Open letter to Nick and Chris

First off I wanted to congratulate Nick on this impressive achievement and welcome Chris to our community.

As we all know the success of MP platform is the result of Nick and team's hard work as well as contributions from thousands of climbers.  I'd like to bring up the big elephant in the room that has been brushed off many times before in the past.  Can you please share with the community the roadmap going forward for all the data/contents climbers have contributed over the years?

Ironically, the climbing community rallies behind the Access Fund to fight for open access to our public lands.  Yet as a climber one has limited options when it comes to getting access to our own climbing data other than being able to browse MP website.

Having access to climbing data under a Share-Alike license would enable endless possibilities for innovations and more importantly greater improvements to the existing data set.  For example, someone could use the data build a better search engine or another person could make maps of all 5.7 trads in Red Rocks and in the process improves accuracy for crag's GPS and approach trails.  In the end onX will continue to benefit from all of these improvements.  It's a win-win.  The open source model has proven to be working for OpenStreeMap, Wikipedia, Wordpress, Linux and  countless others.

Thanks for giving us the platform to discuss this.

Viet Nguyen

The OpenBeta project

We appreciate your desire to improve the climbing experience. As for a roadmap, onX will continue the stewardship of Mountain Project that Nick began years ago. We are committed to keeping Mountain Project’s website and app available to everyone, without a paywall. Our approach to licensing will remain consistent as it has been in the past. When users submit their adventures, they do so knowing that they are sharing it with the MP community, and not for redistribution.

Sounds like it's right in line with MP's existence. If people didn't freely add route information and photos, MP wouldn't exist.

I have never received compensation for all of my contributions. I thought MP was helping the public and making money on it.

Why would they stifle any contributor? 

Chris,

Climbing is a unique sport in that the sport exists outside of us. Basketball, soccer, etc wouldn't exist without someone inventing and playing it. But climbing requires no invention (except safety gear) as it is an ultimately primal sport. And beyond that - it exists without us. The routes are still there and they still have, for instance, the same grades.

The data stored on MountainProject is, therefore, very akin to Wikipedia: encyclopedic facts. What routes are where, which ones are next to them, how tall they are, what the grade is, etc. No one truly owns these facts. Sure, you could probably make a case that, by law, MountainProject has some legal right to the data because it was entered on its site, but ultimately - who does the data really belong to? The users that entered it on the site might be copying from a guidebook (who would have some other legal claim to the data) and that probably came from a person (or persons) deciding on details for a route (eg grade). All these entities could argue claims to the same data and anyone downstream from the FA/setter could be infringing on each other. This is where I argue that no one has the claim to the data because they are objective facts. (This, of course, excepts user-specific data like comments/forums/photos)

Climbing is a very collaborative and open sport. Except for safety rules, no skill, nor any knowledge of "gamerules" are required to start climbing. I'm sure you've felt this collaborative spirit at the base of a wall, whether indoors or outdoors. We argue for accessibility for all, like when major climbing competitors threatened to boycott IFSC events when they were going to start charging to live stream events https://www.climbingbusinessjournal.com/behind-the-scenes-of-the-broken-deal/.

Based on the above argument, I disagree with your statement of

When users submit their adventures, they do so knowing that they are sharing it with the MP community, and not for redistribution.

I would argue that climbers actually intend redistribution when submitting data. I would argue that the climbing community would prefer that, as long as the service is free (because you shouldn't put a paywall in front of facts), that the data be available for data scientists, researchers, app developers, and everyone.

Regardless of how you feel about my above argument, the internet has a solution for a privatized data set and public usage: a good API. A good API with plentiful endpoints (query by name, get parent areas, get sub areas, get routes of area, etc) would solve this. There's no need to scrape or extract data sets (which can be large and bulky) when there's an easy way provided to query the data set. You could also implement rate limiting to prevent users from attempting to copy data (eg # of requests per day or # of requests per minute would prevent users from "walking" the data set to extract it as the data would change much more often than the speed of traversing it). And, if need be, put a paid membership wall on the API. I know that I and many other developers would be fine with paying a few dollars for an annual membership to access such a great tool.

With the recent deprecation of MountainProject's API (granted: it was extremely limited when it existed), developers won't just give up on projects. Developers will find other ways to get the data. Why not give them an official, sanctioned process?

Derek Antrican

Ok previous posts, TLDR...

__

Chris and Nick, thanks for creating and keeping MP a community resource.

GK

Chris Hamilton wrote:

We appreciate your desire to improve the climbing experience. As for a roadmap, onX will continue the stewardship of Mountain Project that Nick began years ago. We are committed to keeping Mountain Project’s website and app available to everyone, without a paywall. Our approach to licensing will remain consistent as it has been in the past. When users submit their adventures, they do so knowing that they are sharing it with the MP community, and not for redistribution.

First, thank you for your commitment to keeping MP available to everyone, without a paywall. However, I very much believe the saying, "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold." Given this, how does MP plan to make money (since running MP obviously carries costs)? Will we eventually see ads on MP? Is user data being sold to outdoor brands to target users with ads off of MP (maybe through custom audiences)? Something else? 

I don't have any problem trading my personal information for a free service like MP – as long as that arrangement is transparent. 

dantesupertramp wrote:

The data stored on MountainProject is, therefore, very akin to Wikipedia: encyclopedic facts. What routes are where, which ones are next to them, how tall they are, what the grade is, etc. No one truly owns these facts. 

Swing and a miss with your argument. Wikipedia requires donations to survive. Books full of "facts" cost money, unless you're browsing at the public library. 

A physical encyclopedia is just a book that contains facts - yet it is not free. Why? It costs money to write, edit and publish. Ever purchase a textbook for college? Also not free. But its just "facts"!!! 

We get to browse free beta and add our own. If you don't like that arrangement, I suggest the OP and like-minded others stick to printed guidebooks.

MP - it is what it is. (also, note the "points" of certain users on this thread. Ironic?)

Hello Chris and onX,

Thank you for keeping taking on the difficult role of continuously developing, administering, and providing to us climbers such a great platform as Mountain Project. I know many of us have bumper stickers on our cars, water bottles, etc, and the product is unanimous among climbers as the go-to for the most current information on a location, wall, or route.

I understand that onX is a business, and employer, and needs to profit to maintain operations, grow, and employ their staff. I've browsed your other applications and I have no doubt that you'll continue to build upon what Nick started with Mountain Project and it will continue to grow.

I think to clarify this discussion, it might be helpful to separate data from application:

Data - As Derek Antrican put it, the data on Mountain Project is best thought of encyclopedic facts and has came from a multitude of sources, such as published guide books, individual experiences, etc. And I whole-heartedly agree that climbers submit data to Mountain Project because it is the primary platform which allows this activity - but their intent is to share this information with other climbers, and not intending it to be locked into a single platform. As the new stewards of Mountain Project I believe it is now your responsibility to carry forward making this data freely accessible. I strongly disagree with your statement:

When users submit their adventures, they do so knowing that they are sharing it with the MP community, and not for redistribution.

The now deprecated Mountain Project API which fulfilled this request, should be re-established and perhaps greatly improved upon (don't worry, as Derek Antrican said, I'm sure compensation for efforts can be made available). In conclusion - Access leads to innovation and benefit to the greater community, as seen by Linux, Wikipedia, Electricity, Written Language -- you get my point.

Application - onX is positioned to build a stellar application that can interact with the Mountain Project user-submitted data. This application can and will be the primary method of accessing this data. The time and effort put into this application can be compensated in many ways, and I encourage onX to reach out to the community, and explore avenues because I think we have a different mindset than the hunting and offroad communities ( onxmaps.com/hunt/app/pricing). The rock climbing community is a very vocal, active, and passionate bunch.

TLDR... Thanks Nick and Chris for your hard work and dedication. The data resting on Mountain Project servers has been generated by users, for users, and are akin to facts with many sources. Either way, this data has always been intended to be freely available and the API being disabled shows a backwards trend. Continue to build us a great application and let's all talk about how to make it worth your time.

Chris Fedorczak wrote:

Is user data being sold to outdoor brands to target users with ads off of MP (maybe through custom audiences)? Something else? 

I don't have any problem trading my personal information for a free service like MP – as long as that arrangement is transparent. 

I believe the current terms of use state that all information may be sold to third parties, which is likely how Mountain Project has remained free all these years, as shown below:

Our Right to Use Your Content

We may use Your Content in a number of different ways, including copying it, publicly performing or displaying it, reformatting it, modifying it, translating it, incorporating it into advertisements and other works, creating derivative works from it, promoting it, distributing it, and allowing others (including entities that control, are controlled by, or in common control with, Adventure Projects Inc. ) to do the same in connection with their own or other third party websites, mobile applications and other media or formats, whether now known or hereafter developed (“Other Media“). As such, you hereby irrevocably grant us world-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable rights to use Your Content for any purpose. You also irrevocably grant the users of the Service and Other Media the right to access Your Content in connection with their use of the Service. Finally, you irrevocably waive, and cause to be waived, against the Company and its users, any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content.

- https://www.adventureprojects.net/ap-terms

Adelore Lessard wrote:

I believe the current terms of use state that all information may be sold to third parties, which is likely how Mountain Project has remained free all these years, as shown below:

Thanks, but I'm not asking how user data COULD be monetized. 

I'm asking how user data IS being monetized. 

Why don't climbers band together, come up with some money, and buy the dang site.  

Carolina wrote:

Why don't climbers band together, come up with some money, and buy the dang site.  

I’d be interested to see an offer from onX. Or at least an expression of interest in selling.  Have not seen one.

As a less drastic alternative, I’d also be interested to hear whether onX will adopt the inexpensive suggestions I made elsewhere for realistically preserving the status quo. Eight days ago, I asked in an email to Molly for a future date by which they would just decide about the future of those ideas. No response as of yet.

Perhaps in the end the most likely option will be for contributors to copy their content onto a non-commercial site and perhaps then only contribute there as much as contributors are willing.  I suspect that would be less expensive than buying this site from onX. The hard part would be gathering enough web-site expertise to do it well, and probably on a shoe-string budget. 

Carolina wrote:

Why don't climbers band together, come up with some money, and buy the dang site.  

you don't raise $20m only to buy MP and sell it back to the community

Carolina wrote:

Why don't climbers band together, come up with some money, and buy the dang site.  

Beacuse climbers are like politicians.  A lot of talk and no action. 

Dave K wrote:

You are assuming that the site actually makes money.

The old owner sold the site and made a ton of money for the second time.  You should google him to get a better sense of his net worth and business acumen.

The new owner is in debt to https://www.summitpartners.com/ fo 20 million. You can bet your sweet ass they are looking to make dollar or two off of this site. It's more a matter of when and with what user generated content. If you are using service for free you are product....

Given the long history of user generated content on this site I think the only moral/ethically "good" way out for new and old owner is to turn the data of MP(climbing data only) over to the community under some sort of creative commons license.  Maybe the access fund could manage it?  Otherwise everyone who has freely added information to this site has only helped to make a couple more "tech bros" wealthy.

Chris Fedorczak wrote:

I don't have any problem trading my personal information for a free service like MP – as long as that arrangement is transparent. 

I do have a problem trading my personal information or anyone’s.  The mantra a disruptive transparency is a slogan behind which millions are denuded of their privacy and intellectual rights.  Because you give something freely does not mean you can ever get it back freely.

Thank you onX for not redistributing content or data.  That may be the single most generous act of any member of the climbing community. 

Dave K wrote:

In any case MP doesn't owe you an explanation of their business activities. They provide the terms of service, which they have done, and their obligation ends there.

I don't get how some people think it's cool to use a service, for free, and then make demands like you are making here. If someone is not comfortable with the relationship between MP and users, then they can choose not to be a user. That's all there is to it.

Hey, Dave. I’m not demanding anything, I’m simply asking... politely, I might add.

Did I piss you off in a former life or did you just wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

Jeez.

Live Perched wrote:

I do have a problem trading my personal information or anyone’s.  The mantra a disruptive transparency is a slogan behind which millions are denuded of their privacy and intellectual rights.  Because you give something freely does not mean you can ever get it back freely.

Do you have a problem using any of Google’s free products (search, gmail, maps, docs, etc.)? Because they made $40 billion last year on digital ad revenue by selling personal data to marketers.

Being in the industry myself, I’m very aware of this arrangement and accept it as reasonable trade off to getting valuable services for free. 

Dave K wrote:

There's no secret sinister revenue model. Maybe they sell some basic personal data, like the fact that we are mostly outdoorsy types, where we live, perhaps they could mine our posts with some AI to learn a little detail about our lives (I doubt MP does that yet.) The internet likely already knows most of this information about us. What MP has to offer any current paying customers isn't worth much.

Hi Dave, 

Just for some additional context: I’m a marketing strategist with over a decade of experience working at integrated ad agencies on Fortune 500 brands. In other words, I’m fully versed in how the digital ad and marketing space works, and I’m personally completely comfortable with it. We (as users) get valuable services for free by allowing platforms to sell our personal and behavioral data to marketers for targeting purposes. It’s Google’s business model in a nutshell.

All I was asking is how MP is specifically monetizing user data. That’s all :)

EDIT: Since I’ve hit my post limit, just want to say that I’m not following your last comment. All I was doing was pointing out that your first response to me was unnecessarily salty. Take a breath and chill. I’m not attacking you, and if it came across that way, I apologize.

Chris Fedorczak wrote:

Do you have a problem using any of Google’s free products (search, gmail, maps, docs, etc.)? Because they made $40 billion last year on digital ad revenue by selling personal data to marketers.

Being in the industry myself, I’m very aware of this arrangement and accept it as reasonable trade off to getting valuable services for free. 

Yes, I do have a problem.  Google Maps distorts simple things like which restaurants are represented at a highway exit based on search fees paid by restaurants.  Google has a monopoly in this area so instead of searching 'restaurant' I have to guess what restaurants might be at the next exit.  GSuite is popular with students and former students but is woefully lacking in capability and privacy.  Tech monopolies are unavoidable and I don't begrudge you making a buck in the sector.  Still your 'reasonable trade off' statement is ignorant or knowingly misleading and patently so in the context of the 2016 and 2020 US elections in which both the Left and Right agree voters did not have complete access to complete information because misinformation collected freely by tech/media companies was amplified through social media channels in order to collect and increase ad revenue.

Free and 'free rider' are different economic concepts.  Dumping pollution in a river was free for the polluters but was never free for people who like to drink water, fish or swim.  

Live Perched wrote:

Yes, I do have a problem.  Google Maps distorts simple things like which restaurants are represented at a highway exit based on search fees paid by restaurants.  Google has a monopoly in this area so instead of searching 'restaurant' I have to guess what restaurants might be at the next exit.  GSuite is popular with students and former students but is woefully lacking in capability and privacy.  Tech monopolies are unavoidable and I don't begrudge you making a buck in the sector.  Still your 'reasonable trade off' statement is ignorant or knowingly misleading and patently so in the context of the 2016 and 2020 US elections in which both the Left and Right agree voters did not have complete access to complete information because misinformation collected freely by tech/media companies was amplified through social media channels in order to collect and increase ad revenue.

Free and 'free rider' are different economic concepts.  Dumping pollution in a river was free for the polluters but was never free for people who like to drink water, fish or swim.  

Overcrowding due to an area being exploited on social media is the pollution, the locals are left dealing with the problem long after the tourists have gone.