|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Apr 18, 2004, 6:43 PM
Post #1 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
Recently a photo of mine was sent back for editing. The photo was of a crag in a local climbing area. It was determined that what I was submitting was a topo and needed to be resent in LOW format. Buy my own admission, I tried to submitted it as a Slack lining photo, and in the description I claimed that there was a “dude slacklining in the photo”, there wasn’t. My hope was that buy being in a MEDIUM format the viewer of the photo would be able to make out all the details of the wall. Buy using the equivalent hand drawn topo that I submitted, the climber would then have an excellent resource to use while climbing in that area. A resource, I might add, that would be better than any published guide book for the area.
So I ask you, would you like to see RC.com as a place where you can down load online guide books with detailed photos and topos? Or would you like RC.com to remain as a place where you thumb through hundreds high resolution photos of people slacklining in their back yards, while topos are found in a resolution so low that there useless to any user? I believe that hand drawn topos are best shown in LOW format. But I also believe that photo topos deserve- at least- the same priority and resolution of the thousands of bum shots and slack line photos that are found on this sight.
Please voice your thoughts on this issue.
Sincerly, Aaron Kristiansen, Vernon BC Canada
|
|
|
|
|
mike_ok
Apr 18, 2004, 7:44 PM
Post #2 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2003
Posts: 345
|
I'm with you on this one. I find the route database largely useless because there are so few topos and pics of routes linked. Its nice to read a route description, but if I have no way of finding it, then its useless.
If I know the area well enough to find the route w/out a topo or pic, then I don't need the route database either, and again, its useless.
Good on ya, mate.
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Apr 18, 2004, 7:52 PM
Post #3 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
I am also with you on this one.
Forcing a photo to be within certian size limits because it happens to be in a certain category is stupid.
The site now has enough HDD space to allow Topos to be submitted as medium, so this decision shoud be a no-brainer.
I for one appreciate your work Aaron, and think that the site should reward people like you and give them good service, instead of giving you a hard time.
but take it easy on the slackline shots eh? :)
|
|
|
|
|
wanlessrm
Apr 18, 2004, 8:59 PM
Post #4 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2002
Posts: 333
|
You have my vote!
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Apr 18, 2004, 9:27 PM
Post #5 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
I really think that the photo submission guidelines on this site are unduly strict.
I seems like the logic has been leeched from the process. A 1200x1200 pixel picture of a crag for use as a topo should certainly be allowed in. I thought the submission process was used to keep there from being pictures of someone's dog in the aformentioned dimensions.
It seems like there should be a good bit more wiggle room than there is.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Apr 18, 2004, 9:36 PM
Post #6 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
I shall take you request in the mods and eds forum. Let me see if the photo editors are willing to have this changed. Stand by.
|
|
|
|
|
jhwnewengland
Apr 18, 2004, 9:44 PM
Post #7 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2002
Posts: 470
|
In reply to: would you like to see RC.com as a place where you can down load online guide books with detailed photos and topos?
I'm not going to weigh in on the photo issue, but I do think we need to consider this question. The main point is: when someone submits route names and hand drawn topos of crags, is it really their own work? True, they didn't scan in a copy of the guide book, but chances are good that if there exists a published guide book for the area, the rc.com user plagiarized the author of the guide book in some form or another.
About a year ago I submitted every route in Rumney to the routes database. While I didn't copy Ward Smith's route descriptions, I did add the routes as they appear right out of the guide book, even going so far as to include the number of bolts. I now believe that was wrong. I would feel even worse about it if I'd included detailed topos that were "hand drawn" copies of Mr. Smith's. I would remove my entries if it were up to me.
We need to consider whether "free guide books" are worth depriving individuals like Ward Smith and groups like the Rumney Climber's Association of their well earned money. A guide book is a TON of work, and plagiarism of guide books is not only wrong but it hurts the climbing community in the long run.
Obviously this is a grey area, and applies more to certain crags than others. However, please keep this post in mind when you speak of free guide books.
|
|
|
|
|
elron
Apr 18, 2004, 10:58 PM
Post #8 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2003
Posts: 480
|
Having just read the Rock and Ice (I think) interview with Ron Olevsky, I found the "plagarizing guidebook" quote in the previous post to be funny. Mr. Olevsky's take on it is that the guidebook authors are plagarizing the work of the first ascensionists by publishing the guidebook. An interesting point of view to say the least. Anyways, just thought this was an interesting parallel to the discussion... not looking for a flame war :)
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
scottcody
Apr 19, 2004, 12:16 AM
Post #9 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2003
Posts: 577
|
I use the route database to decide where I want to climb (roadtrip)... then I go BUY the guide book for area info. Some of the most useful info in guide books in often the most over looked by local users (e.g. history and ethics of the area, who are they major FA's, where to stay, where is the secert phatty kind burrito shop, etc, etc.)
now for the real question... Should the route DB include or provide space available for this info?
Now the big zigner... Should they charge for it? (think Supertopo.com)
Online browsing free... maybe, nickel or dime to print...
something to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Apr 19, 2004, 1:07 AM
Post #10 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
As a photo ed, I'm happy to see this changed.
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Apr 19, 2004, 5:34 AM
Post #11 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
In reply to: In reply to: would you like to see RC.com as a place where you can down load online guide books with detailed photos and topos? The main point is: when someone submits route names and hand drawn topos of crags, is it really their own work? True, they didn't scan in a copy of the guide book, but chances are good that if there exists a published guide book for the area, the rc.com user plagiarized the author of the guide book in some form or another.
Valid point. But for the record, all the topo information I've submitted is my own work based on information I've collected from my own climbing experience. Most of my topos are of areas that are not found in any guide book, and that's primarily why I've submitted them. As for plagiarism, route information that people submit to this site is, or should be based from common knowledge. If I go and give directions to someone on how to get to the Airport, and have to look on a road map on how to get there I'm not infringing on anyone’s copyright, I'm simply sharing common knowledge. As for those of you who support me on the idea on changing the rules to topo submitting. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Apr 19, 2004, 6:42 AM
Post #12 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: I am also with you on this one. Forcing a photo to be within certian size limits because it happens to be in a certain category is stupid.
dude, you're the one that set them to those tiny limits when I tried to resize them... I know, you should complain to the photos developer ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Apr 19, 2004, 3:31 PM
Post #13 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
In reply to: In reply to: I am also with you on this one. Forcing a photo to be within certian size limits because it happens to be in a certain category is stupid. dude, you're the one that set them to those tiny limits when I tried to resize them... I know, you should complain to the photos developer ;-)
True I did set the size limits, but that was before we had a decent server setup, I thought the size limits had been increased recently.
I did not (at least I don't rember) instruct the photo editors to force an image size based on the category under which it was submitted. I think the photo size (high, medium, low) should be determined by the content, quality, and contribution to the site of the photograph.
|
|
|
|
|
keinangst
Apr 19, 2004, 4:36 PM
Post #14 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 1408
|
In reply to: So I ask you, would you like to see RC.com as a place where you can down load online guide books with detailed photos and topos? Or would you like RC.com to remain as a place where you thumb through hundreds high resolution photos of people slacklining in their back yards, while topos are found in a resolution so low that there useless to any user?
The "loaded question of the year" award goes to...slavetogravity!!
As far as plagiarism goes, I have personally never seen any online (free) beta or routes that have been as complete or as good as the published book. In fact, often times one source will have what another doesn't, so they supplement each other well.
I feel that climbing info should be "open source" and that guidebooks will almost inherently be more complete and worth the $$.
I like supertopo's model, as well as that UK company (name?) that sells cheap mini-guides to local areas with lots of photos and drawings.
|
|
|
|
|
jhwnewengland
Apr 19, 2004, 11:03 PM
Post #15 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2002
Posts: 470
|
As people have pointed out, most everyone buys the guide book anyway. However, that will change in the future if more info becomes available on the net. I'm not saying we shouldn't add routes to the database, but that we should be careful where our information comes from. To go back to my example: My route description for "Lies and Propaganda" at Rumney is totally valid, because I've climbed it myself. I assure you, however, that I wouldn't have known how many bolts were on China Beach without the guide book.
In web ads for the most recent Boston Rocks guide book, the publishers offered an example pdf download that included the C-Wall, which is the area I mostly climb at when I'm back home in Massachusetts. Now I have no need to buy the guide book! I could see this happening with other areas, but without the permission of the guide book authors.
Finally, Ron Olevsky does have a point. A climber who intends to make money off of or stands to gain in other ways by his own routes probably does hold the copyright to his or her route description/route name, and he has exercised that belief by asking for his routes to be excluded from guide books. While he is a very smart man, I find him a little narrow minded when it comes to that issue. However, guide book authors are another story. Yes, guide books are a labor of love, but they involve much more time and money spent in publishing fees, etc. We just need to keep this in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Apr 19, 2004, 11:25 PM
Post #16 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I am also with you on this one. Forcing a photo to be within certian size limits because it happens to be in a certain category is stupid. dude, you're the one that set them to those tiny limits when I tried to resize them... I know, you should complain to the photos developer ;-) True I did set the size limits, but that was before we had a decent server setup, I thought the size limits had been increased recently. I did not (at least I don't rember) instruct the photo editors to force an image size based on the category under which it was submitted. I think the photo size (high, medium, low) should be determined by the content, quality, and contribution to the site of the photograph.
Maybe someone (you? me? Eric?) should hack that into the generated PM and the verbiage that is presented to photo eds for approval, then. I agree about the HD space -- for shit's sake, I purchased and installed the drives!
|
|
|
|
|
bsignorelli
Apr 19, 2004, 11:41 PM
Post #17 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 415
|
In reply to: Finally, Ron Olevsky does have a point. A climber who intends to make money off of or stands to gain in other ways by his own routes probably does hold the copyright to his or her route description/route name
You can't own the name of a route. I don't know why but the thought that someone thinks they own the name of a route is fecking crazy.
[british]That's just not right![/british]
In reply to: and he has exercised that belief by asking for his routes to be excluded from guide books.
He puts up routes....on public lands.....and then refuses to let others publish the route name, description, location, etc?!?!?! What balls he has.
Just not right....
Bryan
|
|
|
|
|
escale
Apr 20, 2004, 1:25 AM
Post #18 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 129
|
Yes, I agree, we need an area other than artistic, bouldering, alpine, ice etc with the heading "topo's".
I am slowing working on adding an area called Big Block, which is a limestone bouldering and sport area. Here is the link on this site on the Route dB:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/routes/listArea.php?AreaID=6530
I am not finished with it, yet, but you can see how it is coming. I am using GPS so people can get there via topozone or something, but not everyone has a GPS. At this bouldering area, it is about 200 yds from the road, but one cannot park there overnight. People can do throw down camping for free within 3 miles of the area, but I don't have a real way to transfer my sketch of a map of these camping areas. I posted to everyone to contact the the Ranger Station 5 miles away. That won't help if you arrive at 2am.
Concerning the routes, I am trying to simply type in directions as descriptive as possible, because I can only put in pictures of people climbing the problems. It is kind of time consuming. It would just be nice to put in even a hand-sketched map that I put together on my "recon" trips.
To show where the routes that I have indicated, I am putting in TR's and just letting the rope hang so people can get the idea as to where they are, but it is a slow process.
Maybe if made everyone put their name on their sketch, so they can bite the big one if they scan someone's else’s work with their name on it. Those sketches that have no name could be deleted immediately. I should have as much copyright on my hand sketch as I do on my photographs, which on this site is really nice.
I too have taken large panorama photos of climbing walls and was told to resubmit them in less than 600x600 pixels, which in a pan shot becomes 100 x 600 pixels and with a file size of 48K so you can barely see roof problems.
What I am doing now is putting a link to my recon expeditions which contains about 100 photos with descriptions in full resolution mode ( 2.5Meg files) and will slowly put my "sketched" topo's there. I’m really sorry that my 4.0 megapixel camera makes images so large that I have to resize them to 25% their original size and reduce the color quality from 97% to 62%.
I also suggested a Seasonal Climate number associated with each Climbing areas from 1..10. We vote on photograph quality, why cannot we “vote” on area seasonal comfort. Like Winter( 2.0) Spring ( 8.0) Summer ( 3.5) Fall ( 8.9) which is what I would put on the Big Block Area. But I didn’t get a response from anyone on that suggestion either. Check out:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=620529&highlight=#620529
So I guess I will just got back to reading the flamer topics, troll posts and talk about my favorite drink and shoes, and help beginners to decide what the best knot is tie on the bottom of a rappel line so they don’t rap into the next dimension. Let’s see what else is fun. Oh yes, and those favorite climber pickup lines, that was a riot. ( Sorry, my sarcasm is worse before I’ve eaten. (Shouting: ) Anybody seen the box of Chocolate Almonds I left laying on the kitchen table.) Sarcasm aside, I could always console someone who had a near fatal epic that “Thank God, they can share with us.” Those epic stories are really great. I really am glad that people survive these epics and I am sure that if just one story helps someone, then it is worth all the flame wars, pointing and accusing that come after these topics. Even if some of us think they are funny. You know, that block post thing really works.
( That was a bad suggestion because, I’m guessing you will try it on my screen name) I am so glad my climbing partner just graduated from college and has that killer part-time job. I’m hitting the rock on the weekdays now. Is that kewl or what?
---Escale.
I don’t know where you guys go, but when I go to www.rc.com, looking for your posts, I get some legal site called Roberson and Cole attorneys at law, LLP. I’ve clicked all over there looking for your climbing posts, but nothing so far. The good news is that now I think I am ready for the State Bar Exam in Connecticut.
and how do you put in a emoticons, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Apr 20, 2004, 1:31 AM
Post #19 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Back to the original question of allowing topos at medium (under 96k).
This has now been discussed and below is the policy of rockclimbing.com as agreed upon by the photo eds and mods.
Topos of cliffs shall be allowed as medium (under 96k) however if you submit a boring scenery shot it may be requested to be resubmitted as low (under 48k). The photo editors have final say on what will be approved. Topo photographic shots of cliffs with climbs highlighted by line drawings will be preferred. Simple line drawings should always be submitted as low (under 48k).
Note that as is the standing policy of rc.com any work submitted must be yours and not copied from guidebooks or mags.
If any of the photo eds give anyone grief then please refer to this text. You will note however that the policy still gives the photo eds final say and the policy is necessarily ambiguous to give the photo eds the latitude to send back crappy pics for further editing by the submitters.
I hope that this is a reasonable compromise to the original rigid policy. I also hope that this policy demonstrates that if there is a need identified by the users then we as the management are seen to be reacting to that need after all this site is about all of us being the climbing community and thus the site needs to be seen to fulfilling the needs of the climbing community.
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Apr 20, 2004, 1:50 AM
Post #20 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
In reply to: Topos of cliffs shall be allowed as medium (under 96k)
:D :D :D :D THANK YOU :D :D :D :D :D
I shall begin submitting and re submitting my work soon.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
rockfax
Apr 20, 2004, 2:08 AM
Post #21 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2001
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: I like supertopo's model, as well as that UK company (name?) that sells cheap mini-guides to local areas with lots of photos and drawings.
Rockfax
http://www.rockfax.com/publications/country.html?id=12
A mix of online guides and print is the way forward.
Mick
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Apr 20, 2004, 2:22 AM
Post #22 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: Yes, I agree, we need an area other than artistic, bouldering, alpine, ice etc with the heading "topo's". I am slowing working on adding an area called Big Block, which is a limestone bouldering and sport area. Here is the link on this site on the Route dB: http://www.rockclimbing.com/routes/listArea.php?AreaID=6530 I am not finished with it, yet, but you can see how it is coming. I am using GPS so people can get there via topozone or something, but not everyone has a GPS. At this bouldering area, it is about 200 yds from the road, but one cannot park there overnight. People can do throw down camping for free within 3 miles of the area, but I don't have a real way to transfer my sketch of a map of these camping areas. I posted to everyone to contact the the Ranger Station 5 miles away. That won't help if you arrive at 2am. Concerning the routes, I am trying to simply type in directions as descriptive as possible, because I can only put in pictures of people climbing the problems. It is kind of time consuming. It would just be nice to put in even a hand-sketched map that I put together on my "recon" trips.
You know, if you and/or Kirk Woerner felt like helping us port the old StoneSeeker photo-topo code and make some changes to support your GPS and climate-rating additions (I'd be happy to make any necessary changes to the DB), we could probably add the requested features. I responded in your other thread, and I'll send you a PM, but the primary reason the RDB upgrade has been queued for this summer (May and beyond) is that it's a lot of work and there's only 4-5 developers (one full-time) to do it. If you and/or Kirk wanted to develop the RDB, we could start you, oh, I don't know, let's say... tomorrow.
In reply to: and how do you put in a emoticons, anyway.
Click on the smiley faces on the left. Or use :-), :-?, :boring:, etc in the text.
|
|
|
|
|
escale
Apr 21, 2004, 4:49 PM
Post #23 of 23
(9152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 129
|
Thanks for changing the rock face topos to allow for 96K.
Tim: I sent you an email concering what I can do for the code on the Routes dB.
I would love to work on it.
I haven't been placed on the coders email, but that is ok for now. I am still getting my linux box up to full speed. I'm finishing up another commercial project and will have time in less than a month. Might take me a bit to come up to speed.
Well, as long as it doesn't interfere with my expediditons.
Glad to be on the coder team.
( that was a joke about the emoticons) 8^)
---Escale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
