[account_inactive]

So is sterilised and sanitised.................sounds like the back of a milk carton

[Mick Ryan]

in all other ways it is indistinguishable from other Rockfax-produced guides. It is generic. It fails to capture the unique spirit and flavour of the place. It lacks soul.

Someone begs to differ.

"What has been lost in the very good overall production, is some of the intimacy of the previous Rockfax guides (Jason and Al)."

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=172416

[tc]

Mick, the quote you use to illustrate your point does not refer to the sample Carrock Fell guide but to the Peak bouldering guides. My comment was concerned solely with the Carrock Fell publication and, by extension, the forthcoming Rockfax bouldering guide to the Lakes.
Are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue?

[Mick Ryan]

Are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue?

Of course not. How do you define this 'soul'?

[Ru]

"What has been lost in the very good overall production, is some of the intimacy of the previous Rockfax guides (Jason and Al)."

No 100% sure here Mick, but as Dave mentioned previous guides (plural) in his post, along with the authors Jason and Al, I think he may be confusing the Rockfax book with the older OTE peak guides, written by Jason and Al.

[Mick Ryan]

Are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue?

Of course not. How do you define this 'soul'?

You may also want to contemplate heart and spirit in the climbing world.

Mick

[Mick Ryan]

"What has been lost in the very good overall production, is some of the intimacy of the previous Rockfax guides (Jason and Al)."

No 100% sure here Mick, but as Dave mentioned previous guides (plural) in his post, along with the authors Jason and Al, I think he may be confusing the Rockfax book with the older OTE peak guides, written by Jason and Al.

I'm not either Ru to be honest. Especially after the original book to an area has been published, all others are parasitic despite adding various bells and whistles to them.

Writing any guidebook requires putting your heart and soul to it and hopefully your spirit.

All we hope for is that the reader finds them useful and aids them in having great climbing times. That's what it is all about as far as I'm concerened.

Mick

[Ru]

I'm not either Ru to be honest. Especially after the original book to an area has been published, all others are parasitic despite adding various bells and whistles to them.

Writing any guidebook requires putting your heart and soul to it and hopefully your spirit.

All we hope for is that the reader finds them useful and aids them in having great climbing times. That's what it is all about as far as I'm concerened.

Mick

If I were cool, I'd say Word.

[tc]

Are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue?

Of course not. How do you define this 'soul'?

Like Louis Armstrong once said, "Man, if you have to ask what it is, you'll never know."

[Mick Ryan]

Are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue?

Of course not. How do you define this 'soul'?

Like Louis Armstrong once said, "Man, if you have to ask what it is, you'll never know."

We all have our definitions. It's very personal. I was just asking for yours.

Best to keep it to yourself then.

But I will add for me a guidebook with real soul (rather than the contrived versions), only comes out once in a blue moon.

I could expand (then pop) but you would have to ask me.

Mick

[Greg C]

Returning to the Carrock theme (if anyone's interested that is), I climbed the Mile High Wall project (see page 7 of RF mini guide) late this afternoon, and interestingly it didn't turn out to be as hard or scary as most had thought. Pretty fuckin' sweet in a opening-a-lift-via-two-skin-shreading-opposing-gabbro-gaston's kind of way!

[Danny]

Returning to the Carrock theme (if anyone's interested that is), I climbed the Mile High Wall project (see page 7 of RF mini guide) late this afternoon, and interestingly it didn't turn out to be as hard or scary as most had thought. Pretty fuckin' sweet in a opening-a-lift-via-two-skin-shreading-opposing-gabbro-gaston's kind of way!

The question is Greg; what do you make of this mini-guide / forthcoming publication, considering that you're one of the main protagonists of the area in question, and have put countless hours (I presume) into exploring, developing and recording many of the problems / areas which will no doubt appear in said publication.

To me this seems subtlety different to Rockfax using, say, information from large and relatively well funded (though staffed by volunteers) organisations like the BMC/CC to produce selective guides.
Does it not irritate you that Rockfax will make direct financial gain from all your hard work?

There are a lot of presumptions here; I'm just guessing based on the information I have, so correct me if I'm wrong.

[SA Chris]

So is sterilised and sanitised.................sounds like the back of a milk carton

Had a look at said freebie this weekend. I think I'm sticking with homogenised.

[Greg C]

The question is Greg; what do you make of this mini-guide / forthcoming publication, considering that you're one of the main protagonists of the area in question, and have put countless hours (I presume) into exploring, developing and recording many of the problems / areas which will no doubt appear in said publication.

To me this seems subtlety different to Rockfax using, say, information from large and relatively well funded (though staffed by volunteers) organisations like the BMC/CC to produce selective guides.
Does it not irritate you that Rockfax will make direct financial gain from all your hard work?

There are a lot of presumptions here; I'm just guessing based on the information I have, so correct me if I'm wrong

Its just the way it goes.

PS> I didn't say anything controversial I accidentally copied my own post thus the editing

[Mick Ryan]

There are a lot of presumptions here; I'm just guessing based on the information I have, so correct me if I'm wrong.

There are Danny, lots of them. I'm sure Greg will explain.

Mick

[Mick Ryan]

There are a lot of presumptions here; I'm just guessing based on the information I have, so correct me if I'm wrong.

First, all the authors of the North West Bouldering Guidebook (Ground Up) and Lakes Bouldering (Rockfax) have impecable credentials to write their guidebooks.

But to answer your questions it is perhaps best to de-personalise it and ask some questions.

First, does a climber who has climbed new routes or boulder problems have the sole right to publish information about their creations?

Second, do you want some organisations to have a monopoly on publishing rock climbing information? That was a situation that basically existed prior to the late 1980's.

Mick

[chappers]

why would you BUY a book when the information is avaliable for free on the interweb? (i certainly wouldnt unless the book is nice enough to temp you away from this free information, and judging by all the rock fax books i have this is certainly not the case (for me) (i have not seen the free guide since i dont buy climbing magazines))

to illustrate my point, if there was a peakbloc.co.uk with free topos i still would have got ru's guide since it is a very well put togther product. the same with north wales and simons guide.

[Alan James, Rockfax]

The question is Greg; what do you make of this mini-guide / forthcoming publication, considering that you're one of the main protagonists of the area in question, and have put countless hours (I presume) into exploring, developing and recording many of the problems / areas which will no doubt appear in said publication.

I don't think it is a good idea to go down the avenue of rewarding people for 'exploring and developing'. That could set a very awkward precedent and, after all, most of us explore and develop for fun.

As for recording; well this is an ongoing process. Every book and web site should take the existing information from all available sources, enhance and improve it, and present it in its own style. The final product, be it a book or a web site, should then represent a product of the contributors' efforts and any financial reward the publisher gains from that, is up to them, and owed to them, presuming the work is original and hasn't breached copyright law.

In the particular case of Lakes Bouldering; LakesBloc is a very useful site and Greg has put a great deal of effort into creating it. When our book comes out I hope he feels that we have referred to his work responsibly, and credited him where appropriate. There are plenty of other sources of information used in the new book, and much of the bouldering recorded has come from local climbers like the two authors and also others like Jim Arnold, Pete Whillance, Phil Wake, Dave Birkett and Al Wilson, to name a few. There is plenty in there that doesn't exist anywhere at present.

To go back to your initial point about the difference between this and the BMC/CC situation; I don't see any real difference between the two scenarios now that Greg is publishing his own book. I am sure he will find our book useful, and I am sure he will do well out of an effort he puts in.

Alan

[Danny]

Some interesting points made here.
Whilst I agree with much of what has been said, and don't subscribe to the notion that Rockfax is some sort of evil transnational commercial guidebook factory, I still think the general gist of my point remains;

"Rewards" for efforts to develop and record aren't really relevant to this point. However, anyone can recognize the moral grey area that is making direct financial gain from other's voluntary work. This may not be the case here, as a saleable guidebook will follow.

I would be interested to know if Rockfax pay any sort of royalties for using BMC / CC information, without which selective guides would not exist and prosper. It's clearly not quite theft of information, but not that far off IMO

[Mick Ryan]

I would be interested to know if Rockfax pay any sort of royalties for using BMC / CC information, without which selective guides would not exist and prosper. It's clearly not quite theft of information, but not that far off IMO

Or turn it around, do the CC/BMC/FRCC/YMC pay any royalties to Rockfax for climbing information published first and originally in Rockfax guides.

The answer to these questions is quite rightly NO.

Thank goodness no one has a monopoly on route information. It didn't used to be like that. There used to quite a time lag (we are talking years) between many routes being done and that information being available to the great climbing public.

Mick

[Greg C]

Whilst it is extremely nice to have soulful and individual guides to areas, I think all info that becomes available and improves the usability of a venue/area thus getting more people on otherwise rarely traveled problems or routes the better. Providing of course it acknowledges all the original sources and is as accurate as is humanly possible regarding beta, grades, approach details and access issues.

As Alan says, the production of the RF guide to the Lakes can only benefit any future guides, as in most circumstances newer guides rectify previous mistakes and generally improve on their predecessor... well all except the Lancashire guide anyway.

[Greg C]

I see here the Lakes database has now been completed...

http://www.rockfax.com/databases/results_area.html?id=1025

[tc]

I see here the Lakes database has now been completed...

http://www.rockfax.com/databases/results_area.html?id=1025

With numerous errors, I see. Oh, well...

With regards to Carrock, please do not park near the grit bin, as suggested in the RF freebie. Or on the road, as some people do. This will cause problems. There is a huge parking area about 250 metres further north of the three 'main' boulders, on the left hand side of the road. Ta.

That's quite enough Carrock Fell for now (ed.)

[Bonjoy]

I see here the Lakes database has now been completed...

http://www.rockfax.com/databases/results_area.html?id=1025

 Jesus, how many mistakes in the Bowderstone section!? :shock:

[Alan James, Rockfax]

I have just been through the Bowderstone section of the Rockfax database with Al Wilson and the vast majority of the comments that have been lodged by Neil Kershaw and Adam Hocking and others are in fact just matters of opinion - views on stars, views on grades, and occasional views on the actual way of doing the problem. These are not mistakes.
This is inevitable with faces that involved intense and complex series of eliminates since different groups have different methods of doing problems. For example, Al Wilson disagrees with much of the Lakesbloc info. That doesn't mean that the Lakesbloc info is full of mistakes, it just means that it is one opinion.
The task of producing a guide to somewhere like the Bowderstone that everyone is happy with is impossible, as it was to the Minus Ten wall at Stoney. All you can do is make your best effort.

Alan