No information about 0 bolts #1370
Comments
|
Can you please give an example URL and/or a screen shot highlighting where Sent from my iPhone On 14/03/2014, at 9:20 PM, theSCRAG notifications@github.com wrote: visual bug: views: custom pdf Reply to this email directly or view it on |
|
route list route view: |
|
Ok, lets put aside the issue with the various forms and views being inconsistent and focus on the semantics and why we'd want this at all. In my mind n/a and 0 mean the same thing on a trad climb. I would not want to show 'Zero bolts' ever on a trad climb page in any view. You don't get bolts on a boulder problem, or an ice climb, or a deep water solo, so they are all in the same boat and I don't want to show them there either. If we went to the logical extreme then the bolts field would be disabled if the route's style wasn't 'trad'. However the exception to this is 'mixed' routes, under our system a trad climb with bolts, shows up as mixed eg: So currently because of the 'mixed' rule adding a 'zero bolts' label doesn't add a lot of value because it's already implied. The only problem with the current system is that you can't easily say that a route is mixed without saying how many bolts it has, so adding a new option 'some bolts' makes more semantic sense (or having a 'mixed' type, or allowing multiple types, both of which we considered) So is the guts of this a cultural one - ie in some places 'trad' means 'needs some trad gear' but in other places 'trad' means 'is 100% trad'? Is that the heart of why this is important? |
|
I like the idea of 'some bolts'. It solves a big problem of somebody knowing roughly how many bolts but not knowing for sure. Wrong information is really bad because it may lead to people bringing the wrong gear, however the idea of 'some bolts' means that people who know their are bolts can just put that in without worrying about the exact number. The other big issue is how do we know if a route has been assessed for bolts or not. N/A does not tell us whether the route does not have bolts or the information has not yet been provided. This is actually a pretty big issue for our database in particular where different users have different philosophies in entering data. Some users are just entering route names and grades and leaving the rest of the information for others to complete. So where does the 0 bolts fit in? Maybe to say that a route has been assessed. |
|
Ok but if 0 means we know it's got none, and 'n/a' means 'we just don't know', then in either case I'd still not want to show 'zero bolts' anywhere. @theSCRAG? Perhaps another way of cutting through this, is there a published guidebook or similar that has a '0 bolts' in use we can have a look at? |
|
I think if you renamed "N/A" to "unknown" it would overcome alot of confusion, especially with editors (routes with "unkown" have this information missing, routes with 0 bolts have been confirmed to have 0 bolts), and if possible grey out the option to add the amount of bolts to a route if it has the style Trad, Boulder or Ice as this is intrinsicly given. |
|
In summary we should do the following: (moved list to top) |
|
First, maybe I described "n/a bolts" bad - sorry for that. Furthermore, I didn't thought about useful combinations with route styles. I catch up now....here same samples and problems: "Ice climbing" could have belay station and some bolts for protection in parts there the ice is thin. "Mix" is not a very good term. Now I look to http://www.thecrag.com/article/styles for your definition. "Trad" it's not very common here and maybe there are some different definitions. Conclusion: hm, difficult...I will think about a better solution... |
|
I thought the same as theSCRAG, NA/unkown should not be the same as 0 bolts |
|
It's funny you gave an example of an ice climb that may have bolts and dismissed DWS and Boulder, yet I know examples of both DWS and boulders that do have bolts! So yes we need to be flexible and open minded. But in both of these cases I'd want the option to have bolts, but never want to show '0 bolts'. So then in some areas it is expected to see '0 bolts' on routes, and in other areas a lack of bolts and style of 'trad' is a safe assumption that there is no bolts. If we want to be flexible and allow the editors of each place decide which system to use then the only correct solution I can see is that we add 2 extra choices:
On the topic of 'mixed' yes it is more of an Australian term (we have essentially no ice). Changing this is a much bigger topic and we might need to revisit some of the ideas we had when we first made that decision. Roughly I think a more correct solution is to allow multiple styles on the same climb, so an Aus mixed climb is 'trad + sport' which might show as 'mixed' in brown like 'trad', and in europe that would be 'trad + ice' or 'trad + alpine' would show 'mixed' but in blue like 'ice'. There are other complexities like perhaps allowing a different style on each pitch of a long route. But lets leave this for another day :) |
|
okay, I know also a boulder with bolt. I thought this is a very silly example - but it's theoretical possible. So it seems we have to be flexible and open for everything. @brendan: I agree to you, that it isn't useful to show everythere "0 bolts".
I think these two options are the best idea and support this! Maybe some users don't know, if "n/a" means "n/a information" or "n/a bolts". So we should find a better term for "n/a". Something like "n/a bolts"? Furthermore we have to add a chapter ""bolts" in help page http://www.thecrag.com/article/Styles. Sometimes a user take the wrong option - that's the remaining risk we have to accept. "some bolts" is nice to have. But not necessary for the zero-bolt-problem. This discussion is long enough. For problems with terms like "mixed" and so on we should better open a new issue if neccessary. |
|
Ok perfect. I'm happy with simply "No bolts" instead of "n/a" and then it's much clearer. |
|
I have to create another field for 'no bolts', 'some bolts' and 'many bolts'. We need to get this aspect of the discussion right, because it involves a database change and the bulk of the work. If we have 'no bolts' then we don't need 0 bolts? This would require a data migration for existing routes with 0 bolts set. Currently 'n/a' is linked to the variable being undefined (ie means 'unknown'). So changing this to 'no bolts' would cause some problems. Possibly a deficiency with unknown bolts is that when you create a boulder problem the default will be unknown bolts. Creating different default rules for different route types is possible, but then begs the question what do we do about existing routes. Ideally when you create a boulder problem the UI could default to 'no bolts', but when you create a trad route this would default to unknown. Because of the requirement for data migration implement different default rules for the UI can happen much later. |
|
No, the default is currently 'n/a' which should remain the default and just be relabelled 'unknown'. 'no bolts' is new but will not show in list view an is semantically almost like 'not applicable' . '0 bolts' is semantically different to 'no bolts', already exists and will show in list view and elsewhere. There should be no migration at all. New routes don't need any special rules and the use of both new value is up to the local editors to optionally use. I've already moved to todo list to the top of the issue and straightened it out. |
|
I am pretty close to being fully on board with the tasks at the top of this discussion. Is the 'many bolts' setting also worthwhile putting in. |
|
I'm ambivalent about the 'many' vs 'some'. In terms of display I'm not sure what to show for many, maybe the carabiner icon and then 'lots'. It would make searching via bolts a bit harder, maybe instead something like '20+ bolts' would be more useful than simply 'lots' and a more tangible search filter. For most climbs the important thing is really the maximum number of bolts on any pitch. If it is under 20 then people should be able to count it or guess quickly, and to me 12-15 bolts on a 60m sport route doesn't qualify as 'lots' so 20 feels about the right number for me. |
|
I back the "some bolts" idea. Need it a lot for multi pitches where only some dangerous sections are protected by bolts. The exact count isn't important because it is a mixed route. |
|
+1 |
|
+1 for distinction "0 bolts" and "unknown" instead of one common "n/a" We lost an aspect mentioned earlier: How to give info that belay anchor of trad/ice route is bolted but no intemediate bolts exist? Help (question mark icon besides "Bolts" field) currently says "excluding anchor" which is in line with "1 bolt triggers mixed". Idea: Split "0 bolts" into "0 bolts" and "0 bolts but bolted anchor" and do not explicitly consider "route with intermediate bolts but missing a bolted anchor" because this is a rare edge case (at least in my experience) thus could be noted in description instead. Like this, we do not need one more database & GUI field, and still can have information on bolted anchor of trad/ice, also in search. |
Consensus tasks:
ie:
visual bug:
Some views have no information about 0 bolts.
No distinction between 0 bolts and N/A bolts is possible.
views:
route list in crag
route
custom pdf
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: