it, don't put it up. Scott brings up a really good exception to this de facto rule. One that, you'll get no complaint from me. And speaking of which, I am a bit guilty on this one. I haven't hiked Conejos Peak but adopted it from Alan since he no longer has the time to maintain it. If someone HAS been up it and wants it, it's only fair that they take it. I'll gladly turn it over.
  If someone hasn't been all the way to the summit and puts up a page for that mountain/peak, well, I think that's a TON better than someone who's never set foot at the trailhead. But generally speaking, summit the thing before you take over ownership.
  
• Routes...I'm a bit ambivalent on this. I can see some merit in having some beta on a route on the main page but for organizational layout, routes should be kept separate. If it's a low-hanging piece of fruit (aka: bushwhack), separate route pages I don't think are really all that necessary. For something like Mt. Logan (Canada) or 'The Grand'...absolutely.
  
• Duplicates...These need to be addressed. Either the weaker page should come down or the two should be combined. I don't really care toooooo much between two pages (different authors) in who gets it, but in general, the stronger writer should probably take over ownership. But, you always run into the problem of both authors being strong writers. So, I'm not really sure how to address or fix this. This is a big sticky imo. And again, I'm guilty on this one.
  My page for The Loft
  Kane's page for the Loft
  
  This example leaves me a bit confused because even though it's the SAME route, it services two different mountains.
  Is this a loophole with no easy fixes? I honestly don't know. BTW, Kanes' page came first. I realized his existed only after I finished mine and thought that, perhaps I should check Meeker to see if it exists. I don't want to delete it, so I'm kinda in limbo for the moment on it.

Anyway, I kinda see this thread morphing into a brainstorming session on how to fine-tune some of the smaller details pertaining to SP. Small issues to be sure, but no less important to SP's functionality as the larger issues.

What if you encounter a page that is lame and you know you could do a better job at it. So we are stuck with the substandard page because it has been submitted first. Also, does the fact that someone has climbed the mountain mean that the page is good?

Woodswalker wrote:What if you encounter a page that is lame and you know you could do a better job at it. So we are stuck with the substandard page because it has been submitted first. Also, does the fact that someone has climbed the mountain mean that the page is good?

You can flag the page and tell the owner what's lacking. If the owner is inactive, the elves will probably give you the page if you ask. If the owner is active but ignores you or won't improve the page, that becomes a more difficult situation, but you can contact the elves and make your case and see where it goes from there.

norco17 wrote:What if the peak is yet to see a succesful summit bid? There are a lot of climbers on this site that climb some pretty obscure things. I think on some of this stuff a partial page is better than no page. It might be that information that allows the next team to be sucessful. I gues we could always just use a trip report for that and not a mountain page.

Indeed there is nothing wrong with posting a trip report about attempting a peak and not making the summit. Especially if there is little information out there about the mountain, it could be helpful for others. Another option would be to article about it. As I see it, the definition of an article is pretty broad, so if you've got lots of information you wish to share about a mountain but, for whatever reason, don't think that a trip report is suitable for it, perhaps an article is the right format. Even if there already exists a mountain/route/area page, it's fine to post an article that zooms in on a particular aspect of the mountain/route/area page. Obviously, it' shouldn't just rehash what's already on the mountain/route/area page, it should expand and add something valuable. I could think of several examples. To name just a few: the climbing history of a mountain or route, the geological history that has lead to the creation of an area, a history of the people living in the area, war time developments...

And again, I'm guilty on this one.
My page for The Loft
Kane's page for the Loft

This example leaves me a bit confused because even though it's the SAME route, it services two different mountains.

That's technically OK since it serves two different mountains. Another solution is one route page attached to both mountains and with directions to both. As to which one is better can be hard to decide and depends on the peak. Sometimes I do one and sometimes I do the other and I assume others are in the same boat as well.

Some routes (including my own) written for SPv1 for multiple peaks are exactly the same, since they climb two or more mountains at once and involve traverses. In SPv1 there was no option to attach a single page to more than one peak. Now with SPv2 and later, there is a choice to do so. I'd just do whatever you think best in that regard.

What if the peak is yet to see a succesful summit bid?

Climbed or attempted is the official rule I proposed. If you made a serious attempt on an unclimbed mountain, got high up, and have first hand info, personally I'd say go for it, especially if no one else has climbed it. In my opinion, we could use more pages like that. To me unclimbed peaks are really interesting, especially if you've been high on the mountain and have made a serious attempt. It's possible people can actually use that information to make the first ascent.

If it's a popular climb that someone else will likely submit, and you missed some important sections or details, it would be best to wait.