Useless platitudes aside, Uber has excellent points. More in favor of his view:
I'm kinda old and kinda old school. One of the reasons I love Pinns so well is adventure. The climbs vary in type, length and style. I agree with every word Uber said about too much information taking the adventure away. In the same spirit, I oppose adding bolts to routes. It is true that each such issue is gray and not black and white, but I draw the line on what info a guidebook should give right about the same place.
How useful are such gradients anyway? Especially at a place where, due to rock quality alone, every climb is at least a "G" and almost all are "PG." (Assuming "G" is a more dangerous rating than no letter at all - is it, I don't know?) And what help is "XXX?" What, instead of bouncing once, you bounce three times before you die? Look at all the discussion that takes place about just the "R" and "X" ratings and expand it to 5 or so danger ratings and soon you could have the whole climbing community paralyzed with indecision.
The book is going to come in at over 350 pages, total (appendices and index included). More information only adds to the volume;
Researching climbs is time intensive. Just getting what exists described right, topoed right and mapped right has been huge work. Factor and Uber, among others have seen this firsthand. Wishing for other types of information is a fantasy. (Another example is GPS coordinates - which example fits into the adventure comments above, too.)
The introductory materials delve into some of these issues - centering on the dangers of protecting climbs on softer rock. (See, too the comments second above.)
So, this book, at least, will use just "R" and "X." And, per much of the discussion above it will use them sparingly. Now, Factor, you OK with that? Will you be burning your book (that is, when it is done and delivered)?
