In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
> There is a difference between listing all the routes, as done in many places, and just having a single line mentioning that routes have been climbed, which would serve the purpose you quote for a mysterious bit of rock which might be worth exploring, or not.
That's a good point. I guess, on reflection, I actually value the completeness of the record when it comes at such a low space cost. I wouldn't support adding entire mediocre venues because the page space to value ratio isn't favourable enough but I like the completeness when it can be achieved at little cost.
> Having said that, I agree that this text is nice to read in some places however I go back to my point that the books are stuck halfway between something trying to be definitive and something more selective.
Undeniably true but it doesn't actually seem like a problem to me. For a local who likes limestone, as I do, the BMC "definitives" definitely add substantial value over the Rockfax selective. (For the avoidance of doubt, that's absolutely not a dig at Rockfax. I climbed very happily with your selective for several years and now I'm delighted to have more to go at.)
On the other hand, it's clearly not possible for them to be truly definitive, either in terms of book space or author time and effort (the latter remaining a problem even if some sections went online). A halfway house seems both inevitable and desirable to me, though I'm sure there will always be those who would prefer a slightly different balance in one direction or another. To my mind, they've got it about right. Though I guess I have very little idea what I'm missing out on, in terms of omissions from the guide.