17 Down Under:
17 DOWN UNDER. "A celebration of moderate grade climbing in Victoria". 184 pages. 285 images. Father & son team, Steve & John Morris, embark on a journey to climb and photograph 50 of the best rock climbs in Victoria, grade 17 & under. Inc bookmark $50.00
On 20/05/2010 ajfclark wrote:
>The thing I find most confusing about this separation is that from my
>(nerdy past life as a DBA) point of view, they are all instances of a more
>generic parent class as they all have the same properties but you can't
>search all of them at once for a phrase. This is particularly confusing
>with areas like dreamtime wall, which is a crag in the database not a wall.
>Also I can't seem to search for routes with grades between two values.
> If you look for everything under 20 you'll get a whole bunch of ungraded
Yes, these are my two pet hates as well. There should just be a single search function for name - and it displays instances in order starting from highest to lowest in database hierarchy.
On 20/05/2010 nmonteith wrote:
>The main problem with that guide is that almost none of the crags featured
>are popular in modern times. It's missing - The Gallery, Muline, Eureka,
>Lost World, most of the good stuff at Red Rocks, Millennium, Crystal Palace
>and most of the good routes at Gilhams - the list goes on.
I've been revising a few things in the Vic range over last few weeks. Been doing the Emu's Foot area cliffs in last few days. Added routes to Red Sail, Eureka Towers, Lost World, Emu's Foot. Also an overview photo for Lost World. Graphics to my usual high standard :(
I've always found thecrag to be abjectly useless for gaining information about climbs, let alone any substitute for a guidebook. It'd be better if people actually entered comments (useful comment rather than repeating "good" or talking about the style they did it in. Stuff that would be relevant for someone wanting to do it - is the grade fair, gear good, any obscure pieces needed, rock cruddy etc etc. But it seems to largely be used to record ticks and it is no comparison to the ACA database. rockclimbing.com is occasionally useful, not as a guide because they usually say diddly squat about the routes and no topos but because they do often provide a summary of a crag and other people may have uploaded photos, so you can get a feel for whether you want to check it out more, but that's about it. And you need to check the photos that come up are actually of the crag concerned - sometimes there doesn't seem to be a lot of connection going on. About the only other route database I've found that is of any use is camptocamp.org. Which is really best for Europe and the french database is far more extensive than the english one.
On 21/05/2010 davidn wrote:
>Copy of ACT Granite... again, some topos, access descriptions etc are
>sweet. Some info is unhelpful, because the writers wanted to take a 'traditional'
>approach. Some things, notably bouldering, are almost completely ignored.
> There are better guides around for detail, I know.