UKH

Kalymnos Climbing Debacle!!

So, as some of you may have been reading on various Facebook posts, the names of quite a lot of routes are being changed.
The main reason for this is a childish, churlish reaction to the new rockfax guide by Chris Craggs to Kalymnos, the main idea is to change the name on the rock and the Rockfax guide is redundant (ish)!
Not only are they changing names on the rock they are swapping names about, leading to confusion and differing pitch lengths which is an accident waiting to happen if your rope isn't the correct length!
This is TOTALLY unacceptable behaviour from Claude Idoux, together with Aris Theodoropoulos who I'm not afraid to name as the protaganist's in this ridiculous action.
Gentlemen PLEASE I implore you both to stop this ill conceived action, you will put a lot of people off coming to this wonderfull climbers paradise and worse you are putting people, fellow climbers at risk.

We need to STOP the ill and bitter feelings of resentment, jealousy and egomania that has blighted the "behind the scenes" bolting efforts of various visiting equippers.

In reply to andyb211:

How much money from sales of the Rockfax guidebook have RF put back into the local bolting fund? I know they have contributed elsewhere and that the page here https://www.rockfax.com/climbing-guides/books/kalymnos/ according to google used to say 'Rockfax make a donation from each copy sold from this web site to the' (as of 3rd May 2018) but I can't find any further references.

I'm sure someone from RF will be along soon to set the record straight.

 

In reply to Roberttaylor:

From the horses mouth €1000.00 has been passed to the Glaros bolt fund.

 

In reply to andyb211:

Bolt fund contributions (or lack of them) are a complete red herring here.

I have said in other threads that I disapprove of the totally unnecessary RF guide. However I am even more appalled by the reaction of  those who are changing route names to deliberately confuse things, especially if pitch lengths are getting confused. As the OP says, if climbers don't know the length of rope needed to get down safely it becomes an accident waiting to happen and those responsible are playing Russian Roulette with the safety of visiting climbers. Their beef is with Rockfax and Chris, not with innocent visitors. Take it up with them but stop endangering other climbers.

I love Kaly and have been many times but  this sort of stupidity makes me wonder if it is not time to move on somewhere else

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

I wouldn't say this is a dangerous act. If we all climb correctly with the end of the rope knotted, there is no problem. 

It may lead to a few abandoned crabs or maillons when someone inadvertently bites off more than they can chew. A fairly run of the mill activity. 

I share your discomfort with the rockfax business model. There are dirty hands on both sides here, my definitive guide is now redundant, was this part of the thinking to increase sales of the new guide? 

In reply to Presley Whippet:

Might not be a big problem on non steep stuff, but as soon as you lose contact with the rock on being lowered off it becomes a right ball ache.
You could argue that you should know how to manage such a situation and carry the kit to do it.  However, how many people actually do?
I can almost guarantee that there will be an accident if 'Not Enough Rope' incidents are routine as opposed to occasional.

 

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Does the RF guide have pitch lengths in it? I thought they abandoned such things. To be fair this is pretty funny. I wonder if they would be so kind as to swap the names of DNA and aegialis around. Then I can finally day ive done the latter  and forget about it

Warzone is a bit dramatic in any case. 

In reply to andyb211:

Can this not be solved by simply ignoring the name at the base of the climb and using the guidebook topo, you know, like we do in the UK?

In reply to Steve Perry:

Kaly does seem to attract a lot of...let's be kind and say 'less experienced' types. eg a couple of years ago we politely queued behind a team assuming they were a pair since only two of them had harnesses on.  It turned out there were six of them doing the route but they only had two harnesses between them.Their belaying technique was not not too reassuring either.

Yoou can argue they should not be there in the first place but people like that have enough problems without finding themselves on the wrong route or with a short rope due to someone having a strop and changing names to deliberately cause confusion.

 

 

In reply to andyb211:

Warzone lol

In reply to ashtond6:

It certainly sounds like a warzone around Easter every year!

In reply to andyb211:

Hi Andy,

You might want to check your passwords to any important accounts as it looks like you have a security breach. It appears that a Daily Mail sub-editor has hacked your account and changed your thread title.

I hope nothing vital has been taken.

In reply to TMM:

  Daily Sport mate

 

Dramatic title thread has had the desired effect though to highlight the potential of mis identifying routes and pitch lengths by inexperienced climbers fresh off the wall and getting hurt or worse.

In reply to andyb211:

Presumably this action is only being taken on new crags, eg those appearing in the Rockfax but not in the 2016 Aris T guide?

In reply to andyb211:

The areas that I do know of, and i'm here, are Iannis right, as well as a sector aptly named 3 idiots or similar (above myrties). I consider all three main players less than thoughtful at least. And all seem to have some superego / financial interests that only partly benefits the climbing community of the island.

In reply to andyb211:

This was the most hilarious prank ever. Kudos to Mr Idoux and Mr Theodoropoulos!

In reply to andyb211:

For balance from Aris on this topic.

https://climbgreece.com/the-three-new-guidebooks-of-2017/

 

 

In reply to andyb211:

I'm not sure what the problem is here with the Rockfax guide. Even if they don't contribute to the bolt fund, why should that be an issue? I genuinely have no idea on the ethics of this as I only trad climb. Curious what all the fuss is about.

In reply to andyb211:

Thanks a lot for the warning, am pre-ordering the local definitive guide now.

 

https://climbkalymnos.com/guidebook/ hope that helps.

In reply to andyb211:

It's almost like saying that the AA or RAC can't produce a road map of Britain because they didn't build/pay for the roads. 

In reply to Roberttaylor:

Just away in the Lakes at the moment hence I missed this.

We are making a donation from the Kalymnos guide but it has only been on sale since April and so we haven’t built up a big enough total yet to make it worthwhile. We are getting there now so I will be sorting this out in the next week or so through the Glaros Bar Bolt Fund.

Alan

In reply to andyb211:

 

It is a terrible situation, local activists ruining the honest hard work of rockfax.  SHAME!

Surely the local climbers will object? 

 

In reply to Fiend:

Aren't you a bit too ethically pure to go bolt clipping?  

In reply to andyb211:

Kalymnos Warzone. Brilliant. I look forward to the film in next year's Reel Rock. Probably with Jean Reno as Claude Idoux.

In reply to andyb211:

This seems to me a very childish response.  Whilst it may be aimed at Rockfax, it is ordinary climbers who will be affected, not to mention the reputation of Kalymnos as a fun and safe destination.

Won't this also render the local guidebook obsolete?  Or should we assume that the about-to-be-published edition will give the new route names?  In which case this is starting to look less like a principled (if misguided) protest and more like a cynical exercise to make everyone buy the latest version.

I'm going out there soon and had been thinking about purchasing the local guidebook.  This has made me think again.

In reply to andyb211:

Whatever side of the fence you're on regarding the rights and wrongs Rockfax bringing out a Kalymnos guide, if this situation has indeed been brought about by the publication of this book it would seem to me that its publishers ought to speak to Aris and the crew behind the original book and see if and agreement and end to these hostilities can be reached.

Clearly the pending payment to the Glaros bolt fund is not enough to placate them, and even if Rockfax don't feel like they have done something it's a situation that has been created by their actions, so they need to be part of the resolution.

The best form of compromise is where neither party is happy.

 

In reply to andyb211:

I use and like Rockfax guides. Rockfax have been responsible for major steps forward in guidebook design which have since been adopted by many other guidebook publishers. Thank you to Alan and all the team.

But (and a friend recently told me that when you see the word "but" you should ignore everything that came before.....) Rockfax guidebook teams do not locate and climb all the routes - they rely substantially on the work of others who have gone before and whose intellectual property to a greater or lesser extent they use, in this case I presume without permission. This may be legal but I'm not at all convinced it's ethical. 

Where Rockfax comes into conflict with the publishers of previous guidebooks I'm inclined to take the side of the latter, unless Alan and his colleagues can persuade me otherwise.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

How is this any different from other guidebooks? I'm pretty sure Grimer has not climbed every route at Stanage...

 

In reply to Christheclimber:

 

For balance, here is Aris's reply to a question posted about the level of funding and amount of work that goes on behind-the-scenes creating the routes at a typical popular sport climbing destination:

 

Neil

April 14, 2018 at 12:48 pm

Hi Aris

I have a few questions about these guidebooks, and also the Kalymnos one which will soon have competition in the form of the Rockfax guide. As consumers I think it’s important that all publishers provide this information so that we can choose wisely.

How is bolting financed at these crags?
Are the guidebooks produced in concertation with local equippers?
Do they contribute to the bolting efforts?

Thanks, Neil

 

Aris Theodoropoulos

April 16, 2018 at 7:26 pm

Hi Neil,

Thank you for the question. It gives us the opportunity to inform climbers about some of what we do that they may not be common knowledge. But I can only speak for my own guidebooks, i.e. Kalymnos and Best of Greece—not the Meteora or the Argolis guidebooks, which are made by others.

In response to your questions:

1. How is bolting financed at these crags?

Generally, bolting for new routes at most crags (both in Kalymnos and elsewhere in Greece) is financed by the equippers themselves, but local municipalities (especially smaller ones) have increasingly been financing new routing projects. As an example, the municipalities in Leonidio, Kyparissi, and Kalymnos (among others) have all financed new routing on occasion.

My personal contribution is this: Since I started equipping routes in the late ‘80s I have largely paid for my bolts out of my own pocket. Then, starting with the publication of my first guidebook in 1996 (Varasova) I began contributing a large amount of money towards bolting—often more than I could afford. For many years I did not make any money from my guidebooks; in fact, I paid extra money out of pocket for bolts. As the number of routes increased (especially in Kalymnos) and the guidebooks became bigger, the need for rebolting also increased. So I started contributing a larger sum of money for bolts, with a particular emphasis on rebolting/maintenance over new routing, to ensure the hardware used is placed safely and appropriately, that it is never dangerously worn out, and that it is always up to the latest UIAA specifications. I do not keep all these bolts to myself, nor do I do all the work myself. I work closely with a handful of experienced friends, all volunteers, as well as provide bolts and anchors to other experienced equippers. Please note two important things: First, I do not give bolts to just any enthusiastic, eager climber who is willing to help. I always make sure the persons getting bolts from me are experienced, know what they are doing, and follow the equipping guidelines set by the Greek Federation of Mountaineering and Climbing. Second, the bolts I buy are always UIAA-certified and in compliance with the latest safety standards specific to the climate and environment of Greece. Most recently I have been buying Raumer marine grade 316L bolts. Since 2010, without fail, I pay well between €3500–€5000 for bolts and anchors every year—regardless of whether or not my guidebooks turn a profit.

2. Are the guidebooks produced in concertation with local equippers?

Yes, to the very best of our ability. Collaboration with local equippers is always a priority, and in my opinion it is the only way to produce a guidebook of the highest quality. Again, I can only speak for my Best of Greece and Kalymnos guidebooks. Regarding Kalymnos, well, I have been one of the main equippers since climbing started there in 1999, but I have also worked closely with the local municipality ever since. Furthermore, I have a close working relationship (and in many cases close friendships) with the vast majority of the other equippers of routes on Kalymnos.

In the rest of Greece, I collaborate with the local communities and/or equippers in most crags featured in the guidebook (as well as many other crags not featured in the book, such as, most recently, Tarsos and Agios Petros). There is a solid core of experienced equippers and friends in Greece with whom I am lucky to collaborate often, such as Yiannis Torelli (Patras, Varasova, Mytikas, Nedousa, Leonidio, Lagada, Zobolo, Kyparissi); Dimitris Titopoulos (Athens, Zobolo, Frygani, Kyparissi, Agios Petros, Solomos, Crete); the Remy Brothers (Leonidio, Kyparissi, Zobolo, Varasova, Nafplio); George Kopalides (Leonidio, Kyparissi); Claude Idoux, Angy Eiter, Charlotte Durif (Kyparissi); Simon Montmory (Leonidio); Aristos Thanopoulos (Patras, Lagada); Vangelis Batsios, Christos Batalogiannis (Meteora); Peter Lappas (Kipoi); Thomas Michaelides, Antonis Skevofylakas (Athens); Georgis Milias (Symi); Kostas Tsoukleidis (Nafplio); Tasos Georgitsis, Pasquale Zafiriadis (Pyli, Mouzaki); George Malamas, Stavros Psiropoulos (Nedousa, Kardamyli); and, last but not least, our deceased friend Chris Boukoros (Almyros). Sometimes we equip routes together, sometimes I finance part of their new routing, sometimes I advise or train them on best equipping practices, and they supply info I need on their home crags to feature them in my guidebooks. I always run the final drafts of their local crags by them before publication, and take their feedback very seriously.

3. Do they contribute to the bolting efforts?

See my answer to your question #1 above. In short, yes. A significant part of the proceeds from my guidebook sales every year is used to buy bolts and anchors of the highest quality standards. Besides me, other qualified equippers get bolts from me for new routing and maintenance of existing routes. This adds up to thousands of bolts and hundreds of anchors. (We started to keep an online log on Climb Kalymnos a few years ago recording the bolts, anchors, and labor we contributed, but it quickly became unsustainable. It added up quickly, and unfortunately neither of us had the time to keep it updated.) Countless equippers in Kalymnos and the rest of Greece can attest to the support they have received by me personally, whether in bolts, anchors, or actual equipping hours (equipping and rebolting are both very strenuous, unglamorous, highly specialized and demanding jobs that are often underestimated). I feel it is also important to note that all equipping or maintenance I am involved in happens in compliance with the equipping and safety guidelines of the Hellenic Federation of Mountaineering and Climbing (eooa.gr), with which I have had a close working relationship since the mid-1980s.

I hope I have sufficiently answered your questions. In the next few months, we will follow up with a more in-depth article detailing exactly what we do and all the ways in which climbers support Greek climbing by buying one of our guidebooks.

Lastly, some related information can also be found here http://climbkalymnos.com/climbing/#maintenanceand http://climbkalymnos.com/climbing/#history.

Cheers,
Aris

 

Neil

April 17, 2018 at 1:12 pm

Thanks Aris for taking the time to reply!

As you undoubtedly know, the British guidebook publisher Rockfax is bringing out a competing Kalymnos guidebook in the coming weeks. I have been banned from UKClimbing forums for criticizing the Rockfax business model, particularly with regards to their Haute Provence guide (UKC and Rockfax are the same company), so I appreciate this opportunity to discuss how your guidebooks operate.

In a recent thread, Alan James, who runs UKC/Rockfax, admitted mistakes had been made with the Haute Provence guide, but claims they now operate in an ethical manner. In the same thread, he hinted that Greek guidebook publishers (I assume he meant you) were guilty of jaw-dropping examples of malpractice. The exact quote is: “Kalymnos is very complicated. I am not able to go into details here because what I have found out since starting this project has dropped my jaw to the floor on a number of occasions.”

So basically he is discrediting your Kalymnos guidebook, while not providing any evidence, or even details of what he is criticizing you for. This doesn’t give the consumer much clarity when trying to decide which topo to buy!

This is basically what prompted my questions and I appreciate your long reply. However, I think the detailed report you are planning to bring out will be welcomed by all climbers who visit Kalymnos. In this age of competing guidebooks, it is important for all parties to provide clear information on what they do to support the local bolting efforts, including time and money spent on all related activities.

In any case, thank you very much for the immense amount of work you have invested in climbing in Greece over the years. I hope I’ll be able to visit soon.

 

In reply to Logs06:

What is "concertation"?

In reply to Logs06:

Well the behaviour attributed to Aris by the OP would certainly qualify as "Jaw dropping examples of malpractice", so that would seem to vindicate Alan's assertion.

 

In reply to planetmarshall:

Before this thread deteriorates further, can we have some concrete examples of the “jaw dropping” stuff. And also some evidence that Aris has been maliciously changing route names. Otherwise, we perhaps have yet more examples of fake news on the internet.

In reply to andyb211:

Just for information, is the Rockfax guide on sale in the local climbing shops or are they 'siding with' Aris and Claude?

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

I'm not sure why the Rockfax would be available there, being UK published, when there's already a really good local one that's been stocked in all the shops/minimarkets/garages for years

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

I'm going in a few weeks so it will be interesting to find out.

 

In reply to planetmarshall:

Probably not, but the difference is that he is not using the work of previous writers of BMC Stanage guides without the BMC's permission.

Martin

In reply to carl dawson:

Indeed, but then posting Neil's somewhat one sided, to put it mildly, email to Aris without any concrete justification for *his* accusations, doesn't improve matters. ("I have been banned from the UKC forums for criticizing the Rockfax business model" - really? That's what he was banned for?).

In reply to Martin Hore:

But then guides to Stanage and other areas of the Peak District predate the BMC. Did they seek permission from their predecessors? Does each new guidebook publisher have to find, climb and describe every single route in its area from scratch? Otherwise the accusation you level at Rockfax is true of just about every guidebook publisher, and it sounds like you're just using it as an excuse to have a go at Rockfax.

 

In reply to carl dawson:

Carl it isn't fake news as you well know, you being a good friend of Mr Theodopoulos but if you require proof look to the threads on Steve Macs fb account and the Glaros fb account detailing the name changes, together with the climbs and crags affected.

Did you ever find out who blew up your house??

In reply to andyb211:

Screw Kalymnos, this is a whole lot more interesting. Full story please! 

In reply to planetmarshall:

Not comparable. Guidebooks to trad areas don't divert funds away from local bolting efforts.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Sounds like the 'jaw-dropping malpractice accusation' predates the 'name-changing accusation', so it must refer to something else. Be interesting to hear more from the accusers.

In reply to the uncomfortable truth:

But that's not the point Martin was making, it was this - 

"they rely substantially on the work of others who have gone before and whose intellectual property to a greater or lesser extent they use, in this case I presume without permission. This may be legal but I'm not at all convinced it's ethical."

- which is nothing to do with bolt funding. So it is comparable, and true of every guidebook publisher, not just Rockfax.

In reply to Deadeye:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concertation

HTH

In reply to Logs06:

It is understandable that the local guidebook writers are unhappy that they now face competition, but they cannot expect to have a monopoly. The routes themselves are not copyright, it is open to anyone to produce a guidebook, and all guidebooks build on earlier work (as do most endeavours in other fields, for that matter).  As long as there is no actual plagiarism this is OK.  Climbers have generally benefited from competition, which has driven up the quality and range of guidebooks, and Rockfax have played a significant part in this.

Whether Rockfax were right to produce a guide to Kalymnos is open to debate, but like it or not there can be no doubt they are entitled to do so.  Personally I find it a little surprising that they have done so - it is different from their usual model of producing a selective guide to a wide area where otherwise a visiting climber would have to acquire a lot of different guidebooks, or to areas where local guidebooks are not easily obtainable by British climbers.  For Kalymnos there is already a well-established and high-quality local guidebook, and I wonder what Rockfax think they have to offer, especially when there is not much price difference.  I guess that Kalymnos is such a popular destination for Brits that it would seem odd not to include it in their range.  That was a business decision for Rockfax and time will tell whether or not it was a good one.

Similarly, the issue of how bolting is funded is also a separate debate. No one can doubt for a moment the enormous contribution Aris has made to climbing on Kalymnos, including financial, but guidebook sales are not the only source of funding for bolts.  Many visiting UK climbers contribute to the Glaros Bar bolt fund, whether or not they have already bought the local guidebook. So far as I can see he does not mention this. Rockfax have said they will make a contribution to the fund once sales of the book are established.

Whatever the rights and wrongs and grievances, the action now being taken is totally unacceptable. Have the perpetrators given any public explanation or justification for their actions?  I can't see anything on climbkalymnos.com or on Facebook.

In reply to Howard J:

Indeed, and I agree. I only own one Rockfax guidebook and that is the selected guide to Northern England. Generally I prefer definitives. However it's for Rockfax to decide if they have a business case to launch a guide for Kalymnos, and consumers to decide if they want to buy it. Until this episode I would have continued to buy the local Kalymnos guide, but this childishness is making me think twice.

 

In reply to Howard J:

We need to see this in the context of the longer term move to paper guidebooks being replaced by an app and a subscription to access a constantly updated database.   To justify the subscription you need a database which covers almost everywhere your subscribers wish to climb and have a consistent presentation across climbing areas.  With subscribers mainly in the UK/EU not having Kalymnos would be a big hole in the product.

The app model also makes actions like changing route names written on rock completely futile.  It only works because paper books are updated infrequently.  A database can be updated to reflect changes on the ground as they happen.

Unless local guidebook publishers come together and create an open-source app and database which they all contribute to they are eventually going to get squeezed out of the market by a small number of companies who have invested in the new technology.

In reply to Deadeye: there some euro being spent , it was not that long ago they got funding of Eu for re bolts ect ,then with all this 8 years of Aries euro donations which by his account 40,000 euro a year for 8 years wow and let not forget the bolt funds that we all put into and not forgetting the drilling from the people that do it and bring all there stuff and time for free my point is bloody hell you could have re bolted Kalymnos 3 times over ,smell a fish here 

 

In reply to Tubby22:

Liquid lunch?

In reply to andyb211:

I have no intention of buying the rockfax guide to Kalymnos at any point, the rate of development would have made it out of date in a year or two anyway and they could never hope to keep up with Aris rate of producing new guides in print. Aris guides were always high quality and, although they are a lot more expensive than average, rockfax is only about £1 cheaper.

I'm not likely to buy an Aris guide again though if this route renaming rumour turns out to be true.  It would mean he deliberately ruined his old guidebooks! I already shelled out for two of these, I'd have to be pretty stupid to buy another if he might just decide to make it obsolete again like some third rate electronics.

Ironically the winner out of this will be the rockfax app. There'll be confusion at first but the UKC monster will quickly identify the changed routes and the app will be updated. I don't like apps for guides though, so this farce will just contribute to me avoiding the island for a while and exploring some new places.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Says it all, business trumps ethics every time in this brave new world! Climbers used to be concerned about ethics.

As a consumer, I primarily want to support the people who have contributed most to equipping and maintaining the rocks I climb on. This requires transparency from all parties. Will we get any?

Definitely regrettable if true, but local populations often use disruption techniques to try to thwart big business from cashing in on their resources. Usually isn't very effective. This is actually pretty low key disruption.

In reply to planetmarshall:

The majority of "new" guidebooks are updates from the same publishing house as the previous guide - eg BMC, CC, F&RCC. So permission to use earlier material can be assumed I think. If a new publisher wants to produce a guide to one of these areas drawing on the previously published material then it would at least be courteous to seek permission I thought have thought. Actually I'm rather surprised it's not an infringement of copyright not to do so. 

Perhaps that's an old fashioned view in today's commercially oriented world, but I'm sticking with it.

Martin

In reply to the uncomfortable truth:

Oh come on. Rockfax is hardly Tesco.

In reply to Martin Hore:

It seems rather oxymoronic to be championing copyright on one hand and deriding commercialism on the other.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Spar?

 

In reply to Martin Hore:

There is no copyright on facts, merely in the way they are presented

 

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

You may be right - I'm not an expert. I do, however, have some knowledge of copyright in a related field. I survey and draw maps for orienteering. If I use "facts" derived from OS mapping - the existence and location of paths, field boundaries, contour lines etc. and then present these "facts" in a completely different way on my orienteering map, I definitely do need OS permission.

So I'm not sure the law is quite clear on this.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

Well, yes and no. You are quite correct that the OS is pretty aggressive about people copying their maps and reputedly even deliberately include small inconsequential errors on their maps to trap plagiarists. However, even they cannot copyright the existence or the name of a geographical feature or path and if you go along and re-draw a map  from your own observations you are in the clear.

Likewise you cannot directly plagarise other's works by simply copying word-for-word. It is noticeable that Rockfax have been at pains to make clear they have drawn on the UKC database as well as Chris Cragg's knowledge of the island and its climbing, which no one denies is extensive, for their researcxh rather than the local guides.

It is also a general point of copyright that names cannot be copyrighted. Nor can routes - hence all the competing guides to, say, the Coast-to-Coast Walk.

But once you get into the minutiae of the law it certainly becomes less cut and dried and more tangled - hence all those copyright lawyers driving big cars.

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

This rather presupposes that sections of the UKC database has not been itself the result of

plagiarism.  I know that isn't the case (as an example bits of an on-line guide I produce appeared word for word, descriptions included, in the UKC database a while ago).  I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is the case for the Kalymnos guide, but I don't think you can argue that drawing on the UKC database guarantees no plagiarism.

 

 

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Is this what Rockfax have done? I have no problem at all if the Rockfax guide is based on Chris Craggs' local knowledge plus the UKC database without any reference to Aris's guides. That would be a huge amount of original research and I take my hat off to him.

Martin

 

 

 

In reply to planetmarshall:

It's all relative innit. If you're a small club selling guidebooks to raise money to equip your local crags, then Rockfax - with it's multiple publications, apps and UKC media machine - is definitely 'big business'. And if the best of your crags get swallowed up in a selective guide that doesn't contribute any time, effort or money to the maintenance of the routes, you have every right to be severely pissed off, especially when you know they got the original info from your topo!

ps. I have no idea where Aris Theodoropoulos's venture sits on the scale.

In reply to planetmarshall:

I'm going to assume they would have full permission/approval.

In reply to andyb211:

I was there last week so interesting that I see this now.

For those actually interested in actually just climbing there, I did find some of the routes at Summertime switched when I was there last week (Beau, Captain Heelhook specifically - there were others at the crag that didn't look right), which confused me at first but if you check the topo carefully I find it hard to imagine you can start climbing on something completely different. I beleive the name changes are isolated to a few crags and as someone has pointed out earlier some of these are called out on the Glaros FB page.

Just a heads up that this is a real occurance there, but a proper check of the topo will ensure you are climbing on the right line

In reply to Tim Palmer:

Idiot with no conception of how things work and who pays for what on Kaly climbing. As the locals next time you,re there

In reply to Martin Hore:

But he is using existing guidebooks work despite serious vocal opposition

In reply to planetmarshall:

And my perception is the bolt funding is generally channelled through one outlet to produce low grade low quality routes

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

And the two guidebooks do look remarkably similar...it is not like some old Climbers;' Club guide with just descriptions and then Rockfax coming along with photodiagrams. 

( I actually have two of Aris' guides and the Rockfax...I may even get Aris' new one too, in the hope that there are more routes that I can actually get up!)

In reply to andyb211:

Well those who dont't want to side can still get close to everything ordered with TheSend app.

In reply to Andy Gamisou:

 

I'm not arguing either way. I have no dog in this fight. Just pointing out that way the copyright laws operate in practice in my experience. The amount of other people's work you can reproduce is far from a precise science and in practice you also have to take a pragmatic view of how many different ways there are to describe a route. The waxing lyrical about the line and setting is one thing but there are only so many ways of writing 'Climb the left leaning flake to the roof and pull over rightwards' A court - which I doubt this would ever get near - would have to take that into account

 

In reply to tjekel:

I don't think they update it any more, although you can purchase a Kalymnos guide on the Vertical Life app for a bit less than a tenner I think (they use some weird in-app currency)

In reply to Dandan:

They still update it, at least we did some corrections and additions on lines last week. This being noncommercial is however less frequently updated.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

 ( I actually have two of Aris' guides and the Rockfax...I may even get Aris' new one too, in the hope that there are more routes that I can actually get up!)

Earlsdonwhu: if you do get the latest guidebook hoping for many new routes at all grades as well as new crags... you will be pleasantly surprised.

 

In reply to carl dawson:

Oh dear, more expenditure! But .... potentially lots more fun!

In reply to andyb211:

When I first saw this, thought it was bit of a wind up.  Having now read the Glaros facebook  page can see this actually started way back in June, with the recent flurry of rewriting being done in time to get the new Terrain book to the publishers for later this month.

It is worthless debating the rights and wrongs of competing Kalymnos guidebooks, as the rival has been published and the new one is on its way! Making people clearly aware of the stupidity that has occurred is.

Obviously Aris has taken extreme umbridge to Rockfax paper publishing new routes that he and Claude have put up since his 2016 guide before he has had the chance to do so. Though notice quite a few routes concerned have been on UKC for over a year now and I assume on similar sites in other countries, plus on apps.  It is important to note in his recent Climb Kalymnos post that the name changes don't apply to any climbs in the 2016 guide.  His reasoning sounds all very politically correct about not climbing new routes until grading, loose rock etc have been sorted, (can't imagine for one moment that anyone anywhere would change all the names written on the rock though!)  However this is not how climbing development works on Kalymnos as he well knows - when we first visited Kalymnos back in 2002, the "guidebook" consisted of several double sided pages of photocopied A4 paper that we got from Glaros.  Some routes had literally just been bolted the week before we arrived and you had to blow the drill dust out of some of the holds.  

With the new Terrain book at the publishers this will hopefully mean that there is only a definitive number of crags and routes affected - Steve at Glaros, as usual has done a sterling job of updating things for us all.

Kalymnos is undoubtedly a special place in terms of the climbing, island and people, and has retained its unique character over the 15 years or so we have been visiting, and long may it be so. This now public commercial spat should not be allowed to spoil this.

Most routes at Kalymnos are under 40m so safe (assuming you have a 80m rope!), but did note with interest on the last Glaros post that route lengths of over 40m had started to be written on the rock.  I think in the interest of climber safety each rewritten route should have it's length added as well, because will those concerned sleep happily knowing an accident has occurred due to the confusion they have directly generated?  Ultimately of course we as climbers should be responsible for our own safety and assessment of each route we do, irrespective of it being a sports climb at a 'holiday venue', as you would normally do for any trad, multi-pitch or mountain route.

 

In reply to rocksol:

Sorry you might have to clarify that insightful comment.

 

My experience of several areas (granted not kalymnos but in other European sport climbing areas) is that rockfax are very poorly regarded for their vampiric behaviour.  Is this not the case is kalymnos?

In reply to planetmarshall:

You know perfectly well why Neil was banned. He replied to a comment of yours on Facebook quoting the very post that got him thrown off. Maybe you'd like to post it on here so UKCers can judge for themselves...

In reply to Some time some place:

If that's true then the offending post will be available from search for any user who cares to look for it.

However, I have no idea why Neil was banned, and I'm not sure why you think I'd be privy to that kind of information. I can only be fairly certain it wasn't merely for "Criticizing Rockfax's business model", which is surely one of the most frequently discussed topics on UKC, up there with Brexit and the condition of Kinder Downfall.

In reply to Tim Palmer:

Earlier this year I heard a story of some Brits in France being harassed at a crag by a local route developer for having the Rockfax guide.

Apparently they justifiably pushed back, saying they wouldn't have known about nor visited the area if it weren't for the Rockfax guide, and the money they were spending on local food and accommodation was a lot more than the guidebook price.

In reply to turtlespit:

Interesting one this. I wouldn’t buy a Rockfax for Chamonix because of the Piolet and Valley cragging guides which are great, and not brick sized. Also the Rockfax corporate style which was refreshing once upon a time has got a bit ‘samey’. 

However our trips to places like Mallorca were motivated by the RF guide because of coverage and all the usual good access descriptions. Would prob buy RF Kalymnos because it’s easily available in the U.K. for planning the trip.

In reply to andyb211:

An interesting reply from Aris on climbkalymnos.com.  He appears to believe that routes should only be published with the setter's permission.  Assuming he genuinely believes this, it is naive to say the least - once a route exists it is there to be described by anyone.

He also claims that these are unfinished routes and not yet ready to be published.  If that is the case, why name them?  Doing so and painting it at the foot of the route implies that it is there to be climbed and is not a project in progress.  Renaming it doesn't alter that presumption.  According to the Glaros Bar Facebook page, one of the routes whose name has been changed is Kostas vs Sophia at Noufaro which the UKC database shows has had several ascents since 2016 (and presumably more by people not on UKC), one of which was at the invitation of the route-setters after they'd finished bolting it.

Whilst I understand and have some sympathy with Aris's point of view I cannot agree with the action he is taking. On the other hand I think Rockfax would help their own position if they were to be more transparent about how much they contribute to local bolt funds (not just on Kalymnos but the other areas they cover).  

In reply to turtlespit:

But this is hardly the case in Kalymnos....it has been well established long before RF came along. I doubt that more people visit - rather that the guidebook market is now split between two producers with very similar offerings.

In reply to andyb211:

Just to publish Aris' words in full:

I am sorry for late reply, we have a crazy time trying to close the new guidebook and send it to the printers.
Every route covered in the 2016 Kalymnos guidebook it is still valid.
The routes with name changes it is only some routes that were opened more recently. Their route-developers had never officially published them, they were never in our Kalymnos guidebook or even on the web.
If someone published these routes, they should have asked the permission of the equippers.
Most of these routes were not ready to be published or climbed yet (needs more cleaning). For somebody else to go ahead and publish before they were ready, and have climbers start to climb these routes, was a very bad judgement and possibly dangerous mistake.

Let's all calm down a bit.  Your 2016 edition of the guide is still valid and is safe to use.  Nobody is going to die because of rope lengths etc.  And anyway you should be tieing a knot in the end of that....

Personally, I have no problem at all with the action taken and I might buy their updated version if there's new routes and sectors in there, and my copy is mostly held together with finger tape and dust.

What's frustrating is that there are other climbing destinations that are crying out for a new book, Sardinia springs to mind, but instead we're all arguing with each other about the rights and wrongs of this... 

  

 

In reply to Iamgregp:

I don't know anyone who's died because of running out of rope being lowered off, but I do know plenty of people who have been injured (or had a lucky escape) because of it - and dicking about with changing route names is unhelpful, to say the least - and I wonder whether those sorts of actions will put some people off going to the island. 

As it happens, I'm going to buy a new guide for Kaly this year. I had been intending to by Aris's guide, as the previous ones have been excellent - but this episode is making me reconsider whether I want to support him through buying his guide. 

There's no reason why anyone should have to have the equipper's permission to record routes in a guide, and this just seems like sour grapes on Aris's part. That said, I'm not sure a Rockfax guide to Kalymnos is entirely necessary - though a selective guide for Greece (including Kaly) would have been very welcome.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Aris post is simply crap - if there is not a clear sign that a route is someones personal project, I will climb a line if it appeals to me. Aris also supposes the only web is climbkalymnos ... which is not the case. I do have sympathy for local publishers. I have zero sympathies for lies. And this simply is a lie as Aris perfectly knows.

In reply to andyb211:

Actually it turns out the situation isn't that dramatic:

- Local climbers bolted some new routes but did not publish details.

- Rockfax included these new routes in their latest topo.

- Local climbers had a bit of fun by changing some of the names before publishing their own guidebook.

Nothing much to see here people. Move along now please.

 

In reply to Some time some place:

When you put it like that, it does sound like a rather amusing wheeze.

I hope they had a fun night in the bar dreaming up that scam.  

In reply to whenry:

There is already a selective guide to Greece, also written by Aris. It is easily available online for delivery in the UK.

I have been away and got back to a pile of emails so I haven't had time to read this full thread. I'll give it a closer look later. In the mean time here are three points that I think are relevant.

1) Rockfax have been publishing a guide to Kalymnos since 2005 in PDF and later app form. The app guide was a full guide to the island three years ago and it was the process of updating this that made us think that we would do a print version.

2) Information on our donations is always available from the Rockfax web site on collated under this link - https://www.rockfax.com/news/category/donations/ . I am due to make another entry under that in the next week.

3) Like most of these guidebook-bolt debates, this action by Claude on Kalymnos has nothing to do with actually funding bolting.

Alan

In reply to rexybo:

Yes, but it doesn't include Kalymnos.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

 

That's not very apparent from simply browsing the site.  As one the main criticisms of Rockfax seems to be that by publishing a guidebook to an area you are undermining local efforts, it might be in your interests to make this more prominent.

 

 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

You might want to check your dates - I have a version 1.2 of the PDF guide and it's dated October 2003 !

Aris' guide (first edition ?) was also out by the time of my first visit (Sept 2004) - covering more crags but in less detail, whilst it was also possible to get a simple list of routes and grades from the tourist information office (on the rare occasions it was open) 

In reply to Howard J:

Totally agree. The Rockfax site is in dire need of an update and we will be doing it sometime in the next 12 months I hope. The current site focusses on the wrong things and doesn't work well on mobiles.

Alan

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Thanks for that Chris. There we go, can't even remember myself. Now you have said that I think it might have come out in 2002 in version 1, but version 1.2 was after my visit in 2003.

Alan

In reply to Martin Hore:

We have discussed this before. I am not sure what your solution is to allow some competition and the resulting development within guidebook production techniques and standards that you would approve of.

In Kalymnos it isn't an issue though. There is no information to copy apart from the names of course! The rest you get by standing under the crag and marking the routes on, climbing plenty and adding comments and adjusting grades from UKC Logbooks. The local guide has no actual descriptions.

Alan

In reply to Martin Hore:

Ironically he is probably using Chris Craggs' descriptions since he wrote a lot of the old descriptions in the Stanage guide that still live on. 

I am puzzled as to what extent you think we use these previous descriptions.

Do you suggest that we use old guidebooks simply to find out where the routes go and that is not acceptable?

Or do you mean that we sit there and re-write descriptions from previous guidebooks and present that as a Rockfax description without any checking or other work?

Alan 

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Yes the book is available in several shops. We have also sold a decent number to greek distributor.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Thank you Alan for responding.

I think the key thing is whether having access to the old guidebook saves your author(s) time and/or money compared to what they would expend if they didn't have that access. If the answer is "no" then I have no problem with your approach. If the answer is "to some extent" then to that extent I think you are using the efforts of the previous guidebook writers and I would feel that morally, if not legally, you should have the permission of whoever holds the copyright for the previous guide. This would be freely given if you are updating an earlier guide for the same publisher, but where you are a new publisher such as Rockfax in Kalymnos, obtaining permission might require negotiating a financial contribution.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

There's an old writer's joke that drawing on one book is plagarism but drawing on two is research. Nevertheless it does  illustrate the problem of where to draw the line. Let's move away from guidebooks to, say, a history book for which an author  might consult whole libraries full of books in the course of their research, possibly over several years. By your principle would that author be morally bound to split their royalties with every previous author whose work they have built upon? And should they in turn expect a pay out from all subsequent authors who consult their book?  You can see how quickly it becomes impossible so the general consensus is that once facts (as opposed to actual wording and presentation) have been published then they are in the public domain and not copyright. The logic behind this is that  to legally copyright something you must have 'created' it. By definition you cannot 'create' a fact.  You may discover it or establish it but you cannot create it (unless of course you make it up, in which case it isn't a fact but a fiction).

In reply to Martin Hore:

But if you think copyright law is wierd try this one. The painted ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is not copyright but if I take a photo of it that picture is my copyright and remains so for 70yrs after my death so I can bequeath the rights to my dependants. If you publish it you would have to pay me. Never mind Michelangelo slaving away all that time over all those saints and cherubs, he and his heirs get nowt. Just make the cheque out to me.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Well this is a huge topic. It is worth keeping in mind that Rockfax was born out of Mick Ryan getting frustrated with the slow, old fashioned progress of the Yorkshire Limestone guide in the late 1980s, my efforts to get involved with the BMC Peak Area Guidebooks and look at ways to present route information more graphically being largely ignored for 2 years in the early 90s, and Chris Craggs being frustrated by the slow pace of work associated with the BMC Stanage guide in the late 90s.

In all three cases we were at odds with the people who may, or may not, have given permission and considering there were 'legal' proceedings in 2001 then I strongly doubt whether workable permission would have been forthcoming. It would also certainly have prevented any real competition since there is no way Rockfax would have survived any financial terms - we needed external family input to get us through the first 10 years anyway.

It is also important to consider that the first Rockfax guidebooks were Yorkshire Lime, North Wales Lime, Peak Lime, The Lakes and Dorset. In all five cases the existing books were hugely out of date and the amount of new information being added by the Rockfax publication was on a par, or greater, than what was there before so, in that sense, we certainly felt we were adding to the overall legacy record right from the off. Indeed, the Pembroke guide was also a 10 year update, and the Peak Bouldering guide was mostly new altogether. It is only when we got into the grit that the old info outweighed the new but that was 13 books in.

Whilst I acknowledge that some of our early books would have been harder without the previous guides, we are way past that now and the print record and online resources that we have created are now available for all guidebook writers and are heavily used. We have made a consistent practice of acknowledging previous guidebooks from all publishers since we realise that we are all in the same game in the end. Unfortunately I have yet to see Rockfax or UKC acknowledged in any of the volunteer guidebooks which was particularly galling with the latest BMC Peak Limestone guides considering Rockfax had looked after the information through three editions over the 30 year gap for some of the crags!

As regards the non-UK guides - well these are a case by case basis but there is no occasion where a single book has been largely taken from any other single book. They are put together from all sorts of places and many crags have appeared for the first time in a Rockfax. On Kalymnos we have been producing guidebook information since before the local guidebook in 2001, as previously mentioned, and the UKC logbooks have been kept well up to date by users. 

Alan

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

That'll teach him to forget to put (C) Michelangelo 1512 in the corner.

 

In reply to Martin Hore:

Actually, I have thought about this a bit more and your suggestion is completely unworkable. It effectively assigns control over an 'area' to a specific publisher. Fine you may say, but what about the 5 areas mentioned above that we produced extensive new coverage for in our first books, or any area where a new publisher wants to add significantly to the coverage? If you had to actually pay something to the previous publisher, would they then have to pay you for your new information included in their next book?

For example, you suggest I should have paid/considered the BMC in 1992 to produce Peak Limestone. Do they not then owe me the same courtesy for their recent books? The same could be said of virtually every area covered more than one publisher where the guidebooks overlap.

In reality overlapping guidebooks and variety in coverage are a good thing for climbers since they give better coverage overall. Your suggestion would only serve to restrict this.

Alan

 

 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

It's a nonsense stance anyway Alan. Imagine writing a History of England and being expected to either needlessly repeat all research from original documents, or gain permission from all previous authors on the subject. It would be absurd.

The only difference really is when information is drawn mostly, or largely, from a single published source, in which case there may be an ethical case to answer. But I'm not aware of any example in guidebook publishing in which that's been the case.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Thank you Alan for your full response. I don't agree with John Arran that's mine is a completely nonsense stance, but I can see both sides. I agree that competition has raised standards and that Rockfax have been able to produce guidebooks to areas that would otherwise not have seen timely updates. But I also have sympathy for the publishers of original definitive guides, particularly those that rely on research by volunteer authors, when they complain that the playing field is not currently level. 

Martin

In reply to Iamgregp:

That changes my feelings on this quite a lot. Thinking about it, it would have been pretty daft if they'd not done it that way. I'll probably end up buying the new guide at some point.

Flip flopping between thinking the Rockfax guide is a tactless waste of time and thinking Aris and co are being a bit presumptuous in thinking they ought to have a monopoly. I still believe the rockfax print guide would've been quickly overtaken anyway, given Aris seems to be on his seventh since 2000.

 

In reply to john arran:

No, this is pretty much what would be expected. No need to ask permission, but it would be essential to reference your sources.

In the context of a guide book I would think it would be fair enough to make it clear which climbs you repeated for verification, and where you relied on information from which particular previous guide.

CB

In reply to JHiley:

No need to flip flop. I think both positions are correct

 

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

... that describes it best.

 

I have produced a PDF update for the name changes here - https://www.rockfax.com/wp-content/uploads/intros/Kaly-Name-Changes-Sep18.p...

 

In reply to whenry:

But it does include some other areas which have their own definitive guides, which the selected one is depriving of sales as a result (using his own arguments). Not, I haven't the faintest idea what the publishers of the local guide think of this, though they don't stock Aris's book in their bar.

In reply to JHiley:

I really don't understand a lot of you in this forum. If you think UKC is a monster, why do you use the website? 

In reply to Ramon Marin:

I probably used the wrong word. I meant monster in a powerful sense rather than grotesque sense. Colossus might be more appropriate although not in terms of the size of the organisation. It's more of a data colossus. Users like me get a valuable logbook service and great destination articles and in return we voluntarily contribute data to rockfax's guidebook project. To be honest, it's probably my favourite website and I think rockfax is a great company. Their Kalymnos guide seems unnecessary to me but I generally think their books are pretty good.

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Brain explodes

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Thanks Alan. Much Appreciated.

In reply to Logs06:

Wtf happened to Logs06?

In reply to the uncomfortable truth:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/user/profile.php?id=230008

In reply to andyb211:

New route builders beware!

https://climbkalymnos.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=7321#post-62058

 

In reply to jwi:

So just to be clear are you saying they haven't actually changed any route names? They've merely claimed that they have to stir things up?

The obvious problem with changing route names is that it wouldn't just affect the Rockfax guide. It would affect every guide, including theirs too.

 

In reply to stp:

No, it is only the more recent routes. More info and an update available here -

https://www.rockfax.com/news/2018/09/11/kalymnos-route-name-changes/

In reply to Martin Hore:

It would only be an infringement if you photocopied the images and/or used verbatim descriptions. The names, grades, and lines on topos are factual information that an author can't change. You can't restrict use of such information without restricting freedom of speech.

So in terms of rights I don't think there's any problem.

Whether a guide to Kalymnos was Rockfax's best choice I think is highly questionable. Kalymnos is currently a honeypot destination. It's so popular that at certain times there are far too many climbers there. It's also covered by a perfectly good an up to date guide. Surely rather than making a guidebook to somewhere like that it would have been better to create something to somewhere that really needs a good, comprehensive, up to date guide. There's so much good rock in Europe. Creating guides to less popular areas seems like it would be a more valuable service as well as reducing, rather than increasing, pressure on these honeypot areas.

Has Verdon area got an up to date guide yet? In the past decade or so there's been a massive amount of development there. There's so much rock there yet compared to Kalymnos hardly anyone goes there. A good guide could positively change that and for UK climbers it's much closer to home too.

 

In reply to stp:

I wonder if any guide has deliberately printed false or extraneous info as a copyright trap for potential plagiarists? Such things have existed for a long time on maps, and I recently discovered also in dictionaries, so I'm sure there must be options to do so in a climbing guide without being misleadingly dangerous.

In reply to john arran:

When it comes to guidebooks it seems to me that plagiarism and copyright are misused or confused concepts. Ultimately the route names, grades and descriptions come from those who do the first ascent. But it would be absurd if they were to claim that one couldn't use such info a guidebook because it belonged to them.

The first guidebook to an area has to get the route information from somewhere. It used to be freely available in new routes books in cafes. Maybe someone who knows a crag will draw a topo on bit a paper. At this stage no one attempts to claim plagiarism or copyright. Climbers want the information to be spread around freely so other climbers go and do the routes.

In established areas I'd fully expect a guidebook writer to use existing guides as a source of information. How else are they going to do it? They're not going to climb every route, make up their own route names and opinions of a grade. It's not the factual information that is their contribution. Rather it's the book design, layout, topo diagrams, photos, writing and publishing etc. that is their work.

In reply to john arran:

Yes they have John, in Boulder, Colorado and a guidebook had to be withdrawn from publication because of copying false information. It has also been done on climbing topos.

 

M

In reply to fotoVUE:

Thanks Mick. That's interesting, although I'm assuming the copyright rules will be country-specific, so probably not easy to generalise from one example.

In reply to Howard J:

 

There's a similar spat brewing in Arco, I think.  The very latest Versante Sud guide has some interesting comments about publishing crags without referring to the equippers wishes and any local access issues in its introduction - presumably a snipe at the Vertical Life guide which is the new competition in the area. Given that Versante Sud has used a 'selected crags' model to pretty much take over guide production throughout Italy* introduces another level of humour of course. 

*Excluding the Dolomites: every man and his dog produces guides to the Dollies...….

In reply to john arran:

Aris claimed to have done this his book(s) and sent me a letter threatening legal action using these deliberate mistakes as proof. This was based on the app version of our guide which has been available for three years now, not the print version. I wrote back asking him to show me just a single one of these 'copied mistakes' and got no reply.

He also sent the same threat to Steve Golley about his Send app. This illustrates well how it really isn't about funding bolts since Steve's app is an amazingly altruistic effort that only generates money for bolting and has so far been very successful. If bolt funding was the issue then surely the Send app could only be a welcome introduction.

Alan

In reply to stp:

I fully agree with your post here Steve - spot on.

With regard to where we produce guidebooks to - that all comes down to authors. We can't just pluck areas out of the air. Kalymnos has been 17 years in the making and, along with Catalunya, were for many years the only significant areas that we had loads of prepared information to and no book. So whilst I appreciate that there are areas that are more in need of new guides that Kalymnos, it is a long process to prepare them for anywhere and you can only do it if you have the author to do the work. 

Alan

 

In reply to john arran:

Can't remember the details, could find them, but I'm sure one guidebook author copied all the grades of the routes from another guidebook, and the author/publishers of the guidebook that was copied argued that a grade of a route is subjective, whilst route names and fa details aren't, and route descriptions can be expressed in lots of ways. But grades of the same routes should vary between guidebooks covering the same area as people will have different opinions of them. 

In reply to fotoVUE:

That's curious. Would it mean that a new guidebook to an area would need to change a few route grades, even if the author thought the existing grades were all fine? What a minefield!

Good job we upgraded plenty of sandbag grades in our Ariège book then

In reply to andyb211:

People people people. 

You are all 'far too close' to this topic. MH is simply wrong (there is no discussion about it.)

A guidebook owns no 'right' to the knowledge it presents. It's USP will simply be the way it presents that information, whether the BMC guide, rockfax, or a foreign local guidebook.

It is no more complicated than that.

Right, carry on bickering.

 

In reply to Andy Say:

From Arco Rock (2018)

'Every wall, and we are proud of this, is published with the approval of the route openers and it is with them that we have constantly measured ourselves against [sic].  Nothing in these pages comes from the black market.  With this logic in mind you will not find crags here that the bolters did not intend publishing or that might create difficulties......

Narango, very well known and busy crag has been forbidden to be published by the bolter.  As always.....we respect this point of view and will not publish this wall in the Guidebook.'

An interesting take on the relationship between developer and guide producer!  They've also dropped Laghel from the guide to preclude possible access problems.

 

In reply to Andy Say:

It's curious this idea of 'ownership' of routes or of whole crags, which has nothing to do with land ownership or legal access. Our society is quite possessive (we put flags on the moon!) and we tend to assume that individual or single-group control of resources is a normal state of affairs, when often there's little logic to it.

In the UK we often refer to the idea of getting a first ascensionist's consent before adding any fixed gear, and here we're seeing a case of getting a crag equipper's consent before publishing the climbs.

My view is that none of us owns any route or any crag, neither individually nor collectively. That's not to say there aren't crags on private land, rather that climbs that are accessible to all climbers should be the responsibility of all climbers, and not in any way the exclusive preserve of any individuals or cohorts.

In the UK, it is polite and correct to seek the opinion of a first ascentionist, and their wishes should very much be taken into account, but they don't own the route nor should they have exclusive rights to determine its future. That should be up to the wider climbing community, however that may be interpreted.

Similarly, the crags I have developed here in Ariège are in no sense mine, even though I was the only one involved in their discovery and equipping. If other climbers want to make changes, add more bolts or routes, reroute access paths or whatever, it is up to the climbing community to do so in a responsible way, not up to me to consent. So it is with publication: as long as access is available to all it should be up to the climbing community as a whole to decide whether there is a need for restricting published information, such as on the grounds of environmental sensitivity, rather than any such decision being the exclusive preserve of particular individuals.

In reply to john arran:

Interestingly enough, John, I realised that the 'missing' crag (Narango) was one that I HAD climbed on in the 90's using an old Versante Sud guide!  So this seems to be a very retrospective decision: I assumed it was about banned access.

To be honest, and the reason why I thought it related to this thread, I think this 'argument' is simply a case of the 'established' guidebook team chucking a few bricks that come to hand at the 'new' Vertical Life guide. 

One other thought: establishing just who the 'climbing community' is in Kalymnos or Arco could be problematic  

In reply to john arran:

That's sort of the nub isn't it?  If  'other climbers' want to double the number of bolts in one of your routes, and do so, that isn't necessarily in accord with the will of the 'climbing community'.

I take your point that, once 'created', a route, as a concept, moves into the public domain.  It was 'your' vision that linked a sequence of holds to the 'top' and, possibly, placed the bolts to enable that linkage but, once done, the route 'belongs' to everyone. 

Cenotaph Corner was a concept made reality.  But if a line of bolts is placed up the Corner is it in any way still 'the Corner' or simply a line of holds that has been requisitioned by someone else to create something very different? Hey: I don't know.  But I would like to think that all climbers would respect the spirit that inhabits a climb; a legacy of the first ascensionist.  That's why I like some historical detail, first ascent lists in guides etc.  Otherwise routes are simply commodities. 

In reply to Andy Say:

I would hope 'climbing community' would know to oppose any idea of bolting Cenotaph Corner without needing to consult Joe Brown.

Conversely (and obviously hypothetically!) if JB himself were to suddenly decide to put bolts in CC, would his voice count for anything? Should it?

In reply to john arran:

Though I'm sure you probably had a pretty good plan of where the routes were going to go. If someone came along and equipped some wandering illogical line and ruined the potential then I'm sure that wouldn't go down very well and of course you wouldn't have been able to do anything about it! I've developed a few complete crags and have been very aware that anyone could have done exactly that, but have been lucky. But back to ownership... I took drill and bolts to Kalymnos in 2003 as I'd seen some good lines at Skalia Pillar on my previous visit and fancied bolting them. When I got there I found that all but one of them had a single bolt at the start. This was the work of the Remys who'd just stamped ownership on these potential routes. They weren't even on the island at the time. I therefore respected them and equipped the one line they hadn't 'bagged'. Judging by the email I received from Claude he was quite miffed! Ownership indeed!