[slackline]

I'm not convinced.

As far as I can tell RF have just chosen which crags they want to include then linked to the relevant RF database pages in the hope that people will comment, vote etc. on routes and make their job easier. UKC route entries are not duplicated on the RF database so I see no evidence that any selection of routes has been presented to us.

This is of course conjecture, but...

It might not be apparent on the face of it, but I'd be very surprised if there are two concurrent databases being run, one for Rockfax and one for UKClimbing Logbook.  Clearly not everything in the database is displayed on each front end.  My "understanding" (based on looking at both) is that only those routes that go into the Rockfax publications actually make it onto the database there, whilst the log-book version of the database is essentially the "master" and contains all routes at a crag and there are many entries without descriptions (often when a route isn't described in a publication from Rockfax). 

It would be exceptionally inefficient to have two essentially identical databases running concurrently, and the fact that the text describing the actual climbs is identical for climbs that appear in both supports the notion that there is one database behind it all, and its simply selective presentation that is the route of the differences you and I see as users.

[nai]

not trying to defend the indefensible, there's no doubt what it's trying to do, but it does state this on the book's blurb:

Note: the list of routes in the database doesn't correspond exactly to the content of the new guidebook since some of it dates from earlier guidebooks. This is particularly the case on North Wales Limestone).

It would be a massively imbalanced and pretty crap book if it were to be selective to one area and definitive to another, difficult to understand what the market for that would be.  But equally there's already a belting selective guide to the area so difficult to see where the market is for another.  Odd decision all round, you must have really pissed him off, Pete.  Stick at it, it'll be worth it.
 

[petejh]

That wasn't on their blurb earlier, they must have just added it in response, and the word from one of the guidebook authors is that the book will contain a 600 trad /400 sport split. Go figure where they're going to find 400 sport routes.

[Fiend]

That wasn't on their blurb earlier, they must have just added it in response

They could have added it in response to you in the first place!

[remus]

This is of course conjecture, but...

It might not be apparent on the face of it, but I'd be very surprised if there are two concurrent databases being run, one for Rockfax and one for UKClimbing Logbook.  Clearly not everything in the database is displayed on each front end.  My "understanding" (based on looking at both) is that only those routes that go into the Rockfax publications actually make it onto the database there, whilst the log-book version of the database is essentially the "master" and contains all routes at a crag and there are many entries without descriptions (often when a route isn't described in a publication from Rockfax). 

It would be exceptionally inefficient to have two essentially identical databases running concurrently, and the fact that the text describing the actual climbs is identical for climbs that appear in both supports the notion that there is one database behind it all, and its simply selective presentation that is the route of the differences you and I see as users.

I agree, as you say it would be very inefficient to have two completely separate databases and it makes sense that only routes researched* for RF publications appear on the RF database. But to repeat my previous point, given that RF have previously produced a guide to NW lime, what's to suggest that all the NW lime routes listed in the database will be in the book?

*I use the term loosely.

[Fiend]

Actually this guidebook has been being planned and written for two years. We started back in 2011 after we abandoned our own North Wales Limestone project owing to a second book being proposed from another publisher. From the seeds of that though, and inspired by Mark Glaister's brilliant West Country Climbs book, we decided that we would like to do a bigger and better job that had been started with North Wales Classics in 2010.

We have got to the stage now that we can be fairly sure about when we can publish it which is why we have announced it this week. This is our way of managing the delays many guidebooks suffer from as they near the finishing line. We have now reached the stage where we know what work is to be done still and can predict accurately when the book will be available.

The coverage is our usual mix of selected crags but include most of the routes people do on those crags. (Using UKC logbooks is a great way of finding out which routes are climbed). This does tend to mean that the quality bar is lower for sport routes than for trad routes but these are the routes people do. The coverage for the Ormes is Upper Pen Trwyn, Lower Pen Trwyn, Castell y Gwynt, Craig y Don and the Diamond. We are also including Castle Inn Quarry and Penmaen Head. Considering we were working with a definitive guidebook text for most of these sections when we started (they were already finished back in 2011) I would estimate that the coverage has been cut by around 50% in terms of pages.

One presumes the "definitive guidebook text" mention was their own. Obviously 50% cut in pages does not mean 50% cut in terms of routes, but clearly the implication is *many* less lime routes are covered in the guide than in the totality of their database - it would be useful to have accurate NW RF route numbers to see how well the proportions are balanced.

[205Chris]

They are scum. I remember seeing Adrian Berry script checking for the new Peak bouldering guide at Raven Tor quite openly walking around with a copy of the Vertebrate guide in his hands.

When quizzed he admitted what he was doing and answered "I want to make sure there aren't any mistakes"

Truly beggars belief.

[Johnny Brown]

in 2011 when I reported you to the Information Commissioner's Office for breaking multiple laws under the data protection act, and for which you were rightly formally cautioned.

Interesting, I didn't know that. Was this over route databases or just UKC mishandling privacy?

[petejh]

It was depressingly petty but I followed it through on principle.

I posted a comment in a rocktalk thread back in 2011 about guidebooks, my comment was 'the '97 rockfax nw lime guide was blatantly lazily researched'.  Yes it was disrespectful, and I do know how much work Alan will have felt like he put in to that guide - and without his guide I'd be far worse off doing this one. But, I could also clearly see whilst doing my guide research how much work he missed out - every time I came across things like Wall of the Evening Light, described thus '50 metres....16 bolts so you shouldn't lose your way' - when I re-equipped it 10 years after that was written it had 7 bolts, 2 pegs. And it's 35metres not 50 -  this on one of the very best 7b+'s in the country. I call that bad/lazy research. There were many other more minor oversights. I'm not saying it was a terrible guide, it wasn't, far from it. But I was fed up of hearing him talk bullshit about how his guides are the best thing since sliced bread, as if the BMC, CC, Groundup, SMC and independent publishers aren't equally as good in design now but also have much greater depth and attention to detail. Times have moved on, it isn't rocket science to do colourful glossy guidebooks - anyone tech savvy enough can do it. I was also fed up watching him censor anyone who tries to tell him anything that doesn't fit his view or might affect business model. I don't give a hoot about his business, I don't love climbing becasue it's a business, I love it in part becasue it isn't.

Alan zapped not just my post but the entire thread, banned me and demanded an apology, which I refused to give becasue what I thought what I'd said was true.
I'd been keeping a logbook and it had about 1000 routes in it. I wasn't bothered about being able to use ukc, it really is a dire forum, but I would have liked access to my logbook of climbs. A friend who posts on here had also been banned, and he pointed out to Alan that the info detailed in a logbook - dates, places and people you were with is classed as 'Personmal Data' under the DPA 1998.

I asked Alan for the information in my logbook but not to be unbanned. He refused. I emailed him to say I was making a formal request for access to my personal data under the DPA 1998 and that he was obliged to provide it within 40 days. He refused and said he wasn't legally obliged to give me anything. He then said he'd delete all the information if I wanted. I said I didn't want that and repeated my request for access to my personal data. He then emailed again to tell me he'd deleted everything. I submitted a formal complaint to the ICO on the form which is on their website.
About 3 months later they sent a letter with their outcome. edit - I deleted the letter, doesn't seem appropriate. Happy to email the wording to anyone interested. Basically ukc were found to have breached the DPA and were cautioned with the warning that penalties will be stiffer if there are future breaches.


I fully realise how petty it is and I felt a little bad taking up an important organization's time; I carried it through out of principle because I detest how Alan tries to airbrush out, censor and generally disregard in the most arrogant way people who get in his way or who disagree with his viewpoint. If you act like an arrogant arse for long enough people are going to start being an arse back.

[mrjonathanr]

 Discussing data protection seems very topical today.

I'd buy a definitive guide, especially if/as profits feed back to maintaining the crags.

[chris j]

It might not be apparent on the face of it, but I'd be very surprised if there are two concurrent databases being run, one for Rockfax and one for UKClimbing Logbook. 

IIRC Alan has said in the past that the databases are separate so grades etc on one may not be exactly the same as the other. Of course that doesn't mean it isn't easy to add a new section to the RF database by copying a section from the UKC logbooks and editing out routes RF doesn't want to include.

[petejh]

It wouldn't be hard for Alan to give a straight answer about how many routes are being included on Pen Trwyn, LPT, Castell y Gwynt, The Diamond, Craig y Don and Penmaen Head and any other crags - Would it?
The fact he's refused to give an answer says a lot, it says to me they know what they're doing is questionable, so it's best to just stonewall everyone becasue the number of people wanting the info and purchasing the book will justify, in dollar terms, them acting like cynical parasitic wankers who give nothing to the climbing scene.

[Doylo]

We don't need another North Wales select guide.  We've got an excellent one put together by a local publisher who's struggling along but still churning out quality guides.  There has been a lot of quality work around here over the last 4/5 years sorting out the limestone crags like The Diamond and the Great Orme crags.  This has been sorted by bolt fund volunteers and resources so it galls me that the bolt fund guide is going to have competition from Rockfax who have done diddly squat for the area.   

[BenF]

We don't need another North Wales select guide.  We've got an excellent one put together by a local publisher who's struggling along but still churning out quality guides. 

Exactly my thoughts.  The GU select is an excellent guide, widely appreciated by people.  There's no need for another select guide.  It's simply greed from Rockfax, or perhaps a cynical attempt to tread on GU's toes. 

[remus]

It wouldn't be hard for Alan to give a straight answer about how many routes are being included on Pen Trwyn, LPT, Castell y Gwynt, The Diamond, Craig y Don and Penmaen Head and any other crags - Would it?

Indeed it wouldn't, but he's hardly obliged to. Given that you basically accused him of being a cunt in your email I'm not entirely surprised by his reaction.

For clarity, I'm referring to the following paragraph from your email:

If you are, and I really hope you aren't, then this isn't a selective guide at all - it's a selective guide for 90% of the content but includes definitive coverage of all the main areas of north wales limestone - with a clear goal of beating to market the actual definitive guide for the area which has been three years in the making and which has been the driving force for the re-development of this area. And are you intending to cover any other limestone crags not listed?
 
If I'm correct, it shoes a level of cynicism and disregard for people which I thought was beyond even you.

The fact he's refused to give an answer says a lot, it says to me they know what they're doing is questionable, so it's best to just stonewall everyone becasue the number of people wanting the info and purchasing the book will justify, in dollar terms, them acting like cynical parasitic wankers who give nothing to the climbing scene.

I think you're reading in to it too much.

[petejh]

It's completely reasonable to ask the question in the circumstances. And whilst me and Alan may never exchange xmas cards that doesn't justify him not giving a straight answer to a simple question. No he's not obliged, but it would show good will and honesty - which is exactly what Alan and Rockfax are being accused of lacking and have been accused of similar many times in the past - so why not simply refute my accusation and say what they are planning, if what I said isn't true?

[biscuit]

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=552134

Currently at the bottom of the thread is a longish post from Alan J at least going through the timeline and some reasoning behind decisions made.

[petejh]

Alan's post contains points which aren't true:

1. The original rockfax NW Lime guide was never going to be a definitive guide. I asked Jack at the time what was being included and he confirmed that it would just cover the most popular crags Pen Trwyn, LPT, The Gwynt, The Diamond etc - basically what they are covering now in NW Climbs. This is not what the area needed at a time when loads of areas were still in a state of disuse due to them being littered with non-stainless unsafe bolts, and are still being re-equipped and route-checked now, for the first time in 20 years. Rockfax's original guide would have killed interest in bringing the neglected areas back to life, because by their own admission the area couldn't support two guidebooks hence the only guide to the area would, if rockfax got their way, only be a selective. Lots of locals were unhappy at rockfax for their plan, which was partly what convinced me to do a proper defintive guide against rockfax. As usual, Alan is trying to polish turds i.e. his decision to kill off coverage of less popular areas in favour of commercially viability for rockfax.

2. Whilst the rockfax/ukc's 'bolt fund page' is a welcome step - it essentially is pointing you at links to bolt funds that already exist and asks you to donate. Any money rockfax give to the bolt fund is of course to be welcomed, but it should go without saying they're pretty much obliged to support bolt funds if they choose to write about areas such as NW Lime - it's hardly revolutionary and they could be shown to be reactive, not proactive, in donating to the scenes that make their business possible.

3. Alan's claim that 'nothing has changed' is a classic example of a cynical man talking half-truths designed to conceal awkward facts  - nothing may have changed to the plan that was in his mind. He cynically overlooks the essential part - nobody knew the extent of his plans to cover NW Lime back in 2011 becasue if you look at what he said at the time he didn't make it apparent - he's still been vague now but after being pushed he's made it clear. If people had known back then, they would have reacted as they're reacting now - dod you think people only now are pissed off with you Alan - get real. Alan is sly and he knows how to spin things in his favour.

4. So, this is what part of what they are including: 'We are including most sport routes on the crags we cover though since that is our normal policy since these are the routes that tend to get climbed, which is around 250 odd routes on the Great Orme for example.'.  That is exactly what I suggested. So instead of it being a parasitic and cynical thing to do, it's 'policy' for a rockafx select guide to provide definitive coverage of the main crags on NW limestone - but no-where else in North Wales. Well that's ok then if its 'policy'! Alan you are just dressing up, with cynical spin, a parasitic decision to cream off all the hard work of me and the other locals work of re-equipping and documenting these crags and breathing life back into the area. Rockafx are showing so much bad faith towards this area and they have been typically sly and underhand in their method - that's their policy.

250 routes on the Great Orme. Another 40-50  on the Little Orme, another 70 odd on Penmaen Head and Castle Inn. Alan, Jack, Mark - you're going to kill off the market for a definitive guide which highlights the breadth of good climbing in the area but which is too time-consuming for your business to go and document. You cynical money-grabbing parasites.


Remus - are you convinced now?

[Davo]

Hi Pete

if you don't mind me asking: How many routes will there be in the definitive guide? Will there be any that are not in the new rockfax one?

In all honesty I think your guide will sell pretty well. I for one will buy it and I am certain lots of others will as well. I personally suspect the area can support your guide and rockfax.

 I can understand that you feel like sacking it all in but in my opinion that would be a shame and you should just finish it off and get it published.

As I have said I am looking forward to it and won't be buying the competitions

Cheers Dave

[Davo]

Don't think so... I have the 1997 one and don't remember aanything else around at the time but I could be wrong

[crimp]

Sounds like you've put in a lot of work on both the guide and the crags Pete.

I dont think you'll change their mind.  I would stick with it, and try for as early a publication as possible.

If Im ever headed that way, i know which guide I'll buy.

[petejh]

Another question that came into my head ... and this is maybe more relevant to the thread: how extensive is the coverage of NWL in the Ground Up North Wales Rock book?

A NW Limestone supplement, self-published by Karl Smith, was released in 1995. Karl emailed me in 2010, when I was researching for the guide -
'I did an interm guide a few years ago, mid-90s ( saving rockfax the trouble of having to do any research)...'


Simon might be able to better detail than I, but his NW Rock selective covers the following NW Limestone:
Great Orme: 95 routes, split between Pen Trwyn, LPT, Wonder Wall, Castel y Gwynt, St Tudno's.
Little Orme: 12 routes, split between Craig y Don and Great Zawn
Castle Inn Quarry: 6 routes
Total of 113 routes on NW Lime in the Groundup North Wales select
versus
Around 350 routes on NW Lime in the rockfax North Wales 'select' - using the word select in this context makes me laugh.

[Tris]

I wanted to check some history ... mostly out of personal interest, not suggesting it is critical to the issues here: Rockfax published definitive-ish guidebooks to NWL climbing in 1992 and 1997. During that period (1990's into early 2000's), was there any alternative guidebook to the area?

The only other one would have been the CC guide from 1987.

[petejh]

A few pages from the forthcoming definitive North Wales Limestone guide:







(it's not all photos of me I promise!)

It seems the level of bad feeling is growing in North Wales and elsewhere towards rockfax's definitive 'select' guide.

[highrepute]

Pete,
The pics from the definitive look great. Do you have a press release or such like that describes how great the new guide is going to be?

I'm reading a lot about how shit rockfax is but not much about the new definitive. now seems like a great opportunity to counter their turd with some marketing on your part.

Thanks

James