[James Malloch]

I have been bouldering for 8 years and it is the first time I hear about RAD

Out of interest, how did you check access? For nationwide coverage I'm only aware of RAD and UKC, and UKC directs you to RAD. If you google "crag access" RAD is the first result.

I’ll admit that it generally just doesn’t cross my mind to check access. I’m definitely in the camp of looking through a guide and seeing what looks interesting (or being drawn by a video on social media) and deciding to go.

Things like this make me more aware but i suspect that the majority of people are similar to me.

Sometimes I’ll check UKC to see what people have logged against a problem, which is how I’ve found out about a ban at a boulder near me ( https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/shelter_cliff_field_boulders-21491/ ) as its super obvious on there.

But if i hadn’t checked that I would have just gone to try it.

The equivalent small “restricted access” logo on Wrights Rock is so much less prominent, and you then have to open it too if you do see it, that i don't think I’d have noticed it if I’d have done the same thing.

Signs at the crag have helped (e.g. kilnsey parking, craig-y-longridge). And if i know somewhere has a restriction i will check details before going (Chapel Head).

[spidermonkey09]

Thats very honest of you James/sirlockoff. Although to be honest I also find it pretty alarming!

I guess I really don't see it as unreasonable to expect that climbers are cognisant of access. Perhaps this is the new reality, but its a shame if so. Even looking at guidebooks to find out where to go, every single one has a paragraph on access at each crag, even if there are no issues. Shouldn't be too much to expect people to read that, and if its an old guide check it online.

[James Malloch]

Thats very honest of you James/sirlockoff. Although to be honest I also find it pretty alarming!

I guess I really don't see it as unreasonable to expect that climbers are cognisant of access. Perhaps this is the new reality, but its a shame if so. Even looking at guidebooks to find out where to go, every single one has a paragraph on access at each crag, even if there are no issues. Shouldn't be too much to expect people to read that, and if its an old guide check it online.

I think for me, as 99% of my climbing is at places where there are no access issues (other than obvious things like parking sensibly) i can take access for granted, especially when things are in a guide with no issues at the time of publication.

No one ever mentioned access when i was getting into climbing at Uni (i just followed people around - maybe they had checked). The only time I ever hear about it is times like this when there’s a problem and it is raised on UKB or UKC or I see about it in a guide.

And I don’t alway think to check the guide either - I went to Pigeons cave once and only happened to notice the restrictions when i was at the parking and checking the walk-in description. Went to Parisellas instead but it never once crossed my mind that a bit of tidal limestone might have an access issue.

It’s definitely a mindset which is hard to change!

[JamieG]

UKC just released this good little video about starting to climb outside. They do a good job of mentioning issues like not climbing on wet rock, brushing tick marks and excess chalk off, but there is no mention of checking access and parking arrangements. Perhaps we could ask them to add that to it.

[Dingdong]

UKC just released this good little video about starting to climb outside. They do a good job of mentioning issues like not climbing on wet rock, brushing tick marks and excess chalk off, but there is no mention of checking access and parking arrangements. Perhaps we could ask them to add that to it.

They’ve mentioned they’re working on a separate video that will talk about access

[JamieG]

Ah ok. Good stuff.

[Bonjoy]

It’s also recently come to my attention that even once a crag is banned you can still log stuff on UKC. Would make sense to turn of logging for banned crags to deter it.

In practice there are many shades of 'banned' and there might be instances where a block on logging is appropriate and some where it definitely would not, for a variety of reasons. It's worth noting that only registered users see logged ascents, a guest visitor will not.

There's obviously plenty more I could comment on on this thread, including some valid suggestions, but as I'm just back from several days leave I have a lot of other stuff to catch up on. I'll try to comment on a few things though when I get time.

[sirlockoff]

I have been bouldering for 8 years and it is the first time I hear about RAD

Out of interest, how did you check access? For nationwide coverage I'm only aware of RAD and UKC, and UKC directs you to RAD. If you google "crag access" RAD is the first result.

just to clarify it is not because I don't care about access. I've always just gone to UKC and see the climbs / if there is anything about crag access / parking. I just haven't heard of RAD before, but sounds like RAD is behind of all/most of these UKC crag access messages, so kudos to them, and I will check RAD+UKC in the future

[Ru]

just to clarify it is not because I don't care about access. I've always just gone to UKC and see the climbs / if there is anything about crag access / parking. I just haven't heard of RAD before, but sounds like RAD is behind of all/most of these UKC crag access messages, so kudos to them, and I will check RAD+UKC in the future

It wasn't a criticism, just a query.

[User deactivated.]

How do we deal with crags that are technically banned, but cheeky visits where you don't get caught seem to be tolerated within the community?  One that springs to mind is listed on UKC as Bo Selecta. I've seen videos from visible members of our community that didn't raise an angry mob. For the record, I've climbed there myself. Another ban that I've seen ignored without pitchforks being raised is a grit crag with a long cave near Bradley Edge (I've 'trespassed' there as a walker only without climbing gear). Wherever access is sketchy, a blanket ban from the community without nuance would easy to understand, but I wouldn't vote for that.

Clearly, the Wright's Rock issue is different as the landowner seems more than reasonable. I'd respect his wishes, but it's difficult to convey clearly why I/we don't have a consistent stance on access restrictions.

[Dingdong]

How do we deal with crags that are technically banned, but cheeky visits where you don't get caught seem to be tolerated within the community?  One that springs to mind is listed on UKC as Bo Selecta. I've seen videos from visible members of our community that didn't raise an angry mob. For the record, I've climbed there myself. Another ban that I've seen ignored without pitchforks being raised is a grit crag with a long cave near Bradley Edge (I've 'trespassed' there as a walker only without climbing gear). Wherever access is sketchy, a blanket ban from the community without nuance would easy to understand, but I wouldn't vote for that.

Clearly, the Wright's Rock issue is different as the landowner seems more than reasonable. I'd respect his wishes, but it's difficult to convey clearly why I/we don't have a consistent stance on access restrictions.

Are those crags banned banned though? Or is access just a bit sketchy? I think there’s a difference between something being outright banned by a landowner Vs a crag having sketchy access issue where a ban hasn’t been outright declared but is an ongoing conversation with the land owner

[remus]

The long cave near Bradley edge is definitely banned i.e. if you're caught there you'll be asked to leave.

[Droyd]

The most meaningful distinction is surely between crags where the access situation won't improve and so those that choose to climb there aren't really jeopardising anything because the landowner is clearly not open to negotiation  - the 'long cave', Bo Selecta - and ones that are currently banned - Griffs, Wright's - but have the potential to be sorted out through a combination of long-term access negotiation and people staying away in the meantime to avoid making the situation worse.

With regard to disabling logging: I'm a puerile little toad myself, but if we're at the point where the one thing that might actually prevent people from flouting bans is that they won't be able to log ascents on UKC, I'd say there's a pretty good argument for binning the whole thing off, getting a nuclear war or whatever going, and starting over with single-celled organisms.

[m.cooke.1421]

I think the access situation is different for Impossible Roof to the other areas at Roche. A number of years ago I was asked to leave Beef Buttress by someone working at the English Heritage site who suggested we go over the road instead.

[Bonjoy]

Note: I've split off a separate topic for related discussion not specifically about Wright's. If folk could use that topic instead of this (unless it is about Wright's) that would be great, thanks.

[Doxapram]

Anecdotally: I was out at Churnet yesterday and saw two boulderers unloading at the parking when I was leaving. I asked if they had heard about the access issues and they hadn't. I then asked if they had checked out the crag on ukc, and they had. They seemed fine about it and thanked me for mentioning but obviously the message isn't getting through, even to those that might be accessible by RAD.

[James Malloch]

Looking at UKC even the access notes are confusing in my opinion.

It says restricted, rather than banned initially. Then when you open it you have the most recent update saying Not to climb. But then you still have the old wording saying continued access is allowed if you meet these rules (with a big BMC logo next to the rules).

If its currently banned, it should say banned (which i think means the access page is way more prominent) and I’d get rid of the rules etc in there unless anything changes.

[SA Chris]

I thought the same. Also I agree the "groups of no more than 6" is easily open to misinterpretation if you wanted to.

[Bonjoy]

Have you refreshed your cache? UKC and RAD both have 'Access Banned' front and centre, in bold, in red and written multiple times.
I retained the old rules underneath, in brackets and italics, after bold text saying they no longer apply due to the ban, as I assume people will want to know the context of the recent ban, i.e. what the rules were which people failed to follow. I really don't want any confusion though, so if people think this is unclear or confusing I will change/remove.

[spidermonkey09]

I think its fine Jon, and appears how you say it does for me. It couldn't be any clearer.

[Fiend]

RAD app still has 2020's Covid-19 guideance at the top and more promiment than the current actual access issues - maybe time for that to be removed!

[James Malloch]

Have you refreshed your cache? UKC and RAD both have 'Access Banned' front and centre, in bold, in red and written multiple times.
I retained the old rules underneath, in brackets and italics, after bold text saying they no longer apply due to the ban, as I assume people will want to know the context of the recent ban, i.e. what the rules were which people failed to follow. I really don't want any confusion though, so if people think this is unclear or confusing I will change/remove.

It’s very clear now. I’ve not refreshed anything but it’s changed to banned when I’ve revisited the page. Sorry for any confusion 👍🏻

[Offwidth]

just to clarify it is not because I don't care about access. I've always just gone to UKC and see the climbs / if there is anything about crag access / parking. I just haven't heard of RAD before, but sounds like RAD is behind of all/most of these UKC crag access messages, so kudos to them, and I will check RAD+UKC in the future

Every UKC logbook page with access issues has a link to a page with more details and on that page there is always a BMC RAD button for more information. Although I'm bemused,  I'm not especially fussed if climbers using UKC are so inattentive they haven't noticed the buttons, the important thing is to check access details where there are issues.

I think it's most important we follow access advice at venues where we can climb but access is very sensitive, or those that are banned where negotiations are ongoing to arrange access. I'd like to see red for these two categories to emphasise that. Visits to totally banned crags with no hope of negotiating access really don't risk much.

[Bonjoy]

RAD app still has 2020's Covid-19 guidance at the top and more prominent than the current actual access issues - maybe time for that to be removed!

I'll ask IT to change that as I'm not able to edit the app outside of the crag specific content.

[Bonjoy]

I think it's most important we follow access advice at venues where we can climb but access is very sensitive, or those that are banned where negotiations are ongoing to arrange access. I'd like to see red for these two categories to emphasise that. Visits to totally banned crags with no hope of negotiating access really don't risk much.

This isn't something that can be done using the current RAD functions. The colour can't be decoupled from the access status. Crags can only be marked red by assigning them as banned. I agree this could be improved. I've added it to a list of requested changes.