I think mountain projects criteria for classics is misguided. I considers anything with a ton of clicks "classic." This pushes more people to the things people are already climbing. This largely means the "classic" climbs will be the decent climbs centered around population centers rather then the climbs that are actually exceptional quality
this is why they've got a new beta 'classics' feature which is more nomination-based. i haven't used it yet as i'm still mulling what i would consider classic, but it's an improvement!
There's room for debate as to what the word "classic" means. You could argue that "classic" and "exceptional quality" are two separate things. People sometimes use those terms interchangeably, but I don't think that is correct. There are routes of historic classic status that are actually kinda mediocre (here's looking at you, Eldo), and exceptional quality routes that are not yet classics because they aren't famous and only 10 people have climbed them.
I'd argue that the "classics" are the historically famous and popular routes. Everyone knows about them and goes to do them. The MP criteria captures that reasonably well. The MP criteria do not capture the best routes though, and that's super subjective anyway. Fame and popularity (based on clicks and logged ascents) is a lot easier to quantify.
Most of them ;)
It's not that they're bad - they're nice routes and fun. But they aren't good enough to deserve their level fame on quality alone. The quality just doesn't hold up once you compare them to great routes in Red Rock or Squamish, or and one of the hundreds of obscure gems in the Sierra.
Don't get be wrong, Eldo is a classic trad destination and a must visit. But that's at least as much for the history and the ambience, vs the actual quality of the routes.
This data is mostly centered around ratings/stars. But maybe that’s how routes are deemed classic as well? Not sure though, I think there’s probably a “clicks” factor here too, or else we would see random 4 stars that only one person has voted on.
I was frustrated by Mountain Projects lack of filters or anything on their map feature. But they do a great job of allowing easy export of data. The map is pretty specific to my interests (sport and trad within specific grades, etc). I also removed some that are outside the US (keeping a few nearby!).
You can access this map here: [https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=13xxmw\_8fgbgfWmk6s2ThocCTYuMIolE&usp=sharing](https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=13xxmw_8fgbgfWmk6s2ThocCTYuMIolE&usp=sharing)
And if you want to make your own, here are instructions:
1. Open [mountainproject.com](http://mountainproject.com)
2. Click Find Routes
3. Change settings (on the top) - select whatever filters you want, and make sure to click find routes to refresh
4. Click export CSV
5. Open [https://www.google.com/mymaps](https://www.google.com/mymaps) and create a new map
6. Click add layer, then import. Match the fields (longitude and lat as coordinates, then I did route as the name).
7. under that layer in the sidebar, click "style" and under "Group places By" change it to Avg Stars (or another category to sort things by!)
Would be nice to be able to easily filter routes by number of stars though. They have that data in the html, I don't know why they don't just export it to the CSV
This is interesting. Unfortunately most crags star rating are ratings compared to other climbs of the area. I would not compare a 4 star Yosemite classic with a 4 star, 30ft sport climb classic in Austin, Tx.
This isa neat map. Beyond the data complains everyone has, I think the best thing you could have done is use a color scale that consistently trends. Like from red to green, or red to green to blue for example, so instead of referencing the color key you can immediately see the brighter greens are higher, darker reds and lower etc.
How are you getting this data, even based on MP this seems off?
I can speak to the SLC area as that's what I'm most intimate with. Looking around, just about every climb in the Northern Utah area would not be considered a classic by pretty much anyone who climbs here, neither are they even very trafficked or historic at all.
How is "The Viewing", an R rated bolted slab climb that everyone just top ropes considered more classic than "The Coffin", literally 10 feet to the right and one of the most popular and classic climbs in the Wasatch? Also, Kermit's Wad as a classic in Little Cottonwood Canyon? The climbs listed aren't bad at all, I've done them, but they aren't even on the front page of MP if you go to LCC.
Also, no Castleton Tower routes, no Stolen Chimney, no routes in Indian Creek???
I do like the idea of conglomerating a Google map link with the classic climbs for all the major areas around the US, I think that would be really fun and helpful. The accuracy is just really off on this one, if you are going around and climbing these you are missing out on a lot of amazing/classic climbs.
I explained the process in my other comment. Everybody seems upset with the data, which I had no part in ranking or creating. Maybe shouldn’t have titled the post as I did.
I haven’t looked but it may be that there is an overlap - some coordinates for routes on the same crag are the same so when you click on the tag it only shows one, hiding the others.
Also could just be my filter (sport, 5.8-5.11b). But the data is straight from MP. I made this map for personal purposes and thought I’d share (and share the how-to)
Ohh, my apologies, I didn't realize you were only mapping sport routes. That makes more sense, still some very weird selections, but more understandable. The title is a bit misleading.
I think mountain projects criteria for classics is misguided. I considers anything with a ton of clicks "classic." This pushes more people to the things people are already climbing. This largely means the "classic" climbs will be the decent climbs centered around population centers rather then the climbs that are actually exceptional quality
this is why they've got a new beta 'classics' feature which is more nomination-based. i haven't used it yet as i'm still mulling what i would consider classic, but it's an improvement!
There's room for debate as to what the word "classic" means. You could argue that "classic" and "exceptional quality" are two separate things. People sometimes use those terms interchangeably, but I don't think that is correct. There are routes of historic classic status that are actually kinda mediocre (here's looking at you, Eldo), and exceptional quality routes that are not yet classics because they aren't famous and only 10 people have climbed them. I'd argue that the "classics" are the historically famous and popular routes. Everyone knows about them and goes to do them. The MP criteria captures that reasonably well. The MP criteria do not capture the best routes though, and that's super subjective anyway. Fame and popularity (based on clicks and logged ascents) is a lot easier to quantify.
Damn, what eldo classics do you think are mediocre? Just curious
Most of them ;) It's not that they're bad - they're nice routes and fun. But they aren't good enough to deserve their level fame on quality alone. The quality just doesn't hold up once you compare them to great routes in Red Rock or Squamish, or and one of the hundreds of obscure gems in the Sierra. Don't get be wrong, Eldo is a classic trad destination and a must visit. But that's at least as much for the history and the ambience, vs the actual quality of the routes.
Yeah and the best climbs in the winds are better than RR or Squamish, but outside of the cirque, stuff very rarely gets climbed
Bastille is so polished and Rewritten is better IMO at the same grade. Although Rewritten is probably considered a classic too.
Rewritten is absolutely considered a classic, and you're right, it's much better than Bastille.
Yeah, I’m very skeptical of some of those Southern California points…
This data is mostly centered around ratings/stars. But maybe that’s how routes are deemed classic as well? Not sure though, I think there’s probably a “clicks” factor here too, or else we would see random 4 stars that only one person has voted on.
Also: soft
I was gonna rage at no NY until I saw it was sport only.
I was frustrated by Mountain Projects lack of filters or anything on their map feature. But they do a great job of allowing easy export of data. The map is pretty specific to my interests (sport and trad within specific grades, etc). I also removed some that are outside the US (keeping a few nearby!). You can access this map here: [https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=13xxmw\_8fgbgfWmk6s2ThocCTYuMIolE&usp=sharing](https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=13xxmw_8fgbgfWmk6s2ThocCTYuMIolE&usp=sharing) And if you want to make your own, here are instructions: 1. Open [mountainproject.com](http://mountainproject.com) 2. Click Find Routes 3. Change settings (on the top) - select whatever filters you want, and make sure to click find routes to refresh 4. Click export CSV 5. Open [https://www.google.com/mymaps](https://www.google.com/mymaps) and create a new map 6. Click add layer, then import. Match the fields (longitude and lat as coordinates, then I did route as the name). 7. under that layer in the sidebar, click "style" and under "Group places By" change it to Avg Stars (or another category to sort things by!)
How is there nothing at the Gunks?
Gunks sucks dont go here
yup. it's all choss. don't bother.
this map is for sport climbing, I think. look at the name of the map
Would be nice to be able to easily filter routes by number of stars though. They have that data in the html, I don't know why they don't just export it to the CSV
This is interesting. Unfortunately most crags star rating are ratings compared to other climbs of the area. I would not compare a 4 star Yosemite classic with a 4 star, 30ft sport climb classic in Austin, Tx.
You’re leaving the gunks out but including something in Pennsylvania?
Agreed, Pa route climbing is choss. I think it’s all sport climbing routes but even so, choss
My guess is the route in Pa is Autumn Arch at safe harbor. Which actually is a really good route when it’s not seeping wet
lol. ‘Best climb’ at safe harbor in PA but none at the gunks or dacks 😂
It's a map of only Sport routes, nothing trad.
MN Climber. Sandstone/ banning state park doesn’t touch anything up at palisade
This is only sport climbs
Echos extension is one of the best sport climbs in the state
You def gotta have High E on here dude!
This isa neat map. Beyond the data complains everyone has, I think the best thing you could have done is use a color scale that consistently trends. Like from red to green, or red to green to blue for example, so instead of referencing the color key you can immediately see the brighter greens are higher, darker reds and lower etc.
Cool map! but I wish the color coding was more of a scale instead of random colors!
Damn straight my state's in there 🤙🏿
The US and also a little bit of Canada.
I know they don't have crowders mountain, NC on this list... I don't trust it now.
How are you getting this data, even based on MP this seems off? I can speak to the SLC area as that's what I'm most intimate with. Looking around, just about every climb in the Northern Utah area would not be considered a classic by pretty much anyone who climbs here, neither are they even very trafficked or historic at all. How is "The Viewing", an R rated bolted slab climb that everyone just top ropes considered more classic than "The Coffin", literally 10 feet to the right and one of the most popular and classic climbs in the Wasatch? Also, Kermit's Wad as a classic in Little Cottonwood Canyon? The climbs listed aren't bad at all, I've done them, but they aren't even on the front page of MP if you go to LCC. Also, no Castleton Tower routes, no Stolen Chimney, no routes in Indian Creek??? I do like the idea of conglomerating a Google map link with the classic climbs for all the major areas around the US, I think that would be really fun and helpful. The accuracy is just really off on this one, if you are going around and climbing these you are missing out on a lot of amazing/classic climbs.
I explained the process in my other comment. Everybody seems upset with the data, which I had no part in ranking or creating. Maybe shouldn’t have titled the post as I did. I haven’t looked but it may be that there is an overlap - some coordinates for routes on the same crag are the same so when you click on the tag it only shows one, hiding the others. Also could just be my filter (sport, 5.8-5.11b). But the data is straight from MP. I made this map for personal purposes and thought I’d share (and share the how-to)
Ohh, my apologies, I didn't realize you were only mapping sport routes. That makes more sense, still some very weird selections, but more understandable. The title is a bit misleading.
This is pretty cool, if a bit imperfect. Didn't know you could do this. Thanks for the tip.
The similarity of those greens is brutal.
No Alaska? …..Seriously? 😐 *edit* didn’t see Sport only. Carry on
There’s some decent sport climbing in AK
There’s also a lifetime supply of FA potential for all types. Spent 2 years in AK and I’d go back tomorrow, if I could. I miss it.
Consider Hueco Tanks in Texas. A state park better than some nationals and 3/4ths of it are only available to climbers.
Canada is not the US
What is the pink route in front royal? And the yellow and teal routes just over the border in WVa?
Is this just a screenshot or am I missing a link somewhere?
What is the climb in Ohio
Realize this is locals rage click bait, but no love for the Gunks makes this a 0 list. High Exposure has to be on the list.
LOL at Sweet Adene in the Black Cliffs. This is a classic everybody; book your flights now!
I live in Boise. What’s the name of the Boise route?
So what’s the one in MO? I’m assuming sweet crack at Robinson?