[a dense loner]

lowlife that's a good analogy. perhaps she is more worried about the cheat stone on feel good being moved rather than her kids being exposed to the sight of a half naked strong blond girl peeing standing up
AndiT your ramblings are amazing. i've only done a few patio jobs but i'm now more psyched to do more. yes moving a dodgy little boulder is tantamount to chipping and filing off holds, yes, yes quite right. thin end of the wedge and all that.

[AndiT]

Andi - Not to slight your rules but i'll be continuing to judge each case on an individual basis.

They aren't rules, just what I'd gleaned as guidelines.

Bonjoy, asI said before, just do what you want to do, but remember whatever you do, it can't be reversed, so judge each case VERY carefully, not just on how much you and your mates want to do the problem or how you perceive what the future of climbing holds for a particular line. You're a sensible and intelligent guy, indeed a leafy gent, but please give some consideration for what others, not just those on this forum may want. Remember that a bad landing CAN be made safe with enough pads/spotters/rucksacks etc, whereas a route which once had a bad landing and was graded so because of this, can't be restored once it's been altered. You know that Freda would also be pissed off to see people lumping boulders around.

Another nail in the coffin for the forum of discussion, as after all this ranting nothing has changed apart from people perhaps thinking of me as a bit of an arse for stating something which I believe in. Great.

Dense: The argument is that it causes no environmental damage and improves the quality of the climbing on offer, filing sharp edges off holds does the same, but you wouldn't do that would you. I hope you break a nail when patioing.

[Jim]

Nige sums it up best for me. However:

I would like to know which particular patio offended you Andi and caused this stupid 4 page thread.

[lowlife]

And show me the man who doesn't give it some serious thought before taking a dump in public    
The agonising may take place before, during, and in some cases long after.

[BenF]

Another nail in the coffin for the forum of discussion, as after all this ranting nothing has changed

Not so.  I've read this thread with interest and have taken on board the opinions of all that have posted as most people have said at least something valid at some point.  I'd reckon that a lot of other users will have done the same.  Like so may issues, there is no right or wrong, black or white answer, but discussion can help the majority form a view and hence affect the way people act in future.  I certainly don't think this thread is going to encourage people to go out and create more patios but I do think that people will think a little more before creating them.  Consensus certainly suggests that no-one wants them all over the place under every slightly dodgy landing and I would expect that many people will now consider that there is an ethical (for some people and therefore to be considered by all people) side to them that may have been ignored previously.

this stupid 4 page thread.

I wouldn't say it's all stupid.  After all, there clearly is an ethical side to the issue for many people and therefore it's worth discussing, if only to allow people to hear the views of others.

The Eagle Tor thread shows it doesn't make one bit of difference what we think if Freda at The Farm comes to the conclusion we don't have respect.

Exactly.  We've got to remember that we're not the only people with an interest in the land/rocks that we play on.  (shit, that sounds a bit trite.  Forgive me).

[Somebody's Fool]

I would like to know which particular patio offended you Andi and caused this stupid 4 page thread.

The Jordaches'

[Johnny Brown]

Andi, I still feel you are pontificating from a theoretical standpoint derived from gut feelings. As I said, I used to share your opinions however experience in real situations has changed my mind.

Lots of routes change character due to erosion at their base. Is this human-induced change acceptable to you simply because it is without intent?
If the change could have been prevented by some forward-thinking patioing, can't this justify it?

If branches are in, are logs? Have you seen some of the swiss/ font landings constructed from tree trunks?  As a geologist, I don't see cobble-sized rocks much different to branches, the lifespan is not vastly different.

[AndiT]

JB, it's the whole 'change' thing that gets me. Like when the Doxey Pool left hand boulders got drained, that was like patio-ing in a way.

You know what I'm arguing about, and it's not little bits here and there it is a principle thing. You know what I mean and I think you agree really.

[Johnny Brown]

I understand, I just think its unrealistic. Unfortunately when you get down to it the real world is all made up of little bits here and there.

Plus, as I keep saying, I've seen far too many trashed landings recently. I keep starting to type that perhaps you/ Staffs has escaped this, then I remember the lower tier. How much has the pocket slab landing changed since you first climbed it? What's going to happen to it in another ten years? Basically I think a blanket policy of inaction is for ostriches. Change is the natural state of things, sometimes you have to usher it in the right direction.

[AndiT]

I understand, I just think its unrealistic. Unfortunately when you get down to it the real world is all made up of little bits here and there.

Plus, as I keep saying, I've seen far too many trashed landings recently. I keep starting to type that perhaps you/ Staffs has escaped this, then I remember the lower tier. How much has the pocket slab landing changed since you first climbed it? What's going to happen to it in another ten years? Basically I think a blanket policy of inaction is for ostriches. Change is the natural state of things, sometimes you have to usher it in the right direction.

I fully agree when it comes to preserving landings, I really do. Again, referring back to my point is that I believe it a shame when a route/highball is made safe because the landing is changed, that is all. It would make a big difference to many of the great slab routes if the landings were cleared for example, this is my fear. Some problems (in this I refer to highballs) have their character defined by their nasty landings. On a tangent, I don't particularly lke the limestone hardcore which is put beneath some problems to preserve the landings as it's not in keeping, but I suppose no harm no foul in that respect.

[cofe]

Another nail in the coffin for the forum of discussion, as after all this ranting nothing has changed

Not so. 

i have to agree with ben. this is a very interesting thread to read and has been a very good and probing discussion on a valid subject. it's made me think. however, if you're original intention was to bring everyone round to your way of thinking, as implied above, then that is missing the point of forum/discussion/debate. i also think this ultimately runs a little deeper into the routes vs boulder issue; it is a little previous to presuppose all users of this forum are boulderers. the url of this forum is often quite misleading in that respect. i can appreciate the argument from both sides but as bonjoy said the critical thing is to judge each case on an individual basis.

i can't wait til somone builds the first crag conservatory. that will be a dynamite discussion.

[Dr T]

Another nail in the coffin for the forum of discussion, as after all this ranting nothing has changed

I agree with cofe, if there's a discussion you've got to accept that opinion might not side with you - a great political debate could ensue here

also v. surprised that no-one's mentioned the trackside boulder and the wood chips there by - I was lead to believe this was universally applauded when it happened (personally I think it's great, buy surely it's artifical patioing at it's worst if you disapprove.....

[Somebody's Fool]

also v. surprised that no-one's mentioned the trackside boulder and the wood chips there by - I was lead to believe this was universally applauded when it happened (personally I think it's great, buy surely it's artifical patioing at it's worst if you disapprove.....

Not that v. surprising.  It's not a patio, and the only danger compromised is that of getting your rock shoes muddy.

I was thinking the other day, is this patioing mainly to accomodate pads? Back in the Old Days^TM, when there were no pads, people used to be able to land catlike on all manner of irregular surfaces.  Now pads are pretty ineffective on said irregular surfaces because you can still go down gaps etc.  Are purpose-built patios pandering to people poorly practiced in pouncing from precipices? 
I don't really have an opinion either way on this, just occurred to me.  Thoughts?

[Johnny Brown]

It would make a big difference to many of the great slab routes if the landings were cleared for example, this is my fear.

I can't think of a single example where this applies. Which are you thinking of? Do you mean Froggatt's Great Slab routes or just 'those slab routes which are well weapon'?
Most bad landings I can think of are mainly caused by bedrock or large embedded boulders which are well beyoond the scope of patioing, which in my experience is just moving loose rocks about. Certainly none of the landings at Froggatt could be easily improved by patioing. Again it seems you are pontificating from imagination rather than real examples - this really isn't about the emasculation of classic bold climbs, it never has been and I don't see it leading to it.

the trackside boulder and the wood chips there by - I was lead to believe this was universally applauded when it happened

Personally I'm not a fan of this, though its one for another thread. It isn't having any long-term benefit and keeps having to be topped up. In fact I actually think its having a detrimental effect. That wood mulch does not seem to be encouraging the grass to recover. Don't they use it around rose bushes to discourage weeds?
Ditto limestone hardcore at grit crags, should be like with like.

is this patioing mainly to accomodate pads? Back in the Old DaysTM, when there were no pads, people used to be able to land catlike on all manner of irregular surfaces.

No they didn't. They either broke ankles or (like me) paid for it later with knee operations. As of now, you either didn't fall off or took the consequences. I haven't seen any change in general landing ability.

Now pads are pretty ineffective on said irregular surfaces because you can still go down gaps etc.  Are purpose-built patios pandering to people poorly practiced in pouncing from precipices?

Well patios and pads clearly go together like hot Vimto and thermos flasks. However I think this is because a patio with a beer towel on it isn't a significantly better landing than uneven ground with a beer towel on it, not because we've got worse at landing on either.

[Somebody's Fool]

I haven't seen any change in general landing ability.

You didn't see me on/off Gibbering Wreck. 

Apologies for jibing modern landing standards. I just wanted to practice a bit of alliteration before my interview tomorrow. 

I'm just off to trawl through todays tabloids for 'story' ideas.   

[a dense loner]

damn your quick post, was about to jibe you for your shite alliteration. while you're over that way have a quite word with the madness that's king Andy. for all our sakes. as soon as we get a clear day i'm gona go and move that pebble under danny's

[BenF]

i have to agree with ben.

Can I have that in writing Cofe?  It's been so long since anyone said those sweet words.

[AndiT]

Most bad landings I can think of are mainly caused by bedrock or large embedded boulders which are well beyoond the scope of patioing

You don't have to move the rocks to fill in the gaps, Patioing is the flatening or improving of landings, my concern. I meant the Froggatt routes, they are screed at the bottom and it wouldn't take much to level that out, but we could apply it to 'Well Weapon Slabs' if I catch your drift.

this really isn't about the emasculation of classic bold climbs, it never has been and I don't see it leading to it.

What has classic got to do with it? Nowt. There is still atleast one less E5 in the world thanks to Patio-ing. If it was just a matter of kicking a few ugly quarried pebbles out of the way the FA would have done it. The fact is, you got your back into it and changed a E grade worthy route into a Fb grade worthy problem, because you wanted to and you saw it as right. I don't.

quite word with the madness that's king Andy

That should read King Andi. I've already spoken to him about it, and he agrees, just doesn't vent his views like a madman.BTW there are no pebbles under Danny's, they've been removed over the course of years of people cleaning away the landing and pulling out the little loose blocks. Well now you've paid the ultimate price and had limestone brought to the crucible of British grit.

pontificating from imagination

Say 'Pontificating' one more time, I dare you 

[Paz]

There's two seperate issues here:

Patioing on environmental grounds, prevent ground erosion which I don't think anyone has anything against

Patioing on convenience/ popularity grounds which some of us are concerned about, as it seems unethical.

The photo of TAOWHW doesn't make it seem so bad actually, even if it's blatantly not E5 any more,
but I still ask:

What would you do say, with the whole of Wharncliffe? Eh?  EH?!

And I presume there were no sheep being hemmed in by that dry stone wall at Moorside.

I think you guys know what you're doing and where the line is though.  just when everyone else starts whooping `great job guys, yet another 7b+ for us to try' then maybe it's time to take 5.

[etjoset]

It would make a big difference to many of the great slab routes if the landings were cleared for example, this is my fear.

I can't think of a single example where this applies. Which are you thinking of? Do you mean Froggatt's Great Slab routes or just 'those slab routes which are well weapon'?

A good example where either clearing or patioing would drastically reduce the seriousness of a route would be "Don't Slip Now" (E5 6a) at Curbar. Smallish but very angular boulders at the base which could easily be either moved or filled in but which are too big to be padded with a mat. Changing a landing like this would be completely unacceptable and would be tantamount to environmental vandalism.

[Bonjoy]

There is still at least one less E5 in the world thanks to Patio-ing. If it was just a matter of kicking a few ugly quarried pebbles out of the way the FA would have done it. The fact is, you got your back into it and changed a E grade worthy route into a Fb grade worthy problem, because you wanted to and you saw it as right. I don't.

As already said before it is still E5 without pads. You climb it without a pad and tell me otherwise (same goes for you Paz), the dyno for the top being the crux BTW. Besides, who gives a crap about which arbitary set of number/letter prefixes is attached to said climb? The climb has hardly been lost. It's an awesome piece of climbing, but now people will actually climb it.

BTW there are no pebbles under Danny's, they've been removed over the course of years of people cleaning away the landing and pulling out the little loose blocks. Well now you've paid the ultimate price and had limestone brought to the crucible of British grit.

If you mean the new material at the Plantation you're wrong, it's grit.
Are you suggesting....scratch that, your guidelines DO suggest that small boulders exposed by erosion under Danny's prob should be left in place, ludicrous!

Say 'Pontificating' one more time, I dare you  

Pontificating

What would you do say, with the whole of Wharncliffe? Eh?  EH?!

Nothing, that's the point you seem to be missing. There is no fucking crusade going on here and there are few suitable candidate routes/problems around anyway, even at Wharncliffe.
 This is first and formost a practise relevant to boulder probs, mostly not even particularly high one. This is not the end of climbing as we know it, it's just you hearing about something which has happened since the year dot.

And I presume there were no sheep being hemmed in by that dry stone wall at Moorside.

You presume correct and win a bonus point for stupidest, most straw-clutching question in the whole debate.

[Paz]

Here I was having a bit of a wind up and now you go and throw me a challenge which I've now got to go and find some way of weaseling out of.

Am I allowed to fall off it without pads is that good enough?

Anyway I like the fact that we both understood by your `climb it without pads up' challenge that headpointing wasn't an option.  We all agree on something. 

With Don't Slip Now - that's alright we can all onsight 6a sometimes. 

And Dave's suggestion to `go on some sport climbing forum'.  Have you any idea what happends when you go on cocktalk and talk about sport climbing?  There's a few good guys but overall it hasn't got much better since you last went on there.  UKB's the onyl place I've found where I can talk about sport climbing without getting distracted. 

[Bonjoy]

Am I allowed to fall off it without pads is that good enough?

So long as you take the full height fall from the crux i.e. your hand on the top.
 I might let you off with hanging the top then jumping backwards in a failled dyno stylee.

[AndiT]

Well myself and somebody's fool did a bit of work here rebuilding the landing today. I'm not a great fan of crag patios but I'm quite pleased with the job we managed to do. The death block has been rolled to the left, a little infilling has left a nice landing. It could be a bit deeper, but I'd be happy to try it on my own with one pad now.

i was put off trying this cos it looked like the landing could leave you quadraspazzed on a life-glug. will be keen to get on it now.

As already said before it is still E5 without pads

Hmmm, yeah sounds like it, unless it was E7 before.. That ain't the same grade, and yes, numbers mean something to some people, sad as it is. Still want E7 for Bellyporkers do ya, not if numbers don't matter!

Are you suggesting....scratch that, your guidelines DO suggest that small boulders exposed by erosion under Danny's prob should be left in place, ludicrous!

Yeah. You keep taking them out and the ground will get lower, fact.

Pontificating

Double dare you.

[Bonjoy]

 Go do it ground up, sans pads and tell me it's not E5. The landing is not much better from an unpadded point of view now than is was before. Before you had a medium size block to either land on or break your ankle on, now you have a host of small blocks and holes to aim for/dodge. Same difference.
 Have never taken owt but 7a+ for Bellyporkers

Yeah. You keep taking them out and the ground will get lower, fact.

And leaving the odd stone sticking out will stop the erosion somehow?

Pontificating pontificactor of Pontefract is you.