[Bonjoy]

Yes I noticed this last year. I don't know who did it. It was not PBF kit AFAIK.
How was the meeting (sorry I couldn't make it)?

[shark]

Yes I noticed this last year. I don't know who did it. It was not PBF kit AFAIK.
How was the meeting (sorry I couldn't make it)?

Fairly lively but no fighting

[IanP]

Definitely no runnout when I did it last year.

According to UKC logbooks:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=155927
Flake on upper groove now missing, making finish quite tricky!
TomPR - Lead - 25/Jun/10

Certainly seemed hard right up until the last moves to me.  Thought it and Cordless were great routes with good moves on clean good quality rock (for the Cornice  )

[kc]

At the Area Meet last night Neil Foster said that an extra bolt has been placed on Cosmoplitan to remove the runout.

Anyone confirm this or have more details?

Simon, I told you who bolted it! You were obviously not listening.
Same person that did White Gold.

And that is not the same person that fucked up Culloden. The witch hunt continues.

[Bonjoy]

So was the BMC policy agreed on?

[shark]

So was the BMC policy agreed on?

No. A lot of points were raised. Ian Millward, Alan James and I are to collaborate on a rewrite. I've spent most of today doing an alternative which I emailed you earlier today for your thoughts.

[Bonjoy]

Righto will check my hotmail

[dave]

There was a general feeling that such a policy/guidelines/agreement was needed, and that seb should be keeping his kit on at the crag.

[Neil F]

At the Area Meet last night Neil Foster said that an extra bolt has been placed on Cosmoplitan to remove the runout.

Anyone confirm this or have more details?

Simon, I told you who bolted it! You were obviously not listening.
Same person that did White Gold.

Thanks Kris.  That’s interesting…

…if somewhat disappointing.

In this particular case, I consider the addition of a bolt specifically to remove the one thing which made Cosmopolitan a memorable and unusual route, both unnecessary and inappropriate.  It denies future climbers the opportunity to enjoy something a bit out of the ordinary, and I happen to believe those climbers deserved that chance.

This may seem at odds with my posts (from back in 2009) earlier in this thread, but those were based on my (poor) memory of a failed attempt some 20 years previously, and subsequent re-arranging of the bolts in the lower half rather invalidated those hazy memories (as Bonjoy pointed out at the time).

But in 2010 I did return and slay that particular ghost, and what a memorable, satisfying do it was!

I felt really quite sad to learn how this route had been neutered, and anyone who assumes I am a therefore a rabid anti-bolter, either doesn’t know me, or didn’t make it to The Maynard last night.

Anyone got a spanner…?

Neil

[Baron]

Chop

[fatboySlimfast]

In this particular case, I consider the addition of a bolt specifically to remove the one thing which made Cosmopolitan a memorable and unusual route, both unnecessary and inappropriate.

completely agree, I took the full flight back in the day and it scared me but i wasnt injured because of it, that was the point of the route!

[kc]

Taking a completely neutral view as I have no interest in the slab routes at that crag, I would just like to pass on one of the justifications for the bolt. Speaking to Zippy this evening he pointed out that there was in fact a peg that no one has cared to mention. This peg could not be replaced as it took flight with the block it was wedged behind and the unfortunate climber. How much this changed the route I don't know/care. Lets not forget the details here.

[Baron]

Fair point. Plus if the top is harder now maybe an extra bolt does make sense if its not the route it used to be.

[Bonjoy]

When I did The Thumb at Kilnsey it had a big but very safe runout at the end (too long to stick clip past), when I went back a year later and did Urgent Action, which has a shared finish, an extra bolt had been added and I really felt it detracted from the routes. Like Neil I was gutted for all the climbers who would be denied this aspect of the routes in future.
It does seem that for whatever reason Cosmopolitan evolved into a route prized more for its runout than its climbing. Having done it with the runout after cleaning and rebolting the two lines the other year I can still see both sides of the argument though and don’t feel the exchange of one type of route for another is an obvious loss to the crag in this case. However it does seem pretty off to me that someone has added an extra bolt despite general opinion (here at least) seeming to be against it. Maybe whoever added it asked around at the crag and got a different consensus. The outcomes of decisions by committee depend rather on which committee you ask.
Ultimately the addition of such a bolt comes down to one person feeling strongly enough about it to carry out the action. Likewise the removal of said bolt. If objection doesn’t motivate anyone enough to remove it then you have to wonder how strongly the objections are felt.

[Johnny Brown]

If objection doesn’t motivate anyone enough to remove it then you have to wonder how strongly the objections are felt.

The problem is that I think most feel once the bolts go in the battle has been lost. History shows us this is overwhelmingly a one way street.

Nobody wants to repeat the tit-for-tat in-out nonsense we've had in the past, for me that would mean being fairly sure of a consensus before acting; ie the consensus that should have been reached before the bolt went in. As you can see in this thread that isn't reached easily and requires the input of the select few who've actually been on the route. So as a rule its likely to be a less hasty process, but I don't agree it shows less depth of feeling than someone whacking a bolt in without consultation.

[shark]

If objection doesn’t motivate anyone enough to remove it then you have to wonder how strongly the objections are felt.

The problem is that I think most feel once the bolts go in the battle has been lost.

Do you speak for "le peuple" or is this just a(nother) sweeping generalisation / fluffy rhetoric.

What battle? 

[Three Nine]

My 2p is leave it in, it was hardly that run out in the first place and it makes it easier to work the route.

If it matters, i've done it before and after the new bolt and it made no difference to my enjoyment. I'm a sport climber because I dont like excitement.

[Johnny Brown]

Do you speak for "le peuple" or is this just a(nother) sweeping generalisation / fluffy rhetoric

At a guess, the same kind of majority as when we voted on whether the Peak needs a bolt policy. For those who weren't there, that's a 'yes' from everyone bar Shark and Seb.

[Bonjoy]

Time and again individual actions happen while discussions are busy failing to reach a consensus. The bolters in question tending not to be involved in the discussions anyway. If there is a battle that has been lost it is because the wrong people were fighting it.
This was my beef with Central Buttress down WCJ. There was a good case for replacing some failed pegs with bolts in a limited and considered way. Attempts at having a discussion about this reached no conclusion, opinion was too divided, the issue was more or less shelved. Meanwhile others bypassed the process and put bolts in, I dare say more will follow in time. My point is, if discussions don’t arrive at some sort of agreed position which is acceptable to most parties then the door is wide open for actions by motivated others, with the justification that the ‘approved’ process doesn’t work.
I’m not convinced by what I’ve seen that attempts at consensus forming around individual moot calls tend to reach clear conclusions unfortunately. In the absence of decisions on moot points motivated others are apt to whack the bolt in anyway, especially if this represents the end of the issue bar some grumbling. I think at the edge between what is and isn’t acceptable it would be good for the balance of things if a few bolts did get taken out here and there. If the new bolting is not widely approved of then tit-for-tat replacement is not inevitable e.g. Crown of Thorns at Willersley.

[Johnny Brown]

Totally agree with that summary. Though I think this thread is a reasonable example of how opinions should be sought. I don't think its the best use of BMC area meets' resources to discuss individual placements like this.

I think I've said this before, but if I believe a bolt shouldn't be placed, there's not a lot I can do about it other than contributing to discussion. Whereas if I want to place a bolt, I can just whack one in. To me removing a bolt is a very poor second to it not being placed in the first place. The damage is done. Thank god we don't take such a laissez faire attitude to chipping - 'you don't like the extra hold? Just sika it up then!'

[shark]

Do you speak for "le peuple" or is this just a(nother) sweeping generalisation / fluffy rhetoric

At a guess, the same kind of majority as when we voted on whether the Peak needs a bolt policy. For those who weren't there, that's a 'yes' from everyone bar Shark and Seb.

I don't know if your rhetoric is seeking to wind me up but it is certainly having that effect on me on this thread and other people on the other thread.

Using provocative words like "battle" when there isn't one isnt helpful. Saying that things arent foccussed on particular individuals when they clearly are is duplicitous. And your characterisations and generalisations about some generational divide in these matters, even if true, is certainly not going to help break down barriers assuming they even exist in the first place. Perhaps you could take a leaf out of Dan's book in dampening flames down rather than unecessarily fanning them.

Yes I don't agree with having a bolt policy but I respect the majority view for having one and am assisting with its redrafting.

[Neil F]

Taking a completely neutral view as I have no interest in the slab routes at that crag, I would just like to pass on one of the justifications for the bolt. Speaking to Zippy this evening he pointed out that there was in fact a peg that no one has cared to mention. This peg could not be replaced as it took flight with the block it was wedged behind and the unfortunate climber. How much this changed the route I don't know/care. Lets not forget the details here.

Kris.  Thanks for that information and for speaking to Zippy to seek clarification (and yes, I know it wasn't Zips who added this bolt!).

I had forgotten completely about that peg, though someone pointed out when I led Cosmopolitan that a flake had recently come off, and this had made the finishing sequence harder than previously.  I didn't realise that there had also been a peg in that flake, though a fresh scar where the flake had been was clearly visible.  Who was the unfortunate who did the involuntary 'cleaning'?

I suppose in terms of maintaining the feel of the route, then the previous existence of the peg is relevant.  I knew that the finish of Cosmopolitan had always the reputation for being bold and run out - but perhaps it wasn't quite as runout as I had assumed?

So I suppose my disappointment now boils down to the fact that this was an established route, with a well known reputation for being something a bit different from the norm (though several people including many contributors to this thread had still managed to wobble their way up it); it had become a bit harder and a bit bolder, and I found the experience of leading it in that state both absorbing and memorable; at least one friend who did it shortly before me concurred; I felt sure that others would enjoy this unusual Cornice experience in the future; and now, due to the unilateral actions of one individual, they can't.

That's all...

Neil