I think Marty should be commended for debating here, most sport route developers wouldn't bother, and I very much appreciate the line both he and Dane draw between opinions and the person who holds them. Passions run high on the topic, and being able to argue in a civil manner calls for committment from all parties. to you all.
Myself, I feel rather conflicted on the subject, and I like Lucky's case-by-case approach. On the one hand, the trad end of Dane's poll: No chipping, no holds added, no bolts next to natural protection, and no messing with someone else's creation have pretty much been ground rules since I started climbing in 1973, and I've always believed in them. The thing is that life is rather more gray, and I find I've engaged in some of these things.
I own a crag, as in it's on my property, and legally I could grind it flat and show movies on it if I wanted. The rock is an old sandstone quarry, so it was man made, but it sure feels like you're climbing when you're on it. There is a route I bolted four artificial holds on. It provides access through a band of bad rock so you can get up to a pretty damn good route. It doesn't matter how much you scrub this bad section, shit just keeps coming off. Now, it's possible to scrabble through the crap in an unpleasant and sketchy manner, but after I pulled a briefcase size chunk off onto my leg, I decided it was just bullshit, and if I didn't do something different the route just wouldn't be worth the hassle. Consequently, I put the four holds on through the most solid section of rock, which did not otherwise offer access to the route. Sometimes I feel a little silly, because even with the holds it's still easy 5.10 to get onto the route, but given that the crux is middling 5.11, it's not inappropriate. It's not beautiful, but it does make the route worthwhile. So, am I in the wrong?
Down at the far end of the crag there is a 5.9/10a fingertip lieback in a corner. It's the easiest and most straightforward route on the crag. I don't have a lot of confidence in the ability of the stone to hold small nuts and tiny cams and the position of the route makes the placements difficult to achieve and inspect, so I put four bolts on the face to protect the 50' long route. It would seem silly to me that the easiest route at the quarry would be the one most likely to kill you, and I really don't want any dead bodies on my property. I was the first to clean and climb the corner, so I am the FA as well as the legal owner. Am I in the wrong?
There's another route, a great 5.10c outing, which also is one of the easier lines here. A significant flake that plays a big role in the climb was somewhat loose. If I pried it off, it would leave a scar, and make the route notably harder. Instead, partly from an agenda of wanting to have a few moderate routes here, I carefully used backer rod to create a dam and filled part of the back of the flake with construction epoxy. If you look closely, you can tell the hold has been reinforced, but it's neither obvious nor messy. If I had pried off the flake one of the few 5.10's at the quarry would be gone. Am I in the wrong?
Now, I understand, this is a bizarre case given the ownership of the crag. It wouldn't occur to me to do these things at Leavenworth, Darrington, Tieton River, or even Vantage because I wouldn't feel empowered to make that decision. None of those places are "home" even in the sense that I climb there a whole bunch. But I can imagine the decision process that led me to my actions being applied by someone else at another crag, and so I feel conflicted by the whole thing.
Does anyone know how you would fill in a chipped hold that wouldn't look worse than the original scar? I might have a few ideas, but they would be somewhat esoteric and require skills and materials not commonly accessible. I think chipping is even worse than bolting a hold on, since holes can be filled, but chipped edges don't disappear well. But even here there is a gray area. When does cleaning become chipping? In some of the FRAC (funky rock awesome climbing) areas that sport climbing has clasped to its bosom, the line can be a little blurry. Where one person thinks they're cleaning things up and making the route possible, others might think they're manufacturing holds.
Even well meaning upgrades can be botched and leave a worse mess than they intended to fix. The Dike Route on Pywiak Dome in Tuoloumne is a good example. The route is one of the earliest bolt protected climbs done up there, and was very run out because the leader was simply too terrified and unable to stop and drill. I think later on a couple bolts were added, but the route has remained a run out affair that requires a certain amount of poise. Nonetheless, it has been very popular, and sees lots of traffic. The last time I did the route (which was years ago, things may have changed) someone had upgraded the rusty 1/4" bolts with modern 3/8" and heavy stainless steel hangers. When you're 50 or 60 feet out, that sort of thing is appreciated. The problem was that instead of removing the old bolts, they simply placed new ones nearby, and I think there was a botched hole or two as well. The net result, while safer and done with good intentions, was rather ghastly and ugly. Replacing unsafe bolts is widely lauded as a community service, and yet this was wrong.
Can retrobolting be acceptable? I have a friend who put up stacks of scary routes in Tucson. He had an amazing ability to move slowly, securely, and slothlike over 5.10 face climbing with such confidence that protection wasn't that much of an issue. Drilling by hand is tedious and time consuming. Consequently, there are some great lines that see no traffic. My friend no longer lives down there, so he is generally unable to change things himself. He's open to the idea of making some of these routes safer for others, but the logistics involved in arranging for appropriate proxy retro-bolting coupled with the fact that others might be offended and chop the additions have kept anything from happening. If the FA party is willing to see things change, I think retro-bolting may be acceptable, but it does take effort and communication, and particularly when you throw in layers of different generations and folks who fade from the sport, it would take a determined effort to secure that approval.
Anyway, after all that blather, you can see where I'm going. In theory, I believe in the rules, but in practice I can see blurry edges that make the application more of a process than a binary operation.
Because I thought my line was pink, and I didn't want to get into some kind of pink and blue gender embarassment. Mine is definitely the, umm, err, red line. The angle of the photo Scott used, similar to the picture in the CAG, compresses the width of the face. The other photo is more like what you see on approach.