cur·mudg·eon/kərˈməjən/
Noun: A bad-tempered or surly person.

Probably a guilty party..the problem is the word "route" means something big time different to a Hiker v. Climber. Since I get manage to get lost walking across my living room, posted "hiker routes" on cheesy mountains have most likely saved my life on several occassions...Simple dishonest solution until you can get the elves to split them up: ignore them, they are helpful to someone!

knoback wrote:JFC! There is alot of hiking going on out there. Does it have to be documented under 'routes' ? I never thought anyone would be interested in the gory details of an approach or bushwack, but I'm starting to think I was mistaken. Maybe I should start posting separate route pages or trip reports on approaches. It used to be OK, I mean at least Sihler could tell how he was trampled by grizzlies on his hill-walks, but it's been getting out of hand lately. I understand some people are interested in hill walking only, that's fine, but could it have it's own spot?

On the flip side, I would ask what's with the route pages for one-pitch routes when the pages consist of a few meager sentences that could have been all in a photo caption or put on the main page. If that's all a person can do, then was it worth doing?

knoback wrote:And what's with the TR's that are just links to someone's Youtube video? That's like getting Rick-rolled, dammit! Put it in the regional forum.

Report them and I will happily delete them. We sometimes miss them when they go up.

Bob Sihler wrote:Report them and I will happily delete them. We sometimes miss them when they go up.

I've seen them too from time to time. What I do is tell them "C'mon, the least you can do is at least embed the video".

knoback wrote:JFC! There is alot of hiking going on out there. Does it have to be documented under 'routes' ? I never thought anyone would be interested in the gory details of an approach or bushwack, ...

Can you give an example? There are some peaks in Zion where the details of the approach may be the difference between success and failure. Yet I can see other peaks where such information would be needless.

MoapaPk wrote:Can you give an example?

http://www.summitpost.org/hannegan-trail/167102

No offense to the author, but it seems pretty weak. I think it's pages like this where the trail is obvious, there are no pictures to even portray the views, and is mentioned already on the mountain page.

Josh Lewis wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:Can you give an example?

http://www.summitpost.org/hannegan-trail/167102

No offense to the author, but it seems pretty weak. I think it's pages like this where the trail is obvious, there are no pictures to even portray the views, and is mentioned already on the mountain page.

I was thinking of an example from the OP, specifically a recent example.

Ah, I was just trying to have some fun. No recent ones that I know of.

Please do not add nor encourage one to make route pages for single pitch routes at a crag. Only takes one paragraph to describe a single crag pitch. Please place all single pitches on the crag page itself so the user can print 2-4 pages there, back to back, say one to two pieces of paper to slip in his/her pocket for the crag...when you do a single route page per pitch, makes it impractical to use as a take along guide...has no use if one can not take to the crag, and thus no applicability on SP. cheers

knoback wrote:

Dow Williams wrote:Please do not add nor encourage one to make route pages for single pitch routes at a crag. Only takes one paragraph to describe a single crag pitch. Please place all single pitches on the crag page itself so the user can print 2-4 pages there, back to back, say one to two pieces of paper to slip in his/her pocket for the crag...when you do a single route page per pitch, makes it impractical to use as a take along guide...has no use if one can not take to the crag, and thus no applicability on SP. cheers

Yeah, that's what I'm on about. Area-crag-route. It still shows up under 'routes', along with trails, senic overlooks, etc.. And I realize this whole thing is essentially low-level wanking. I just wish the goddamned elves, with all the extra time they have on their hands, would have the common decency to reorganize the database to make it slightly more useful to me! Ok, that should have been ALL CAPS, but I'm feeling too petulant to retype it.

Right now the elves are busy reorganizing things to meet my needs; when they are done with that they will consider your petty requests!

knoback wrote:

Dow Williams wrote:Please do not add nor encourage one to make route pages for single pitch routes at a crag. Only takes one paragraph to describe a single crag pitch. Please place all single pitches on the crag page itself so the user can print 2-4 pages there, back to back, say one to two pieces of paper to slip in his/her pocket for the crag...when you do a single route page per pitch, makes it impractical to use as a take along guide...has no use if one can not take to the crag, and thus no applicability on SP. cheers

Yeah, that's what I'm on about. Area-crag-route. It still shows up under 'routes', along with trails, senic overlooks, etc.. And I realize this whole thing is essentially low-level wanking. I just wish the goddamned elves, with all the extra time they have on their hands, would have the common decency to reorganize the database to make it slightly more useful to me! Ok, that should have been ALL CAPS, but I'm feeling too petulant to retype it.

No worries, I hear what you are saying...but noticed you voted (thus kind of encouraged) a fellow member who did just that...his/her pages had no votes prior to that....after you voted 10/10...I voted 1/10 and asked him/her to move the single pitch (including a 5.0 toprope as I recall) descriptions to the crag page he/she created....if folks could just focus on what the user needs...in terms of what they can contribute...would be a better site right then and there....it is up to the membership at large to have the balls to dish out constructive criticism to corral such contributions and head folks in the right direction.

I have always been outspoken about the bs on this site, whether it be Antonio Giani's fetish with the POTD manipulation or Vid Pogachnik's cronyism when it comes to his front page sections....but it is up to the rest of you to actually challenge and/or change these behaviors. As I have said many times, the tools are there to do so.

Dow Williams wrote:

knoback wrote:

Dow Williams wrote:Please do not add nor encourage one to make route pages for single pitch routes at a crag. Only takes one paragraph to describe a single crag pitch. Please place all single pitches on the crag page itself so the user can print 2-4 pages there, back to back, say one to two pieces of paper to slip in his/her pocket for the crag...when you do a single route page per pitch, makes it impractical to use as a take along guide...has no use if one can not take to the crag, and thus no applicability on SP. cheers

Yeah, that's what I'm on about. Area-crag-route. It still shows up under 'routes', along with trails, senic overlooks, etc.. And I realize this whole thing is essentially low-level wanking. I just wish the goddamned elves, with all the extra time they have on their hands, would have the common decency to reorganize the database to make it slightly more useful to me! Ok, that should have been ALL CAPS, but I'm feeling too petulant to retype it.

No worries, I hear what you are saying...but noticed you voted (thus kind of encouraged) a fellow member who did just that...his/her pages had no votes prior to that....after you voted 10/10...I voted 1/10 and asked him/her to move the single pitch (including a 5.0 toprope as I recall) descriptions to the crag page he/she created....if folks could just focus on what the user needs...in terms of what they can contribute...would be a better site right then and there....it is up to the membership at large to have the balls to dish out constructive criticism to corral such contributions and head folks in the right direction.

I have always been outspoken about the bs on this site, whether it be Antonio Giani's fetish with the POTD manipulation or Vid Pogachnik's cronyism when it comes to his front page sections....but it is up to the rest of you to actually challenge and/or change these behaviors. As I have said many times, the tools are there to do so.

Bingo! It's amazing how well communication works when we use it. Sometimes the best answer is to go straight to the person whose actions you have a problem with and talk directly with them, rather than posting a rant on a forum. It doesn't always produce the results you're looking for, but it will more often than the rant. And when it doesn't work, you can then rant to get it off your chest.

knockback, is your biggest problem with "routes" that are just easy-to-find trails? Some official trails are not as easy to find as one might suppose; I don't know if that is the case with the example you cited (which was actually informative, at least for me).

There are a lot of "non-climbing" routes here that give fairly involved non-technical instructions. I've put up a few, only because so many got lost or lost daylight trying to find the way to a short "climb." E.g., when you have a 20-mile round-trip through the desert, with lots on similar-looking washes, detailed instructions may be in order.

Cute, but he obviously wrote that as a petulant satire on a yet unclarified problem. I'll postulate that the "problem" is pretty insignificant (in terms of the usefulness and function of SP), but it disproportionately irritates knockback.

His pages, such as http://www.summitpost.org/cathedral-spires/316160 , seem very good with appropriate attention to detail. I wonder if he is irritated by comments like "I would like more pictures."

borutbk wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:... irritated by comments like "I would like more pictures."

I don't know about the OPoster, but it's one that irritates me. For purposefully wanting to irritate.

We have the power to ignore, or take to heart, those things other people say. I've had the same criticism ("needs more pictures") directed at me; on SP, once I thought it justified, twice not. In the workaday world, we often don't have a choice to ignore the mandates of bosses or editors; SP is refreshingly lax in this respect.