What will be the Cascade journal of record?

[Lowell_Skoog]

This may be of interest to climbers who put up new routes in the Cascades or who like to know about recent routes. A climbing partner of mine submitted a couple new route reports to the American Alpine Journal for the 2001 edition. These were relatively easy alpine climbs in the backcountry, the sort of thing one finds after years of snooping around. The AAJ editor replied that the journal will no longer be printing reports of new climbs shorter than grade IV. Since the Mountaineer Annual is pretty much dead, this leaves no generally accepted "journal of record" for recording such climbs in the Cascades.

How do you feel about this? Will another medium take the AAJ's place? Can something as short-lived as the web do it? Do we need to send reports straight to Fred Beckey? I'd be interested in any opinions on this.

Lowell Skoog

lowell.skoog@alpenglow.org

 

[rayborbon]

Jeff smoot takes reports and posts them on his website. This includes alpine routes. http://www.climbingwashington.com

[gapertimmy]

coming soon to a web browser near you

Lowell-

We're currently putting the finishing touches on our new route-report database which will allow all NW climbers to post trip reports, new routes, and search this extensive resource for valuable beta.

The db should be up within the next month, and it may be a medium to fill this void. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions about this.

Stay tuned for this great new part of the site!

-Tim

[Guest]

Are people really so interested in such trivial new routes? I don't, but if others are then I may submit to you my new variation that I invite anyone to try. Go up the hogsback hopping on one leg and wearing a purple scarf around your right arm.

[rayborbon]

I can think of a flurry of less than grade IV climbs that are awesome. From the judgement of Lowell's ascents I would guess that his would be of high quality! Maybe you are getting mixed up in numbers..

-Ray

[none_dup1]

M. Herzog:

I'm sure you were kidding and poking fun at the AAC. But if not, please show some respect where respect is due. In Lowell's case, it's due big time. If you climb in the Cascades, you already know that.

John Sharp

[dbb]

That's unfortunate that even the back of the AAJ is sucombing to the trend of the rest of it. Super-hardman routes are again pushing out the awesome hidden gully climbs, and exploratory rock climbs.

Hopefully everyone will submit far previous reports (as well as new ones) to the up and coming database so that we we have a resource simmilar to bivouac.com. As of yet, the Mr. Rainier section here could use some work! Probably everyone on this BB has climbed it, but you wouldn't find that area of much use if you hadn't.

Another questions for the AAJ is how do they expect to chronicle all the unclimbed number peaks in, say, Alaska. They are pretty much the standard for what has and hasn't been climbed. The majority of these peaks are not Alaska grade IV too... where will future climbers look for mountain info if this is gone? I suppose maybe I should be mailing them and not asking you, but I'd like to hear what other people think about this too.

Dave

[Colin]

I agree, new routes should definitely be recorded that are less difficult than grade IV. I do however, think that the internet is an excellent place for such a record. The fact that it is so easy to make a post on the internet, would make it so that fewer routes are forgotten. I know that the Rock and Ice site already has such a feature, but perhaps the one that Tim is designing will be better. There is a very valide argument against using the internet for such a record though, and that is that it might get filled with frivolous or untrue (joke) routes. For example, routes such as a one-footed Mt. Hood ascent should not be posted in such a record, as they are here.

[CascadeClimber]

I think what Colin is saying is that there needs to be some editorial control so that the reports are limited to true stories of significant merit.

If so, I agree. Of course, there needs to be some agreement on the definitions of "true" and "significant".

Seems like maybe a board of Northwest climbers could work something out that included an electronic forum and an annual publication.

The board would need to be comprised of experienced and respected Northwest climbers. Anyone care to volunteer? Mr. Nelson? Mr. Skoog? Did I see your hands raised?

-CC

[DPS]

Lowell's point is a good one. Web based data bases are cheap and convenient but are emphemeral. Hard copy is the ideal medium for archiving information. The decision of the AAJ to not publish shorter routes creates a void.

On a similar vein, Fred Beckey is getting on in years. Who will pick up the torch when he 'retires'?

[Alex]

I am not answering the question, only building it. This is my take:

The Web is not a good place to post new routes because

1) It is not a public forum, controlled by an organization

2) There is no incentive to edit, revise and publish records at a given point in the future.

Fred Beckey is a prolific updater of his own work, and I believe this is a very viable option. The Cascade Alpine Guide is a still the last word when it comes to references on the Cascades.

The American Alpine Journal is unfortunately too broad in scope to really tackle this issue. Nor does it get published or people really read it with any regularity to make it a good way to ditribute route info.

The local organizations here have no real inceentive to do the (very hard) work required to keep information up to date, though the Moutaineers would always be a likely candidate if the organization were a little more driven to do this kind of thing.

Finally, the climbing rags have little incentive to publish route information either: not very marketable, really.

So what does that leave? Individual authors who have the passion, drive, energy, contacts, and support to compile, edit and revise, and finally publish printed guidebooks. These individuals are few and far between.

Cheers, Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Lowell_Skoog]

I don't really fault the AAJ publishers for their decision. They have decided to focus on high-end international climbing. The sort of climbs done in the Cascades these days rarely qualify. On the other hand, if you look through Beckey's guides, the vast majority of Cascade routes (some very nice) are below grade IV. I'm enough of a Cascade fan to believe that there are more short, quality routes out there waiting to be discovered, in summer and winter.

So, who should fill the recording gap? Dee Molenaar (for Rainier) and Fred Beckey (for the Cascades as a whole) have been the keepers of our history. (The Olympics, unfortunately, have not been so well documented.) The Mountaineers have supported both of them by publishing their books. The AAJ's have been an important information gathering tool since the Mountaineer Annual died. What we need is a reliable system for gathering information that can be fed to whoever is responsible for the Cascade Alpine Guides. (The Nelson-Potterfield guides, having only selected routes, don't fill this role.)

I'm willing to help. I already have another history project underway though. I'm researching the history of ski mountaineering in Washington. This is a big project, but very fun and interesting. When I get my project foundation built, I would be willing to work with The Mountaineers, cascadeclimbers.com and others to work out a system for recording new Cascade climbs.

--Lowell Skoog

 

[Alex]

The feeling I get from you is that you think that it my be the climbing community's responsibility to protect the information, and would like to set up some infrastructure to make that possible. I actually raised this very issue, as my first ever post on CascadeClimbers.com, and got some good responses, so it is on a few people's minds.

I would also be willing to help, though I also have a project in the works that will require at least another year or two of research and time.

I think, though, that those people interested in this issue should meet here in the Pacific Northwest sometime soon, and hash out some of the problems and concerns that might be encountered. Public BBS tends to get a little tedious to read for details...

Alex

[Guest]

MrGoodtime

I was in fact poking fun at everything about it. I don't see a reason to document everything, maybe a little mystery should be left in the mountains for others to discover by themselves.

I certainly mean no disrespect for the man starting the topic, frankly I don't know him. We have different interests, but that is okay, it's a free country. I just thought I would put my two cents in, but cleary that has upset some (Colin).

So in the interests of censorship I will end forever my comments here.

Thank you and good luck

[Rodchester]

I agree with Herzog that we should not document EVERYTHING, but it would be great to have a place where these types of routes and the approach beta could be recorded.

Not all of us can or care to, climb 5.10 A3 Grade V routes. I am happy on moderate and easy alpine routes.

Stay happy.....

------------------

Have a nice day.

[mvs]

What about a strong association between a web site and a "journal of record."? The existence and support of the published journal gives legitimacy to the web site, and the site satisfies a need for new information, both for consumers (us) and the journal author(s).

The site assumes that you have a recent edition of the journal. Then a hyperlinked list of corrections, updates, and new routes would be very relevant. Wouldn't it be great to have this for the Alpine Guides?

The legitimacy question is very important. I remember waking up one day to find the rocknroad.com database was offline. The site needs to exude the stability of a university.

A .org name or hosting on the journal publisher's site would help.

Best of both worlds?

--Michael

 

------------------

[This message has been edited by mvs (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Darryl]

A couple years ago some friends and myself decided that there was a need for a fund raising/organizing tool to help coordinate Washington climbers. As an attempt to kick start this process we produced a small guide, The Traveler’s Guide, which attempted to present to visiting or newly arrived climbers the best climbs of the Puget Sound. Using funds generated from the Traveler’s Guide, anchors/bolts have been replaced around the state most prominently at Darrington and the Index Town Walls. Anchors are being shipped to Squamish activists for use there. Funds were given to activists at the Frenchman’s Coulee. An offer was made to the State Parks Department to pay for the placement and maintenance of portable toilets at the Index Town Walls.

As a follow up we envisioned an annual or biannual publication/newletter focusing on northwest climbing related activities. Such a publication would fill an, apparently vacant, info niche, help to organize climbers and provide a source of cash to support things such as anchor replacement, clean-up days/parking lot maintenance and the dissemination of information. During last summer we even went so far as to ask some people if they would be agreeable to writing a short write up on various things they had been doing. Unfortunately health problems of my (baby) son and a friend’s climbing related head injury put the project on the way back burner. After seeing the proliferation of climbing related web sites I began to think that maybe the project was a lost cause, however, recent comments here have caused me to reconsider. My experience with the Traveler’s Guide leads me to believe that not the benefits of such a publication are far greater than mere route information. If others concur and want to join in the effort, I would be more than willing to help make it a reality as well.

 

[Lowell_Skoog]

MVS makes some good points. I think a website could be useful tool for recording climbs. It seems like we've always had three levels of reporting:

1. "Raw" reports like you find on personal websites, commercial sites (e.g. climbingwashington.com) and "community" sites (e.g. cascadeclimbers.com). Before the web, these reports would be have been submitted directly to Fred Beckey (for his guides) or published in magazines as either feature articles or "basecamp" notes.

2. "Reviewed" reports. These are reports that have had some sort of editorial review by experienced local climbers to select ones that are "significant". If you were interested only in historical reporting, then the criteria might be that the climb must be "new". But if you were interested in a broader record, then you might include reports that are especially well written, describe unusual trips and so on. This level of reporting is what the Mountaineer Annual and AAJ used to provide.

3. Finally the information gets published in guidebooks or regional narratives. Without the second level of reporting, the job of a third-level author gets much harder.

The second level is the one we're talking about, I think. This could be provided by a website but as MVS said, the source needs to be authoritative. There shouldn't be too many of these either. It might not matter if the material is published on paper if the website publisher is reliable enough.

--Lowell Skoog

p.s. As MVS mentioned, a system like this could serve for reporting guidebook errata as well as new climbs.

[This message has been edited by Lowell Skoog (edited 01-25-2001).]

[gapertimmy]

I don't want this thread to die. Lowell, we could provide the means for "step two" of your process outlined above here on the site. We could open up a private forum (Like the Moderator forum we already have) to a select board of reviewers.

I'd be happy to setup the back-end for this, but do not even come close to being a person qualified of reviewing such material.

So, if you would like to put together the review team, you have a forum here for doing steps one and two.

Jim/PMS, would you be interested in helping with this?

thoughts?

-Tim

[Rodchester]

I agree that this is a really good idea.

I may be able to help, although I am busy with my "regular" job.

Let me know.

------------------

Have a nice day.

[highclimb]

i think that a new route is a new route and unless it doesnt qualify as climbing, it should be recorded by anymeans, internet or book, so other climbers can use it as a resource.

[rayborbon]

I volunteer to help.

I can even help with technical aspects. Let me know Jon or Tim.

I think I could do well at this and enjoy it in a non-biased way.

-Ray

[rollin'_thunder]

I have mixed feelings about the over exploitations of the great north cascades. I feel it is better to explore all the great opportunites of all the 1st class alpine routes without too many blow by blow accounts. Too many guide books = Too many "bumblies". It takes more than a visa card trip to Rei to play in the great north cascades.

 

[gapertimmy]

rollin' thunder-

i think most people you meet on the board here will agree with your post about what Jon calls "The REI effect" but the fact still remains that there is a void left here.

Looking ahead though, I think we need to take the following steps to make this happen:

1- Let Climbers around the NW know that we will be providing a record of new routes that the AAJ is not going to publish. This can be a grass-roots effort, perhaps part of our "sport climbing for the new millennium" campaign, (sorry dan, it still brings a smile to my face)

2- The panel as Lowell outlined:

quote:

---

2. "Reviewed" reports. These are reports that have had some sort of editorial review by experienced local climbers to select ones that are "significant". If you were interested only in historical reporting, then the criteria might be that the climb must be "new". But if you were interested in a broader record, then you might include reports that are especially well written, describe unusual trips and so on. This level of reporting is what the Mountaineer Annual and AAJ used to provide.

---

needs to be formed, I see this via a nomination process, and if he is willing, I'd like to have Lowell spearhead this one.

3- The recording/web side. I can seriously have the "private forum" for reviewing these submissions setup in a matter of seconds. We could even setup an email account where people can submit new routes.

4- Publishing? I'll punt on this one, but I don't see this coming up for quite some time.

Ray's willing to help, who else is in? Reviewers?

[Alex]

Tim, on 4) Publishing, I think it could be easily said that after a review process is completed by the panel, the "route" and any updated data on it could be published in the public domain on the web, either through CC.com or a new domain set up by "Pacific Northwest" climbing community and managed on behalf of that community.

I think there are alot of potential contributors to this effort, not just in the review process. There are several lawyers lurking around the woods, and many other web/desktop publishing savvy people as well, whose free services would doubtless be approeciated by the greater community once a clear process is established.

Like all such sites (and yours) the real publishing work comes down to a few web-savvy geeks, but I feel strongly that the publishing, ownership and any copyright issues be kept by the community, not a privately controlled site. That said, I think it would be very appropriate for CC.com to mirror the master publishing site, as well as other sites like Jeff's.