Make photos mandatory for new routes???

Nielsonru wrote: And a great photo is worth much more than a marginal description. Plenty of areas on MP that have a great picture or two that do all the talking, while the text goes unread. Having a good template goes a long way. A template that really describes how one could express a new route (not just a couple sub headings) and an example picture with an overlay. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing process, but a good precedent goes a long way. Here is one that I have really liked. I am probably a little biased since its where I live, but just one good beta photo goes a long ways.

I agree with this post as for photos of areas with routes. This kind of photo would be very helpful in being able to determine exactly where the routes are on the cliff. However, each route doesn't need its own photo. Furthermore, one liner descriptions are often perfectly acceptable for sport routes at a crag where the routes are all pretty straightforward: "Follow the bolt line..." Having said that, there are definitely some area and route descriptions which are sorely lacking and are rather useless. In these cases, you're encouraged to go to the crag, take a picture of the area and the route locations and try to make the area description helpful, unless the "wiki-community-edit" function is enabled here.

Contributors should be able to answer this question with a definitive "yes": If I were following the directions I just wrote and have never been there before, could I find this place/route - or navigate the route with this description (especially applicable to multipitch routes)?

It's ironic that Summitpost, which has otherwise been mostly abandoned by all but the lamest hikers-who-think-they-are-climbers peakingbagging types, has actually managed to maintain much higher standards for route and area pages than this site (which is not to say that faulty route descriptions from there have not gotten me seriously fucked, because they have).
That whole site has a very different vibe, and i would not generally suggest that it be imitated, but there just needs to be a general understanding that creating lame route pages is not ok.

There's no sense in mandating photos, there is the rare route that doesn't need it, but for 9/10 the description is worthless w/o a photo.
when i am browsing looking for inspiring routes, what gets me excited is not "hands to fingers, good pro," its the photo of what that means.

can i go ahead and flag almost every route at Haffner? some lazy-ass point hunter added about a dozen routes with little more than one word descriptions, and its not like there's even a fully up to date guidebook on that place.
i mean, technically "burly, ice to finish" does describe almost every route there, but it is also supremely unhelpful if you are trying to figure out what is what.

I do think photos help to illustrate FA's.However with sport routes one does have a line of bolts to follow. I personally think one line or rubbish descriptions both FA's and other are often caused by the race for MP points .Check it out in "The People of Mountain Project"

I don't like the wiki style edit idea at first blush. OP will be "heavily involved in the edit"? How about for people who have posted up a fair number of routes probably don't want a part time job of constantly monitoring nitpicks?

The current system of comments generally provides all and it seems lackluster descriptions are already sometimes replaced by better ones posted in the comments section.

To the idea of the op needing to post up a pic, there are many flaws to that notion and I'd rather have a decent description by somebody inspired to do so rather than roadblocks to the information. I have found many routes by description alone, it is not that hard folks.

Colonel Mustard wrote:I don't like the wiki style edit idea at first blush. OP will be "heavily involved in the edit"? How about for people who have posted up a fair number of routes probably don't want a part time job of constantly monitoring nitpicks?

Im no admin, but I cant see the Wiki tag being put on every single post, I imagine they would just be putting it on posts that clearly need help.... Over time I imagine people who dont want to receive the dreaded "this post needs help" tag will make a point to make sure they are thorough in their postings.

I agree many of the route descriptions are lazy and useless. But, at the same time if you use said crag then post up on the comment section and add your own info. This info is all free and I for one am for less beta. Some routes give too much: .4 cam at 10', clip 2nd bolt with gaston foot smear at third crux from pitch 98, drink water, clean behind your ears...