I was looking at 3D topo representations (see thread posted previously to this) and after climbing at Polldubh on one of it's more densely climbed crags and becoming quite confused about where routes went and what was in or out (not helped by the SMC photo swapping Tea Boy and SW2) I thought a line is really a poor way of representing a climb, although probably the only clear way on a piece of paper. With the web, where we can show each climb one at a time, I thought perhaps an area or band showing what was 'in' might be better. Here's my attempt at this for SW Buttress. I'd hope to layer this over a 3D graphic (see note at bottom or previous thread).
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/swbuttress
Here's the 3D model (CPU intensive - probably won't work on some phones)
https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/glen-nevis-polldubh-sw-buttress-00aed71b34a...
Thoughts?
Without meaning to be negative, lines on photos in books work fine as far as I am concerned. Isnt the most interesting point of climbing actually working out the intricacies for yourself?
I do wonder if climbers' obsession with 'smart' phone technology will ultimately end up with a sat nav set up for approaching, selecting and actually climbing the route.
> Without meaning to be negative, lines on photos in books work fine as far as I am concerned. Isnt the most interesting point of climbing actually working out the intricacies for yourself?
I think the difficulty of that approach is that it doesn't allow for the growing number of eliminate lines, particularly in bouldering, which sometimes could be very hard to describe/specify by text alone. I'm not a fan of climbing such things but I can see the advantage of an area-based rather than line-based approach for those that are.
> Without meaning to be negative, lines on photos in books work fine as far as I am concerned. Isnt the most interesting point of climbing actually working out the intricacies for yourself?
> I do wonder if climbers' obsession with 'smart' phone technology will ultimately end up with a sat nav set up for approaching, selecting and actually climbing the route.
They already do. The SMC book has map coordinates that you can use your GPS directly from. UKC has photos that often show the climbers gear showing placements. You can watch videos on YouTube of people climbing the route. Interviews with climbers describe the grade of boulder problem into a font grade runout and point out broken holds.
There are even forums online that people can browse on their phones and ask pertinent (or 'im-') questions.
The great thing is, you can ignore it all if you like!
This is awesome. Looks really smooth. I did similar a year or two ago with the Ben and Creag Mhor Bhrinicoire (of all places...) Never got much beyond a semi-filled in point cloud, just enough to export and get it on Sketchfab.
I also wondered about using these visualisation with route lines; the ability to click on them etc.
Maybe we could go even further and actually paint all the permissable holds on each route in a different colour so then all the people who only climb indoors because they can't work out which holds to use (yes, I've actually overheard someone say that) can discover the spirit of adventure, discovery and self reliance that underpins our sport. Or maybe not.
A few years ago I tried to use a 2 inch high black and white line drawing to climb a 13 pitch route in Norway. After struggling to make much sense of it for the first few pitches I put the book away and just followed my nose which turned out to be much easier and more fun.
At some point you have to learn to use your brain.
> Maybe we could go even further and actually paint all the permissable holds on each route in a different colour so then all the people who only climb indoors because they can't work out which holds to use (yes, I've actually overheard someone say that) can discover the spirit of adventure, discovery and self reliance that underpins our sport. Or maybe not.
> A few years ago I tried to use a 2 inch high black and white line drawing to climb a 13 pitch route in Norway. After struggling to make much sense of it for the first few pitches I put the book away and just followed my nose which turned out to be much easier and more fun.
> At some point you have to learn to use your brain.
And I agree - sometimes I want to do that, sometimes I want to know I'm on the same route I've read about or had recommended, sometimes I don't want to end up in a chossy dead end in the mountains. Choice is good (hence why we have photo topos instead of just book descriptions). People climb for different reasons and I presume this means they may have different requirements.
p.s. I still like the idea of walking up to a crag without any guide and just trying out what looks interesting. Finding out what I've climbed later may be something I'd like as well.
There are certain times I would have absolutely killed for GPS coordinates for a boulder or route. Nothing like traipsing around a bracken covered tor getting bitten by ticks, trying to follow someone's crappy attempt at a map. Nowadays we all have GPS in our pocket there's really no reason every single entry on ukc shouldn't have coordinates.
Agreed. If people would prefer to tarps round a bog all day in the spirit of "adventure", then just don't use the GPS.
If you need telling what holds are in, it's a shit route.
The other day I got lost on route. Why did this happen? I didn't bother to read the description.
> If you need telling what holds are in, it's a shit route.
Top out of Rhapsody?
It’s virtually eliminate with an obvious top out you don’t take etc. Hence it’s shit? I’m just working out which obvious classics need reassessing.
> It’s virtually eliminate with an obvious top out you don’t take etc. Hence it’s shit? I’m just working out which obvious classics need reassessing.
I'm not qualified to assess the quality of that route, but if I had what it takes to climb at that level, then no, a short direct finish to a route in an urban shithole wouldn't be where I'd direct my efforts. Great if it's your local project and you're making a historic contribution to a significant venue on your home turf - there's no knocking it.
But in terms of personal inspiration, eliminates at Dumby isn't really the well I draw from when considering quality routes I'd like to climb.
> I'm not qualified to assess the quality of that route, but if I had what it takes to climb at that level, then no, a short direct finish to a route in an urban shithole wouldn't be where I'd direct my efforts. Great if it's your local project and you're making a historic contribution to a significant venue on your home turf - there's no knocking it.
> But in terms of personal inspiration, eliminates at Dumby isn't really the well I draw from when considering quality routes I'd like to climb.
Have you climbed at Dumbarton? Half of West Scotland's climbing contingent hangs out there regularly, and not because it's a shithole.
I write and publish climbing guidebooks in British Columbia. The terrain can be complex and below treelike... well, forested which can make locating crags tricky. In my recent editions I've added GPS coordinates for all the crags. In the past I used hand drawn topos. But now have gravitated to lines on photographs. Drones have become invaluable for this as they allow vantage points that get around the trees and the craned neck perspective of photos taken at ground level.
Another vote in favour of Dumby.
Its a crag of contrast. Most definitely urban, but with a heart of gold. Locals have always been chatty, friendly and keen to show you around. The rock type lends itself towards fantastically subtle and intricate climbing, even if it is covered in graffiti (which it isn’t now anyway). Finally, when the sun comes round in the evening the whole place lights up with a warm, summery glow which reflects off the Clyde giving you a magnificent sunset.
A shithole it most certainly isn’t, or at least if it is then so is Millstone (which - dare I say it - has much less character than Dumby does).
> Have you climbed at Dumbarton?
Got out of the car to have a look.
> Half of West Scotland's climbing contingent hangs out there regularly, and not because it's a shithole.
Because it's convenient! It's a major urban venue, so of course it's both popular and scruffy. I'd climb there if I lived in West Scotland - where else would I go, apart from some other dogshit quarry?
There's not much point in having an argument about whether places like Avon and Dumby are shite or not, cause I can see the appeal for locals, but considering that I don't live near them, I'm never going to climb at them when I can go to the mountains or sea cliffs instead.
So given you think all climbs should be blatantly obvious, what do you do when there are two lines that go near each other, one in a crack and one on a face but they're within reach? The crack isn't clearly defined so how do you know what parts of the crack offshoots are in according to the person who first climbed it? Or are you happy to just make it up? Nothing wrong with just guessing but some people might want to know with a bit more clarity.
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/smc-polldubh-swbuttress.JPG
e.g. Your climbing SW Diagonal, one of the classic small crag traverses in Lochaber. What does it mean to climb the crack? Can you use holds above it? Can I traverse underneath it? Do I have to keep one hand on the crack at all times? If I'm tall enough can I walk along the ground (or is one cm above OK if I keep my heels up?) Can I use protection well above it where the crack has none? Is anything OK as long as I end up at the top left of the crag?
All this probably seems over-analytical but are you just making up your own climb if you don't know? This doesn't really matter if you're just having fun (which we had in buckets) but when two people compare what they did and imagine the FFA behind them tutting, you can see where I'm coming from? (I know you probably won't).
I'm quite happy to just move onto the next climb but as these thoughts went through my head while climbing and then when I was making the model and wanted to annotate it, they came up again, I thought they might be relevant.
How do you define what's' in' an area and can you have overlaps? It's just a thicker line! ? A line for the general line of the route + a description works for the vast majority of routes and even without ie sport topos, still generally works.
> How do you define what's' in' an area and can you have overlaps? It's just a thicker line! ? A line for the general line of the route + a description works for the vast majority of routes and even without ie sport topos, still generally works.
I agree, but it’s the not generally I’m talking about and it’s precisely because there are overlaps in routes already that i’m Interested. I can live without it and obviously will have to but just like when photos were introduced someone had to ask “is it useful?”
> How do you define what's' in' an area and can you have overlaps? It's just a thicker line! ? A line for the general line of the route + a description works for the vast majority of routes and even without ie sport topos, still generally works.
https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rock_talk/roaches_-_diamond_wednesday-721...
I am not paying you for plugging the thread I started 😁
Edit: for your next project, I know it's a bit more complicated, but a 3D view of Carn Dearg buttress on the Ben would be rather excellent.
> I am not paying you for plugging the thread I started 😁
> Edit: for your next project, I know it's a bit more complicated, but a 3D view of Carn Dearg buttress on the Ben would be rather excellent.
Completely agree, I think it should be easier in many ways but just take a bit longer. Finding a day when there is low wind and nobody around to annoy would be the biggest challenge
I'll probably camp overnight to do that one.
Tim
In reality, half the routes on that buttress are so eliminate they shouldn't really have been recorded as new routes and are a bit pointless. Much of the buttresses at Polldubh are the same and will only create nightmare situations for future guidebook writers and editors in not really knowing what uses parts of other routes and what doesn't. An example of this is Resurrection and its left hand variant, Revelation which is so close to the parent route (1m or less the whole way!) that it's useless recording it as new and should really only ever have been mentioned as a variant in the guide.
In regards to not knowing what holds to use on such small pieces of rock, past experience would be my answer rather than chunking bigger lines together. If it feels like HVS,5b then you've probably used the right holds, if it feels harder then you've probably not used enough. This is only made harder to decide when people add tiny variations to lines which are so close together that it's a struggle to know what's in and what's not, those routes really don't need to be recorded.
I'd also argue that Tear is definitely not 4c
Occasional vagueness v the vast majority
Agreed - I was talking to Dave Cuthbertson about it and he wondered whether Tea Boy should have been added (and Look No Book as well, presumably). Then again Tee is pretty odd as well (VS 5b with no gear until after the crux ?) and that's one of the Mike Hall originals with SW2. He also mentioned Resurrection/Revelation issues (I was there last week and wondered how two climbs can sit there? Are you supposed to ignore the crack for protection?)
Tear is not 4c in reality but I'd argue that the single move is now pretty close to 4c with polish (if scratch is 4c next to it anyway, which seems easier than that single move to me). I don't have enough experience to say for sure, Cubby didn't correct me though - mind you he's far too polite.
I think half the problem is trying to work out what the lines on the photo are supposed to represent. It gets confusing when you have four guides for the same crag showing completely differently. e.g. the following compares the SMC with Ed Grindley's book (red is Ed, yellow is SMC).
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/grindley-vs-smc.jpg
The final parts of SW2 (5b) in Grindley's follows the big crack and Scratch (4c) follows the small crack. I presume in reality you'd use the big crack for Scratch as it's sitting right next to your hands but this would have meant have the two lines showing the route overlapping.
You'll have to excuse me, this is me discovering all this for the first time and I presume pretty soon the usual route is 'ah f*ck it, I'll read the description and work it out for myself'.
I was hoping that there might be a better way
Tim
> Occasional vagueness v the vast majority
It must just be the crags I'm climbing, happened in Norway too
Absolutely, I often spend quite some time trying to figure out what is "in", to have full confidence that i'm not cheating the route.
If a route can be drawn as an area, is it a route or a boulder?
It depends. I would have thought a longer route has more scope for variation without veering onto other routes or easier areas and is more area like. A boulder is probably a lot more defined as to the exact way it should be done and what to avoid. Harder routes probably need more boundaries to define what's not in (they're probably not great routes if escape is so close but there are a few classics like this).
Mostly it depends on how eliminate you consider them. People talk about having an 'adventure' and I think having an area defined gives you more scope for this than a line, but also tells you what is 'out' and prevents you getting lost or onto dangerous areas.
there are a few reasons i personally use guidebooks/apps. one is for easy reference in finding a climb up a boulder within my current ability level without having to go out and climb them all myself and document it. another is to compare my abilities with that of others. another is a hobby of ticking things of in the book. this is what i enjoy. if an area rather than a line helps me acheive this then why not.
I like this idea and I could see it being super super useful to highlight descent routes. Too often on big crags are the descents just - do 4 abseils down here.
If you could pinpoint ab anchors and make the descent safer, I for one would be very keen on this.
I do think the line represents routes well enough though, as when people climb the route they will invariably take slightly different routes. And in the end does it even matter?
> I like this idea and I could see it being super super useful to highlight descent routes. Too often on big crags are the descents just - do 4 abseils down here.
> If you could pinpoint ab anchors and make the descent safer, I for one would be very keen on this.
Sounds good
> I do think the line represents routes well enough though, as when people climb the route they will invariably take slightly different routes. And in the end does it even matter?
Absolutely - but often it's "did I got off route" rather than "am I climbing exactly the right route"
The second BMC Members Open Forum webinar took place on 20 March. Recently-appointed BMC CEO Paul Ratcliffe, President Andy Syme and Chair Roger Murray shared updates on staff changes, new and ongoing initiatives, insurance policy changes and the current...