Reorganizing Oregon

First, my credentials. I am a life-long Oregon native, been climbing for a handful of years now, mostly around the Pacific Northwest, but also elsewhere. Stalk me for details. You can also see that I have done a lot of work (quality, quantity, meh) here on MP and look forward to making it better.

Second, my plan. I would like to reorganize the main page of Oregon into smaller, more intuitive "zones" - exactly as has been done in Washington . These zones would be Northeast Oregon (already created), Southwest Oregon (Rattlesnake, Callahans), Willamette National Forest & Central Valley (The Garden, Wolf Rock), Oregon Cascades (Hood, Jefferson, Sisters), Central Oregon (Smith Rock, Trout Creek), Mt Hood National Forest (French's Dome, Bulo Point), Columbia Gorge & Portland (Beacon, Carver, Broughton). Areas with less than five routes will be evaluated and possibly deleted, but not without contacting the submitter.

Third, my reasoning. Currently the Oregon page is a clusterfuck. Locals who know specific areas can find what they're looking for, but someone using MP to find climbs in a given area will have a much harder time. It may help locals become more aware of things close to their typical destinations. In general, it will look better and be more organized.

Any and all feedback is welcome.

Nate Ball wrote:Areas with less than five routes will be evaluated and possibly deleted...

Why would they be deleted?

I wholeheartedly approve of this idea, the Oregon page is a mess. This topic was discussed earlier this year in this thread, as I am sure you have seen.
mountainproject.com/v/organ…

Why, though, would you delete areas with less than 5 routes?

I personally hate how Washington is set up into zones...its not helpful IMO. Being from another state and being able to us MP just fine while in Oregon for 5 weeks this summer (and multiple visits each year to visit family), without it being organized, I'd have to say your rationale isn't appropriate for most folks with even just a handful of brain cells. Deleting areas with 5 or less routes seems like some sort of personal preference than something that is needed and wanted by most climbers in the area as well. I like organization, and it is a clusterfuck at this point, but I don't think what you are describing is best for most folks that use the Oregon info. No need to fix something that isnt really broken.

Also, if you are in Taiwan, why do you have a dog in this fight right now? I know you have spent a lot of time in the area, but it seems like it should be left up to folks that are truly using the information regularly to make these sorts of decisions. An admin in another area that now lives in a different country decided to rearrange a bunch of stuff a couple of years ago, even though this person hadn't climbed in the area for a couple of years, and it created a lot of tension with the real locals that use the info and areas regularly.

Like the reorganizing idea. Hate the "get rid of small crags" idea.

How are people supposed to add info to make small crags big if they are deleted? How will people who live near these small crags find out about them?

It sounds like a good idea Nate, except the part about getting rid of small areas. Maybe a small area can be joined with a neighboring area, if one is close enough.

The reorganization of Washington was done for the same reason. Arizona was the inspiration, but we thought more zones were needed.

Brad - you should have seen Washington before. It had about 50 areas, and if you were looking to climb in a certain region, you had no idea which of the 50 to check. Contributors were also confused, sometimes adding the same area twice, under a slightly different name. Sure, no system is perfect, but the aim is just to make things a little bit better.

I suppose if the point is to remove "secret" crags, then by all means, get rid of the small crags. But number of posted routes is not a good marker of quality, interest or anything really.

As to the zones, this has never worked well in any state. Look at robust, well developed areas like Colorado or Utah. If you don't know what you're looking for, or have a handy map nearby, the zones are still just as opaque as they are now.

Don't mind the idea of reorganization.

But I really don't like the Washington Zone Map, for me it's really hard to read, and if you are not familiar with Washington it takes a long time to figure out where you are looking at.

Please don't delete the little crags.

So I brought this exact topic up earlier this year. Couldn't get an admin to take it up, so I'm excited you want to do that. Here's the previous topic for reference. mountainproject.com/v/organ…
My thoughts. Don't delete the little crags. Most of the time there is a lot more to climb at those places that just aren't on the page. Now, there are several crags listed here (Alesa Wall for example) that are private, and the developers don't allow anyone to go there for any reason. Those should be deleted. If its on MP, that means it should be open access.
Otherwise, I think its a great idea.

Tristan Higbee wrote: Why would they be deleted?

Bill Shubert wrote:How are people supposed to add info to make small crags big if they are deleted? How will people who live near these small crags find out about them?

They wouldn't be deleted outright. I will contact the submitter, and if they respond that they want to keep it, then it will be kept. The problem is that many of these pages were submitted many years ago by people who no longer use MP. Therefore, the only way others have to edit the page is to "improve" it - a feature very few people are aware of, much less use. Many of these areas are simple placeholders with no routes and no directions. Many of these areas are closed to climbing. People will not find out about these areas because, as far as I can tell from their MP pages, they don't really exist anyway.

Examples of crags that are subject to deletion:
Alsea Wall - willyrocks last vist: Apr 4, 2011
Canyon Creek - nothing new since 2007
Corvallis Boulders - willyrocks
The Little Crag - token 'secret crag'
Rail Road Crag in LO - closed to access
Rocky Creek - Calvin Smith last visit: Jul 22, 2011
Shellburg Falls - Tyler Gates last visit: Jun 19, 2012
Tumalo SP - 0 routes, no directions

Brad Caldwell wrote:if you are in Taiwan, why do you have a dog in this fight right now?

I am currently in Sandy, and will be until December. I return to the states for a few months every summer. There is internet in Taiwan, and if people are keen to use it, they can contact me while I'm away.

Brian Scoggins wrote:Look at robust, well developed areas like Colorado or Utah.

What I see there are just as many areas with far greater numbers of routes per area. This is likely due to two factors which Oregon doesn't have: a greater number of more active members and more developed crags.

The problem with Oregon is the number of crags with >20 routes. Obviously some of these are mountains. But the vast majority are probably good crags that just haven't been fleshed out with submissions. This is probably because the area is not climbed often, it isn't published in a popular guidebook, and thus the only people who know about it are locals. Putting it into a zone with other crags may hopefully bring some awareness of these crags to said locals, and hopefully more submissions.

I am mixed on zone organization. If a visitor is interested in an area but doesn't know where it is located or maybe the correct spelling, they have to look through a bunch of zones until they happen upon it. With the straight alphabetical listing you could go down and look at the areas that start with 'S'. If you want to find areas in a particular geographical zone, you can look at the map.

I don't see the reasoning behind deleting areas just because they have few listed routes. Even one with no listed routes could be valuable in indicating there is great potential for new routing, the best way in, suggested spots for more exploration etc. I would be looking more at the quality of the information.

Good luck re-organizing. It is not always easy balancing the pros and cons.

M Sprague wrote:I don't see the reasoning behind deleting areas just because they have few listed routes. Even one with no listed routes could be valuable in indicating there is great potential for new routing, the best way in etc. I would be looking more at the quality of the information. Good luck re-organizing. It is not always easy balancing the pros and cons.

This is exactly what I plan to do. A few examples of areas that I won't be inquiring about...

Area 51
Cascade Boulders
Coethedral
Pete's Pile
Cock Rock
Steins Pillar

As someone who has never climbed in Colorado or Utah, I can say that the organization for someone who is not exactly "in the know" isn't exactly the most effective. The mostly regional organization of the California page is the best way to do it IMO, because it gives you some context about the region where you are climbing, general area beta, etc. For example, climbing in the Eastern Sierra is very different from climbing on the Redwood coast. Similarly, the climbing in Northeast Oregon is very different from climbing in the Willamette Valley. If you were spending time in Portland, or Central Oregon, wouldn't it be nice to have some general beta about the climbing in that area, local hubs, other lesser-known crags?

You have a point there, Michael. I am coming from a point of view from a region of smaller states. Wouldn't a regional breakdown of the description in the state page do that also?

I hear one complaint about zone organization, and that is that if one knows the name of the area, but not the location, then they don't know where to find it.

But a person can just type the name of the area into the Search window, and the area pops up at the top of the resulting list. This can be the fastest way to an area regardless of the organization method.

On the other hand, without the WA zones, we had a disorganized monster list, getting worse by the week. Also, those people visiting a region didn't know what the nearby climbing areas were.

No system is perfect, but the zone system was clearly an improvement for WA. It should be for Oregon as well.

I'm sure you'll do a good job with it Nate. We do see travelers though the area who will greatly benefit as the bros from Israel climbing at Beacon Rock can attest too. Everyone else will figure it out soon enough too. Have at it.

I hear one complaint about zone organization, and that is that if one knows the name of the area, but not the location, then they don't know where to find it.

But a person can just type the name of the area into the Search window, and the area pops up at the top of the resulting list. This can be the fastest way to an area regardless of the organization method.


-Yes, if you know the exact name and spelling. You would also see it in the alphabetized list.

On the other hand, without the WA zones, we had a disorganized monster list, getting worse by the week. Also, those people visiting a region didn't know what the nearby climbing areas were.

-That is what the map with all the hot spots on it is for, isn't it? You can actually see spatially what is in an area. If MP was a book, then I would definitely say zones are the way to go, but it is an interactive medium.

Totally understand your point Mr. Sprague. To be totally honest, the Oregon main page needs some serious TLC, and a list of all routes in different zones is a great idea.

My main concern with that is that people - whether they use the map, or the app, or browse by individual area - won't necessarily notice the listing on the main page. Grouping routes into zones makes all of those three types of users aware of what other areas are in that zone, which will hopefully encourage more exploration and more submissions. The downside is that they can't find routes that they don't know the exact spelling of... which probably means it's a really small area anyway, or that they aren't actually trying that hard to find it.

Which is the better option?

and to throw in another consideration, zones are nice for browsing. I guess the scale is tipping towards zones for big states.

M Sprague wrote:... Also, those people visiting a region didn't know what the nearby climbing areas were. -That is what the map with all the hot spots on it is for, isn't it? You can actually see spatially what is in an area. If MP was a book, then I would definitely say zones are the way to go, but it is an interactive medium.

I seem to be too timid on technology, as I haven't really used the map feature. Maybe that does solve that issue of finding nearby areas, but it doesn't help with the monster list issue, and with the problem of people submitting the same area in different places.

I get your point about the area spelling. But if one has just a rough idea of the spelling, then the advanced search can help. In that window, one can see all the subareas of any given area. Or one can use the internet to get the correct spelling.

It would be nice if you could click on a button and see a nested listing of the zones with each of their subareas.