Over the past few weeks the Rio Banditos have been compiling a series of guidelines to follow when making beta updates. One of the issues we've noticed is a inconsistency when making beta updates, basically the terms access, fun facts, putin/take out, etc. have not been formally defined. Also there is a tendency for updates to say things like "putin: bridge, takeout: lake" or "take out: see Bennett, Putin: see Bennett", these sort of updates do not help the greater community because as I found out this weekend, the Bennett directions in some places are outdated. Also if someone doesn't have to local guide book then this sort of information is useless. So to clarify for the greater community we have come to a consensus on what these are.

The beauty of the beta updates is that the information is dynamic; as roads washout, become gated, or become privatized, the information on the site can be updated to stay current. This is particularly useful because the two main guidebooks for the state of Washington were published over a decade ago, and the Oly peninsula's information is far older than that.

So when you update take a few more minutes to get detailed about directions access and so forth.

Another related issue we've noticed is the river alerts tool. A general rule about the alert would be if a piece of wood has moved, delete the former alert and post a totally new one. Please don't make reference to a prior alert such as: "the piece of wood that used to be stuck in XYZ rapid is now downstream in ABC rapid on the MNO side of the river". In an effort to keep the page as clutter free as possible and simple please just make a new alert and delete alerts that are no longer applicable.

Also we added a tool that when you click on a page to update it a window will pop-up with the guidelines as a reference tool. (pop-up blocker will stop this, but don't worry it's not an advertisement)

Below is a list of definitions/guidelines for beta updates:

Access: is the put-in/ take-out on private or public land, is it a difficult hike to the put-in/take-out, are there any special permits required. Basically are there any special considerations in relation to getting to and from the river. Also making mention of any road issues that exist (washouts, high clearance,bring a saw, etc.)

Take-out: Starting with the nearest town give step by step directions to the takeout. Ideally with mileages. perhaps following a format that looks something like this:

From Shelton:
   1. Exit 101 at the MATLOCK Rd. exit.
   2. Take a LEFT at the bottom of the off-ramp.
   3. Follow W SHELTON MATLOCK RD for roughly 15 miles,
   once you see a lake on the right your approaching Matlock.
   4. In Matlock you'll see a corner store and post office,
   5. take a RIGHT onto W BEEVILLE RD. Follow for roughly 4.5-5 miles.
   6. Take a Right onto KELLY HALL RD, follow for roughly a mile.
   7. At big intersection take a left onto FR 2341
   8. Follow FR 2341 for about a mile park at bridge.

The capitalization of Roads, numbering steps and which direction to turn isn't required but we think it adds a nice touch.

Put-in: Like directions to the take-out but starting from where you would drop a car at the take-out.

Other Issues: Address undercuts, and general on-river hazards, maybe this would also be the space to talk about water levels, if the river doesn't have a gauge what other gauges to use, how fast the river drops after it comes up, and other weather/hydrological resources that are specific to the run in question.

Fun Facts: Where the closest place to get beer would be/food/water, it's locality to other cool outdoor opportunities, paid or free camping, or otherwise.

River Description: This is one area people need to be consistent. Describe the run, significant hazards and rapids and their succession, mileage, portages, etc. If you are going to edit an existing description be sure to add your name in the heading, if you are adding your own description Always preface your description with the following:
--- Submitted by: Your Username on Date & Time ---
This is very important because it allows users to associate a description with their knowledge of you and your paddling style. IE: A big hole to one person is a small hole to another and if you know who is describing what it will help. DO NOT ENGAGE IN DISCUSSIONS REGARDING FEATURES!!! IE I disagree with xyz's description it is more like a 12.89 foot drop, Leave that to the forum! If you disagree then discuss the matter in the beta area of the forum and come to a conclusion before making your sumission.

Rio Bandiot Notes: If you want to leave a note to the moderator or give explanation for your submission feel free to submit that here.

Here are some thoughts.

1. Those suggestions are mostly from Jed, Except the one you did not like that was mine : the signing off of beta. Let me give a little more information behind the way the system works because that might explain it better. First the list at the bottom of the river pages of who edited it  (Beta Trail) and when is still there. The issue is that you would not know what they edited unless they or the approval person made notes which is not going to happen everytime and even then you would have to bounce through every update. Secondly In many cases people want to write a trip report in the river description. In all reality we can't be too picky and if the description is good let it stay, but in an Ideal world you would make a trip report and then link it to the river. (See the bottom of the Robe Canyon Page for an example. There are 4 Trip Reports linked to that run) . Then you would give a general description of the run in the body but not as a narrative like: We were freezing cold so we ran it blind and boofed the left flake of the main ledge. Instead you would have that in your trip report and include only "the main ledge is usually boofed off the left flake".  If everyone did this then signing off on the beta would not be needed because we would have neatly filed trip reports tied to each run and a central compilation of general beta you could then flesh out further by reading individual accounts of paddlers you know or are familiar with.

2. There is a vast disputable difference between coping beta from a guidebook / other source and using the same information. Allow me to endulge myself in further explanation. If  Jeff Bennett makes a first descent and names a rapid "Wacky Toebacky" (which would be a sick name by the way) then uses the name in a book. A day later or ten years later you do the run and want to update beta on this site, or your blog, or another site can you use that name? I think so, and certainly if you give credit to the namer and person that founded the accomplishment. Next argument, Jeff pulls out his atlas and follows the roads to the putin, and you do the run then follow the same process. Well do you need to change the names of roads since he used them first? no, do you need to even rephrase the directions as in hang a left here, instead of take a left here. No, can you give credit to the person if your using his directions without having come up with your own? Certainly, Say These are Jeff Bennets directions that are still accurate. Now when it comes to the actual usage of river descriptions, I think your fencing into a sticky wicket. Can two people have a similar if not closely identical river experience... perhaps but the narrative is going to change. The description of the river might not after all a 10 foot ledge followed by a sieve is hard to describe in other words, but your method of making the description should not be taken in whole or part from anyones work. That is why if you have not run the run you should not be writing beta. If Jeff Bennett says that there is a good burger joint called jP's HenHouse you should not use that piece of information unless you have experienced it, or unless your going to specifically say that it was Jeff Bennett who mentioned it. It is a hard call. I think at a certain point if your using too much information from that guide book you do need permission but everyday people refer to the written word of others for their own unique or even competing purposes and it is not wrong, it starts to get wrong when you do it too much and/or when you don't give credit.

Again those are all just my thoughts! Jeff Bennett has an account here on PP so I think I would like to hear your response and then we can call him into this discussion because considering his "Historic Contribution" to this community and region we should go out of our way to show him our appreciation and respect.


Edited by James - 27 Jan 2011 at 11:16am

PS, ideally people would only make beta updates on rivers that they have actually been on. Copying directly from the text defeats the point and could be potentially walking the plagiarism line.

Woohoo!! I'll have to spend some quality time adding river beta on rivers I've run. Thanks for the info, James

I guess the root of my question is whether the information is gleaned from bennett or it is completely "original" information and less about whom is posting the information.

Looking at some of the descriptions, especially some of the recent edits, I feel they are too cluttered. In my opinion, this mishmash of writers without clearly knowing who recommends flows and writes the description is not an effective way to write a guidebook.
Secondly, I think that the top part of the descriptions, "fun facts", even "access", and especially "historical information (who got 1st D? or, should we switch the name from Canyon to Gorge? etc)", belong at the very end of a description. Brevity is important because what is most important in any river description is identifying hazards and giving someone a safe idea to whether they should attempt a stretch of river.

I don't mean to sound like I'm complaining, just trying to offer a different perspective. It's obvious that it's a huge amount of work to coordinate this type of project, and any collaborative effort will have these issues.