1. If a pitch is added or a route lengthened: can the person who lengthened the route, rename the entire route if he/she wants to? 2. When details are gathered for a guide: should only written records be considered or should rambling memories, broad boasts and wild claims be considered as well? 3. What information is nessary for a route to be considered open and recorded? IE: Name of route, grade, date, party, discription, lenghth.

We are putting together a small guide and this is what we have concluded from the effort. 1. No, if someone has already climbed a route, it is established, full stop. You can rename the route, including the lengthened part(my opinion), but the existing route is permanent. Adding pitches is different, I for one used the last two pitches of a route and added the first two and renamed the route. the first ascentionist had no problem as both routes are still independant. 2. Rambling memories is one thing, if you are sure that the route has been climbed and not mere boasts then it should be included. 3. If you don't know specific details than leave them out, but obviously include the grade. certain details should be included related to safety, other than that date, party aren't that important. This is my opinion. Just have an empathetic outlook, how would you feel if someone changed the name of your route, simply because he extended it?

Far I can remember, every guide i have seen lists each \"variation\" of the original route with its respective grade separately, without renaming the original route. Look at it from the climber's perspective - it's useful to be able to know that going out left is the 8a variation of an otherwise 7a route. Its not like there are billions of variation routes in SA crags like there are overseas, so the guidebooks aren't going to double in size. Personally, I think its great for a guide to list the opening ascentionist and year of first ascent. It keeps a sort of history going. If all guides left this out, it would be extremely difficult to get back to this information in 5 or 10 years time. Also, there are not that many route openers around and most of us know the style and characteristics of routes opened by certain individual routes - a sort of personal flavour. If I develop a taste for Joe Bloggs's routes, I would like to know which others he has opened and try them as well. Safety information is a must, but with with any good crag or well-bolted route, there shouldn't be anything to say here. Angle and shade times/seasons are damn useful too for some of us shade parkers ...

It does seem a bit rude to erase the history of the original route just because a bit has been added to it.

What if for no good reason the initial opener stopped after the first pitch or wimpered 10m up on a 100m route? worst case senario. Should the partial accent dictate a routes name.

If a route was opened with a point of aid...does the person who frees it get to rename it?

Just intresting questions....names are not all that important.

At one time, it was acceptable for aid routes to be renamed when freed, but I think that is pointless and confusing (and surely egotistical). I think the first ascentionist deserves to name it just for spotting the line and giving it a go, while the first free ascentionist should also get mention for the record. Lynn Hill didn't find it necessary to re-name The Nose (what the hell else would you call it?) and neither should we.

So if I spot a line that goes at 34, bolt it & manage to dog/aid to the top....should it be recorded that I first ascented the line? And should I name it? That latest 34 at Outshoorn for example.

I think not. The questions are purely ficticious & do not indicate my level of climbing in any way.

DM if you want to claim the FA of a AO, hand dogged route be my guest... what a hero!

The idea of my previous submision was to stimulate some thought and set fair boundries. They are fair senarios. But I could not see where I had indicated that I had or would claim the first ascent of an AO hand doged route.

So \"nameless\" why not have a go at explaining what you feel is correct ethic or go & get F...ed.

I my youthful opinion we should take a page from the books of the leaders in the game of free climbing. People like the Hubers, they don't rename the routes they free climb. They just say \"I free climbed
it\" and thats that. They don't need the self gratification of naming sometime that they did not orginate. Chris did not rename Biography, it was the American press, that shows humilaty. You cannot get respect without earning it. Give us the details of your variation or extention, of course I personally love it when people go out and get things done, they are few and far between in our community and I sallute you. It also comes down to common sense, if someone attempted a route and could not climb it the style in which it should be climbed in todays standards; eg hand-dogging a sport route, then obviously that route has not had an accent.

Hold up, hold up. I recently opended a 5 pitch sport route. I used a little aid section to overcome a hard section as I wanted to keep it at an easy grade as it was sponsered and also didn't have the time to work the hard part. So the whole route hasn't been freed but I named it and claimed first ascent with an aid grade along side. It has since been freed, so does this mean that my name should be changed. I tell you what if they do I will have some serious objections as I opened the route deliberatley in this style with the aid. They can claim the FFA of the route if they like but the time and effort of bolting the route was mine. Any thoughts on trad routes?

Hold up, hold up. I recently opended a 5 pitch sport route. I used a little aid section to overcome a hard section as I wanted to keep it at an easy grade as it was sponsered and also didn't have the time to work the hard part. So the whole route hasn't been freed but I named it and claimed first ascent with an aid grade along side. It has since been freed, so does this mean that my name should be changed. I tell you what if they do I will have some serious objections as I opened the route deliberatley in this style with the aid. They can claim the FFA of the route if they like but the time and effort of bolting the route was mine. Any thoughts on trad routes? Derek, it's amazing what some people post, it was quite clear what you meant.

Stu, where is is this sport route, what is its grade and when can I go and climb it? Good work, multi-pitch is the way to go!

Hey rasta, it's The Scorched Earth in the new Western Cape Rock. It's a 5 pitch grade 22, A0/25 out at Paarl and you can climb it any time you want. The first two/three pitches are really good face climbing with the last two being some quality slab.

I don't like renaming anything - it destroys history and is disrespectful. I was once given a project in KZN. The project was called Headology and after redpointing it I gave it some stupid name. Fortunately, everyone ignored my bullshit and it's still called Headology.

When Jerry Moffatt opened a boulder problem at Topside known as The Accountant's Project, I asked him what he was gong to call it. He said that it already had a name - so the original name stuck.

I guess that there are some clear cases for renaming or not.

If you add a 10m grade 30 new section to an existing grade 20 - you should probably name your extension. However, the old route should remain.

If you add a new section to a route that improves the route but doesn't change the grade siginificantly - the old route will PROBABLY cease to exist and you should get the FA. Good form says that you don't rename it and you should mention that your line was based on the route opened by ...

If you add a new section that merely makes the route longer (but your section is shite (probably the reason the first oke avoided it)) you should be shot. Longer is not always better. Routes have logical finishes - which is seldon at the top of the crag.

If you free 1 move on a route, you shouldn't rename it, but you should be credited with the FFA.

Hmmm, I guess that those are some of the clear cases, the rest is greyer...

Generally, I reckon it's poor form to change the name of a line because you have added a few meters to it or discovered a direct start or finish. The original name and FA should stand.

Theres a crag I go to alot here in New Zealand that has a number of two pitch routes (albeit damn short pitches) where each \"pitch\" is considered a seperate line and has different names and usually a different FA. I guess it devloped like this because most of the first pitch lines were climbed well before the second pitch lines. Also, there is a distinct break between pitches in the form of a shallow ledge.

A common solution to additions that we use here is to use the original name and add \"Direct start/finish\" or \"extention\" with the grade of the entire new line and give the addition it's own heading in the guide. ie: \"Space Boy\" 31- The bulging prow 3m left of \"Urge\". Has two distinct cruxes and a faint rest in the middle. 8 bolts. Matt Evrard, '94... \"Space Boy Extention\" 32- Continue for another 3 bolts from the \"Space Boy\" anchor, 11 bolts. Kaz Pucia '95

No one steps on history, the right people get the credit for what they have done. Everyones happy.