[andy moles]

I like that the outward facing one gets no stars, the spinning obviously adds a lot of quality 

That's up there with the two-star two-pitch problem at Cromlech roadside, which links sections of two existing problems by walking across a slab (which is so low angled you could stay there indefinitely, or jog on the spot if you needed to keep warm).

[Bonjoy]

Most of the salient points have been made, so just a few thoughts really:
- I agree with the early post about there being a natural progression wrt to recording stuff (fractals were mentioned). It offends my sense of order when things seem too far either side of an areas ‘development age’. For this reason I find under recording no better than over recording. The wise new developers surfs the edge of this advancing front rather than questing off too far ahead of the area ‘age’ though.
- I detest the notion of engineered fake FA experiences, as implied by the proposition in the OP. I find the idea patronizing, dishonest, and a sad trivialization of an already trivial game.
- I agree there is a problem with over recording. As others have said though, I think it’s mostly a problem because it causes confusion and hinders clear evaluation of the existing record. I.e. it’s a record keeping problem (mostly).
- I agree that segregating links/eliminates/variants within digital records is a good thing and goes a long way to solving some of the real issues.
- There are lots of factors to consider when deciding whether or not to record a problem/area. Most have been covered. Others: - When developing a new area sometimes a bad line helps to define its good neighbour and therefore is better recorded than not, even though objectively poor. Sometimes micro venues benefit from a few extra probs, which would be considered worthless at a place with a wider selection. This is just a matter of having things to go at after you’ve done the obvious and thereby increasing the venues viability. The new eliminate I did at Windy Knoll (Under the Weather) is a case in point here.
- I dislike no star guidebooks (e.g. the old Northumberland guide). It’s just hard to assess if somewhere is worth a visit in a non longwinded way. Stars simply get replaced with hyperbole within the text, which is far more confusing and prone to inaccuracy.
- I agree that I probably would get less shit for putting up poor new probs than a newbie, but I would point out that I’ve been on UKB for a long time and have got my fair share of flack (usually fairly deserved) for all sorts of stuff, including poor new developments over the years.

[Fiend]

A wild Bonjoy appears... 

[Bonjoy]

Oh, and regards Ardnamurchan, Ring Cycle. I also read the guide as implying nobody had been arsed to record anything rather than there being any convention that it should stay unrecorded. With the exception of the slab that Jon Read recorded some bits on, I didn't see much that really made sense to record when I was there, mostly due to the length of the walk in and the roughness of the rock. Also there looked to be lots of much more easily accessible rock on the hillside behind the beach, which would be the first logical area to develop. I did find a really nice coastal venue about a mile north though (have recorded on UKC) which made sense to record as it was worth the walk and is ideal as a family/holiday visit as it scores high on the beautiful white sand beach scale.

[Bradders]

Sometimes micro venues benefit from a few extra probs, which would be considered worthless at a place with a wider selection. This is just a matter of having things to go at after you’ve done the obvious and thereby increasing the venues viability. The new eliminate I did at Windy Knoll (Under the Weather) is a case in point here.

You do this a disservice - it's the best problem there!

[Bonjoy]

I agree it's a great sequence  but I also know it's the sort of thing that lots of people find really annoying.

[abarro81]

I agree it's a great sequence  but I also know it's the sort of thing that lots of people find really annoying.

I fear for tallies it's not the easiest way either. I took the good RH hold in the roof, matched it, went RH to shield feature and then RH over again to the "hand jam slot". I was a bit confused, because it felt a bit too easy, but the only way to avoid it was to be very strict about eliminating any feet on the right, and then it felt too hard - one of those eliminates where I didn't know the rules (couldn't find them anywhere) and could only find eliminates that felt a bit too easy or a bit too hard for what it was billed as! Saw a vid of your sequence and it looks like in some ways I was being too elim - looked like you were using feet out in the crack out right which I'd assumed was out. It might make more sense for shorter people as they probably couldn't do my go again method

[Carliios]

I think at a micro venue like Windy it totally makes sense to document all the linkups and eliminates since it’s essentially a small training venue. There’s only so much you can squeeze out of it but the lines remain fairly obvious and worthwhile if you know what you’re looking at anyways, though it would probably help if we put up a topo and some more descriptions as to what’s in and what’s out on each eliminate like Under the Weather and Singing in the Wind (those are the only two eliminates as far as I’m aware?)

[Bradders]

I tried that method and it's impossible for me, and I'm not short.

Although I still did it differently to Bonjoy with a left heel hook in the roof to bring the left hand out. Exact same holds at least. It's one of those with lots of options (despite the slight eliminate nature of it).

I've done a little topo, will put it on UKC.

[Bonjoy]

I agree it's a great sequence  but I also know it's the sort of thing that lots of people find really annoying.

I fear for tallies it's not the easiest way either. I took the good RH hold in the roof, matched it, went RH to shield feature and then RH over again to the "hand jam slot". I was a bit confused, because it felt a bit too easy, but the only way to avoid it was to be very strict about eliminating any feet on the right, and then it felt too hard - one of those eliminates where I didn't know the rules (couldn't find them anywhere) and could only find eliminates that felt a bit too easy or a bit too hard for what it was billed as! Saw a vid of your sequence and it looks like in some ways I was being too elim - looked like you were using feet out in the crack out right which I'd assumed was out. It might make more sense for shorter people as they probably couldn't do my go again method

Yes, Dave Parry repeated it that way while I was there. I though about adjusting the rules to invalidate it, but it seemed a bit off to apply post ascent rule changes. The rules seemed convoluted enough already without adding extra layers. Figured I’d just let lanksters take the gift instead. Didn’t really expect it would see much/any attention tbh.

[abarro81]

Makes sense, though I'm not sure how you would adjust the rules without invalidating the other sequence if you put feet even further right? You'd have to do something like define the sequence rather than the holds, and while I don't mind a bit of eliminating a hold now or then when necessary to create a problem, technique elimination is a step too far for me

[Andy B]

So, to clarify, the crack just right is in for feet?

[abarro81]

I didn't use it, but I think Bonjoy did

[Bonjoy]

I used the lip sloper (for double toe hooks), this is part of the crack in the broadest sense, the other side of the crack is out. Obviously the rule breaks down once you join TiTW at the handjam. As I said, it's already quite far down the rabbit hole, and doesn't need extra levels of convolution  . Happy to send you the vid if it helps.

[Andy B]

Yes please. I’m actually there now (and thought I’d already done it!)

[Bonjoy]

Have sent. I'll also amend the UKC log so it's a bit clearer

[Andy B]

Cheers, I actually did it another two different ways since my last post, but neither were the same way as you.
I love how this has turned into an eliminate beta thread. I wonder if we are making fiend’s point for him?

[Bonjoy]

Quite possibly. I guess that depends on how cheated you feel at being lured out to Windy Knoll be my shoddy eliminate.

[Will Hunt]

Cheers, I actually did it another two different ways since my last post, but neither were the same way as you.
I love how this has turned into an eliminate beta thread. I wonder if we are making fiend’s point for him?

But that's two 3-star FAs to your name. Not a bad afternoon's work.

[Andy B]

Quite possibly. I guess that depends on how cheated you feel at being lured out to Windy Knoll be my shoddy eliminate.

Not cheated at all, I had lots of fun.
The only blight on my session is that I decided not to do the classic Twisting in the Wind cos I didn’t want to do the spooky top out again, then did the top twice more just to ensure the dodgy eliminate tick, thus proving that I’m still a shallow number chaser.

[Andy B]

Cheers, I actually did it another two different ways since my last post, but neither were the same way as you.
I love how this has turned into an eliminate beta thread. I wonder if we are making fiend’s point for him?

But that's two 3-star FAs to your name. Not a bad afternoon's work.

Oh yeah! I’ll have to think up some appropriately grand names. 😂

[Andy B]

Quite possibly. I guess that depends on how cheated you feel at being lured out to Windy Knoll be my shoddy eliminate.

Having watched your vid properly and read your new description, I’ve decided that all three of my sequences are legit, as only one of the three uses an extra hold, and that hold is within your rules. 👍😁
Still didn’t do twisting in the wind though.

[Oogachooga]

For me I like to know if at least someone has climbed in an area/on a particular boulder. It would piss me off if I went through the effort of documenting something for someone to say that they have already climbed everything. Okay for 1 or 2 problems but a dozen or so on a boulder would be annoying. IMO it's easy to add things to UKC (for example).

Just a note on documenting low grade climbs. I've been 'putting up' a few low grade problems in the Forst of dean as it seems as though things under f5 are not documented anywhere. Maybe that was the ethics back a few decades ago or maybe it just wasn't worth the space in the guide. As for me, it at least gives access to beginners to outdoor bouldering, instead of having to go to an inside wall to pick up the sport.

So, I'm gonna go with yeah...document it (if you are able).

[webbo]

I thought Huntsman was banned? Therefore should you be going public with stuff you done there.
It might make any access negotiations tricky.

[jakaitch]

Huntsham isn't the only crag in the FoD