pic w/line vs. detailed topo: guidebook thoughts?

Erik W wrote:What's everybody's thoughts on the route map style used in the newer guidebooks - namely a color picture with a line roughly following the route - versus the previous style of having a detailed topo drawing?

IMO a "well done" hand drawn topo is prefered over any photo based representation. Hand drawn topos provide more relevant climbing related information than photos. And they can be wonderful works of art, not that photos can't but I love well drawn artistic and accurate topos. THis might be most relevant for multi pitch trad climbing I suppose, I also think back in the 20th century when hand drawn topos were more popular they provided an opoortunity for more accurate verbal descriptions/historical info for routes and for crags/areas.

Nevertheless, there is not much worse than poor, inaccurate, topo guides (or photo guides) especially since they typically correlate with poor descriptions (poor effort). Lastly, photo guides can be exquisuitely beautiful,ve ry well done and/or highly useful. photo guides will take over the entire genre for sure.

What I like is the following information:

How do I get from the parking lot to the general crag area?
How do I locate the climb while standing below it looking up?
What is the protection/anchors/loose blocks/etc? basic route info
How do I locate the descent and what is the descent like?

Sometimes if you use a photo it is from a vantage point that you will never see and thus not as easy to use. The info should be conveyed from an on the ground perspective. A lot of times topos identify features that the "I was standing on the other side of the canyon" shot does not. They might be there in the photo, but at the base of the climb it all looks the same sometimes. A topo with description works much better sometimes. The photo with line will never give all the relevant details of a climb. Perhaps a combination of the two works best.

Plus it depends on the quality of the photos to determine if they are really useful. Also depends on if it is a 1 pitch route or multipitch. On multipitch a photo is sometimes nice, but a topo can be indispensable. A picture from far away with a line is sometimes worthless 4 pitches up. I'd much rather have a topo that describes the next pitch.

Love to see FA listed and any history is always really nice to read. This info is seriously missing from most new guidebooks.

Color photos might revolutionize sales, but I've climbed almost everything I've ever done from hand drawn topos or someones description.

For single pitch routes I prefer the photos with a line on it. I think it makes for a nicer looking book and a good overview photo can help in finding the area/route. This does also require a good description to go along with it.