[Fiend]

Maybe it's a complaint, maybe it's just another perspective, maybe it's pondering on the possibility of voluntarily leaving things unclaimed, maybe it's speculating on something we might be losing - especially in the modern age, as matt463, where the popularity just keeps going (along wiith the sharing of information).

Of course, in the context of this thread, there is the issue of "People who like keeping some things quiet and like a bit of undocumented rock for exploration might also be people who don't often post on forums"  

[matt463]

When people regularly post to tiktok, seeing interesting things in the world probably makes them immediately think of how to share it (I imagine). For people who regularly post new problems, how much of the motivation is community driven vs a desire to post to their social account. I think you can document new problems quietly. I don't think I would have ever enjoyed climbing without the excellent guidebooks I've had access to, acknowledging the effort these things take to write, without any experience of this I can imagine its a very long process. Preinstagram, documentation required a lot more persistence I imagine.

Maybe its a bit like music, how many of the current artists on top lists will still be headlining festivals in 20-30 years. People will always want to climb crescent arete.

If there's the potential for them to discover an excellent problem that other people enjoy, and ultimately get more people off their ass and exercising I can't see its a bad thing. I can still go to burbage and pretend I'm the only one who climbs there if I want. If I didnt use UKClimbing or instagram I'd probably be able to believe that with a higher dose of sincerity

[Hoseyb]

Isles of Scilly is a good case study, loads of rock, awkward to get to. Loads been climbed ( cool bouldering) but very little gets out, originally from local resistance along the lines mentioned in the thread.
We did a kind of guide that lived there, as a single tome ( a bit like a Pete's Eats book with photos stuck in). Some stuff from that disseminated to the wider public (UKC etc) but it's Still a fairly undiscovered area, at least on the surface.

[Danny]

I've only seen a photo dump of Isles of Scilly boulders but, based on what I've seen, I reckon those boulders absolutely deserve to be documented. For me it comes down to quality.

When I first started climbing, information was relatively rare. It was often difficult to find boulders with half baked approach notes. It was harder still to find new stuff without all the tools we have to lean on today. I think we're getting to a stage now where UKC presents to opposite issue (for established stuff)—i.e., the documenting of reams and reams of tosh. Far from making guidebooks redundant, I think this profusion of tosh actually makes them ever more important. It's necessary information sorting of the kind that characterises our modern world.

Take my local hill Carn Brea as an example. Over the years I've climbed most things here. I've climbed a lot of maybe new stuff that I don't think is worth recording, and I've properly documented maybe half a dozen new things which I think are worthy of names and grades. There's a stone monument on top of the hill that climbers have climbed on for decades without recording anything, but now someone has decided to name and grade all this arbitrary nonsense, including a hitherto unrecognised classic hiding in plain sight: https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/carn_brea-9597/south_face_traverse-664107. I'm willing to accept that my conception of quality is just different, but I have to say I'm struggling.

To sum up my position in two rules of thumb:

1. Things that are tosh by consensus don't need names and grades, and should be wiped from the ledger. Not everything needs to be documented (Carn Brea traverses).

2. Things that are good-to-amazing are almost always worth documenting (this doesn't imply the need for a name or grade) unless there's a good access/ecological issue not to. (Isles of Scilly blocs look amazing)

I could take or leave 1., as I'm probably just a bit grumpy. But 2. is a hill I'll die on. Things like Malc's Arete are gifts of nature—it's so rare to have all the right elements come together to produce genuine classics. I think we should treasure and share these things by default.
 

[Carliios]

I've only seen a photo dump of Isles of Scilly boulders but, based on what I've seen, I reckon those boulders absolutely deserve to be documented. For me it comes down to quality.

When I first started climbing, information was relatively rare. It was often difficult to find boulders with half baked approach notes. It was harder still to find new stuff without all the tools we have to lean on today. I think we're getting to a stage now where UKC presents to opposite issue (for established stuff)—i.e., the documenting of reams and reams of tosh. Far from making guidebooks redundant, I think this profusion of tosh actually makes them ever more important. It's necessary information sorting of the kind that characterises our modern world.

Take my local hill Carn Brea as an example. Over the years I've climbed most things here. I've climbed a lot of maybe new stuff that I don't think is worth recording, and I've properly documented maybe half a dozen new things which I think are worthy of names and grades. There's a stone monument on top of the hill that climbers have climbed on for decades without recording anything, but now someone has decided to name and grade all this arbitrary nonsense, including a hitherto unrecognised classic hiding in plain sight: https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/carn_brea-9597/south_face_traverse-664107. I'm willing to accept that my conception of quality is just different, but I have to say I'm struggling.

To sum up my position in two rules of thumb:

1. Things that are tosh by consensus don't need names and grades, and should be wiped from the ledger. Not everything needs to be documented (Carn Brea traverses).

2. Things that are good-to-amazing are almost always worth documenting (this doesn't imply the need for a name or grade) unless there's a good access/ecological issue not to. (Isles of Scilly blocs look amazing)

I could take or leave 1., as I'm probably just a bit grumpy. But 2. is a hill I'll die on. Things like Malc's Arete are gifts of nature—it's so rare to have all the right elements come together to produce genuine classics. I think we should treasure and share these things by default.

I mostly agree with everything you’ve said, the only question I have is, what if something looks crap but actually climbs incredibly well? Sometimes a piece of rock can look like total choss but actually provide good movement, people may see it and dismiss it without ever trying it but does that mean it’s not worth writing up? Or is this one of those cases people have mentioned which is better left to the explorers to find?

[Andy W]

I've only seen a photo dump of Isles of Scilly boulders but, based on what I've seen, I reckon those boulders absolutely deserve to be documented. For me it comes down to quality.

When I first started climbing, information was relatively rare. It was often difficult to find boulders with half baked approach notes. It was harder still to find new stuff without all the tools we have to lean on today. I think we're getting to a stage now where UKC presents to opposite issue (for established stuff)—i.e., the documenting of reams and reams of tosh. Far from making guidebooks redundant, I think this profusion of tosh actually makes them ever more important. It's necessary information sorting of the kind that characterises our modern world.

Take my local hill Carn Brea as an example. Over the years I've climbed most things here. I've climbed a lot of maybe new stuff that I don't think is worth recording, and I've properly documented maybe half a dozen new things which I think are worthy of names and grades. There's a stone monument on top of the hill that climbers have climbed on for decades without recording anything, but now someone has decided to name and grade all this arbitrary nonsense, including a hitherto unrecognised classic hiding in plain sight: https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/carn_brea-9597/south_face_traverse-664107. I'm willing to accept that my conception of quality is just different, but I have to say I'm struggling.

To sum up my position in two rules of thumb:

1. Things that are tosh by consensus don't need names and grades, and should be wiped from the ledger. Not everything needs to be documented (Carn Brea traverses).

2. Things that are good-to-amazing are almost always worth documenting (this doesn't imply the need for a name or grade) unless there's a good access/ecological issue not to. (Isles of Scilly blocs look amazing)

I could take or leave 1., as I'm probably just a bit grumpy. But 2. is a hill I'll die on. Things like Malc's Arete are gifts of nature—it's so rare to have all the right elements come together to produce genuine classics. I think we should treasure and share these things by default.

I read that all a little wrong the first time, Carn Brea isn't a hill you will die on! never mind, I agree with not documenting everything. Scilly Isles have long been known to contain good bouldering and those that have climbed there have often opted into the 'not documenting' camp. I've always respected that and if I had gone, would have done the same. People like Bob .... climbed on the Scillies and as with his problems on Carn Brea kept notes in a little book, so stuff was recorded just not publicly. I've climbed new problems on Carn Brea and if I thought they were good, documented them and if they were not so good I wouldn't bother. My guess (with some knowledge too) is that in the far west of Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, there will be hundreds of undocumented problems, most of them not that hard or even good

I'm pretty sure this is a fairly common approach, especially if the protagonists are not that interested in issues such as 'promotion, accessibility, sustainability and growth within our sport'.

[Potash]

What is worthy of documenting is possibly also a function of the intensity of development in the area or region.

I've moved to Scotland from the Peak and it would seem clear to me that the intensity of peak bouldering recording is in part based on the pre-existing level of documentation. A process of continuous re-appraisal of the boundary between worthy of record seems to take place with every record.

Its like a fractal, by recording all the good problems we open the door to recording the poor problems and fillers. Once we have recorded all these, the idea of recording good quality eliminates becomes acceptable.

If you just start the process at the "record eliminates" everyone quite frankly thinks your mad.

[petejh]

This topic makes me think it would be good if there was a system of statutory time-limited rights over boulder problems and trad routes, like a 999-year property leasehold but on a shorter timespan. When the statutory time elapsed then that problem's FA details become null and void, and FA rights (FA, name, grade) become 'up for grabs' again for whoever's psyched enough. The time period could be set at 25 years to allow a balance between the incentive to climbers of having their legacy recorded for a decent period of time, versus sustainability for future explorers. In this way there'd be a continuous rolling calendar of boulder problem renewals as their respective 'first ascent' dates rolled over the statutory 25-year expiry. First ascents would become a sustainable resource for future generations of 'exploratory climbers' to enjoy the the thrill of the chase and creative satisfaction, while previous first ascensionists could drop out of the scene or off the coil leaving a clean slate. It would also keep the guidebook industry busy and the likes of Alan James in buttons.

I know of a few keen boulder/route developers who would feel nauseous at the idea of their legacy disappearing like this...

[Andy W]

What is worthy of documenting is possibly also a function of the intensity of development in the area or region.

I've moved to Scotland from the Peak and it would seem clear to me that the intensity of peak bouldering recording is in part based on the pre-existing level of documentation. A process of continuous re-appraisal of the boundary between worthy of record seems to take place with every record.

Its like a fractal, by recording all the good problems we open the door to recording the poor problems and fillers. Once we have recorded all these, the idea of recording good quality eliminates becomes acceptable.

If you just start the process at the "record eliminates" everyone quite frankly thinks your mad.

This is very true. Maybe also factor in the density of climbers and passing of time. What seemed right and normal 25 years ago will probably be at odds with what seems right and normal now. For example in Penwith 20 +  years ago, there were only a handful of activists, bouldering pads opened up a new ear of development, yet reporting was word of mouth. The internet shifted things along massively and word of mouth becomes a blog or a website. Then you get visitors! Now several epochs later as Danny alluded to earlier, folk on UKC report fill ins just about everywhere. I now live in Ariege, France and even though there are lots of boulders, documentation is maddeningly scarce, no one seems to care!   

[remus]

I've moved to Scotland from the Peak and it would seem clear to me that the intensity of peak bouldering recording is in part based on the pre-existing level of documentation. A process of continuous re-appraisal of the boundary between worthy of record seems to take place with every record.

I think it's also closely related to how developed an area is. If you're in an area with plenty of good quality, untouched rock I suspect most people would put up the better quality new stuff before moving on the more eliminate/filler stuff.

[Carliios]

If you just start the process at the "record eliminates" everyone quite frankly thinks your mad.

You can record eliminates in fairly exhausted crags and people will still think you’re mad 

[Wellsy]

I will say that some stuff probably isn't worth recording but also if someone does record it I would never be mad at them and and the idea of getting upset about someone else's list of bits of rock they did some climbing on to be vaguely laughable

[AndyP]

Even chossy shit heaps that look terrible and climb even worse are worth documenting. They still have value for training, getting strong on rock rather than plastic, and building a pyramid. They still exist outside, where it is generally pleasant to spend time. And they still give more options and thus draw people away from honeypot crags.

Plus it's all down to taste, one man's chossy shit heap can be another man's crescent arete.

[Fiend]

1. Things that are tosh by consensus don't need names and grades, and should be wiped from the ledger. Not everything needs to be documented (Carn Brea traverses).

2. Things that are good-to-amazing are almost always worth documenting (this doesn't imply the need for a name or grade) unless there's a good access/ecological issue not to. (Isles of Scilly blocs look amazing)

1. is a hill that I'd die on, having already seen a link to the Carn Brea traverse. UKC is a total cesspit of claiming for the sake of claiming, someone would claim mantling into a urinal if they could give it a suitable grade and 3 stars.

That is a bit less contentious though, I presume any half-way sane person would draw the line a lot higher than it's current subterranean level, in terms of what is worth documenting - and guidebook writers generally tend to do so. Thankfully there are usually matters of facts about a problem such as line, independence, rock quality, situation, balance, etc that ensure that one man's shitty choss heap is definitely not another man's Crescent Arete in terms of objective quality.

Voluntarily abstaining from documenting high quality lines for the sake of philosophical principles or the romance of others' discoveries is a different matter. Albeit maybe not a popular one - unless it's prescribed by consensus, like Grinah Stones, maybe!

Never mind, I agree with not documenting everything. Scilly Isles have long been known to contain good bouldering and those that have climbed there have often opted into the 'not documenting' camp. I've always respected that and if I had gone, would have done the same. People like Bob .... climbed on the Scillies and as with his problems on Carn Brea kept notes in a little book, so stuff was recorded just not publicly. I've climbed new problems on Carn Brea and if I thought they were good, documented them and if they were not so good I wouldn't bother. My guess (with some knowledge too) is that in the far west of Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, there will be hundreds of undocumented problems, most of them not that hard or even good

I'm pretty sure this is a fairly common approach, especially if the protagonists are not that interested in issues such as 'promotion, accessibility, sustainability and growth within our sport'.

This is interesting to read though. Is universal documentation a necessary or important part of "promotion, accessibility, sustainability and growth within our sport"??

[andy moles]

New things I've done, which are mostly trad and bouldering and a tiny bit of sport, fall into three categories:

1. Things I think are worth recording properly and I want my name to them.
Rationale: I think they are good and worthwhile and other people will enjoy them. Partly I do have an ego (sometimes these things have taken a fair bit of effort to clean and climb, for which I deserve some recognition!), and partly it's nice to be able to connect, however distantly, with those who climb them later.

2. Things I think are worth recording in brief.
Rationale: Stuff which isn't that great but perhaps looks good from a distance (so others needn't waste their time) or may have appeal for keen locals (so the obvious benefits of making the information available). I don't care about putting my name to stuff like this, but guidebook writers usually prefer having FA details, which is fine.

3. Things that aren't worth recording.
I've soloed about on stuff in remote locations that, in the balance of value to the community vs. likelihood of anyone going there and having as good a time as they could have elsewhere, simply aren't worth the amount of anyone's attention that it would take to put across that it's not worth their attention.

I climbed a three pitch route in an obscure part of Llanberis Pass last week (in a bid to gain height in an interesting way without being in the sun) that was wandering and vegetated but no less engaging and continuous than the named route we had climbed lower down, but to me definitely wasn't worth writing up.

[Wellsy]

1. Things that are tosh by consensus don't need names and grades, and should be wiped from the ledger. Not everything needs to be documented (Carn Brea traverses).

2. Things that are good-to-amazing are almost always worth documenting (this doesn't imply the need for a name or grade) unless there's a good access/ecological issue not to. (Isles of Scilly blocs look amazing)

1. is a hill that I'd die on, having already seen a link to the Carn Brea traverse. UKC is a total cesspit of claiming for the sake of claiming, someone would claim mantling into a urinal if they could give it a suitable grade and 3 stars.

That is a bit less contentious though, I presume any half-way sane person would draw the line a lot higher than it's current subterranean level, in terms of what is worth documenting - and guidebook writers generally tend to do so. Thankfully there are usually matters of facts about a problem such as line, independence, rock quality, situation, balance, etc that ensure that one man's shitty choss heap is definitely not another man's Crescent Arete in terms of objective quality.

Voluntarily abstaining from documenting high quality lines for the sake of philosophical principles or the romance of others' discoveries is a different matter. Albeit maybe not a popular one - unless it's prescribed by consensus, like Grinah Stones, maybe!

Never mind, I agree with not documenting everything. Scilly Isles have long been known to contain good bouldering and those that have climbed there have often opted into the 'not documenting' camp. I've always respected that and if I had gone, would have done the same. People like Bob .... climbed on the Scillies and as with his problems on Carn Brea kept notes in a little book, so stuff was recorded just not publicly. I've climbed new problems on Carn Brea and if I thought they were good, documented them and if they were not so good I wouldn't bother. My guess (with some knowledge too) is that in the far west of Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, there will be hundreds of undocumented problems, most of them not that hard or even good

I'm pretty sure this is a fairly common approach, especially if the protagonists are not that interested in issues such as 'promotion, accessibility, sustainability and growth within our sport'.

This is interesting to read though. Is universal documentation a necessary or important part of "promotion, accessibility, sustainability and growth within our sport"??

I suppose my question would be

Why does it matter if someone puts their problem on UKC, even if you think it's shit. Does it actually cause any measurable harm at all? Is that it causes you annoyance something for you to work on rather than for them to change?

I am not saying I have the answers but I struggle to find an objective, reasonable issue with someone putting a "crap" problem on UKC

[SA Chris]

Not really. Depends on the person, although if they’re not going to sing about their new FA, they probably don’t care if someone else does instead.

If someone climbs a rock in a wood and doesn't record it, was the ascent actually made?

[spidermonkey09]

Why does it matter if someone puts their problem on UKC, even if you think it's shit. Does it actually cause any measurable harm at all? Is that it causes you annoyance something for you to work on rather than for them to change?

I am not saying I have the answers but I struggle to find an objective, reasonable issue with someone putting a "crap" problem on UKC

The problem is first ascentionists tend to have an inflated view of how good their problems are and UKC allows people to add new entries and assign stars to them. The starring system works in guidebooks because there is consensus; it doesn't work when the FA and their gang of mates decide that although their 'first ascent' is a filthy eliminate it actually 'climbs really well' so is worthy of 3 stars. It also just clogs up the logbooks and prevents people getting a clear look at the crag. If people must add their shit eliminates they should definitely be under a separate heading labelled as such.

I do tend to agree that if a crag is unrecorded theres little damage done by recording it for posterity and to give locals exploration options etc. Adding pointless eliminates to established crags is what the above is aimed at.

[andy moles]

Why does it matter if someone puts their problem on UKC, even if you think it's shit. Does it actually cause any measurable harm at all? Is that it causes you annoyance something for you to work on rather than for them to change?

I am not saying I have the answers but I struggle to find an objective, reasonable issue with someone putting a "crap" problem on UKC

This is an interesting question, because I find it pretty annoying myself.

I think it's mainly that the volume of stuff makes it harder to sort wheat from chaff when you're browsing on there. I'd have pretty much no problem if shite was flagged as shite, but sometimes people give shite stars, which is irritating partly in the way that people being wrong on the internet is always annoying (which is arguably more the problem of the annoyed/me) and partly because it's a waste of other people's/my attention.

[remus]

I think it's mainly that the volume of stuff makes it harder to sort wheat from chaff when you're browsing on there. I'd have pretty much no problem if shite was flagged as shite, but sometimes people give shite stars, which is irritating partly in the way that people being wrong on the internet is always annoying (which is arguably more the problem of the annoyed/me) and partly because it's a waste of other people's/my attention.

It feels like an admin problem to me, rather than something inherent in adding lots of stuff. After all, the whole point of something like UKC is that there's lots of flexibility to search/filter through climbs. I quite like the approach used at parisellas where there's a separate section for the more eliminate stuff https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/parisellas_cave-3422/#training_links_and_other_eliminates (in lieu of UKC putting a load of development effort in to tools and/or people putting a load of effort in to tidying up existing entries).

Pretty sure FAs having a high opinion of their new stuff has been a problem long before UKC existed!

[andy moles]

I agree it's an admin problem. But volunteer moderators don't have the authority (nor the incentives) of guidebook writers, so demoting Keen Youth's new wonderline to the Shit Problems section is liable to cause offence 

[Ross Barker]

Sectioning off the linkups and variations is what I've done on the Nesscliffe UKC page as well. Up lines and main traverses in the main bit, then the endlessly tedious links in another section. I think a few Churnet crag mods do the same thing, and I think it works quite well.

[GazM]

My problem with all sorts of eliminates/links/crap being listed on UKC is that in the logbook format everything is given equal weight and significance. So a relative newbie that uses UKC in place of a guidebook (as some do) won't get any idea of which are the crag classics or their historical significance. But then, maybe I'm old school because I think those things are important...

[Teaboy]

I thought the discussion was about what the historical record and guide books should reflect but it seems now to be about what quality controls should be in place on UKC. With regard to the latter it’s not hard to work out whether someone has genuinely found a new crag with loads of three star problems or just got a bit over enthusiastic about some rock they’ve found. My advice would be not to travel from Sheffield to a quarry in Somerset on the strength of a UKC logbook entry alone. 
Most entries of the type we are talking about are accompanied by pictures helpfully showing what bits of tree root you can pull on, which foot ledges are out of bounds and whether or not you can use the top of the waist high crag for hands.

[Potash]

There is a huge underlying tension in the UKC logbooks arising from a double function.

Are they a record of climbs/problems or are they a record of people's activity?

If they are an activity diary then it makes sense to log anything and everything. It's nice to remember that day you climbed a problem one handed, or missed out the resting jug etc. This clashes with their function as a record of routes as it just fills them with chaff.