Route Sorting - MP wants your opinion

Sorting sounds like a really good idea, as I think the way these routes have currently been listed has one of MP's biggest drawbacks compared to just having a guidebook.

I think it would be great if you could allow any user to sort it if they see errors, in wikipedia fasion. That would cut down on Admin work, and overall inaccuracies if it were easy for anyone to fix. And yeah, require sorting, because this way it can be fixed later if it's messed up.

I'm all for this idea... and also realize some of the difficulties involved. I'm thinking of the difficulties of sorting an area like The Monastery near Fort Collins.

It seems reasonable to me that the admin of an area should be able to establish the rules for sorting an area. The default (automatic) ordering for an area can just be alphabetical. But if the admin can establish a reasonable ordering criterion then he can disable the automatic sorting and manually put the routes in the "proper" order.

Yes, require sorting of new routes. Allow a submitter to set a "provisional location" flag. If the submitter doesn't know for sure then they set the flag to indicate that this is a "provisional" location... and the admin can be notified, who can place it more correctly. Other members should also be able to see the flag, 1) so they know the location may not be quite right and 2) add comments about the proper location if they think they know for sure.

As for the comments above about routes crossing, etc. I don't think that matters. It's the starting location of the routes that matters for the ordering. The route description will indicate if it crosses other routes or shares anchors, or if the upper pitches merge/split.

One confusion might be routes that don't start on the ground. I'm sure I've seen some descriptions like this (but can't think of an example right now): "Climb P1 of XXXX, then head left up the right facing dihedral instead of continuing up the right leaning crack." So then it would be up to the person who adds the route and the admin to "sort it out". I'd suggest that these kinds of routes go directly after the route with which they share a starting pitch.

Really, the main thing we as a group need to do is put the time into contributing route topos that show the cliffs and what lines are what. That is usually a lot trickier and requires more dedication to do, so it's not getting done as often or as well as just individual route descriptions.

I think it makes sense for cragging areas like Indian Creek, RRG, most of the crags in Thailand. But I'd limit it to areas that really need better organization.

For example, I'm reading about routes in the Winds and RMNP in preparation for a trip out there but I know the names of the routes I want to do and having them in any specific order on MP won't help me a bit.

Even with many cragging areas, it won't make sense to order the routes L to R. What if the trail meets the wall on the right side? Will there be an option for climbs to be ordered R to L?

Finally, what about areas like Moore's Wall ? There are like 50 climbs listed for this crag but it hasn't been split up into different sectors. Having the routes in order would actually help one navigate the cliff line at a place like Moore's, especially since the guidebook leaves out a lot of climbs. But it doesn't make sense until someone goes in and creates areas within Moore's Wall (IE Hanging Gardens, Fire Wall, Circus Wall, Amphitheater, North End, etc).

I think it would help in some areas, but even then...

M Sprague wrote:There is something to be said for buying the damn guidebook instead of everybody always staring into a gadget 24/7.

I would also like to see a scroll button for the routes so I can click on the first one and go directly to the next.

I like the idea! I wouldn't worry about crossing routes or which anchors to use; that will be in the route description. The start is the important issue in locating most climbs.

Maybe variations that share a start would warrant 7.1/a numbering system, comming next in the L-R title list. Administrators have the luxury of renumbering routes at any time it seems logical. (It's the beauty of of being on-line.)

I always search the photo section for a picture of the start if I'm not sure where a route is. An overview of some kind would be killer.

Is there a way to organize routes that others have submitted? am I missing something obvious?

Sam Feuerborn wrote:Is there a way to organize routes that others have submitted? am I missing something obvious?

This.
It makes little sense to have the option to sort the one route you're posting when a crag already has 10 unsorted ones. Popular crags might eventually get organized but for most it will remain an unusable function. Unless you get the option of sorting everything when you submit a new route the idea isn't really going to take off. IMO of course.

Ya I agree B. I think the option to sort all routes when submitting a new one is extremely necessary and with out this option the sorting is fairly useless.

If you find a crag/area that could use a L->R sorting and can actually work with that method (some don't) but is not sorted, start the sorting with whatever routes you have submitted and then send the admin for the crag/area a list of L->R.

Every sort starts with one route. Thanks!

...and for areas with no admin?

Sam Feuerborn wrote:Ya I agree B. I think the option to sort all routes when submitting a new one is extremely necessary and with out this option the sorting is fairly useless.

This 1000 times. The sorting needs to be open to those who add routes at the very least.

I've been thinking about this a lot.

Solution - Let routes be sortable by anyone, so that the common wisdom of route location will sort out routes properly.

The routes are where they are, and this will let passionate locals police their local crags and properly sort any routes that are added and mislocated.

Don't require the routes to be sorted when submitted, but allow routes to be sorted by all.

I think it's your most elegant solution.

YES for sorting by location (L to R, R to L, or whatever). I think spatial location for routes is as useful as the location of the wall itself, when it comes to a web-application.

Higher standards for data submissions will only make the site better even if there are issues. MP should feel no sympathy for people who are deterred by simple quality control.

To skirt the issue of adding routes after they are already sorted allow anyone to edit the route location (or everything for that matter). Beyond the database challenges for MP I think a more wiki style approach will support evolution of the site much better than just pushing it on Administrators. Especially for areas with less active admins. Admins should only have to monitor quality not actively edit peoples careless entries. A physical location bypasses the need to interpret some of the really bad descriptions submitted with the current system.

I think a reasonable first try as been made and the sort options make it livable for everyone.
As a guy who enters a lot of routes here in less than common areas though, it occurs to me to ask...

Why can't I go ahead and sort routes in an otherwise unsorted area? I enter one and it forces me to put it on the sorted side, but leaves the other 2-10 routes on the unsorted side and disallows me from doing anything about it. Seems silly.

I agree that the routes should be able to be sorted by anyone. The Thailand section is getting done VERY slowly. Since I don't trust myself to remember each crag perfectly, I have to use a guidebook when I sort the routes. It would make sense to let people who are either in Thailand or fresh off their trip to sort if they wish. Afterwards, as an admin, I can go back and organize sub areas and fix mistakes.

Ryan Williams wrote:I agree that the routes should be able to be sorted by anyone. The Thailand section is getting done VERY slowly. Since I don't trust myself to remember each crag perfectly, I have to use a guidebook when I sort the routes. It would make sense to let people who are either in Thailand or fresh off their trip to sort if they wish. Afterwards, as an admin, I can go back and organize sub areas and fix mistakes.

I agree. Areas will be able to be sorted much more easily if anyone can do it.

I'm for sorting l-r or r-l. I think requiring a route to be sorted at time of submission and requiring either a beta map or photo is the way to go...it ups the quality of data on the site and if you don't have those two pieces of info then you shouldnt submit.

Sadly, the reason we can't open up sorting to everyone is because of sabotage. Inevitibly, some disgruntedled user will trash the database.

And before you say "limit it only to users who have submitted lots of content", numerous times we've had users sabotage vast amounts of their own content.

It's the sad truth.

For a wiki style system to work, you need to have a history available with a list of who changed what, and a way to undo changes. If history is not kept now (which I suspect it is not) then this change would be a lot of work. Might be worthwhile in the long term, as it would also deal with issues of sabotage like the ones you mentioned as well as facilitating more liberal update policies.