[shark]

This was a major subject at last nights well attended Peak area meet

Now Moorland Grit has been put to bed there is only a facelift worrk onthe Burbage guide before Ian Carr and Grimer turn their attentions to Peak Limestone. 

Current view is to have two volumes with a North West and South East guide though Neil Foster with some support suggested that they could be combined if the shitty bolted and popular quarries got its own guide. Also very obscure neglected locations like Strawberry rocks wouldnt be in the guide though as the info would be available as free pdf downloads off the BMC site.

80 or 90% of the guide has been written up in a raw/first cut way but there is a lot more work to do. Ian Carr invites anyone who ones to get involved (collectivelly or as individuals) to email him at peaklimestone@yahoo.co.uk

This could be: Climbing and checking, Whole Crags, Parts of Crags, Scripts, Introductions, History, Formatting, Photographs, Action Shots, Crag Shots, Topos

The aim is for this stage of guidebook work to be completed by end of summer 2012 

[grimer]

Just to say - the limestone is being started on right away, and not waiting for Burbage.

[Johnny Brown]

Good good. I wonder is there any potential to contract the Burbage facelift out?

[dave]

Just to say - the limestone is being started on right away, and not waiting for Burbage.

You know it makes sense, good arrows.

[Paul B]

Current view is to have two volumes with a North West and South East...

Personally I'd prefer the guide to be split the other way and I think it should be considered that with a competing select guidebook on offer (probably earlier than the BMC definitive), people may prefer to buy one select rather than two definitives which contain crags of little relevance/interest.

The other way, two guides are produced for two clearly different markets (and I can't see whats wrong with that).

[Nigel]

I’ll second this, as I did in the meeting.

To re-iterate for those who weren’t there / haven’t read Shark’s post, the opinion of the guide committee was that there was so much info that it was (almost) certain to go in 2 guides. Options for the split were:

1.   Geographical, i.e. roughly North/South.
2.   “Natural” crags in one, “Quarries” in another. (SUBTEXT – good crags in one, shit ones in the other).

Would this not be a good place to have a discussion about this? The straw poll in the meeting was in favour of option 1 by roughly 2:1. My take would be this – many of the current BMC definitives for the limestone are 25 years old. The most popular crags are covered by the more recent BMC Wye Valley guide, which is rubbish. Most people currently use the Rockfax Northern Limestone guide, which serves its purpose as a clear, easy to use, and largely accurate book, and which also includes good coverage of Yorks/South Lakes. Lets not forget the updated Peak version of this from this year, price £19. Now, are we seriously expecting people to pay £40+ for 2 books worth of definitive BMC Peak Limestone coverage?  I can’t see it myself. I am arguing that if you can fit Stoney, Cheedale, Raven Tor, Water Cum Jolly, Dovedale area, Pic Tor, High Tor, Wildcat etc. in one guide does that not seem a more sensible and natural grouping than having Cheedale, Raven Tor, WCJ, Harpur Hill, Smalldale, Horseshoe in one guide, then High Tor, Dovedale, Cawdor, Intake, Masson Lees in another? Thoughts etc…

[slackline]

I'd say its 50/50

[Johnny Brown]

The definitive guides should be as definitive as possible, and I think the logical split should be geographical.

I have a big problem with putting all the bolted quarries in a seperate book. The problem being educating climbers taking their first steps outside are very likely to do so in a bolted quarry. If they buy a definitive guide, it should also inform them of the decent climbing that may be close by, both sport and trad. IE climbers starting out at Horseshoe should be able to move on to Stoney. Putting Stoney in a seperate guide will only help create a schism that trad climbing is somehow different/ inaccessible.

On a selfish note, I'd like one book that covers all the climbing in Stoney and Chee Dales.

Personally I think the logical approach would have been to cur the Froggatt guide back a bit, and stick Black Rocks, the Amber Valley and the lower Derwent in a guide with High Tor, Wildcat etc. I guess that horse has bolted but knowing the timetable for these things it isn't inconceivable that the Froggatt guide will need the reprint & refresh treatment at the same time as Southern Lime is ready.

[Andy B]

I agree that BMC guides should be as definitive as possible, but I don't think that having alternative grouping to geographical, should necessarily compromise this, especially when there are sound arguments for these alternative splits.

I voted for grouping by type.

[dpb]

I think I would prefer a geographical split.

It would be a bit odd being on High Tor with a definitive guide but not having a clue as to what  the routes are over the road at Long Tor or Lorry Park.  The same for Stoney/Horseshoe or Two Tier/Runyons corner.

I would think that the vast majority of potential customers would be equally at home on Wildcat VS's as Intake F5+'s or at Masson Lees.  If they've gone for a days climbing on the Southern Lime then I would think they would want their guide to cover the crags for where they are rather than a 50% of the local climbing.

What would be the impacts of of a quarry/natural split?  JB raises valid points about climbers taking their first steps outdoors.  Would it also create a 2 tier guidebook system with crags in the quarry book would be seen as unworhty or second rate?   This has been implied above.  If so I think a few venues would loose out.  Granted there are some fairly shooking quarries around but there are also some bloody good ones.  'The Boltest' has been billed by people on this site as one of the best F7c's in the Peak for example.

[nick canute]

I would hope the guides are split North and South, and remain definitive.   

A mix of quality crags, sport crags and esoterica in each guide will be more intertesting and more likely to stimulate the reader to try somewhere different from their usual default crags hopefully.   Bearing in mind some crags have both trad and sports routes, eg. mainstream venues such as Chee Dale or less popular such as Intake, Deep Dale.

The quality of the guides should sell them, and being definitive rather than cherry picking the obvious should set them apart from (and in my opinion above) the RockFax guide.

[andy popp]

Personally I think the logical approach would have been to cur the Froggatt guide back a bit, and stick Black Rocks, the Amber Valley and the lower Derwent in a guide with High Tor, Wildcat etc. I guess that horse has bolted but knowing the timetable for these things it isn't inconceivable that the Froggatt guide will need the reprint & refresh treatment at the same time as Southern Lime is ready.

I guess it'll never happen but I always liked this approach. When I first moved to Stoke the available guide was the brown Staffs one (state of the art then) that mixed it all up. As Staffordshire climbers we climbed almost equally at the Roaches/Ramshaw etc. and Dovedale/the Manifold etc. and the guide dealt with that perfectly.

Maybe its getting impossible but definitive should mean definitive?

[Andy B]

Can someone explain to me how changing how crags are grouped, whilst retaining all the information across the series, would make them less definitive?

[dpb]

Can someone explain to me how changing how crags are grouped, whilst retaining all the information across the series, would make them less definitive?

It wouldn't as a 2 volume set.  However the guide containing the Cornice would not be a definitive guide to the Dale. If you were wanting a varied day/trips climbing you's end up walking in with 2 definitive guides to one area. Which sort of makes each volume select.

I agree that we should have a definitive guide. could you have a fairly comprehensive select guide (1 volume) that comes with a CDROM/some sort of online support to provide the definitive bit?  This may mean that it competed better with the rockfax guide so think some people will be put off by the 2 volume set up just to get details off some crags they'll never visit out routes they'll walk straight past.

granted there may be some piracy issues but, with all the classic crags/routes in the paper guide, I wouldn't have thought it would be a biggy

[205Chris]

I'm with Paul & Nigel on this.

Unless I'm still asleep no one's mentioned the BMC currently have a guide to the quarried crags in Horseshoe to Harpur hill. Would anyone from the BMC like to comment on how this guide has sold?

It seems logical to me to produce 2 volumes, the first of which covers Chee Dale / Stoney / High Tor / Raven Tor etc. etc. which is long overdue then release the second volume, essentially an update of the H to HH guide.

I'm also not sure I agree with the comment at the area meeting that if the 'bolted' quarries are included in one guide this will give people carte blanche to bolt the trad climbs that exist in these quarries. There have been a few bolting misdemeanors i can think of recent years none of which I imagine are guidebook related. However you split the guidebooks won't stop some people being muppets.

[dave]

As Neil "flock of seagulls" Foster pointed out, the last south area guide sold badly compared to the north, and that was back when trad lime was flava of the month.

The way I see it there will be two guides. The one with stoney/tor/wcj/chee/staden will sell a lot, and the other one won't. So the real question is do you stick high tor/beeston/dovedale/wildcat etc in the book that everyone buys, or the book that nobody buys?

The commercial reality is that with not one but two other non-BMC lime guides on the horizon you can't say to people "here is your guide, that'll be £25 please...,oh and if you fancy a route at high tor you'll have to buy this other guide containing 70% toilet gridbolted gibson sportquarries that you wouldn't be seen dead at, at a cost of another £25". People will just buy the rockfax.

What we need is a labour-of-love guide with definitive coverage of all the trad and quality longstanding sport, and another cheap topo barebones guide with all the shit sport quarries in, call it a reboot of the "horseshit to harpur hill" guide. Anything else is just a terrible idea given the current market.

P.s. as far as i know there is no suggestion to split the guides literally by trad/sport, so lets not waste time discussing that.

Similarly a literal natural/quarry split wouldn't work.

[shark]

Unless I'm still asleep no one's mentioned the BMC currently have a guide to the quarried crags in Horseshoe to Harpur hill.

  I'm ashamed proud to say I didn't know that !

Richly illustrated definitive guidebook to cover the rapidly growing number of mid-grade sport climbs in the Buxton and Matlock areas of the Peak District.

This is a guide to the best concentration of these climbs, detailing almost 750 climbs and 14 crags, all within the abilities of a great number of climbers. Also contains a comprehensive graded list and first ascent details, plus photo-topos, maps and action photos.

[slackline]

The commercial reality is that with not one but two other non-BMC lime guides on the horizon you can't say to people "here is your guide, that'll be £25 please...,oh and if you fancy a route at high tor you'll have to buy this other guide containing 70% toilet gridbolted gibson sportquarries that you wouldn't be seen dead at, at a cost of another £25". People will just buy the rockfax.

The majority will, but some people have principles.

[rehab21]

The way I see it there will be two guides. The one with stoney/tor/wcj/chee/staden will sell a lot, and the other one won't. So the real question is do you stick high tor/beeston/dovedale/wildcat etc in the book that everyone buys, or the book that nobody buys?

...

What we need is a labour-of-love guide with definitive coverage of all the trad and quality longstanding sport, and another cheap topo barebones guide with all the shit sport quarries in, call it a reboot of the "horseshit to harpur hill" guide. Anything else is just a terrible idea given the current market.

 

I guess the problem is going to be with selling the quarry life book, and keeping it current as the quarries collapse.

[nai]

I think this is the right idea but the only problem is the quarries guide just won't sell, the rockfax will be out next year and will cover them pretty comprehensively and by the time the BMC version is released there'll be little left in the market even for a fully comprehensive guide.  Let's face it if a route is too poor to be included in the rockfax guide to harpur hill, can it even justify the ink needed to print it's line in a topo?  Plus, topos to most of the smaller new places are available online if you dig around.

so you either release a non-seller, turn out a few downloadable pdfs or....

you produce two books but sold as one title, a bit like the carneddau/ogwen guide from a few years back that had two softbacks that slotted neatly into a hard cover.  The quality crags get the guide they deserve with the usual comprehensive history, photos, first ascent lists, etc.  The second book is a bare-bones topo containing the quarried stuff.  What history there is to speak of can be included in the area write-up within the main guide with a note to find the routes on p.nn of the topo.

The cover price would be slightly higher than for just the main guide but much cheaper than two individual books (whether that be split on geographical or quality).

[duncan]

... Neil Foster with some support suggested that they could be combined if the shitty bolted and popular quarries got its own guide. Also very obscure neglected locations like Strawberry rocks wouldnt be in the guide though as the info would be available as free pdf downloads off the BMC site.

I'm delighted to hear that there will be a new BMC lime guide in the not-too-distant future (you wait ages for one ...).

I support the idea of one bumper fun book.  This should have all the major and the better minor venues - sport and trad., the graded lists, the top-tens, the history and lies, and the grimer jokes all in one place.  As long as the book fits in a rucksac, or rope bag, does it matter if it is a brick? 

I don't see the need for the real dross to appear in print, it only encourages them.  The barrel scrapings should be made available electronically for the really desperate. 

[Ruarl]

The way I see it there will be two guides. The one with stoney/tor/wcj/chee/staden will sell a lot, and the other one won't. So the real question is do you stick high tor/beeston/dovedale/wildcat etc in the book that everyone buys, or the book that nobody buys?

The commercial reality is that with not one but two other non-BMC lime guides on the horizon you can't say to people "here is your guide, that'll be £25 please...,oh and if you fancy a route at high tor you'll have to buy this other guide containing 70% toilet gridbolted gibson sportquarries that you wouldn't be seen dead at, at a cost of another £25". People will just buy the rockfax.

What we need is a labour-of-love guide with definitive coverage of all the trad and quality longstanding sport, and another cheap topo barebones guide with all the shit sport quarries in, call it a reboot of the "horseshit to harpur hill" guide. Anything else is just a terrible idea given the current market.

Whilst the current economic climate is important to consider, it's also worth looking at the bigger picture. How long do we expect these books to be on sale for? How long will they be definitive for (ie, what's the scope for development.) If it's going to be another 20 years before another definitive guidebook is published, what's the best way to divide up?

If you assume whatever set of divisions you like, then what happens if one book is much more popular than the other? If one is revised and the other not, then they get out of step. Where do you put new developments? With a geographical split, it should be obvious (and borders can move) If you have some non-geographic split, then it's a bit harder.

Another reason not to do a "good book" and a "bad book" is traffic. I'd assume right now that you could (VERY roughly) put crags into order of how busy they are, and then divide the books along those lines. So then if very few people buy the "bad book", then the crags which previously got enough traffic to keep them from overgrowing decline, and we lose some crags back to nature. I'm sure there's a robust range of opinions on whether or not that's a Good Thing.

A definitive guidebook has two purposes. One is to be a definitive record of some climbing. This is to serve partially at least as a historical document, but is also for people who actually want to know about everything there is to climb (usually locals). The other purpose is to help support the publisher. In this case the BMC, who are (in my opinion) worth supporting. Reconciling these two purposes is clearly a gnarly problem.

If you start thinking about which crags to put together such that your book will sell, then you're making a selective guidebook. I'd say if the BMC has taken on the responsibility to produce definitive guidebooks, then they should be geographically defined. Part of adopting that responsibility is accepting that you need to choose to publish the books which best describe the climbing at this point in time. You give up the option of trying to squeeze the most money out of the books.

All that said, the role of the internet over the lifetime of these books also bears thinking about. Information about climbing routes is structured data, and the internet (and computers in general) are getting better and better at handling structured data. Currently, online topos don't work well because when you really need them you're at the bottom of a crag, (usually) with terrible coverage. And we're only starting to see topo-apps for smartphones. But all it takes is one clever climber/computer type to work out how to make the platform which makes entering and distributing route descriptions simple, and the whole guidebook idea goes the way of the vinyl record.

By the way, if anyone is interested in working on this kind of platform for route data, please feel free to get in touch.

[205Chris]

If you start thinking about which crags to put together such that your book will sell, then you're making a selective guidebook.

As has been previously mentioned the Peak Limestone guide is likely to be sufficiently large as to require 2 volumes. Whether these two volumes are split geographically, by type or by route names A-M and N-Z they would still be definitive.

Another reason not to do a "good book" and a "bad book" is traffic. I'd assume right now that you could (VERY roughly) put crags into order of how busy they are, and then divide the books along those lines. So then if very few people buy the "bad book", then the crags which previously got enough traffic to keep them from overgrowing decline, and we lose some crags back to nature. I'm sure there's a robust range of opinions on whether or not that's a Good Thing.

I don't think the argument is in terms of traffic. Horseshoe quarry is a lot busier than Reynard's Arch in Dovedale but I know which way round I'd rather see these crags split (and it's not on geography.....)

Personally I don't think that a "quarries" guidebook would be unpopular, you only have to drive past the parking to Horseshoe to see how popular the place is. The problem is whether or not people would buy a definitive guide to the quarries if they already had the rockfax.

[Johnny Brown]

Bottom line for me is it will be ridiculous if I can buy a selected guide that includes both Stoney and Horseshoe next to each other, but the definitive alternative doesn't.

[metal arms]

 

One big volume or a geographical split.