I'm dead against documentation of Grinah, for all the reasons of wishing to preserve the experience as has been well articulated by others.
Johnny A, Carlos, and anyone else in favour of documentation, can you explain your argument for why you think Grinah specifically warrants a topo? I've only been once - and had a fab day - but it isn't objectively amazing rock climbing. I enjoyed it because of the place and the exploration. There's a lot of scrittle as well as some decent rock. It's got that moorland grime that the high crags get. It's not like the plantation. I thought it was good because it's wild, and the lack of a topo was part of that experience.
If I went to the plantation without a topo as a first-time visitor I'd be diminishing my experience by missing out on some cool problems. If I'd have gone to Grinag with a topo I'd have diminished the best parts of that very different experience.
Obviously documentation brings lots of good to climbing, like history, ease of finding the problems, a common language of names to refer to bits of rock. But it also takes away some mystery, the romanticism of exploring, it makes it harder to go to a place and 'be' rather than 'do'. I don't think the experience of climbing at Grinah would be greatly enhanced by documentation in the ways that documentation can enhamce climbing; but the ways that documentation can degrade experience would be particularly harsh on the whole 'Grinah experience', as i see it anyway. So I say let's document 99% of the Peak, but can't we please leave this one percent - a part which is almost uniquely suited to it - as remaining undocumented?
At the risk of laboring the point, this isn't an argument for/ against documentation per se, but about Grinah specifically. So Carlos and Ashton et al, care to explain why you think Grinah would be improved through documentation?