UKH

I did a multipitch route in the Llanberis pass last week. It was Slape, a classic 5 pitch VS. It was errr tricky and increasingly overgrown as we got higher. Now pitches 1, 2 and 4 were all graded between 4b and 5a but regardless of the grade given, the 4th was as hard as anything on the route.

On the logbooks it seemed like 80% of people only climbed the first pitch, another 10% climbed the second and almost nobody climbed the whole thing. So what you might say, people can do what they want and well I'd agree with that but why don't people just say DNF to the route as they haven't actually climbed it? If you climbed just the first move of a boulder problem would it be ok to claim a tick for the whole problem?

So that's one minor bemusement for me. The second is that those who don't climb at least the first four pitches are missing out on some memorable climbing so I feel mildly like they are needlessly denying themselves!

Slape is just an example of what I think is a common practice on an increasing number of routes.

Views and an outpouring of support for me? Whatcha think?

bilbs.

I'd personally consider a logbook and a log entry as a personal thing for your personal record, and it doesn't really matter as long as people aren't dishonestly claiming anything that they haven't done. One could argue that if they only ever intended to climb the first pitch, they've finished the route they planned to do. Would you rather they log it as a successful onsight on the route in the logbook with a note...or they add a new route of 'This Route (first pitch only)' so that they can log it correctly as they see it?

Ultimately, who cares?

Several of the routes around there - Brant as well if I remember correctly - do deteriorate in quality substantially after the first couple of pitches. They may once not have been overgrown, but they don't now see much traffic. You can have a much better day doing the first couple of pitches of Brant and/or Slape followed by Brant Direct if you are up to it and abseiling from each.

Martin

Try not to worry about what other people climb (or say they climb). Just concern yourself with your own climbing.

It's just messing about on rocks🙂

Sigh. Yes I know that, and I tried to make it clear that this is of basically no impact on me but it's like recommending a route to someone, I don't really care if they do it but I think they might enjoy it so I do recommend it.

Your title says it all; if you've only done a bit of a route you haven't completed it.

It's up to you if and how you record it, but you haven't done it.

There are probably hundreds of routes I 'haven't done' in this way.

Often a mountain crag rears out of the ground proudly, with good rock and strong features.

I'll climb these hard, 3* features, and then ab off - happily missing the other 2 pitches of easy ledge shuffling, and very happily missing the steep walk down the back, that is painful in performance rock shoes, and gets them wet and muddy.

I'll then do another couple of routes like this - hard, exciting climbing, that I enjoy and that makes me a better climber.

Far better than shuffling around on dirty ledges and getting half the 'real' climbing done.

I'll probably just tick it as climbed in the logbooks too - its as good as done - - - - I could have climbed that last pitch without a technical grade if I had a broken leg and was blindfolded. 

I generally log ascents of some pitches of a multi-pitch route as complete route climbed; then put a note in the notes section to indicate which pitch(es) I left out.

If someone else uses their personal log in a different way, that's fine by me.

Anyone telling me that I'm using my personal log wrongly can go f*** themselves!

You can write what you want in the log but "done " isn't the same as "as good as done".

None of my business what or how you record your climbing. Just expressing my own opinion on the matter and how I would approach it,

When I think of all the routes I could have climbed with a broken leg and blindfolded but walked past them without ticking them.....

If it was a single pitch route and had a definite crux, I wouldn't just climb past the crux and then assume I'd completed the route or "as good as" completed it so lower off from the next good runner. The same principle applies to a multi pitch route,  as far as I'm concerned. 

But as far as log entries, people can write what they want. 

I just ran a marathon, well the last 2 miles of the route to the finish line anyway, 'cause everyone knows the last bit is always the hardest, so it's nearly the same 

oK, I'm trolling, just a bit. But you see the point?

To be fair, aren't some of the slab routes at Millstone listed with 'first pitch only' options on the logbook due to it being standard practise to only do the first? It's arguable it might start to get messy but I don't think it's that widespread a problem is it?

There are several 2 pitch routes (in the Peak) where either the 1st pitch is much more worthwhile than the second (Millstone's Embankment routes - as you mention although I'm not sure they're slabs), or the 2nd pitch is much harder than the 1st but the 1st is still apparently worthwhile (e.g Great Central Route (E2 5c) on Chee Tor). These all have a history of only the 1st pitch being climbed.

Similarly many 2nd pitches at  Raven Tor (Miller's Dale) don't get done much (this is definitely hearsay, way above my pay-grade to have direct knowledge), people ab/lower off after doing the main pitch of the Cave Routes in Gordale, etc. It's a common practice.

Mind you, I've not seen anyone lower off the pedestal because they can't be bothered to do the easy roof above 😁

Y Broga (HVS 5a) is another popular’ish route at Tremadog (a technical HVS) of which 90%+ of people only do the 1st pitch.  I’ve done that a few times and the whole thing only once.  Whilst I like the fact I’ve done the whole route, and the upper pitches were surprisingly tricky, the quality was poor and you’re much better off doing only P1 in truth.  I have no issue if people tick the route as climbed, that’s up to them.

With multi-pitch routes the hard bit is often towards the bottom and the chossy bit is towards the top. At most of my local crags, anyway.  

Not sure how that squares with your marathon analogy!

I suspect that the majority of people who claim to have climbed Strand have only done one pitch of it.

The top pitch is shit and pointless though. I've climbed the route twice and definitely felt no compunction about skipping the 30m of easy vegetated scrambling and abbing off the second time round. As a bonus it saves time to go do more proper climbing.

This. In my opinion.

If it's a newsworthy hard (wo)mans route then honesty matters but if you're talking about a VS or E1 or E5 or whatever then I also couldn't care less.

I think I once logged Rhapsody as an onsight naked solo just for the lulz but either I'm remembering that incorrectly or some moderator from UKC doesn't have the same sense of humour

It's not really a comment on the quality or otherwise of the top pitch and why people choose not to do it.  I was just pointing out, in the spirit of the OP, that it is part of the route.

It is but my point is that it's insignificant in terms of both the challenge and the enjoyment of the route. Under those circumstances I think it's totally acceptable to ab off and still tick it. 

Or a first ascent. I can imagine Macallum looking up at various lines on Gogarth and saying to himself " Looks easy enough. I've as good as done it . I have done it"

There's a question here for crag moderators as to whether you add extra entries for Route(P1) only.

I have been asked for this for one of the crags I moderate. I'm not in favour - I think it clutters up the crag description without adding anything. As someone else has said in the thread - record what you want in your logbook - it's a personal record only.

Original Route (HVS 5a) would be another example. Most people abb from the ledge at the end of P1 but I always go to the top.

Maybe they are all influenced by all those sport routes with the "top" being only a fraction of the way up the cliff

I think it matters that the routes we do are reported/recorded honestly irrespective of the grade.  I can see why people think it only matters with 'cutting edge' ascents. But I think there's more to it than that.

As somebody commented on another thread recently, because we're responsible for the lives of those we climb with, honesty and trust are fundamental. I see being honest about what we did, and in what style, as part of that.

Also, while some keep their logbook private or partners only, others make them public. Why do  that if not to ensure others can see what they've done? And how might the person who chooses not be honest defend themselves from the suggestion that they are doing impression management (even if that's not their main reason)? If you just can't be arsed to log everything, or faff about with onsight/dog/rpt distinctions, fair enough but why choose to make your logbook public and risk giving the wrong impression? It's unwise to take logbooks as an accurate indicator of somebody's standard or competence, although doing so seems to be often suggested on here. We all know that people 'curate' their logbooks for various reasons, some more dubious than others IMO. I agree that people can use their logbooks however they want, but my own preference would be for us to make them as complete and honest as possible.

The logbooks sometimes make it harder to log accurately. You can't log 'various leads' for example, but you can comment on which pitches you led. I only use 'dnf' for setting out to do something and not managing to do it (so wouldn't use it for something I deliberately only climbed part of). I clarify with comments though, and that keeps it accurate as a record for my future self and anybody else with whom I choose to share the info.

I personally dont think it matters whether people log climbs accurately if at all, missing a pitch here or there and not footnoting it etc.    Focus on enjoying being out on the rock and forget the digital world of endless interpersonal comparison. 

Also from a partner selection / safety point of view as has been mentioned here - its very much possible to select great partners without a full digital audit as they did in the pre digital days by asking a few questions of each other and doing a couple of pitches! 

I'm a stickler on this one.  Personally, I think if you avoid a pitch, no matter how trivial it is, I wouldn't say you'd ticked the route.  I can see why others would hold alternative views.

Did it ages ago (several decades) and I don't think many abbed off it then. I suspect that the practice may have become more popular on this route because it is suggested in the guidebook. Having said that, the top pitch, whilst not a walk in the park, is 1. Far poorer in quality compared with the main pitch, and 2. Nobody who's done the main pitch is going to fail on the top pitch (IMO - I'm sure someone will have managed this)

The fact that you're not going to fail on a pitch isn't really a good reason for not doing it.

In the really old days, it was usually done as one pitch followed by abseil from the tree near the edge (now gone).

What is a route?
What counts as "the route" has shifted a lot over time, for many climbs. Take Central Buttress on Scafell as an example: I think there are three different starts; many people now take an E1 5b traverse to avoid the original Flake, though this flake is now missing a crucial chockstone. After that, you traverse three sides of a square, but some people take a harder direct version. And then many people would recommend finishing via Nazgul ("to get the most out of the route"), but there are at least two other finishes. So... what exact combination of pitches do you need to do to say you've climbed Central Buttress?

Apart from historically complex routes, there are routes where guidebook editors have straightened routes out, preferred a less grotty variation over the original or combined routes (e.g. Atlantis/True Moments/Freebird (E2 5b)).

And this isn't even to mention the miriad minor variations people may make on big routes, with one person taking the left groove, another the right; or one team climbing the thuggy crack on the right, another the bold juggy wall to the left (a la Gormenghast (E1 5b)). Should you really get a DNF every time you deviate to avoid a wet section of a climb?

The Crux of the Matter
In addition to this, there are many routes with a harder first pitch and a second pitch that was climbed by the FAs but found to be of lower quality and difficulty. By convention, most people don't bother with the top bit. A great example of this is Razor Crack (E1 5b) on Neckband. After a stunning 35m 5b (IMO) crack, almost no-one finishes up the pitch of 4c vegetated dampness above. The definitive guide recommends walking off and doesn't show the second pitch on the photo topo; the Rockfax guide seems to have omitted p2 altogether. Soon the top pitch may be forgotten altogether... and what lovely lichens and mosses will grow there!

Other climbs finish in the middle of the wall at a junction with an easier route. If you don't continue up the wall via the easier route have you done the climb or not? Does the climb end at the junction in the middle of the wall or at the top?

Personally...
My personal ethics is that I've not really finished with a climb (or, at least, a climb I desire) unless I've led all the hardest bits. I'll still log this as an ascent, though. Other people are happy to feel a route is "done" despite having a tight rope on the hardest bits - and that's fair enough.

In conclusion, I don't think a dogmatic position is philsophically sound, given that what constitutes "the route" is often quite fluid and changes over time - or even ascent by ascent.