Route Guide - iPhone / Android - Partners - Forum - Photos - Deals - What's New - School of Rock
Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Lost City
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 1 of 4.  1  2  3  4   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By Denis O'Connor
Jan 19, 2010

This post was originally a comment in ??

Creating this area on MP is a bad idea. I'm all for beta and pics in general, but this one small area has traditionally, and by local consensus, been omitted from guidebooks. Creating this area on MP, even without route postings, goes against that concept.

And Running Man is nowhere near Lost City.


FLAG
By john strand
From southern colo
Jan 19, 2010

Ya right- lost city has been around for a long time . The routes ther have been publicied/famous for years. John S took 160 tries for Persistent, scotty soloed Survival, Moffat did........

Kinda hard to keep a gunks area " secret"


FLAG
By MJMobes
From The land of steady habits
Jan 19, 2010
modern man

its not all that, not a ton of safe leads, mostly TRed


FLAG
By Monomaniac
Administrator
From Morrison, CO
Jan 19, 2010
Insurrection, 5.14c.  Photo Adam Sanders.

mobley wrote:
mostly TRed


Just like the rest of the Gunks...


FLAG
By Chris Duca
Administrator
From Havertown, PA
Jan 20, 2010
Finishing up Elusive Dream at the King Wall.  Adirondacks, NY.

Not a good idea to post this on MP. I frequent Lost City regularly during the climbing season, and I, along with everyone else who climbs out there, enjoy the relative sactuary it offers from the hordes of climbers queued up in the Nears and Trapps. TR or leadable, the routes at Lost City have a special aura because of their omission from any/all guidebooks, and I think that would be diminished if info were to be publicized. The attention Lost City receives from locals and people who know about it, and WANT to lead hard routes is enough. What the Gunks does NOT need is another TRing area. Save that for Peterskill.


FLAG
By MJMobes
From The land of steady habits
Jan 20, 2010
modern man

I guess I've never understood the mentality of keeping a place "secret". I can understand if its new and in the process of being developed but Lost City is not either. Millcreek in Utah has its reasons for no guidebook, mainly parking and access issues. Farley is in the same boat. Lost City has its own parking lot and easy access so why not let the masses have at it and write route descriptions.

from RC.com (post#5)- "In other words - LC is kept secret by the locals for the locals out of self interest, and unpublished due to same. That's the relevant 'history' of which you speak. Climbers sure are nice to each other, eh? "






FLAG
By MojoMonkey
Jan 20, 2010

mobley wrote:
I guess I've never understood the mentality of keeping a place "secret". I can understand if its new and in the process of being developed but Lost City is not either. Millcreek in Utah has its reasons for no guidebook, mainly parking and access issues. Farley is in the same boat. Lost City has its own parking lot and easy access so why not let the masses have at it and write route descriptions. from RC.com (post#5)- "In other words - LC is kept secret by the locals for the locals out of self interest, and unpublished due to same. That's the relevant 'history' of which you speak. Climbers sure are nice to each other, eh? "


There is a difference between secret and undocumented. I'm by no means a local and found it easily. It is on the hiking maps and was fun to scope out on a rainy day.

And you seem to have not made it through that thread you linked, in particular check out this post from Rich Goldstone. Aside from the Preserve's request that a guide not be published, there are still good reasons not every area has to be documented.


FLAG
By JSH
Administrator
Jan 20, 2010
JSH @ home <br /> <br />photo courtesy of Gabe Ostriker

Thanks for your input.

Various reasons have been offered as to why LC has been unpublished; while they differ, most people do seem to agree that LC should certainly not be a locals-only secret. I hope that's not what you're saying. Mountain Project's mission statement explicitly says we won't be protecting local-ism. From a practical point of view, however, that's what has unfortunately seemed to take place - only a few "locals" seem to know anything at all, anymore.

Indeed, it's been widely said that information would actually be available on the grapevine. The grapevine is a lot larger these days, and perhaps we shouldn't jump too quickly to blame "locals" for the astounding absence of dissemination (though, who else to blame?). Of course, the logistics behind how to personally share information amongst the size of community that climbing has become are indeed difficult; even the definition of "locals" these days is different. That said, I think these are problems we can solve together instead of insisting on what amounts to heightened secrecy. After all, Mountain Project, and the web in general, *are* the grapevine these days.

The down-side to a "tradition" of unpublished places is that it keeps a lot of people out and away from it - whether from lack of information, the eye-rolling of "adventure" on someone else's terms, or the general feeling ("aura") of being unwelcome. It is, by definition, exclusion for the sake of exclusion - no other reason. And "tradition" is, in and of itself, just no reason to keep a place on lockdown. It's just not. There are no benefits to be had from that "tradition", no positive values to pass on.

On the other side: if there had actually been any "tradition" of that sharing of information, it wouldn't be such an issue, no?

In the end, I think it's best to recognize that we the community don't, and aren't likely to, agree on this (note that this disagreement may, again, reflect a failure of the "locals" in terms of information or value-sharing). That said, how to proceed? As LC is already the target of guided gang roping, the "adventure" argument for keeping it unpublished has certainly diminished. On the other hand, limited publication has potential value to the entire community of climbers - much larger than you or me.

The description for LC is written to note exactly these conflicts. Please give it another read. We've tried hard to walk the thin line, and represent everyone's interest (rather than, for example, just posting the area). Note, for example, that the directions to the crag end at the trailhead, instead of step-by-step directions. Note the mention of the limited parking. Note the bolded text: live and let live.

Thanks for the correction on Running Man. Keeping the historical record in place is another good reason to compile information on Mountain Project.


FLAG
 
By john strand
From southern colo
Jan 20, 2010

I am WAY into the historical aspect of things, maybe more than most. However LC has a fairly established history, shall we keep secret routes done 30 years ago ? WHY Gravity's is AWESOME maybe the best 12b in the Gunks ? It just seems silly to me- an area that got press doesn't get it now ?

Persistant was done in 76 ? A tremendous route, I saw pictures of this route and WAY aspired to do it.


FLAG
By Rui Ferreira
From Longmont, CO
Jan 20, 2010

Many people use MP as resource for planning climbing trips and therefore avoiding having to buy guide books to every climbing trip destination or having to seek the ever illusive informed locals. It also appears that the majority of the MP users tend to live west of the Mississippi. Very few climbers in my Gunks climbing circle have even heard of MP, the ones that have are typically new to town. (I have been climbing at the Gunks since 1988 so I know more than just a few people).

So it is unlikely that limited route postings for LC will attract hordes of climbers lining up on Survival, Gravity's Rainbow, etc. Maybe Stannard's Roof and Cars that Eat People will see a few more leads, but I do not have a problem with that given the high quality of these routes. It will still be less crowded that Mac Wall on a Fall or Reunion weekend; limited parking will continue to keep the crowds thin, as it seems that no one likes to walk over from the Trapps these days.

I have most of the route info on LC and will dust up my notes and start posting. I lack FFA dates and parties for most routes, but don't blame me for the lack of this information. Blame the closed knit group of locals that hardly climb anymore or have their other secret crags (bolted and not) to play in these days.


FLAG
By MojoMonkey
Jan 21, 2010

I've read a few times on different sites that the Mohonk Preserve, which owns Lost City, has requested that no guidebook be published for Lost City. Seems like, before posting route info on this site, that should be looked into. I don't know if calling the preserve and asking will be a definitive answer or is dependent on who answers the phone. I didn't see anything on the preserve web site.


FLAG
By Rui Ferreira
From Longmont, CO
Jan 21, 2010

time and time again people have alluded to the fact that the Preserve does not condone publicizing climbing at the Gunks, but that has not stopped countless guidebooks, magazine articles, slideshows, climber festivals, etc.

I have also been on the Preserve website and I have not found any policy statement on LC.

It took eight years from the time I started climbing at the Gunks before I connected with "someone in the the know" about LC. Yes, I knew that it existed all along and was a destination for exploration on rainy days, but that did not help much with route info, grades, etc.

It appears to me that the primary reason people do not want any of LC documented is to keep it exclusive and be able to find parking on the weekend.

Mind you, I am not advocating documenting info on Giant's Workshop, Bonticou, or giving directions to private property (AI, etc.).


FLAG
By Michael G
Jan 21, 2010

I agree with Rui...thanks for offering to upload some info.


FLAG
By stredna
From PA
Jan 21, 2010
Top o' the Preist

if you don't like it, leave.


FLAG
By Jason Lantz
Jan 21, 2010

why not post up your name JSH? I think we all know why you're hiding behind a pseudonym?


FLAG
By J. Nickel
Jan 21, 2010

I like it that there isn't a guidebook for Lost City. The cliff is easy to find and well known, so I don't think that it being some sort of a "secret" is why people don't climb there much. Rather, I think that it is unpopular because people like their climbing experience more sanitized and predictable than what LC offers. After 15+ years of Gunks climbing, I climbed there for the first time this past November. We weren't certain about the routes or grades but instead just picked what looked good and protectable and gave it a go. There was a sense of adventure present that I think is largely absent from modern rock climbing. It was one of my better climbing days, despite struggling on a couple of routes that I might not have gotten on if I had known how hard they were. Just my 2 cents.


FLAG
 
By MojoMonkey
Jan 21, 2010

stredna wrote:
if you don't like it, leave.


You took so much care in crafting this response that I can't tell if I should read it as

"If you don't like the info being posted on MP, don't read it"

or

"If you do not like climbing at an area without a step by step guide, don't climb there"

And I like the history part of guidebooks as well. I'd actually like to hear some of the stories from Lost City, but still wouldn't want a description of how to find climbs, where the cruxes are, etc. In fact, I am not even interested in getting beta through the grapevine or from locals. I'd aim to go there on weekdays so I wouldn't have to run into someone telling me what I am getting on, or what to expect.

The area isn't like out west where there is lots of public rock to go explore. I'm from Philly and poking around the Adirondacks isn't feasible for weekend warriors like me. I like the variety of having a spot I am allowed to go to with a little mystery to it.


FLAG
By Tico
Jan 21, 2010

I think the most telling point is that rc.com has decided to not include lc. It's also interesting that there are only three routes from millbrook on this site. Im not a gunks local anymore, but when I was it was nice to have the filter of no guide for lc, just to cut crowds a little. I mean, all you have to do is pop into R@S and ask and someone will draw you a map to the place, but some people won't do that.

I don't think lc should be posted, especially by someone who doesn't live in NP/gardiner/etc. That's how I'm defining local, Julie. There's a big difference between vacationing someplace, even extensively, and making the economic and social sacrifices to live there full time.

Also, if I don't like it, I'll stop patronizing mp.com sponsors, and let them know why. Economic sanctions on this level won't work, but it's a small message at least.

-t


FLAG
By divnamite
From New York, NY
Jan 21, 2010

It's funny how we always tell each other to respect the local ethics, after all, locals are the ones who have to deal with the aftermath. It apparently doesn't apply to the Gunks.


FLAG
By JSH
Administrator
Jan 21, 2010
JSH @ home <br /> <br />photo courtesy of Gabe Ostriker

Tico: To this day I have not forgotten the out-of-the-blue unprovoked, wild, vile, egomaniacal and degrading misogyeny you directed at me, which got you serially banned from gunks.com. I have trouble taking anything you say seriously, in light of that - and the lack of any explanation or apology for it. Your "sponsors" might be as interested in that as they are in your other opinions.

--
Chris, Jonathan et al.: Here is a question for which I've heard a lot of meandering around, but never a convincing answer. You say that your experience at LC is enhanced by the lack of information. This can, of course, be easily accomplished by your own personal choices anywhere, anytime - just don't read the book, or click on the page. How exactly does depriving *others* of information, then, enhance your experience? How can you justify that cost to other climbers?

Conversely: if information were available, how would other people having independent access to such information, degrade *your* experience? This cost/benefit asymmetry is very, very troubling, and the answer of "I like it better when other people don't know about it" doesn't begin to answer the real problem, the cost to other people and the community at large.

It is exactly the experience of wandering into Rock & Snow, inquiring about LC, and getting vague neither-here-nor-there answers that has contributed to the present situation. I've been there, and I've heard about it from others. R&S employees are locals, after all. So are the Preserve employees who prefer that it not be published.

However, the Gunks and LC are not "local" crags. That is exactly the point here - not the definition of "local", but the definition of "community" and how to best serve everyone in it.

divnamite: what is the "aftermath", given that a) LC is already a target for gang-roping guided groups, and b) the parking lot is finite and will not support hoards even if they wanted to do the c) mile+ hike to the crag?


FLAG
By Tico
Jan 21, 2010

Nice ad hominem attack while ignoring my point, Julie. Also, you're mistaken as to why I was "banned" from Evan's site (he's a friend, was at my wedding, etc.). Although I'm glad I'm so memorable. How's the "boy-toy"?

I don't have sponsors, mp.com has advertisers, its my option to let these advertisers know that they lose my patronage if they advertise on a website that goes against the wishes of a private preserve that graciously allows climbing.

This is how we lost hueco (yes, I was there for most of the meetings). We plead ignorance, ignored the wishes of the landowners, then tried to buy our way out of a bad relationship. Let's not be bad neighbours here.


FLAG
By divnamite
From New York, NY
Jan 21, 2010

JSH wrote:
Chris, Jonathan et al.: Here is a question for which I've heard a lot of meandering around, but never a convincing answer. You say that your experience at LC is enhanced by the lack of information. This can, of course, be easily accomplished by your own personal choices anywhere, anytime - just don't read the book, or click on the page. How exactly does depriving *others* of information, then, enhance your experience? How can you justify that cost to other climbers?

Dont' want to start a flame war. But this is the same argument people made about bolting a trad route. If you want trad, just don't clip. Just about everyone know it's against the spirit of trad. The routes info posted here is along the same line, it's against the "spirit" of this crag.
JSH wrote:
However, the Gunks and LC are not "local" crags. That is exactly the point here - not the definition of "local", but the definition of "community" and how to best serve everyone in it. divnamite: what is the "aftermath", given that a) LC is already a target for gang-roping guided groups, and b) the parking lot is finite and will not support hoards even if they wanted to do the c) mile+ hike to the crag?

I'm not sure what you mean by "not local" or how you define local. It's on basically private land as far as I know, it's an understanding between climbers and preserve that climbing is allowed. The worse aftermath is Preserve simply ban climbing at LC, then all the local climbers (from NYC to Boston community) lose access.

With all that said, I respect 1st amendment right more than a local crag, so feel free to post anything you want.


FLAG
By Tom Halicki
From Boulder, CO
Jan 21, 2010

I'm against posting Lost City. Rich's post referenced above says it all. Keeping Lost City undocumented is a very strong tradition in the Gunks. God forbid anyone having a little adventure. And frankly, for the vast majority of climbers the routes at the Trapps and Nears are much more agreeable.

If you want to put energy into something, put it towards getting Skytop reopened to the general public. There's a whole generation of climbers who haven't had the pleasure of climbing there.


FLAG
By john strand
From southern colo
Jan 21, 2010

AH HA a reasonable response ! Skytop was a really good grag, my Gunk's fave. About posting up LC ??? It's not that big a crag the routes are fairly easy to find. It would certainly suck if "unknown" routes got bolted and then the area got closed. Speaking of bolts... there are 4 routes at LC with some bolts ? Or chopped ?


FLAG
 
By Rui Ferreira
From Longmont, CO
Jan 21, 2010

Here is something to ponder, if Gunks tradition had been continually upheld, all of us would still have to go through AMC to obtain sufficient training and permission to lead routes. One can assume therefore that the Vulgarians were wrong in not accepting the AMC local tradition.

Secondly, it may be in the Preserve's best interest to keep a low profile on Lost City because of the limited parking, and the fact that this parking lot is also used by other user groups. Many times in summers past, the parking lot has been full during the whole day (by climbers), preventing other users (swimmers, picnickers, etc.) from parking and accessing the Preserve at this entrance point. What it really comes down to for Lost city I think is the parking issue and not the Preserve necessarily wanting to keep climbers away. This could be resolved by having people walk from the Trapps Bridge (or enlarging the parking lot?). Heck we all used to walk to Skytop when it was open.

Again, the point for posting some route info on Lost City is that a traveling climber can research this website then visit the Gunks and readly know where to find the star routes, without having to put in sufficient tenure in the area and hoping to ingratiate the "locals in the know" for route information.

Please do not equate posting route info about Survival or Gravity's Rainbow with rebolting a trad route, these are two separate issues, galaxies apart.

Regarding the post on the other website, there are still "secret" crags within the Preserve that see far less traffic than Lost City if one is still looking for adventure and serenity. No, I am not posting info regarding those areas as they are a special gift to the community.


FLAG
By Gunkiemike
Jan 21, 2010

Rui Ferreira wrote:
Regarding the post on the other website, there are still "secret" crags within the Preserve that see far less traffic than Lost City if one is still looking for adventure and serenity. No, I am not posting info regarding those areas as they are a special gift to the community.


Why don't you accept the Preserve's position that Lost City is also a special gift to the community? Who gave you more right to decide than the landowner?

To address a point made a bit earlier in the thread - There is indeed a written Land Management Plan that spells out the Preserve's policy of limiting visits to some areas e.g. LC, while accepting higher visitation and impacts in Trapps and Nears. There is a link to it on the Preserve's website, but it doesn't go to the Plan. I've asked the webmaster to see if it can be fixed.


FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 1 of 4.  1  2  3  4   Next>   Last>>