[Fiend]

I've been hanging out with a wide variety of guidebook authors recently (covering a really wide variety of areas!!), and have enjoyed being part of the passion of exploring, documenting, and making sense out of these areas to present them to others.

I've also been hanging out with an old climbing friend who has re-kindled a bit of his passion for bouldering, and also re-kindled a bit of grumpiness about how every sodding thing has to be named, claimed, and precisely described and promoted (okay I don't think that grumpiness ever went away )

As someone increasingly involved with the former, but also someone keen on exploration (albeit, this is partly why I do document the few scraps I discover, to encourage exploration) and bored by honeypotting, his perspective did get me thinking - do people see a broader picture outside the current "document everything" status quo??

Is the art of having problems "left for the intrepid to re-discover" a dying one??

Could guidebook writers resist putting areas and problems in a book, solely for THAT reason?? (i.e. not for the reason of tradition like Grinah Stones, nor for ecological sensitivity like Bridestones).

Would you (vaguely pointing the finger at everyone) be able to do a good, obvious new problem, and not claim it, and leave it for others to rediscover (and indeed bite your tongue when it comes to retro-claiming)??

[Carliios]

If it’s not ecological or sensitive access why can’t people document stuff? Just because one person (or even 5 people) is grumpy about everything being document doesn’t necessarily mean the whole world should toe the line.

At the end of the day because people on UKB all voted to not document grinah for example or shout about Crag X/Z - this hasn’t exactly stopped people (including wads) posting videos on socials about these problems.

If you go to a non sensitive area, and put up a new boulder and document it, whether it’s good or shite is no one else’s business in my opinion, you can voice your disdain all you want or even mass bin vote the lines (this has happened to me) but that’s not gonna put people off from claiming and putting up lines.

[Fiend]

Could one (or indeed you) resist doing it though?? For the sake of letting others have the joy of discovery, and not being over-prescriptive about every single bit of rock??

[Wellsy]

I personally agree that we over document these days. I think that a lot of people are desperate to get an FA in, to "make their mark" so to speak, and maybe it'd be better to just let the rock be what it is, unconstrained by classification

That said, some problems are made much better by classification, both because often thr rules of the problem make for better climbing, but also because of the shared history, the name, the experience that means two people who have never met but have done the same problem are in some way connected (in my mind anyway) by something they both did, even if years apart. So I feel like bouldering is better for having named records of problems, but that often a problem is better left unnamed and unrecorded

[scragrock]

Great Question Fiend and one i really struggle with despite the fact i am and writing and putting out{eventually} a local guide.

I have realised that for me the greatest part of climbing was discovering/cleaning and climbing a new line, ALL the rest pales in comparison. With this in mind why would i deprive the next man from that experience by documenting it.

A few lengthy discussions with peers, professionals and other auld cunts like me on this subject has given a wide range of opinions and all of them valid, that's the problem.

So here is my solution for what its worth- I will document the traditional areas developed by others before i came along and the 2 or 3 areas i have developed as best i can then leave a few hidden gems for those who have the inclination and adventurous heart to enjoy.

[steveri]

Guilty! I added something to Frodsham recently just because it felt like an ace problem. Clearly not the first though, there was even chalk on it. I like to think it was an urge to share rather than grab any vague glory. Is there glory in a Font 5? I've had a couple of nice outings up to Halkyn recently, courtesy of someone sticking it on ukc. And the pleasure of lovely sharp low grade limestone bouldering. That could probably be fixed by putting it in a guidebook though ;-)

There's probably a hierarchy from 'daft', 'good enough for online' to 'guidebookworthy'. Though that latter might be threatened by the BMC losing interest in definitive guidebooks?

There's definitely been some dross documented recently though, if you keep an eye on ukc 'Latest Photos'. Mostly harmless I guess. You'll never turn a drossy area into a honeypot just by documenting it.

I was tempted to add the niche Alvanley to ukc (one of Andy Popp's), but didn't. People should still buy guidebooks (and secateurs).

[scragrock]

Guilty! I added something to Frodsham recently just because it felt like an ace problem. Clearly not the first though, there was even chalk on it. I like to think it was an urge to share rather than grab any vague glory. Is there glory in a Font 5? I've had a couple of nice outings up to Halkyn recently, courtesy of someone sticking it on ukc. And the pleasure of lovely sharp low grade limestone bouldering. That could probably be fixed by putting it in a guidebook though ;-)

There's probably a hierarchy from 'daft', 'good enough for online' to 'guidebookworthy'. Though that latter might be threatened by the BMC losing interest in definitive guidebooks?

There's definitely been some dross documented recently though, if you keep an eye on ukc 'Latest Photos'. Mostly harmless I guess. You'll never turn a drossy area into a honeypot just by documenting it.

I was tempted to add the niche Alvanley to ukc (one of Andy Popp's), but didn't. People should still buy guidebooks (and secateurs).

This-

[steveri]

Nice - Take 5 - too high for Dave Brubeck!

[Carliios]

I personally agree that we over document these days. I think that a lot of people are desperate to get an FA in, to "make their mark" so to speak, and maybe it'd be better to just let the rock be what it is, unconstrained by classification

That said, some problems are made much better by classification, both because often thr rules of the problem make for better climbing, but also because of the shared history, the name, the experience that means two people who have never met but have done the same problem are in some way connected (in my mind anyway) by something they both did, even if years apart. So I feel like bouldering is better for having named records of problems, but that often a problem is better left unnamed and unrecorded

Couldn’t it just be that people are excited to share a good climb with others which would otherwise go unclimbed because it’s never recorded anywhere? Not everything had to be about desperation to leave their mark, though there’s also nothing wrong with that seeing as climbing is a pretty ego driven sport.

Other than that, my other point is, where do we draw the line? Why not just get rid of all guidebooks, UKC and the new problems section on UKB?

To me this seems like a pretty weird thread seeing as a lot of people here have no doubt put up FAs whether they’re good or choss and documented them and shared them, myself included. I’m not so high and mighty to try and gatekeep people wanting to document stuff.

[Carliios]

Is there glory in a Font 5?

Grade has nothing to do with quality. If you wondered around and found something like Crescent Arête and got to bag the FA I’m sure many of us would be pretty chuffed.

[CapitalistPunter]

Maybe not every lump of choss needs to be documented, but I think there is an art to organisation and knowing what things are. There are many great problems out there that dont look like much which I'd never try or know about were they not documented and advertised.

As for "is there any glory in putting up a font 5", difficulty has nothing to do with quality.

[Hoseyb]

I think there's levels of documentation. Before the blog, there was the little black note book, and there was a lot more in the book that never made it to the book in Pete's Eats.
I've just got used to brain dumping into the blog, and lost the little black note book. However, there are still things that don't make it that far, let alone be promoted to the Welsh mafia at large.

I still take an awful lot of pleasure when my stuff gets repeated though, the shared experiences.
 

[Wellsy]

I personally agree that we over document these days. I think that a lot of people are desperate to get an FA in, to "make their mark" so to speak, and maybe it'd be better to just let the rock be what it is, unconstrained by classification

That said, some problems are made much better by classification, both because often thr rules of the problem make for better climbing, but also because of the shared history, the name, the experience that means two people who have never met but have done the same problem are in some way connected (in my mind anyway) by something they both did, even if years apart. So I feel like bouldering is better for having named records of problems, but that often a problem is better left unnamed and unrecorded

Couldn’t it just be that people are excited to share a good climb with others which would otherwise go unclimbed because it’s never recorded anywhere? Not everything had to be about desperation to leave their mark, though there’s also nothing wrong with that seeing as climbing is a pretty ego driven sport.

Other than that, my other point is, where do we draw the line? Why not just get rid of all guidebooks, UKC and the new problems section on UKB?

To me this seems like a pretty weird thread seeing as a lot of people here have no doubt put up FAs whether they’re good or choss and documented them and shared them, myself included. I’m not so high and mighty to try and gatekeep people wanting to document stuff.

I suppose I see the ego-driven element distasteful although I am not immune to it myself

[scragrock]

I think there's levels of documentation. Before the blog, there was the little black note book, and there was a lot more in the book that never made it to the book in Pete's Eats.
I've just got used to brain dumping into the blog, and lost the little black note book. However, there are still things that don't make it that far, let alone be promoted to the Welsh mafia at large.

I still take an awful lot of pleasure when my stuff gets repeated though, the shared experiences.

Agreed, this rarely happens but its lovely to discuss the character and flow of a line, to compare and contrast.
 

[Carliios]

I personally agree that we over document these days. I think that a lot of people are desperate to get an FA in, to "make their mark" so to speak, and maybe it'd be better to just let the rock be what it is, unconstrained by classification

That said, some problems are made much better by classification, both because often thr rules of the problem make for better climbing, but also because of the shared history, the name, the experience that means two people who have never met but have done the same problem are in some way connected (in my mind anyway) by something they both did, even if years apart. So I feel like bouldering is better for having named records of problems, but that often a problem is better left unnamed and unrecorded

Couldn’t it just be that people are excited to share a good climb with others which would otherwise go unclimbed because it’s never recorded anywhere? Not everything had to be about desperation to leave their mark, though there’s also nothing wrong with that seeing as climbing is a pretty ego driven sport.

Other than that, my other point is, where do we draw the line? Why not just get rid of all guidebooks, UKC and the new problems section on UKB?

To me this seems like a pretty weird thread seeing as a lot of people here have no doubt put up FAs whether they’re good or choss and documented them and shared them, myself included. I’m not so high and mighty to try and gatekeep people wanting to document stuff.

I suppose I see the ego-driven element distasteful although I am not immune to it myself

Agreed, I think being self aware and trying to reign it in is all we can do but to try and deny that we have egos is a lie, and just not human nature. But having an ego is not a bad thing, it’s how you ride your ego and how that affects others that can be distasteful. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to feel good about yourself, I think this is inherent in climbing itself.

[dunnyg]

Some musings.

I've recorded new things as well as not written up a crag. I was planning to write up the crag, made notes etc when I was there climbing and took photos, but then never got round to it. I know people climbed there before (I found some gear, and later found out who's it was), but there wasn't anything harder than font 5, mostly easier. I think as a crag to visit the experience would be pretty average at best, but approaching it with an "exploratory" state of mind made for an excellent afternoons climbing.

I've defintely been driven by ego sometimes. Seeing your name by routes and then people repeating them feels good, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that up to a point. Occaisionally it does annoy me how "look at me" climbing seems to be, but that could be me projecting on other people some of time, then I realise I don't really care, life is too short!

Worth saying I also really enjoy going to obscure crags and repeating routes where someone has put the time in to document it, things like tiny obscure crags on unknown stones are great, and give a similar feel of exploration, finding "new" to me crags to get to.

If someone went and documented the crag I went to, would it matter, would I care? Not to me I don't think.

Some thoughts for your soup anyway.

 

[Fiend]

I personally agree that we over document these days. I think that a lot of people are desperate to get an FA in, to "make their mark" so to speak, and maybe it'd be better to just let the rock be what it is, unconstrained by classification

That said, some problems are made much better by classification, both because often thr rules of the problem make for better climbing, but also because of the shared history, the name, the experience that means two people who have never met but have done the same problem are in some way connected (in my mind anyway) by something they both did, even if years apart. So I feel like bouldering is better for having named records of problems, but that often a problem is better left unnamed and unrecorded

This is exactly the sort of grey area, maybe yes maybe no answer that makes sense to me.

To me this seems like a pretty weird thread seeing as a lot of people here have no doubt put up FAs whether they’re good or choss and documented them and shared them, myself included. I’m not so high and mighty to try and gatekeep people wanting to document stuff.

Well, several people have replied with different views, and you yourself seem quite invested in and opinionated on the issue (including a vague wiff of defensiveness even though this thread is nothing about you, it's about the general idea of complete documentation vs leaving some re-discovery), so maybe as a climbing discussion thread on a climbing discussion forum, it's not that weird??

I still take an awful lot of pleasure when my stuff gets repeated though, the shared experiences.

Agreed, this rarely happens but its lovely to discuss the character and flow of a line, to compare and contrast.

From a personal standpoint, this is a big part of the value I get in doing new problems and sharing them with people (or sharing obscure problems and areas with people full stop!), the idea that you've discovered a path for other people to follow, described it in a way that makes sense, given them the information, and then people can go along and have a great time climbing that bit of rock.

The counterpoint from my friend is, roughly: "Each time you do that with a problem you might give 10 people the simple pleasure of doing that problem you've described and documented, but you might prevent one or more people having the much deeper, more exciting, long-lasting and intimate pleasure of discovering that problem for themselves and climbing it as for the 'first time'"

(I don't have a clear answer or opinion on that, hence posting a pretty weird thread about it)

[Carliios]

I personally agree that we over document these days. I think that a lot of people are desperate to get an FA in, to "make their mark" so to speak, and maybe it'd be better to just let the rock be what it is, unconstrained by classification

That said, some problems are made much better by classification, both because often thr rules of the problem make for better climbing, but also because of the shared history, the name, the experience that means two people who have never met but have done the same problem are in some way connected (in my mind anyway) by something they both did, even if years apart. So I feel like bouldering is better for having named records of problems, but that often a problem is better left unnamed and unrecorded

This is exactly the sort of grey area, maybe yes maybe no answer that makes sense to me.

To me this seems like a pretty weird thread seeing as a lot of people here have no doubt put up FAs whether they’re good or choss and documented them and shared them, myself included. I’m not so high and mighty to try and gatekeep people wanting to document stuff.

Well, several people have replied with different views, and you yourself seem quite invested in and opinionated on the issue (including a vague wiff of defensiveness even though this thread is nothing about you, it's about the general idea of complete documentation vs leaving some re-discovery), so maybe as a climbing discussion thread on a climbing discussion forum, it's not that weird??

I still take an awful lot of pleasure when my stuff gets repeated though, the shared experiences.

Agreed, this rarely happens but its lovely to discuss the character and flow of a line, to compare and contrast.

From a personal standpoint, this is a big part of the value I get in doing new problems and sharing them with people (or sharing obscure problems and areas with people full stop!), the idea that you've discovered a path for other people to follow, described it in a way that makes sense, given them the information, and then people can go along and have a great time climbing that bit of rock.

The counterpoint from my friend is, roughly: "Each time you do that with a problem you might give 10 people the simple pleasure of doing that problem you've described and documented, but you might prevent one or more people having the much deeper, more exciting, long-lasting and intimate pleasure of discovering that problem for themselves and climbing it as for the 'first time'"

(I don't have a clear answer or opinion on that, hence posting a pretty weird thread about it)

Sorry wasn’t meant to come off defensive but I can see how it did, my train of thought is if I’m developing a new area I’ll usually document the good lines, I’m more than happy to share them with people so they can enjoy some lovely climbing 

[M1V0]

The counterpoint from my friend is, roughly: "Each time you do that with a problem you might give 10 people the simple pleasure of doing that problem you've described and documented, but you might prevent one or more people having the much deeper, more exciting, long-lasting and intimate pleasure of discovering that problem for themselves and climbing it as for the 'first time'"

But a counterpoint to this could be, what then happens if the next person who climbs it as a "first ascent" decides to announce it? Does someone tell them that actually someone else did it previously, thus ruining that 'more exciting, long-lasting and intimate pleasure'? Or does the original ascensionist obligingly give up their "first ascent" to others?

The way I see it though, as long as the significant, obvious or worthwhile climbs are documented, that's good enough. I know of areas that have an abundance of rock, but only one or two lines described, because arguably it isn't worth documenting a hundred 3-5 graded boulders if they aren't significant enough to acknowledge as being more than choss. A tricky line to draw, but certainly LakesBloc has tread this line well with acknowledging climbable rock that would be a good circuit, but nothing more is provided. Jopplety How springs to mind as a good example. Even UKC doesn't list all the easy stuff.

[Fiend]

Or does the original ascensionist obligingly give up their "first ascent" to others?

Would that be hard to do??

[M1V0]

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.

[scragrock]

Or does the original ascensionist obligingly give up their "first ascent" to others?

Would that be hard to do??

No, not really

Another way to look at it might be-
looking through a friends climbing diaries from 30 yrs ago and i find a note about a line i recognise, once quizzed about it the individual recounts a multi year project they eventually sent/named but kept silent about{for whatever reason}. I realise that this was the climb/line /F.A of my life but i didn't do it first.

I don't think this detracts from my efforts at all, in fact i think it highlights the fragility of our pursuit and "little game" in the grand scheme of things against the hard lasting stone and the thousand other monkey children that have scampered across its faces.

[JamieG]

Maybe somebody already made this point but if you want the sense of discovery can’t you just not look at the guidebook or ukc etc beyond finding the crag. There are loads of crags I know about but have no idea about any specific lines. I could easily just rock up and climb whatever looks good without worrying if they’ve been done before. But maybe that misses the point since I’d know they almost definitely aren’t FAs.

[matt463]

I’m quite happy with people documenting things. Saves me time having to look for them myself. I can see why people would want to keep things undocumented, but it’s probably going to be out of their hands as popularity grows

[AndyP]

This just seems like a ridiculous thing to complain about. Sharing problems/crags makes them accessible to far more people. This draws people away from honeypot crags and makes the whole sport more sustainable. Sure, a small handful of people take pleasure in going out and discovering something undocumented - nice for them that they have the time and wherewithal (and respect for those who do this and document what they find). But a relative scarcity of undocumented rock seems a small price to pay compared to the overall benefit documentation does for the climbing community in general.