This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
From Brexit to the BMC re-brand, ours is an age of controversy. But most controversial of all is the new edition of the Borrowdale guidebook in - wait for it - A5 format. Thin end of the wedge, or thick end of the guidebook...? Read more
5
In reply to UKC Gear:
Well that was one unbiassed review. Not.
So how many extra routes am I getting for my extra size and weight ? And just how does carrying the book on multipitch routes compare with carrying your singlr pitch Pembroke Rockfax ?
All I seem to be getting for the added inconvenience is that it looks pretty.
Well that was one unbiassed review. Not.
So how many extra routes am I getting for my extra size and weight ? And just how does carrying the book on multipitch routes compare with carrying your singlr pitch Pembroke Rockfax ?
All I seem to be getting for the added inconvenience is that it looks pretty.
4
15
In reply to GrahamD:
Are you using bias in the ever popular sense of "something I disagree with" here?
> Well that was one unbiassed review. Not.
Are you using bias in the ever popular sense of "something I disagree with" here?
28
1
In reply to Lemony:
Mainly, I guess, but then the review appears to be written with the same level of objectivity.
> Are you using bias in the ever popular sense of "something I disagree with" here?
Mainly, I guess, but then the review appears to be written with the same level of objectivity.
3
10
In reply to GrahamD:
If we want 'definitive' guides to survive they have to move more in the direction that FRCC are taking. Exactly where you draw the line is debatable but larger than pocket sized format I believe is necessary to compete with commercial guides, as is the relegation of the dirty and obscure and the banned to online support pages (to include the best new stuff or improved treatment). If people want small format guides the old versions are almost always available and cheaper from second hand suppliers. You don't need to carry big books up routes: you copy or photograph the page.
I sometime wonder what the most definitive guidebook ever produced was. I can't think of one that was even close to being fully definitive.. routes have always been left out; in the case of grit hundreds of easier short routes that would now be regarded as boulder problem highballs. Wharncliffe had more routes in 1900 than in 1987. Rockfax including routes like Everyman and His Dog at Lawrencefield between lines never more than 1m away when a couple of metres off the ground shows the potential for future pointless micro-eliminates that although fun to climb need no seperate description and if we extended the logic to big crags could fill a guide with one venue.
If we want 'definitive' guides to survive they have to move more in the direction that FRCC are taking. Exactly where you draw the line is debatable but larger than pocket sized format I believe is necessary to compete with commercial guides, as is the relegation of the dirty and obscure and the banned to online support pages (to include the best new stuff or improved treatment). If people want small format guides the old versions are almost always available and cheaper from second hand suppliers. You don't need to carry big books up routes: you copy or photograph the page.
I sometime wonder what the most definitive guidebook ever produced was. I can't think of one that was even close to being fully definitive.. routes have always been left out; in the case of grit hundreds of easier short routes that would now be regarded as boulder problem highballs. Wharncliffe had more routes in 1900 than in 1987. Rockfax including routes like Everyman and His Dog at Lawrencefield between lines never more than 1m away when a couple of metres off the ground shows the potential for future pointless micro-eliminates that although fun to climb need no seperate description and if we extended the logic to big crags could fill a guide with one venue.
5
In reply to Offwidth:
This argument about copying routes is crap. I don't carry a photocopier camping and I don't tend to make a crag choice until I've seen the weather. I want a guidebook I can use as a guidebook at the crag. No reliance on photocopiers or vulnerable smart phones.
The FRCC don't seem to have a problem with slightly better sized guides to Langdale (although even that is a retrograde step from the perfectly packaged plastic covered FRCC guides.)
I'm happy that obscurities are left out - to me that is not a contentious point.
This argument about copying routes is crap. I don't carry a photocopier camping and I don't tend to make a crag choice until I've seen the weather. I want a guidebook I can use as a guidebook at the crag. No reliance on photocopiers or vulnerable smart phones.
The FRCC don't seem to have a problem with slightly better sized guides to Langdale (although even that is a retrograde step from the perfectly packaged plastic covered FRCC guides.)
I'm happy that obscurities are left out - to me that is not a contentious point.
9
8
In reply to GrahamD:
Which you can with this, it's no bigger than the guides I've used in the dolomites and the aravis and those aren't single pitch.
> I want a guidebook I can use as a guidebook at the crag. No reliance on photocopiers or vulnerable smart phones.
Which you can with this, it's no bigger than the guides I've used in the dolomites and the aravis and those aren't single pitch.
1
In reply to GrahamD:
Smartphones are only vulnerable if you treat tham badly. Accept that more people want A5 books they can actually look at in a useful fashion and enjoy than tiny scraps of paper where the topo is to small to be of any use and around 17 pages away from the route descriptions.
I appreciate that not everyone has the same opinons on guide size, but A5 is more popular* so that's what guidebook makers will produce.
*Obviously this is based on the people I climb with, not a nationwide study.
Smartphones are only vulnerable if you treat tham badly. Accept that more people want A5 books they can actually look at in a useful fashion and enjoy than tiny scraps of paper where the topo is to small to be of any use and around 17 pages away from the route descriptions.
I appreciate that not everyone has the same opinons on guide size, but A5 is more popular* so that's what guidebook makers will produce.
*Obviously this is based on the people I climb with, not a nationwide study.
8
3
In reply to GrahamD:
I think you're missing my point though: it's not that inconvenient...
In terms of weight, it's not that inconvenient because it's not that much heavier; in terms of finding/climbing the routes it's not that inconvenient because the topos are significantly clearer and easier to use than in the previous edition.
As for the matter of bias, yes - I'm clearly in favour of the A5 format - but is expressing this within a review such a crime? Were I to extract all opinion from this review it would be a pretty dull and uninformative affair.
I think you're missing my point though: it's not that inconvenient...
In terms of weight, it's not that inconvenient because it's not that much heavier; in terms of finding/climbing the routes it's not that inconvenient because the topos are significantly clearer and easier to use than in the previous edition.
As for the matter of bias, yes - I'm clearly in favour of the A5 format - but is expressing this within a review such a crime? Were I to extract all opinion from this review it would be a pretty dull and uninformative affair.
27
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:
...cease to be a review.
> Were I to extract all opinion from this review it would...
...cease to be a review.
23
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:
But to compare this with the previous Borrowdale guide isn't comparing like with like.
Comparing the new Borrowdale with, say, the new Langdale: the topos aren't 'significantly clearer and easier to use' - they're just similar info expanded in size by 20% or so.
A question for the FRCC is why they decided to change size in the middle of the new series.
> ... the topos are significantly clearer and easier to use than in the previous edition.
But to compare this with the previous Borrowdale guide isn't comparing like with like.
Comparing the new Borrowdale with, say, the new Langdale: the topos aren't 'significantly clearer and easier to use' - they're just similar info expanded in size by 20% or so.
A question for the FRCC is why they decided to change size in the middle of the new series.
5
1
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:
Which routes did you carry it on to make that claim ? is it less convenient than other books in the series to carry on a route ?
And on bias, is it a crime ? well its not a crime but it doesn't make it a proper review, it makes it a personal view.
> I think you're missing my point though: it's not that inconvenient...
Which routes did you carry it on to make that claim ? is it less convenient than other books in the series to carry on a route ?
And on bias, is it a crime ? well its not a crime but it doesn't make it a proper review, it makes it a personal view.
3
20
In reply to ianstevens:
Like carrying them on a rock climb, you mean ? Smartscreen screens crack at the least excuse and they don't necessarily recover from getting wet. In any case my phone is a work phone and not everyone has a smartphone at all. Guidebooks can withstand a lot more.
> Smartphones are only vulnerable if you treat tham badly.
Like carrying them on a rock climb, you mean ? Smartscreen screens crack at the least excuse and they don't necessarily recover from getting wet. In any case my phone is a work phone and not everyone has a smartphone at all. Guidebooks can withstand a lot more.
4
8
In reply to GrahamD:
Out of interest, what do you think that a review is?
> it doesn't make it a proper review, it makes it a personal view.
Out of interest, what do you think that a review is?
10
1
In reply to Lemony:
A review I would hope would be objective. IE it would point out the pros and cons of the new book and acknowledge the fact that to quite a few people do find the size an issue.
Also what has happened to grades, stars, accuracy ? good, bad, no change ?
How many extra routes at what grades am I getting for my bigger heavier guide ?
A review I would hope would be objective. IE it would point out the pros and cons of the new book and acknowledge the fact that to quite a few people do find the size an issue.
Also what has happened to grades, stars, accuracy ? good, bad, no change ?
How many extra routes at what grades am I getting for my bigger heavier guide ?
3
14
In reply to GrahamD:
Sorry, I am still lost... The review pointed out some of the pro's and some of the con's of the new book and acknowledged that there is some controversy over the book's size. Then Rob gave his own editorial slant on specific issues. Is it the editorial bit where you think Rob went too far?
> A review I would hope would be objective. IE it would point out the pros and cons of the new book and acknowledge the fact that to quite a few people do find the size an issue.
Sorry, I am still lost... The review pointed out some of the pro's and some of the con's of the new book and acknowledged that there is some controversy over the book's size. Then Rob gave his own editorial slant on specific issues. Is it the editorial bit where you think Rob went too far?
4
In reply to Birdo:
I don't think it did point out the pros and the cons from an objective standpoint and missed out lots of information. Forgive me for thinking it reads as though someone got it in the post, flicked through it for pretty pictures and wrote the article. And the verdict: it looks pretty therefore it is good. Apologies if that isn't true.
What about the grades ? any controversial up grades or downgrades (as Bowfell Butress was discussed in the Langdale review, for instance) ? how many extra routes am I getting for my size / weight increase ? sensible use of stars ?
> Sorry, I am still lost... The review pointed out some of the pro's and some of the con's of the new book and acknowledged that there is some controversy over the book's size. Then Rob gave his own editorial slant on specific issues. Is it the editorial bit where you think Rob went too far?
I don't think it did point out the pros and the cons from an objective standpoint and missed out lots of information. Forgive me for thinking it reads as though someone got it in the post, flicked through it for pretty pictures and wrote the article. And the verdict: it looks pretty therefore it is good. Apologies if that isn't true.
What about the grades ? any controversial up grades or downgrades (as Bowfell Butress was discussed in the Langdale review, for instance) ? how many extra routes am I getting for my size / weight increase ? sensible use of stars ?
2
8
14
14
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Possibly because, on balance, they think the A5 format is better or possibly more saleable?
Anyway, decision made, choice over for the FRCC.
Choices for everybody else ATM.
Buy an old edition copy.
Buy a new copy. Carry it, leave it at the base, photocopy, photograph it.
Buy two new copies and rip the pages out.
Simples
> A question for the FRCC is why they decided to change size in the middle of the new series.
Possibly because, on balance, they think the A5 format is better or possibly more saleable?
Anyway, decision made, choice over for the FRCC.
Choices for everybody else ATM.
Buy an old edition copy.
Buy a new copy. Carry it, leave it at the base, photocopy, photograph it.
Buy two new copies and rip the pages out.
Simples
3
In reply to Rick Graham:
Yes, for the Borrowdale guide. What about for the forthcoming Dow etc. guide?
> Anyway, decision made, choice over for the FRCC.
Yes, for the Borrowdale guide. What about for the forthcoming Dow etc. guide?
In reply to GrahamD:
Copying routes is not inconvenient: I photograph the page I want with my camera if I change my mind due to weather etc and have the wrong photocopy pages. Good quality small camaras are a lot cheaper and more compact than modern smart phones. I have also (careful this may shock) written things down and hand copied topos on paper (and cut pages out and selotaped them back in). Plus in the case of Borrowdale a lot of the climbs are on shortish crags and won't always need the guidebook en route. It also seems to me that its odd that those complaining are experienced enough to follow their nose... the longest trad route I ever did was with only my memory as I left the topo for the top 2/3in (450m) in my rucksack at the base.
I think the old style pocket guides were of their time. If you compressed the information of the Borrowdale guide into one of those it would be too thick to use or too small text for those of normal eyesight to read. Langdale is hardly pocket sized and Rob is right that given the tiny weight difference and that A5 guidebook holders exist (and the alternatives we can choose to use) the fuss about the format difference is really a storm in a teacup.
Copying routes is not inconvenient: I photograph the page I want with my camera if I change my mind due to weather etc and have the wrong photocopy pages. Good quality small camaras are a lot cheaper and more compact than modern smart phones. I have also (careful this may shock) written things down and hand copied topos on paper (and cut pages out and selotaped them back in). Plus in the case of Borrowdale a lot of the climbs are on shortish crags and won't always need the guidebook en route. It also seems to me that its odd that those complaining are experienced enough to follow their nose... the longest trad route I ever did was with only my memory as I left the topo for the top 2/3in (450m) in my rucksack at the base.
I think the old style pocket guides were of their time. If you compressed the information of the Borrowdale guide into one of those it would be too thick to use or too small text for those of normal eyesight to read. Langdale is hardly pocket sized and Rob is right that given the tiny weight difference and that A5 guidebook holders exist (and the alternatives we can choose to use) the fuss about the format difference is really a storm in a teacup.
Post edited at 16:32
2
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Not my decision, but I might get a vote
I would be very surprised if the FRCC went back to the Langdale size, but thats what feedback and guidebook sales might influence!
> Yes, for the Borrowdale guide. What about for the forthcoming Dow etc. guide?
Not my decision, but I might get a vote
I would be very surprised if the FRCC went back to the Langdale size, but thats what feedback and guidebook sales might influence!
In reply to UKC Gear:
The review is not greatly incisive.
Overall I think the guide is excellent - who cares what size and weight it is?
The cover photo is a poor choice in my view, too tightly framed.
Dedication to Martin Weir is admirable, an excellent idea. Martin was a star, as was his son.
Also Caf's mention of his Dad.
Socially diverse action shots - if they don't turn up for the photoshoots it will be just the volunteers.
Esoteric crags - go clean some undergrowth and vegetation!
The sun is shining as someone noted.
I give the guide ten out of ten.
DC
The review is not greatly incisive.
Overall I think the guide is excellent - who cares what size and weight it is?
The cover photo is a poor choice in my view, too tightly framed.
Dedication to Martin Weir is admirable, an excellent idea. Martin was a star, as was his son.
Also Caf's mention of his Dad.
Socially diverse action shots - if they don't turn up for the photoshoots it will be just the volunteers.
Esoteric crags - go clean some undergrowth and vegetation!
The sun is shining as someone noted.
I give the guide ten out of ten.
DC
1
2
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
"The review is not greatly incisive"
I blame the haircut Rob had for the September 'beat up the BMC rebrand' area fest. He lost something there and his star rating has gone hollow... no spotting a ridiculous new overgrade of a famous tough VD as HS for us to moan about either
"The review is not greatly incisive"
I blame the haircut Rob had for the September 'beat up the BMC rebrand' area fest. He lost something there and his star rating has gone hollow... no spotting a ridiculous new overgrade of a famous tough VD as HS for us to moan about either
3
1
In reply to Offwidth:
I'll be writing a scientific paper for the review of the BMC Lancashire Guide at this rate
I'll be writing a scientific paper for the review of the BMC Lancashire Guide at this rate
10
In reply to Offwidth:
Of course copying something you have already bought in order to make it useable is inconvenient. And a camera screen is much smaller than A5 so if its legible on a camera, it would be legible on a smaller page.
"the fuss about the format difference is really a storm in a teacup" - now that is a trite as is suggesting buying a guidebook and following your nose on multipitch.
Anyway I'm not sure I ever saw an answer: how many extra routes am I getting for the extra weight and inconvenience ? yes A5 holders are available but they are a pain in the arse when you already have a harness load of gear. Pockets are a lot easier if the book fits in them.
Of course copying something you have already bought in order to make it useable is inconvenient. And a camera screen is much smaller than A5 so if its legible on a camera, it would be legible on a smaller page.
"the fuss about the format difference is really a storm in a teacup" - now that is a trite as is suggesting buying a guidebook and following your nose on multipitch.
Anyway I'm not sure I ever saw an answer: how many extra routes am I getting for the extra weight and inconvenience ? yes A5 holders are available but they are a pain in the arse when you already have a harness load of gear. Pockets are a lot easier if the book fits in them.
7
In reply to GrahamD:
I am pointing out that there are many ways to resolve the size issue and you seem to be ignoring one or more of these will suit most people for the benefits of the large format. For the few it doesn't, buying old second hand versions and carrying a crib sheet for new routes is also possible.
As for pages on my camera, in the few cases resoltion is an issue for me I just use the zoom function.
I remember first using small pocket guides in the 80s... lots of following my nose and adventure in that (no bad thing in itself but not what most modern climbers want). The first exception was the 100 classic guides series where usability really impressed me.
I am pointing out that there are many ways to resolve the size issue and you seem to be ignoring one or more of these will suit most people for the benefits of the large format. For the few it doesn't, buying old second hand versions and carrying a crib sheet for new routes is also possible.
As for pages on my camera, in the few cases resoltion is an issue for me I just use the zoom function.
I remember first using small pocket guides in the 80s... lots of following my nose and adventure in that (no bad thing in itself but not what most modern climbers want). The first exception was the 100 classic guides series where usability really impressed me.
Post edited at 18:27
In reply to GrahamD:
I thought it to be a good review. I've been using the new guide for a few weeks now and so far found it to be very useful, inspiring and easy to use. Already visited 4 Borrowdale crags i'd never been to before and would never have found using the previous guide. Maybe a few too many photos.
Star system is mostly very good, although giving Raven crag gully a 5 maybe pushing it a little
Sales will ultimately be the judge. Those that really can't see passed the slight increase in size may choose not to buy it, their loss.
I thought it to be a good review. I've been using the new guide for a few weeks now and so far found it to be very useful, inspiring and easy to use. Already visited 4 Borrowdale crags i'd never been to before and would never have found using the previous guide. Maybe a few too many photos.
Star system is mostly very good, although giving Raven crag gully a 5 maybe pushing it a little
Sales will ultimately be the judge. Those that really can't see passed the slight increase in size may choose not to buy it, their loss.
Post edited at 18:55
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:
You may be OK at maths but I'd have thought over 25% more weight was quite a lot?
Besides, the main problem is the bulk of it. A5 is just not handy for carrying on multipitch routes.
You may be OK at maths but I'd have thought over 25% more weight was quite a lot?
Besides, the main problem is the bulk of it. A5 is just not handy for carrying on multipitch routes.
3
In reply to Mark Eddy:
Oh it'll sell: it's the definitive guide to a popular climbing area.
What advantages or disadvantages the larger size (say, compared to the recent Langdale and Scafell guides in the same series) bring is a legitimate question - and one on which the FRCC has asked (in the front of the guide) for feedback. In my view, the increase in size is a backward step, for reasons given both above and in related threads. I presume (?) you disagree, in which case I'd ask: why *stop* at A5? What makes that the *optimal* size?
> Sales will ultimately be the judge ...
Oh it'll sell: it's the definitive guide to a popular climbing area.
> ... Those that really can't see passed the slight increase in size may choose not to buy it, their loss.
What advantages or disadvantages the larger size (say, compared to the recent Langdale and Scafell guides in the same series) bring is a legitimate question - and one on which the FRCC has asked (in the front of the guide) for feedback. In my view, the increase in size is a backward step, for reasons given both above and in related threads. I presume (?) you disagree, in which case I'd ask: why *stop* at A5? What makes that the *optimal* size?
3
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:
Greenwood, Robert (2016). A Comparative Study of Rock Climbing Guidebook Weights and Dimensions in the United Kingdom. Independent Journal for Guidebook Verification and Assessment, V(A), 4.
> I'll be writing a scientific paper for the review of the BMC Lancashire Guide at this rate
Greenwood, Robert (2016). A Comparative Study of Rock Climbing Guidebook Weights and Dimensions in the United Kingdom. Independent Journal for Guidebook Verification and Assessment, V(A), 4.
Post edited at 21:12
5
In reply to UKC Gear:
Its not about the weight, its about the size, A5 is too big to carry up multi pitch routes. These guides (including the wired guides) are great to look at in the comfort of your own home/pub/hut/campsite but are just too big for the crag. The CC pembroke guides are great as is the new Langdale/ Scafell guide. This is the size I want, just because rockfax has gone to A5 the FRCC does not have to follow.
As a lakes local I bought the guide thinking it would be definitive - its not. I don't really care that most people will buy it for shepherds, I bought it for Goat, Cat Gyhll Bluffs, Greatend Crag, Castle Crag etc and I feel distinctly short changed. Even good routes at Shepherds have been omitted, why leave Vesper out? a 2 star route that I climbed last year, and good value it was too. These routes aren't "crap" they are well worth doing and deserve more traffic - fat chance of that now.
Very disappointed in the new Borrowdale guide, perhaps its time for a Paul Ross style "pirate" guide for locals - now theres a thought.
Its not about the weight, its about the size, A5 is too big to carry up multi pitch routes. These guides (including the wired guides) are great to look at in the comfort of your own home/pub/hut/campsite but are just too big for the crag. The CC pembroke guides are great as is the new Langdale/ Scafell guide. This is the size I want, just because rockfax has gone to A5 the FRCC does not have to follow.
As a lakes local I bought the guide thinking it would be definitive - its not. I don't really care that most people will buy it for shepherds, I bought it for Goat, Cat Gyhll Bluffs, Greatend Crag, Castle Crag etc and I feel distinctly short changed. Even good routes at Shepherds have been omitted, why leave Vesper out? a 2 star route that I climbed last year, and good value it was too. These routes aren't "crap" they are well worth doing and deserve more traffic - fat chance of that now.
Very disappointed in the new Borrowdale guide, perhaps its time for a Paul Ross style "pirate" guide for locals - now theres a thought.
5
In reply to UKC Gear:
From the beginning of my climbing career FRCC guides have been a constant source of inspiration: from my first forays into Borrowdale with a tatty borrowed university guide and my pristine virgin rope and nuts to later trips to establish major new lines on Pillar and Boat How thanks to Stephen Reid's seminal guides. It was, therefore, with great excitement that I arrived home to find the post had come and I could finally get my hands on the new guide.
My parents always told me that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything. I would thus like to start by thanking all volunteers involved with the leviathan task of writing guides. It is often a thankless task that will not please all. However, I write this review with great sadness in the hope that comments can be used constructively for future guides.
The A5 debate will rumble on. Personally I can live with it even if I would prefer to fumble a guide off a multi-pitch belay rather than my phone.
I mirror many of Rob's sentiments like positive photo topos and some questionable photo choices but for me there are number of issues not raised.
1. Blank Spaces. There are many pages which just appear a little unfinished (to name a few: p.157, 200, 203 (yet photos overlap on the opposite page), 204, 205, 208, 215 (again photos overlap on the opposite page)). I concede this could be seen as picky, but then again guidebooks have evolved for years and many typesetters manage to avoid it.
2. Please don’t put things in the bindings. It may just be my copy but on p.146-7 the climber has lost a hand and foot into the bindings and my attention is just drawn to the out of focus tree on the right. On p.277-8 one of the crags has disappeared into the binding. All I can read is Cracks p.284. I presume it actually should read “Wall of Cracks” but I don't really want to rip the binding open to see.
3. Orientating pictures and maps. It may be an idea if on p.277-8 the map was rotated through 180 degrees so that it would correlate to both the image behind and direction of walk in.
4. The Elephant in the room. Having recently bought the FRCC selected guide I didn't realise the Borrowdale guide would be selective too. The newest definitive Yorkshire guides have been completely inspirational and myself and many friends have been drawn away from Slipstones to sample more obscure venues like Sypeland, Roova and Brown Beck crags. New guides, especially glossy photo topo based guides present a real opportunity to inspire and draw people to venues that could use more traffic. We have all seen cars spilling out of the Shepherds cafe or struggled to park for other valley crags and a guide aimed at 'the vast majority of people buying this guide will be buying this guide almost exclusively for Shepherd's Crag' may struggle to encourage a spreading of the load.
At this point I will declare a conflict of interest as I developed some routes at Powterhow (note for p.313 it does not end with an e). It is spitting distance from Reecastle and has been visited by a number of teams over the last few years, with a number first ascents being recorded. Indeed the archive lists more than the paltry 1 given in the omitted crags page on p.313. The routes in the archive were new since the last guide and since they will not be in this guide the crag will never stand a chance of becoming better known or getting traffic. In my mind this demonstrates one of the weaknesses of the archive: it is rich to say others should check it if the guidebook team hasn't checked it correctly themselves.
I can understand not wishing to include all of the work of the prolific BJ Clarke but it is nice to know that this route: http://www.ukhillwalking.com/images/dbpage.php?id=117408 is 'crap' (and yet is only 5 mins from Reecastle) but Pink wall with two routes and a 100 minute approach is worthy of inclusion.
Last year I posted (http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=619207&v=1#x8082965) that I had cleaned a number of starred established routes at Millicans Buttress including one which I claimed was 'probably one of the best of its grade in the valley that no one has heard of. Worthy of a third star'. A number of teams wrote that they had visited and were impressed. While the guide gains some Prygrodzki eliminates and Hocking hard routes, this crag, along with other good routes and crags is now lost to the archives. Again I stress the point about the Yorkshire guide's effectiveness in drawing people to new venues.
It is, therefore, with great sadness that even though I intend that to have a good number of decades climbing ahead, if this is the future direction of FRCC guides, for the first time I'll probably seriously consider not adding to my collection. Like for many others the loss of a number of crags in exchange for more colour topos may not be enough to inspire me to buy.
From the beginning of my climbing career FRCC guides have been a constant source of inspiration: from my first forays into Borrowdale with a tatty borrowed university guide and my pristine virgin rope and nuts to later trips to establish major new lines on Pillar and Boat How thanks to Stephen Reid's seminal guides. It was, therefore, with great excitement that I arrived home to find the post had come and I could finally get my hands on the new guide.
My parents always told me that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything. I would thus like to start by thanking all volunteers involved with the leviathan task of writing guides. It is often a thankless task that will not please all. However, I write this review with great sadness in the hope that comments can be used constructively for future guides.
The A5 debate will rumble on. Personally I can live with it even if I would prefer to fumble a guide off a multi-pitch belay rather than my phone.
I mirror many of Rob's sentiments like positive photo topos and some questionable photo choices but for me there are number of issues not raised.
1. Blank Spaces. There are many pages which just appear a little unfinished (to name a few: p.157, 200, 203 (yet photos overlap on the opposite page), 204, 205, 208, 215 (again photos overlap on the opposite page)). I concede this could be seen as picky, but then again guidebooks have evolved for years and many typesetters manage to avoid it.
2. Please don’t put things in the bindings. It may just be my copy but on p.146-7 the climber has lost a hand and foot into the bindings and my attention is just drawn to the out of focus tree on the right. On p.277-8 one of the crags has disappeared into the binding. All I can read is Cracks p.284. I presume it actually should read “Wall of Cracks” but I don't really want to rip the binding open to see.
3. Orientating pictures and maps. It may be an idea if on p.277-8 the map was rotated through 180 degrees so that it would correlate to both the image behind and direction of walk in.
4. The Elephant in the room. Having recently bought the FRCC selected guide I didn't realise the Borrowdale guide would be selective too. The newest definitive Yorkshire guides have been completely inspirational and myself and many friends have been drawn away from Slipstones to sample more obscure venues like Sypeland, Roova and Brown Beck crags. New guides, especially glossy photo topo based guides present a real opportunity to inspire and draw people to venues that could use more traffic. We have all seen cars spilling out of the Shepherds cafe or struggled to park for other valley crags and a guide aimed at 'the vast majority of people buying this guide will be buying this guide almost exclusively for Shepherd's Crag' may struggle to encourage a spreading of the load.
At this point I will declare a conflict of interest as I developed some routes at Powterhow (note for p.313 it does not end with an e). It is spitting distance from Reecastle and has been visited by a number of teams over the last few years, with a number first ascents being recorded. Indeed the archive lists more than the paltry 1 given in the omitted crags page on p.313. The routes in the archive were new since the last guide and since they will not be in this guide the crag will never stand a chance of becoming better known or getting traffic. In my mind this demonstrates one of the weaknesses of the archive: it is rich to say others should check it if the guidebook team hasn't checked it correctly themselves.
I can understand not wishing to include all of the work of the prolific BJ Clarke but it is nice to know that this route: http://www.ukhillwalking.com/images/dbpage.php?id=117408 is 'crap' (and yet is only 5 mins from Reecastle) but Pink wall with two routes and a 100 minute approach is worthy of inclusion.
Last year I posted (http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=619207&v=1#x8082965) that I had cleaned a number of starred established routes at Millicans Buttress including one which I claimed was 'probably one of the best of its grade in the valley that no one has heard of. Worthy of a third star'. A number of teams wrote that they had visited and were impressed. While the guide gains some Prygrodzki eliminates and Hocking hard routes, this crag, along with other good routes and crags is now lost to the archives. Again I stress the point about the Yorkshire guide's effectiveness in drawing people to new venues.
It is, therefore, with great sadness that even though I intend that to have a good number of decades climbing ahead, if this is the future direction of FRCC guides, for the first time I'll probably seriously consider not adding to my collection. Like for many others the loss of a number of crags in exchange for more colour topos may not be enough to inspire me to buy.
7
In reply to Offwidth:
I'm not ignoring them. I'm saying they are just not reasonable alternatives. I'd also disagree that this is a minority viewpoint.
> I am pointing out that there are many ways to resolve the size issue and you seem to be ignoring one or more of these will suit most people ...
I'm not ignoring them. I'm saying they are just not reasonable alternatives. I'd also disagree that this is a minority viewpoint.
2
6
In reply to GrahamD:
All reviews are an expression of a personal view.
> And on bias, is it a crime ? well its not a crime but it doesn't make it a proper review, it makes it a personal view.
All reviews are an expression of a personal view.
3
In reply to The New NickB:
Only to a degree. Some reviews are a lot more objective. And some reviews will be a lot more informative on content (how many extra routes am I getting for my increased size / weight ?)
> All reviews are an expression of a personal view.
Only to a degree. Some reviews are a lot more objective. And some reviews will be a lot more informative on content (how many extra routes am I getting for my increased size / weight ?)
2
6
In reply to The New NickB:
I for one look forward to the new UKC approach to reviewing making it into the mainstream.
"Hello and welcome to Film 2016, today we'll be retrospectively reviewing classic Christmas favourite Die Hard. Firstly to important matters, the film at 2 hours and 11 minutes represents superior value for money to a film that lasts less than that."
"Although it should be pointed out Claudia that it represents INFERIOR value for money to films lasting longer 2 hours 12 minutes or longer."
"Quite right, a good point there, thank you. Some people have referred to the film as an entertaining high-octane blockbuster, would you agree?"
"Well it's important to remember that not everybody was entertained by the film and it contains no actual discussion of hydrocarbons. It is however an empirical fact that blocks were indeed busted in some of the explosions."
"So in conclusion, some people have enjoyed the film, some people have not enjoyed the film and others are ambivalent - the only things we can say for certain are that it is in fact a film and it is in fact 2 hours and 11 minutes long."
I for one look forward to the new UKC approach to reviewing making it into the mainstream.
"Hello and welcome to Film 2016, today we'll be retrospectively reviewing classic Christmas favourite Die Hard. Firstly to important matters, the film at 2 hours and 11 minutes represents superior value for money to a film that lasts less than that."
"Although it should be pointed out Claudia that it represents INFERIOR value for money to films lasting longer 2 hours 12 minutes or longer."
"Quite right, a good point there, thank you. Some people have referred to the film as an entertaining high-octane blockbuster, would you agree?"
"Well it's important to remember that not everybody was entertained by the film and it contains no actual discussion of hydrocarbons. It is however an empirical fact that blocks were indeed busted in some of the explosions."
"So in conclusion, some people have enjoyed the film, some people have not enjoyed the film and others are ambivalent - the only things we can say for certain are that it is in fact a film and it is in fact 2 hours and 11 minutes long."
9
2
In reply to UKC Gear:
Funnily enough I revisited Borrowdale recently after *many* years, old plastic guidebook in hand. Much as I used to love poring over these guides and admire the colossal work involved, that generation of guide (and it wasn't even the most recent previous edition) it was hard work to actually use. Picking up the new guide for a quick flick in the shops was a breath of fresh air. It really invited me to go and visit some of the climbs and crags. Which I guess is the point. Nostalgia aside, it always felt like you were trying to crack some kind of cypher getting really comfortable with the old guide - cross referencing pictures, captions, topos, maps and descriptions in different places.
Funnily enough I revisited Borrowdale recently after *many* years, old plastic guidebook in hand. Much as I used to love poring over these guides and admire the colossal work involved, that generation of guide (and it wasn't even the most recent previous edition) it was hard work to actually use. Picking up the new guide for a quick flick in the shops was a breath of fresh air. It really invited me to go and visit some of the climbs and crags. Which I guess is the point. Nostalgia aside, it always felt like you were trying to crack some kind of cypher getting really comfortable with the old guide - cross referencing pictures, captions, topos, maps and descriptions in different places.
3
In reply to GrahamD:
Graham, you keep coming back to this point, but it simply doesn't make sense.
If you read the review (which I'm still not 100% sure you have) then you'd probably get the gist that there isn't some equation like 'quantity of routes x weight of guide / size of guide = overall quality of book', because it simply doesn't exist. Thinking about it, even if it did it wouldn't be meaningful or relevant!
I take all of Si Lichfield's points on board because they are constructive and well thought out, yours however are not. I totally appreciate that you don't like the use of the A5 size/format - you've made that clear - but can we, much like the review, we move on to other far more interesting matters.
> Only to a degree. Some reviews are a lot more objective. And some reviews will be a lot more informative on content (how many extra routes am I getting for my increased size / weight ?)
Graham, you keep coming back to this point, but it simply doesn't make sense.
If you read the review (which I'm still not 100% sure you have) then you'd probably get the gist that there isn't some equation like 'quantity of routes x weight of guide / size of guide = overall quality of book', because it simply doesn't exist. Thinking about it, even if it did it wouldn't be meaningful or relevant!
I take all of Si Lichfield's points on board because they are constructive and well thought out, yours however are not. I totally appreciate that you don't like the use of the A5 size/format - you've made that clear - but can we, much like the review, we move on to other far more interesting matters.
Post edited at 10:10
9
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:
Hi Rob,
You might not think my replies are well thought out because my views obviously don't align with yours (you've already used "get a grip" in your review...)
Anyway, back to my question, and I'll rephrase it so as not to conflate a review of the contents with a review of the format:
How many new routes at what grades are in this book that aren't in the last edition and how many have been lost ? or has there been a percptible change in grades ? irrespective of format surely thats important information for anyone wishing to change their guidebook ?
Hi Rob,
You might not think my replies are well thought out because my views obviously don't align with yours (you've already used "get a grip" in your review...)
Anyway, back to my question, and I'll rephrase it so as not to conflate a review of the contents with a review of the format:
How many new routes at what grades are in this book that aren't in the last edition and how many have been lost ? or has there been a percptible change in grades ? irrespective of format surely thats important information for anyone wishing to change their guidebook ?
1
7
In reply to Si Litchfield:
All editorial teams make some mistakes (I as a co-editor even regret a few on Froggatt in a few small respects... plus we left quite a bit out of the guide in really minor venues or things which arrived late that were hard to fit it ..... that I don't regret), yet on the inclusion front once you have a paired paper volume with a online presence nothing stops keen locals filling the gaps. I saw similar arguments to yours about 'inclusion' made on Over the Moors but even if you are completely right you unfairly undermine the volunteer editorial team, as the main use of the guide would never be in such areas and its an easy problem to fix.
I've said before the YMC guides, are the best modern guides I've seen but even as only an occasional local (by marriage) I've climbed many problems worth stars and a few good routes and even at whole documented venues the team knew about and didn't go in. I think their judgement was better than mine and they were working with fuller volumes. I would not have wanted to squeeze out the features or aerial shots that make the books so good for ordinary users: the things I did, could go online (some are) or be left for quiet exploration.
All editorial teams make some mistakes (I as a co-editor even regret a few on Froggatt in a few small respects... plus we left quite a bit out of the guide in really minor venues or things which arrived late that were hard to fit it ..... that I don't regret), yet on the inclusion front once you have a paired paper volume with a online presence nothing stops keen locals filling the gaps. I saw similar arguments to yours about 'inclusion' made on Over the Moors but even if you are completely right you unfairly undermine the volunteer editorial team, as the main use of the guide would never be in such areas and its an easy problem to fix.
I've said before the YMC guides, are the best modern guides I've seen but even as only an occasional local (by marriage) I've climbed many problems worth stars and a few good routes and even at whole documented venues the team knew about and didn't go in. I think their judgement was better than mine and they were working with fuller volumes. I would not have wanted to squeeze out the features or aerial shots that make the books so good for ordinary users: the things I did, could go online (some are) or be left for quiet exploration.
Post edited at 11:27
2
In reply to UKC Gear:
>I’ve never been to hot on my mathematics, but that’s 150g difference.
The English teacher in me might also like to add a two, to, too many comment about your English too, or is it to or two???
>I’ve never been to hot on my mathematics, but that’s 150g difference.
The English teacher in me might also like to add a two, to, too many comment about your English too, or is it to or two???
2
1
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:
All in all a good review. It seems the A5 format is problem for a few. For me actually finding and getting on a route is a problem with traditional guides. I had quick flick through at Shepherds café on Sunday and the new format certainly helps with this. For me the size of the guide is a non-issue, (Borrowdale doesn’t have many (if any) big mountain routes) what is more disappointing as Rob points out is the lack representation on the photographs of all demographics, particularly female. I was at Shepherds on Sunday, and there were plenty of ladies climbing. Would be interested to know if the FRCC actually thought about this.
All in all a good review. It seems the A5 format is problem for a few. For me actually finding and getting on a route is a problem with traditional guides. I had quick flick through at Shepherds café on Sunday and the new format certainly helps with this. For me the size of the guide is a non-issue, (Borrowdale doesn’t have many (if any) big mountain routes) what is more disappointing as Rob points out is the lack representation on the photographs of all demographics, particularly female. I was at Shepherds on Sunday, and there were plenty of ladies climbing. Would be interested to know if the FRCC actually thought about this.
3
In reply to jezzah:
Can you please improve your punctuation so that I can understand exactly what you mean by that.
What is it about UKC grammar and spelling Nazis that they so often get things wrong themselves. Karma?
Can you please improve your punctuation so that I can understand exactly what you mean by that.
What is it about UKC grammar and spelling Nazis that they so often get things wrong themselves. Karma?
Post edited at 11:45
2
In reply to GrahamD:
I'll do some sums for you. Lets call the useable area between margins in an old style 70s guide 1 unit (I picked Saddleworth Chew)
The 1980s grit guides were 1.2 units. My Froggatt volume was 2.0 units and an A5 Rockfax grit guide is 2.7 units. Bigger guides have bigger spines and can hold more pages (so multiply these by a scale factor of length). The new Borrowdale guide has something in it and the volunteer editorial team make the choice of that content. They will have made some mistakes (we all do) and as purchasers climbers are not clones so individuals may each have prefered a slightly different mix.
I made this space point repeatedly in the past on UKC bit no one really seemed to get it.. being a bit more explicit ...my Froggatt guide had almost as much usable space as the entire series edited by Eric Byne.
With modern prining you can even 'eat' the now smaller margins to help with maps and photos (takiing Si's point you do need to be careful things dont get swallowed by the binding)
I'll do some sums for you. Lets call the useable area between margins in an old style 70s guide 1 unit (I picked Saddleworth Chew)
The 1980s grit guides were 1.2 units. My Froggatt volume was 2.0 units and an A5 Rockfax grit guide is 2.7 units. Bigger guides have bigger spines and can hold more pages (so multiply these by a scale factor of length). The new Borrowdale guide has something in it and the volunteer editorial team make the choice of that content. They will have made some mistakes (we all do) and as purchasers climbers are not clones so individuals may each have prefered a slightly different mix.
I made this space point repeatedly in the past on UKC bit no one really seemed to get it.. being a bit more explicit ...my Froggatt guide had almost as much usable space as the entire series edited by Eric Byne.
With modern prining you can even 'eat' the now smaller margins to help with maps and photos (takiing Si's point you do need to be careful things dont get swallowed by the binding)
Post edited at 11:57
1
In reply to Dave Ferguson:
Looking at the new borrowdale guide reminds me of that hilarious tale you tell of Yob and Yag climbing Lord of the Rings with a copy of Extreme Rock stuffed down their shirt as it was the only guide they had.
Big, square chest is rapidly becoming the new climbing fashion.
"They took out all those routes and left Dalt Quarry in", sums it up for me
Looking at the new borrowdale guide reminds me of that hilarious tale you tell of Yob and Yag climbing Lord of the Rings with a copy of Extreme Rock stuffed down their shirt as it was the only guide they had.
Big, square chest is rapidly becoming the new climbing fashion.
"They took out all those routes and left Dalt Quarry in", sums it up for me
2
In reply to 3leggeddog:
There's lots of poor quality/scrappy/vegetated trad in the area, there's very, very little bolt clipping - Dalt Quarry offers something a bit different even if it's not that good.
> "They took out all those routes and left Dalt Quarry in", sums it up for me
There's lots of poor quality/scrappy/vegetated trad in the area, there's very, very little bolt clipping - Dalt Quarry offers something a bit different even if it's not that good.
In reply to herrettscott:
Getting good action shots - irrespective of the race, gender, religion, shoe size, etc. of the climbers depicted - is a perennial problem for guidebook authors. The FRCC team will have asked for photo submissions, and used the best they received (or took themselves.)
> ... what is more disappointing as Rob points out is the lack representation on the photographs of all demographics, particularly female ... Would be interested to know if the FRCC actually thought about this.
Getting good action shots - irrespective of the race, gender, religion, shoe size, etc. of the climbers depicted - is a perennial problem for guidebook authors. The FRCC team will have asked for photo submissions, and used the best they received (or took themselves.)
Post edited at 12:18
In reply to the negative folk
Just looked up the FRCC website.
There are 150 pages of routes in the Archive for Borrowdale.
Print them out for free, whats not to like ?
Just looked up the FRCC website.
There are 150 pages of routes in the Archive for Borrowdale.
Print them out for free, whats not to like ?
1
In reply to Rick Graham:
http://www.frcc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/The-Borrowdale-Archive-v1.... for anybody else looking.
Odd that starred routes have wound up in the archived section - an example is Vesper, as mentioned above in this thread.
> Just looked up the FRCC website.
> There are 150 pages of routes in the Archive for Borrowdale.
http://www.frcc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/The-Borrowdale-Archive-v1.... for anybody else looking.
Odd that starred routes have wound up in the archived section - an example is Vesper, as mentioned above in this thread.
In reply to Rick Graham:
Its not just the fact that its free its as much that its adaptable in the years between the paper publications. Access changes.. filthy crags get cleaned. It gives activists a chance to improve coverage and a public place to put new discoveries
Its not just the fact that its free its as much that its adaptable in the years between the paper publications. Access changes.. filthy crags get cleaned. It gives activists a chance to improve coverage and a public place to put new discoveries
1
In reply to Offwidth:
So, in the specific case of this new Borrowdale guide, how much extra content is there (as measured by routes / crags) to justify an upgrade ? I'm sure I can't be alone in thinking I can't justify an 'upgrade' just because a guide looks prettier - it needs more content, surely ?
> I'll do some sums for you. ...
So, in the specific case of this new Borrowdale guide, how much extra content is there (as measured by routes / crags) to justify an upgrade ? I'm sure I can't be alone in thinking I can't justify an 'upgrade' just because a guide looks prettier - it needs more content, surely ?
2
In reply to Offwidth:
I willingly offer my apologies to anyone on the editorial team that thinks my comments 'unfairly undermine the volunteer editorial team'. I would like to stress that my feedback is intended as constructive as opposed to personal. I stand by my earlier statement of thanks to editorial teams and do not wish for my views to be considered invidious. Similarly, Offwidth, I offer my gratitude to your guide work.
My use of Powterhow and others should reflect more of a case study and a technical exercise where I have referenced specific examples and page numbers and not a personal gripe. I hope it serves as grounds for reasoned and evidenced consideration. For balance there have also been times when I have privately questioned the inclusion of my routes in selected guides but this Borrowdale specific thread is neither the time nor the place.
The FRCC website says: 'photodiagrams for ALL CRAGS [stress added] and stunning photographs of routes – some well known and others less known but hidden classics' C.f.: http://www.frcc.co.uk/borrowdale-guide/ . Somewhat invidiously I will also mention that a well-known northern Lakes retailer mentions: 'less well-trodden places such as the Seathwaite buttresses, Combe Gill and Langstrath are given clear photoplan coverage which clarifies these complex areas of small immaculate outcrops' and that the FRCC 'was founded in 1906-07 and has been publishing a DEFINITIVE [stress added] series of climbing guidebooks to the Lakes since 1922'.
The FRCC have produced success and inspired climbers (myself included) for almost a century. The parts of the new guide that I touch upon appear to represent a radical departure from the old. My view is that the move of a number of crags to archive status means that this is not a definitive guide and one should be careful not to market it as such (for me this was a genuine surprise). My intention is to reasonably challenge without personal insult. I hope that it is taken as such.
I willingly offer my apologies to anyone on the editorial team that thinks my comments 'unfairly undermine the volunteer editorial team'. I would like to stress that my feedback is intended as constructive as opposed to personal. I stand by my earlier statement of thanks to editorial teams and do not wish for my views to be considered invidious. Similarly, Offwidth, I offer my gratitude to your guide work.
My use of Powterhow and others should reflect more of a case study and a technical exercise where I have referenced specific examples and page numbers and not a personal gripe. I hope it serves as grounds for reasoned and evidenced consideration. For balance there have also been times when I have privately questioned the inclusion of my routes in selected guides but this Borrowdale specific thread is neither the time nor the place.
The FRCC website says: 'photodiagrams for ALL CRAGS [stress added] and stunning photographs of routes – some well known and others less known but hidden classics' C.f.: http://www.frcc.co.uk/borrowdale-guide/ . Somewhat invidiously I will also mention that a well-known northern Lakes retailer mentions: 'less well-trodden places such as the Seathwaite buttresses, Combe Gill and Langstrath are given clear photoplan coverage which clarifies these complex areas of small immaculate outcrops' and that the FRCC 'was founded in 1906-07 and has been publishing a DEFINITIVE [stress added] series of climbing guidebooks to the Lakes since 1922'.
The FRCC have produced success and inspired climbers (myself included) for almost a century. The parts of the new guide that I touch upon appear to represent a radical departure from the old. My view is that the move of a number of crags to archive status means that this is not a definitive guide and one should be careful not to market it as such (for me this was a genuine surprise). My intention is to reasonably challenge without personal insult. I hope that it is taken as such.
2
In reply to GrahamD:
I think you have quite a unique view in this respect, as that is not a consideration many would have when purchasing a new guidebook - or at least not in my experience (n.b. to put this claim into context, I managed Joe Browns in Llanberis from 2006-09 and sold one or two guidebooks in my time there).
As a sweeping generalisation to what would occur, people would come in, pick up a guide, have a flick through, look at the topos, look at the pictures, check if any of the routes they'd climbed had been up or downgraded, then either buy it or put it back down.
The interesting thing is, with the Llanberis guide as an example, that most people could have made do with the 1978 guide. It has in Flying Buttress, Main Wall, Nea, Spectre, Cenotaph Corner, Left Wall, Foil, Ressurection, and Right Wall - most of the classics in fact.
So why do people buy the latest edition: is it for those esoteric routes I put up on Llechog 2007? No, because they were crap (calling one of the routes 'Missing the Point' was an clue to subsequent ascentionists mind you...).
So why? It's because it looks nice...
I think you have quite a unique view in this respect, as that is not a consideration many would have when purchasing a new guidebook - or at least not in my experience (n.b. to put this claim into context, I managed Joe Browns in Llanberis from 2006-09 and sold one or two guidebooks in my time there).
As a sweeping generalisation to what would occur, people would come in, pick up a guide, have a flick through, look at the topos, look at the pictures, check if any of the routes they'd climbed had been up or downgraded, then either buy it or put it back down.
The interesting thing is, with the Llanberis guide as an example, that most people could have made do with the 1978 guide. It has in Flying Buttress, Main Wall, Nea, Spectre, Cenotaph Corner, Left Wall, Foil, Ressurection, and Right Wall - most of the classics in fact.
So why do people buy the latest edition: is it for those esoteric routes I put up on Llechog 2007? No, because they were crap (calling one of the routes 'Missing the Point' was an clue to subsequent ascentionists mind you...).
So why? It's because it looks nice...
Post edited at 15:31
3
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:
So Im guessing that you either didn't find out what the route coverage of the new guide actually is for your review or it actually has fewer routes in it than the previous guide.
Sad old world when guidebooks (clue in the name) are all style over substance.
> I think you have quite a unique view in this respect, as that is not a consideration many would have when purchasing a new guidebook -
So Im guessing that you either didn't find out what the route coverage of the new guide actually is for your review or it actually has fewer routes in it than the previous guide.
Sad old world when guidebooks (clue in the name) are all style over substance.
9
In reply to UKC Gear:
Surely in a place like borrowdale where the routes are predominantly fairly single pitch in nature (by this I mean they are rarely much more than 2 pitches) a bigger book with better topos is preferable? If you are doing a two pitch route, you have a good old Skeg from the ground, and if you at climbing the second pitch memorise the description as best you can. The larger size and therefore topo allowing you to get a better idea of where the route goes.
Somewhere like Gogarth or Scafell or the Ben (add in or take out crags as you wish) a smaller book is preferable as it is a bt more annoying carrying a bigger book (both in terms of weight and size being a little more awkward). However I always make my second carry the guide/carry it myself when seconding so it's a bit of a moot point I guess.
with regards to some routes being missed out. I think that If they are overgrown then they should be left to continue to overgrow and as such left out of books. IF they have got into that state then they obviously aren't that good.
Got lots of routes I'd like to do in borrowdale so will probs be buying the book at some point!
Surely in a place like borrowdale where the routes are predominantly fairly single pitch in nature (by this I mean they are rarely much more than 2 pitches) a bigger book with better topos is preferable? If you are doing a two pitch route, you have a good old Skeg from the ground, and if you at climbing the second pitch memorise the description as best you can. The larger size and therefore topo allowing you to get a better idea of where the route goes.
Somewhere like Gogarth or Scafell or the Ben (add in or take out crags as you wish) a smaller book is preferable as it is a bt more annoying carrying a bigger book (both in terms of weight and size being a little more awkward). However I always make my second carry the guide/carry it myself when seconding so it's a bit of a moot point I guess.
with regards to some routes being missed out. I think that If they are overgrown then they should be left to continue to overgrow and as such left out of books. IF they have got into that state then they obviously aren't that good.
Got lots of routes I'd like to do in borrowdale so will probs be buying the book at some point!
3
1
In reply to GrahamD:
I think you and I are just interested in very different things when it comes to guidebooks and guidebook reviews. If the likes/dislikes are anything to go by too then I'm not on my own either, which reassures me somewhat.
I'll leave you there for now, lest we continue to go round in circles.
I think you and I are just interested in very different things when it comes to guidebooks and guidebook reviews. If the likes/dislikes are anything to go by too then I'm not on my own either, which reassures me somewhat.
I'll leave you there for now, lest we continue to go round in circles.
3
1
In reply to Duncan Campbell:
Really? Raven Crag? Black Crag? (To merely name two popular venues.)
> Surely in a place like borrowdale where the routes are predominantly fairly single pitch in nature ...
Really? Raven Crag? Black Crag? (To merely name two popular venues.)
2
2
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:
Does anyone actually have the information on the route coverage relative to the old book ? surely that can't be that unusual a request ?
Does anyone actually have the information on the route coverage relative to the old book ? surely that can't be that unusual a request ?
1
In reply to UKC Gear:
Wow. I'm *shocked* at how much debate the new A5 format (and Rob's review) has stimulated... and all because of a difference of 150g.
If 150g (plus a little extra bulk) makes that much difference to the quality of seconding a climb, I think you're mad, and that you should have chosen a different route.
Also, GrahamD, anyone that actually cares that much about route coverage relative to the old book is likely to have both guides anyway.
Wow. I'm *shocked* at how much debate the new A5 format (and Rob's review) has stimulated... and all because of a difference of 150g.
If 150g (plus a little extra bulk) makes that much difference to the quality of seconding a climb, I think you're mad, and that you should have chosen a different route.
Also, GrahamD, anyone that actually cares that much about route coverage relative to the old book is likely to have both guides anyway.
Post edited at 17:17
6
In reply to penny.orr:
Err no. I would hope a review would tell me whether there was anything new before buying the guide. I've plenty of duplicate guides where the new one offers something new but I'm not buying one for the pretty pictures
Err no. I would hope a review would tell me whether there was anything new before buying the guide. I've plenty of duplicate guides where the new one offers something new but I'm not buying one for the pretty pictures
7
In reply to GrahamD:
A quick google "frcc borrowdale guide " suggests over 350 new routes according to hit 12 by Ellis Brighams.
Does that help?
Edit I could count them myself, having both the latest editions. but TBH CBA.
I was intrigued enough however to weight my copies.
old 441g
new 542g
I must admit some nostalgia for the old format, but as I already know where most routes go, my opinion is not so important!
A quick google "frcc borrowdale guide " suggests over 350 new routes according to hit 12 by Ellis Brighams.
Does that help?
Edit I could count them myself, having both the latest editions. but TBH CBA.
I was intrigued enough however to weight my copies.
old 441g
new 542g
I must admit some nostalgia for the old format, but as I already know where most routes go, my opinion is not so important!
Post edited at 18:24
1
In reply to UKC Gear: Well to sum up having had conversations with other "Borrowdale " climbers .. (some have responded on these pages). they are not too bothered about the size of the guide...although that is a problem.. but all are very disappointed with the contents. Quite a lot of two star and other good climbs have been omitted from this guide as well as crags. One crag for example is omitted and banished to the archives that is described as steep clean but short . However no shorter and in some cases longer than the many new climbs on mini crags introduced by the guide book writers and friends !. Some climbs have incorrect descriptions that were correct in the 2000 Borrowdale guide. I feel its a shame that history has been replaced by poised photos and in one case lots of room for an obscure sport bolted slate quarry. If some of the photos had been left out there would have been more than enough space to make this guide definitive and allowed climbers to judge for themselves what is worthwhile and in some cases cleaned them if that was needed.. Here are a FEW of the climbs that have been banished>>> On Eagle Crag two starred The Sprogg and The Great Stairand The Girdle of Eagle described as a fine expedition ,probably the best girdle in Borrowdale.. Vesper and the full girdle of Shepherds Crag . Several two and three star routes on Paper Crag .. two star White Buttress and everything else on the 200' Walla Crag ...even the first ever climb in Borrowdale by the Abraham Brothers Walla Crag Gully has no mention ... yes scruffy but a bit of history gone.There are lots more that could have at least had a mention compared to some of the "new" mini climbs that have appeared in this new guide. I've lost over 30 climbs ... poor old Bonners has lost all his first ascents. Perhaps the guide writers did not like these climbs but for history sake perhaps a brief mention would have compensated us old buggers and the rest of the disgruntled Borrowdale crag rats. ..
5
In reply to UKC Gear:
Best thing about the new Borrowdale guide are the photo topos - these were much needed. Also like the graded list.
Bit disappointing for me as a whole though:
Some odd choices for route archiving e.g. Milk and Cream at Shepherds homogenised into one route - these are two worthwhile routes at the valley's most popular crag...
Uninspiring photos - surely this is the easy bit -just ask people to send their best ones in?
Typos - lots of El 5b instead of E1 5b - sloppy!
Anyway, said my bit
Best thing about the new Borrowdale guide are the photo topos - these were much needed. Also like the graded list.
Bit disappointing for me as a whole though:
Some odd choices for route archiving e.g. Milk and Cream at Shepherds homogenised into one route - these are two worthwhile routes at the valley's most popular crag...
Uninspiring photos - surely this is the easy bit -just ask people to send their best ones in?
Typos - lots of El 5b instead of E1 5b - sloppy!
Anyway, said my bit
In reply to USBRIT:
Yea excellent point about Walla crag - it's the first big crag you see driving up the valley and it's not in the guide!!!
Yea excellent point about Walla crag - it's the first big crag you see driving up the valley and it's not in the guide!!!
In reply to UKC Gear:
I don't understand the enthusiasm for photographing a copy of the route onto your phone. Phones are easily damaged, easily dropped, susceptible to damp, and difficult to read in sunshine. If you need to do that it suggests the paper guide isn't fit for purpose. However if that is your preference, why not buy the app rather than the paper guide?
A5 is better for browsing in the pub, and perhaps most importantly in the shop, but a smaller format is more convenient at the crag. It's not so much the additional weight but the additional bulk. Of course it is the content which is most important, and if you need a Borrowdale guide then you have to buy what's on offer, whether or not you like the format. What is impossible to know is how many will be put off upgrading from an older version by the larger size.
I don't understand the enthusiasm for photographing a copy of the route onto your phone. Phones are easily damaged, easily dropped, susceptible to damp, and difficult to read in sunshine. If you need to do that it suggests the paper guide isn't fit for purpose. However if that is your preference, why not buy the app rather than the paper guide?
A5 is better for browsing in the pub, and perhaps most importantly in the shop, but a smaller format is more convenient at the crag. It's not so much the additional weight but the additional bulk. Of course it is the content which is most important, and if you need a Borrowdale guide then you have to buy what's on offer, whether or not you like the format. What is impossible to know is how many will be put off upgrading from an older version by the larger size.
In reply to USBRIT:
US - agree with a lot you say, I give the guide ten out of ten, but I do agree about Walla and other missed routes. We cleaned and climbed White Buttress a few years back - fantastic route, great crag - Blazing Apostles is good.
Perhaps it is time for PR to produce another guide?!
DC
US - agree with a lot you say, I give the guide ten out of ten, but I do agree about Walla and other missed routes. We cleaned and climbed White Buttress a few years back - fantastic route, great crag - Blazing Apostles is good.
Perhaps it is time for PR to produce another guide?!
DC
In reply to Howard J:
So which (to be conservative) fifth of the current content would you sacrifice to achieve this? From some of the comments above about missed crags and routes it looks like A5 is a bit more of a necessity in the case of this guidebook than an experiment; to retain the maximal printed section of the guide in one volume. It seems like the editors had a pretty thankless task in this tricky game of balance of what was in and what was online. I'm not as pessimistic about online stuff as some here... its free ... and keen activists won't dissapear.
As for phone photos, its like the discussion above with Graham never happened!?
So which (to be conservative) fifth of the current content would you sacrifice to achieve this? From some of the comments above about missed crags and routes it looks like A5 is a bit more of a necessity in the case of this guidebook than an experiment; to retain the maximal printed section of the guide in one volume. It seems like the editors had a pretty thankless task in this tricky game of balance of what was in and what was online. I'm not as pessimistic about online stuff as some here... its free ... and keen activists won't dissapear.
As for phone photos, its like the discussion above with Graham never happened!?
1
In reply to USBRIT:
It's odd how obscure bolted quarries in otherwise trad areas can end up so unexpectedly busy. Inclusion in a guidebook area getting very tight on space is not about any particular individual opinion but a weighted average of opinions of likely purchasers. In their shoes I almost certainly would have included the bolt routes.
It's odd how obscure bolted quarries in otherwise trad areas can end up so unexpectedly busy. Inclusion in a guidebook area getting very tight on space is not about any particular individual opinion but a weighted average of opinions of likely purchasers. In their shoes I almost certainly would have included the bolt routes.
1
In reply to USBRIT:
Christmas Crag it has to be admitted is a bit of a joke - twenty-odd routes. There are only five decent lines worth doing or recording.
I guess non-guidebook archived routes like White Buttress will become valuable collectors items now.
DC
Christmas Crag it has to be admitted is a bit of a joke - twenty-odd routes. There are only five decent lines worth doing or recording.
I guess non-guidebook archived routes like White Buttress will become valuable collectors items now.
DC
1
In reply to 3leggeddog:
True but I've seen plenty of traffic on bolted mediocre rock in the Peak whilst some high quality starred trad gets dirty and/or overgrown. Is this really that different?
This is serious stuff. The fact that an open request for crag action shots raised so few photographs of younger or female climbers is another bad sign. If we are not careful the trad future will largely be wilting in the background of arguments between old men. Guidebooks need to sell well not just to guide but to enthuse and inspire the next generations. Filling them with wilful obscurity and crap for the sake of being definitive (a state no guidebook ever acheived in any case) is daft in the internet age when online support is a much better home for ongoing activist projects and the paper guide is very much a disrupted form. I dont know the Borrowdale area so well to judge how well they have done but I do admire the YMC guides... older grumblies like me lived partly in the main history of development, new climbers need to see what all the fuss was about so trad has a safe future. Guidebooks need to be vivid celebrations of trad rock and that needs space that necessitated the coverage of the least good climbing getting compresssed or moved online.
True but I've seen plenty of traffic on bolted mediocre rock in the Peak whilst some high quality starred trad gets dirty and/or overgrown. Is this really that different?
This is serious stuff. The fact that an open request for crag action shots raised so few photographs of younger or female climbers is another bad sign. If we are not careful the trad future will largely be wilting in the background of arguments between old men. Guidebooks need to sell well not just to guide but to enthuse and inspire the next generations. Filling them with wilful obscurity and crap for the sake of being definitive (a state no guidebook ever acheived in any case) is daft in the internet age when online support is a much better home for ongoing activist projects and the paper guide is very much a disrupted form. I dont know the Borrowdale area so well to judge how well they have done but I do admire the YMC guides... older grumblies like me lived partly in the main history of development, new climbers need to see what all the fuss was about so trad has a safe future. Guidebooks need to be vivid celebrations of trad rock and that needs space that necessitated the coverage of the least good climbing getting compresssed or moved online.
Post edited at 13:26
2
In reply to Offwidth:
I did not say that the mini quarry sport routes should be excluded just that several pages are given to this damp quarry in preference to many two star 200' trad routes and clean stared 390' to 1500' girdle traverses as well as whole crags. .I did think Borrowdale was considered a trad climbing area. Its surprising that in the USA much more respect is given to first ascents and the history of such than in the UK.For several years now the FRCC has ignored and at times removing first ascent descriptions or changing or adding them to other nearby climbs with little or no reference to the original ascents. I always thought we could trust the FRCC to be the recorder of the rock climbing history in the English Lake District .....Yes I guess times change..
I did not say that the mini quarry sport routes should be excluded just that several pages are given to this damp quarry in preference to many two star 200' trad routes and clean stared 390' to 1500' girdle traverses as well as whole crags. .I did think Borrowdale was considered a trad climbing area. Its surprising that in the USA much more respect is given to first ascents and the history of such than in the UK.For several years now the FRCC has ignored and at times removing first ascent descriptions or changing or adding them to other nearby climbs with little or no reference to the original ascents. I always thought we could trust the FRCC to be the recorder of the rock climbing history in the English Lake District .....Yes I guess times change..
1
In reply to USBRIT:
Lets look at that USA respect. A good few world class places in the SW USA I've climbed at don't even have a guidebook; in JT the immense three volume refresh project stalled after volume 1. My camera and Mountain Project are too often the only option. The guides that are modern and in print are even less definitive than the UK ones. We are really lucky to have the likes of the FRCC producing definitives but we won't have them much longer in the internet age if paper guides don't sell because they are packed with stuff that should be online. I'm not saying they wont have made mistakes.... (I made quite a few but in good faith and in complex cirumstances working with an ever changing team).
Dismal bolted quarries are an odd sub-game I never really understood but others are clearly desperate for sport given the traffic places I regard as pretty dire often get and that traffic often shows inclusion won't hinder sales.
You are also a bit rude with your Borrowdale climbers point: the FRCC teams are also local activists and they clearly have a different view and the real Borrowdale climbers who matter are the masses who purchase most of the volumes. As for the FRCC activists, these are volunteers giving up huge amounts of their time for the good of climbing... I have a lot of time for them.. especially as they seem genuiniely forward looking with things like the A5 experiment in an over tight volume and the Wired idea. Do you really think Borrowdale could sell a pair of volumes as an alternative (smaller and everything you wanted in)?
Almost forgot the history point... genuinely important routes need proper respect but most FAs are not history in any significant way ... I'm happy the best climbing takes precedence in this latter group (but would prefer the original lines to be recorded somewhere in the description footnotes or FA lists) .
Lets look at that USA respect. A good few world class places in the SW USA I've climbed at don't even have a guidebook; in JT the immense three volume refresh project stalled after volume 1. My camera and Mountain Project are too often the only option. The guides that are modern and in print are even less definitive than the UK ones. We are really lucky to have the likes of the FRCC producing definitives but we won't have them much longer in the internet age if paper guides don't sell because they are packed with stuff that should be online. I'm not saying they wont have made mistakes.... (I made quite a few but in good faith and in complex cirumstances working with an ever changing team).
Dismal bolted quarries are an odd sub-game I never really understood but others are clearly desperate for sport given the traffic places I regard as pretty dire often get and that traffic often shows inclusion won't hinder sales.
You are also a bit rude with your Borrowdale climbers point: the FRCC teams are also local activists and they clearly have a different view and the real Borrowdale climbers who matter are the masses who purchase most of the volumes. As for the FRCC activists, these are volunteers giving up huge amounts of their time for the good of climbing... I have a lot of time for them.. especially as they seem genuiniely forward looking with things like the A5 experiment in an over tight volume and the Wired idea. Do you really think Borrowdale could sell a pair of volumes as an alternative (smaller and everything you wanted in)?
Almost forgot the history point... genuinely important routes need proper respect but most FAs are not history in any significant way ... I'm happy the best climbing takes precedence in this latter group (but would prefer the original lines to be recorded somewhere in the description footnotes or FA lists) .
Post edited at 14:18
In reply to UKC Gear:
Would have liked to know more about the book. Couldn't care less about the reviewer's PC credentials or whether he thinks the book is PC enough.
Would have liked to know more about the book. Couldn't care less about the reviewer's PC credentials or whether he thinks the book is PC enough.
1
4
In reply to Offwidth:
This is a stupid claim, which ought to be withdrawn.
There are valid and constructive criticisms to be had here; nobody is 'undermining' anybody or anything.
> "... even if you are completely right you unfairly undermine the volunteer editorial team ..."
This is a stupid claim, which ought to be withdrawn.
There are valid and constructive criticisms to be had here; nobody is 'undermining' anybody or anything.
2
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I'm hoping this a sign how much you care about Borrowdale as it's obvious this is a pretty emotive topic. However, if you are going to quote and call something stupid, and demand it's withdrawn, at least include the rest of the sentence and preferably the context. Its not true and so not fair to imply crags are abandoned when included in online support (something well established in UK guides) many modern guidebooks are bigger than the paper volume including the praised YMC.
http://www.theleedswall.co.uk/cms/index.php/new-routes/downloads
I'm hoping this a sign how much you care about Borrowdale as it's obvious this is a pretty emotive topic. However, if you are going to quote and call something stupid, and demand it's withdrawn, at least include the rest of the sentence and preferably the context. Its not true and so not fair to imply crags are abandoned when included in online support (something well established in UK guides) many modern guidebooks are bigger than the paper volume including the praised YMC.
http://www.theleedswall.co.uk/cms/index.php/new-routes/downloads
Post edited at 22:46
In reply to Rick Graham:
Unless I am seriously misreading it that looks like a review of the 2000 edition which certainly did have a lot more in it than the previous one (350 routes is actually a hell of a lot more !). I've not managed to unearth anything comparing 2016 with 2000.
> A quick google "frcc borrowdale guide " suggests over 350 new routes according to hit 12 by Ellis Brighams.
Unless I am seriously misreading it that looks like a review of the 2000 edition which certainly did have a lot more in it than the previous one (350 routes is actually a hell of a lot more !). I've not managed to unearth anything comparing 2016 with 2000.
In reply to UKC Gear:
with risk of starting a debate that has been several times before but having recently bought the guide it is great and modern addition to my lakes collection (it covers the major crag not yet developed in my old guide of Sargent's crags) but it has a major flaw that I'm surprised no one else seems to have mentioned. This is that the most popular crags in the valley (shepherd's crag) is described back to front, from right to left a format that is counter intuitive no mater which way you approach a crag and especially so with modern photo topos which makes finding routes longer more difficult and frustrating, when will the FRCC learn this!! (at least the CC largely have stopped doing this) Usability flaws like this just leaves the door open for a more user friendly selective guide which I expect will appear at some point from other guide book producers.
with risk of starting a debate that has been several times before but having recently bought the guide it is great and modern addition to my lakes collection (it covers the major crag not yet developed in my old guide of Sargent's crags) but it has a major flaw that I'm surprised no one else seems to have mentioned. This is that the most popular crags in the valley (shepherd's crag) is described back to front, from right to left a format that is counter intuitive no mater which way you approach a crag and especially so with modern photo topos which makes finding routes longer more difficult and frustrating, when will the FRCC learn this!! (at least the CC largely have stopped doing this) Usability flaws like this just leaves the door open for a more user friendly selective guide which I expect will appear at some point from other guide book producers.
1
In reply to Graeme Hammond:
Really? I much prefer guidebooks to be ordered according to how I approach the crag and don't find it counter-intuitive at all.
> from right to left a format that is counter intuitive no mater which way you approach a crag
Really? I much prefer guidebooks to be ordered according to how I approach the crag and don't find it counter-intuitive at all.
In reply to Offwidth:
The recent Yorkshire Grit books come pretty close. Certainly the crags that I wrote up, everything is mentioned, even if just in passing. And I've not yet found anything obvious or unobvious missing (apart from one at Deer Gallows which the author thought was a duplicate but turns out not to be).
> I sometime wonder what the most definitive guidebook ever produced was. I can't think of one that was even close to being fully definitive
The recent Yorkshire Grit books come pretty close. Certainly the crags that I wrote up, everything is mentioned, even if just in passing. And I've not yet found anything obvious or unobvious missing (apart from one at Deer Gallows which the author thought was a duplicate but turns out not to be).
In reply to UKC Gear:
A lot of the "missing routes" controversy could have been avoided by giving them a mention and pointing at the online archive for details. Anyone interested could print off appropriate sections before a visit. Though the archive could do with tidying up somewhat and also given a more prominent link from the FRCC site.
Entire missing crags could have been indicated on the maps.
It's a shame that some of the space saved by these omissions was left blank, or used for photo topos too small to be of any use (eg the short routes at the left end of Raven Crag).
Glad you couldn't work out the satnav coordinates either, I thought it was me being dense! My guess was that they've missed off the degrees and just given minutes and seconds, but I've not got round to checking.
None of the above, or my observations on the earlier thread, are intended to belittle the work of the authors, but how are they/we supposed to improve if nobody mentions things they don't like?
As regards the size, I don't mind it much for Borrowdale, and the introduction to the book suggests that they won't be using it for other areas. I just hope they stick to that!
A lot of the "missing routes" controversy could have been avoided by giving them a mention and pointing at the online archive for details. Anyone interested could print off appropriate sections before a visit. Though the archive could do with tidying up somewhat and also given a more prominent link from the FRCC site.
Entire missing crags could have been indicated on the maps.
It's a shame that some of the space saved by these omissions was left blank, or used for photo topos too small to be of any use (eg the short routes at the left end of Raven Crag).
Glad you couldn't work out the satnav coordinates either, I thought it was me being dense! My guess was that they've missed off the degrees and just given minutes and seconds, but I've not got round to checking.
None of the above, or my observations on the earlier thread, are intended to belittle the work of the authors, but how are they/we supposed to improve if nobody mentions things they don't like?
As regards the size, I don't mind it much for Borrowdale, and the introduction to the book suggests that they won't be using it for other areas. I just hope they stick to that!
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
might sound odd but although I like the book and format I don't feel it is chunky enough to justify the A5 format, would have make something similar in thickness to the langdale guide in the smaller form?
might sound odd but although I like the book and format I don't feel it is chunky enough to justify the A5 format, would have make something similar in thickness to the langdale guide in the smaller form?
1
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Anyone whoever mistakenly claimed the grade for an almscliff boulder problem on yorkshiregrit.com with their feet 6 inches left or right of the prescribed holds knows that there's no such thing as a definitive guide to Yorkshire bouldering.
Anyone whoever mistakenly claimed the grade for an almscliff boulder problem on yorkshiregrit.com with their feet 6 inches left or right of the prescribed holds knows that there's no such thing as a definitive guide to Yorkshire bouldering.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...