Gunks Climbers, You May Find This Of Interest

Kevin Heckeler wrote: Other gripe, descriptions for some routes are poor at best. Take Middle Earth for example (a classic moderate), no route description for pitch two or three, and only a wide out shot/topo. I pity someone trying to get started on pitch 3 based on this app alone. Keep in mind this is what I found doing a cursory 10 minute review.

Well, I think the very brief route descriptions are a feature, not a drawback. The photos are excellent in showing you where to go, in many cases better than the corresponding long verbal descriptions.

Kevin mentions the third pitch of Middle Earth. I'd say if you can't find and follow the route from this screen shot from the app, you really need to stick to places with tape on the holds. For scale, I'd say that a person in that picture would be somewhat taller than the icons at the base of the screen.

Trapps App zoomed screenshot, Middle Earth third pitch.

Perhaps Kevin, in his 10 minute inspection, doesn't realize you can zoom the cliff photos?

By the way, if one wants to complain, the route diagrammed is technically the top pitch of Wonderland. Middle Earth starts 20 feet to the right, climbs a right-facing corner that can be made out in the screen shot, and then moves left under the crux overhang to join Wonderland at the crux moves common to both. This is the kind of thing Dick, with his extensive experience and care in actually repeating almost all the routes he wrote up, nails in the grey Trapps guide.

Whether it matters which way you go at the bottom is another question, and the app does claim to be diagramming routes "they way they are usually climbed." I have no idea how this "usual" concept was arrived at, but suspect it did not involve extensive sampling of actual climber practices.

Kevin Heckeler wrote:...the app doesn't break 300 routes and there's more than 300 in the Trapps.

Yup, the app claims 297 routes and Dick has 495.

Here we go again..

rgold wrote: By the way, if one wants to complain, the route diagrammed is technically the top pitch of Wonderland. Middle Earth starts 20 feet to the right...

Oh snap!

rgold wrote:Perhaps Kevin, in his 10 minute inspection, doesn't realize you can zoom the cliff photos?

Or, perhaps the takeaway could be "if I found these errors in a short amount of time without looking for them, one might conclude there are a lot of errors and omissions."

Nice... Looked at the Android version and the high res photos are great. Not sure I'll pay $15 for it right now, but when I'm back in the Gunks in the spring (or if we have a mild winter) I'll definitely consider it.

I'm pretty happy with the sparse descriptions in the Swain book, my main book. But I also use the black dick and Williams Select. The main thing I miss in Swain is better photos. This app gives me the photos.

The only downside is I'm not one to necessarily seek out classics, I'm happy finding diamonds in the rough, and the 297 routes probably omits many of those, not to mention there are no routes in the nears or sleepy hollow.

Kevin Heckeler wrote: Or, perhaps the takeaway could be "if I found these errors in a short amount of time without looking for them, one might conclude there are a lot of errors and omissions."

That would be fallacious reasoning if you found any errors; I'm not aware that you did.

If you are referring to my comment about Wonderland vs Middle Earth starts to P3, they are twenty feet apart and converge to share the crux. We don't know whether that "route adjustment" was an error or an intentional choice indicating the way the route is "usually" climbed.

The app does have some rerouting I'm not fond of; for example it has the leader traversing off the spicy but quite reasonable top section of Wild Horses. (I'm more sympathetic to it skipping the slab at the start. If you aren't tall enough, it is a rather scary highball.)

I know Chris put a lot of work and research into the projects he has done. If I had a smartphone, I'd certainly have this app.

I mean - the guy is DEDICATED, as this clip shows...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWyWRLKeZXE&list=UUh8cHyYXVKp--kxiZS6c1Gg

rgold wrote: That would be fallacious reasoning if you found any errors; I'm not aware that you did.

It's called a random sample.

I agree with Rich; exactly what errors did you find?

I am more disappointed in what's missing than what's there. 'Error' was the incorrect wording, I was speaking of 'mistakes' in general... in other words, omitting good routes and descriptions. Rich seems to have found an error though.

[There was a long post here that I've removed. I'm happy if all of you are happy with the app. If the attitude of the community and lack of any public comment by those involved with the app is any reflection, the developers likely don't actually want feedback, they just want our money.]

I think it's pretty clear what the feedback is: that users of the app want more routes and some users want more involved descriptions (while some, like rich, do not)
Previously, some feedback described wanting the app on an android platform, and it seems, conversely to what you hint at Kevin, that they listened.

"I am more disappointed in what's missing than what's there. 'Error' was the incorrect wording, I was speaking of 'mistakes' in general... in other words, omitting good routes and descriptions. Rich seems to have found an error though.

[There was a long post here that I've removed. I'm happy if all of you are happy with the app. If the attitude of the community and lack of any public comment by those involved with the app is any reflection, the developers likely don't actually want feedback, they just want our money.]"

Kevin, I am sorry that you are "more than disappointed by the app". Please feel free to email me through the contact form on gunksapps.com and I will personally send you a check to reimburse you and you can still keep the app.

We are working hard on a second version that we hope to be able to release late Spring of 2015. We are listening to everyone's comments. The number one request was to release an Android version which we did.

Rogerbenton pointed out that when you use the search function it brings you back to the unfiltered list. We fixed that in the Android version and are working on having that same capability available in the iPhone release in the Spring.

We are also hard at work adding additional climbs and obscurities. In fact I was in the Trapps last night with my headlamp investigating and recording route information. I have already added 16 climbs to the app between Keyhole and Horseman including the second pitches of Short Job and Fancy Idiot.

Someone mentioned that it was difficult to see the start of Wrist from the aerial photo, so we are adding "GT Base photos" to select climbs. These are similar to the current base photos except they are taken from the GT ledge to further aid in navigation on second and third pitches.

Regarding "mistakes". What Rich pointed out was that our line was not the same as the line of the FA party. We recognize this and have drawn the lines to reflect the way these climbs are most commonly done today. We are going to be adding notes in the text as to the changes we made and describe the way that the original route was climbed, or add it as an unrecommended variation. A good example for this is Sundance and Moondance. The first 35 feet of Moondance is completely overgrown, so in 2014 climbers go up Sundance until the routes converge and then finish on Moondance. So for Moondance we will draw the line starting on Sundance and mention in the text that the original start climbed up what is now a dirty overgrown face to the left.

To draw the lines we re-climbed all but three routes with color printouts in hand on the rock and then while hanging on a grigri on the route we did the actual drawing.

SethG made many excellent suggestions and we will be including all of the routes he mentioned.

The brief descriptions were intentional because we feel the topos speak for themselves. What we will be adding is FA information and more historical information and interesting anecdotes. On select climbs we may expand the descriptions, but our goal is to keep the descriptions away from becoming directions.

I understand that you feel that we are not responding to every comment in this thread but this is not the only place where we receive feedback. I have been in contact with Dick Williams who has the app on his iPhone and has already added feedback. We also have close ties to many of the guides and local climbers, past and present whom we consult about the information included in the app. These forum posts tend to steer towards the negative so while we read and consider your comments we don't always respond.

Christian Fracchia
gunksapps

Glad you expanded to android, I bought it. It's nice.
I would appreciate some route descriptions. And some critical gear beta if applicable.
I certainly wont' get as lost starting a route anymore, those pictures are great.

Christian Fracchia wrote:Kevin, I am sorry that you are "more than disappointed by the app". Please feel free to email me through the contact form on gunksapps.com and I will personally send you a check to reimburse you and you can still keep the app.

I appreciate you breaking the silence.

I would rather have an app I can use, at all times, as a "complete" guide than my money back. It sounds like you're striving for that. For clarification, what I said was "I am more disappointed in what's missing than what's there". VERY different from you're incorrect paraphrasing more than disappointed IN THE APP.

Fwiw, I'm not shy about using topo only on climbs, did this in red rocks on a few longer routes (purchased the laminated flash cards which are mostly just a topo). But it can't hurt to have descriptions, at least for starts of climbs that aren't obvious or that have multiple historical start options. Again, you seem aware of the issue and it sounds like you have a game plan. Hindsight gripe - this would have been nice to have on the first release.

Without an explanation of what's in the works you certainly understand why criticism of those things you're working on exists, right? [ie -- if they weren't shortcomings they wouldn't need to be addressed]

BigA wrote:Previously, some feedback described wanting the app on an android platform, and it seems, conversely to what you hint at Kevin, that they listened.

To me in particular? Aw, shucks.