[Bonjoy]

I appreciate what you're saying Jooser. It was a tough call. The reason it was done was, as I said before, to save a significant amount of pages. I think the book's about as big as it could possibly be without being unwieldy. But definitely takes your comments on board.

I can see the logic of having the bulk of the history online. Space is unlimited and it can be amended on an ongoing basis. It's a good idea.
I do think though that the fa name and year of ascent in small font size could have been tagged onto the end of the route descriptions with negligible affect on page count. Both pieces of info tell you something about what to expect from a route I think, as well as adding to the 'feel' of the route. Knowing the chronology also tells you what is the original line and what are the variants. That said I do first ascents so it's hard to to tell how much of my fondness for having this info on the page is a fondness for reading my own name.

[cheque]

I do think though that the fa name and year of ascent in small font size could have been tagged onto the end of the route descriptions with negligible affect on page count.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

I do think though that the fa name and year of ascent in small font size could have been tagged onto the end of the route descriptions with negligible affect on page count.

 

For me, the history and background of a route conveys so much meaning, and is often the primary motivator for me wanting to climb a route.

Growing up in Devon, it was the Littlejohn and Fowler routes which captured my imagination most, that held the most cache. Fawcett routes, at the time, were another imaginary realm altogether. What a privilege to repeat them.

I'm highlighting The Prow as an example. As described, would it read Mark Pretty 2007? I appreciate that it's the T20 version, but Test cricket isn't dead yet.

[cheque]

I do think though that the fa name and year of ascent in small font size could have been tagged onto the end of the route descriptions with negligible affect on page count.

 

For me, the history and background of a route conveys so much meaning, and is often the primary motivator for me wanting to climb a route.

I agree with you Dave, I always read the history sections of guidebooks and I was disappointed not to find one in the recent limestone guide- I downloaded and read it as soon as I found out that it was online. If appreciate why it's been missed out but I would prefer to see the name and date next to the route rather than nothing.

[abarro81]

+1 to name and date, however describing an inferior and indirect start that isn't even the original start would be absurd.

[fatdoc]

Fwiw, basically what FBSF and bonjoy said, use the online to make extra PDFs to explain the way previous history. Great thread, I've read it all in one go, makes a super read. Balanced and fair discussion. Thank you.

[Doylo]

If I was a Peak local I would have been pretty disappointed about the lack of at least the FA name and date. It's details like this that make British guides so much better than foreign ones. It's all a bit forensic without, just a bunch of lines with no regard for how it all came to be.

[petejh]

I think you mean 'clinical' you daft twat.


'forensic
adjective:
 1. relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime.'

On the other hand maybe you're right..

[DAVETHOMAS90]

+1 to name and date, however describing an inferior and indirect start that isn't even the original start would be absurd.

Isn't your position on this one just a bit contrary?

The original way of doing the route - i.e start up Indecent is still there, you just can no longer start up the tree - obviously - and have to do 4 more moves on the rock. I'd prefer to do it that way - as close to the original as possible, and the same way I used to start up Body Machine. People still climb indecent, so no problem. I'm a bit baffled by your remark that the old start doesn't exist, though granted it has changed, as all routes do.

You clearly prefer the new start; good for you, and you're not alone. To not include the traditional and original start based solely on individual preference and current popularity is not the right call for a definitive guidebook in my opinion; it's disrespectful to the F.A. if nothing else.

To some, this may seem like such a minor point, but for me, it strikes at some of the most important parts of the climbing experience, and what we hope to preserve in the definitive guides. It has certainly started some of the debate I'd hoped for.

For what it's worth, there are routes of mine in W-C-J that ARE unclimbable in their current state, hidden under Ivy, yet I think they're fully described.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

If I was a Peak local I would have been pretty disappointed about the lack of at least the FA name and date. It's details like this that make British guides so much better than foreign ones. It's all a bit forensic without, just a bunch of lines with no regard for how it all came to be.

+1

 

[Doylo]

I think you mean 'clinical' you daft twat.


'forensic
adjective:
 1. relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime.'

On the other hand maybe you're right..

Same shit...

[lagerstarfish]

unclimbable

that's such a 19th century attitude

 

[Johnny Brown]

+1 to name and date

I agree in theory this would be great, but (as this thread illustrates) for many routes on lime it's hard to pin down. First aid ascent? Free with 1 rest point? First all-free? First sans-tree? The routes evolve, for different generations different versions will be the definitive.

I'd still be in favour though, for Body Machine you could have Fawcett/ Various 1963-12.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

+1 to name and date

I agree in theory this would be great, but (as this thread illustrates) for many routes on lime it's hard to pin down. First aid ascent? Free with 1 rest point? First all-free? First sans-tree? The routes evolve, for different generations different versions will be the definitive.

I'd still be in favour though, for Body Machine you could have Fawcett/ Various 1963-12.

I would argue that that's a different take on the use of the word "definitive".

Who gets to decide the current "popular" way of doing the route is the "definitive", when the original way still exists (OK, without a tree, so a little more climbing)?

I prefer the old (pre 2007) way, as do others, yet it isn't even described. This, I see as a liberty (especially on a route such as this), possibly borne of editorial policy not in keeping with a definitive guide. ?

 And that's the question.

I thought the comments from A Jooser were particularly insightful:

"I should add that I appreciate the cost and work evolved in producing guidebooks (and the need for keeping them concise and user friendly); I only say this through concern that the worth and viability of definitives may be undermined as much by the choices of those producing them as by the popularity of alternatives." 

By the way, just a thought, what about putting the bouldering in a separate guide? That's bound to happen sooner or later.