Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

ACA call for Blood!!! 16-Sep-2009 At 1:24:33 PM Richard

Message

On 15/09/2009 BA wrote:
> History has been altered by
>these actions, but I doubt if anyone out in Chockstone-land cares.
>
>I do. Am I wrong to care?

I think the crux of the "problem" here, is that you're effectivel trying to use guidebooks as a historical record - where as users want a route description that correct ambiguities in the original write up, maybe offers a better finish that the original, takes into accout changes in fixed pro, etc. I find Simey's descriptions brilliant - they adequately descirbe the route, protection and anythin else needed, in a few number of words. And where there's relevant history on a climb, it will often be mentioned. I did find it intersting to read the history of the missing link descriptions, but I don't see that as the role of the current edition of a guidebook. So these two cross purposes at play here.

Re Jim Kane's post: Unless Kyle made an approach to the VCC at another time - I was probably the VP when this happened. I don't recall a direct request from the ACA to the VCC - there was some verbal request made via a second person, which is probably why the committee didn't really know what the ACA was, and what they were proposing. Hence, the reason we probably never replied. As you may have read between the lines, I am a supporter of the ACA's on line data base, though two kids curtail the chance I get to use it. But most of this is water under the bridge now.

To a large extent, I am much more concerned about retaining general access to such info, than the specific wording within the route description. So long as we don't loose the incremental advances that motoviated individuals make, we can debate wording down the track. IMHO