User talk:Bjp

it worked!

Awesome, I'm glad :) Bjp (talk)

Sorry I couldn't edit the discussion page for LSA. I have done LSA once and exited on the ridge, and some of my group members complained about the steepness of the exit. Any legal issues or encounters with the dam exit? Is the reason for checking the dam exit beforehand to view how simple it is to jump the fence?

Thanks, Kyle (skuntkeeth)

Oops, my bad -- I entered a title blacklist keyword wrong and it was preventing that page from being created. Should be fixed now. Bjp (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2014 (PDT)

Hey there, I saw a Preparation page for jump trip in recent changes. Where can I find a link to this or other pages like it on the wiki? Thanks, Kyle. skunkteeth (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2014 (PDT)

How is the date stamp for the condition reports page created? It seems to neither match the date of latest modification of the reports page, nor that of the latest report entry. —Bahman (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2014 (PDT)

That's a bit of an involved answer, but probably the important things are that it 1) doesn't work quite right yet and 2) the database is in the process of updating semantic properties. Eventually, the hope is that it will reflect the most recent modification date of the reports page. --Bjp (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2014 (PDT)

Rigging step #3 on Joker requires "[...] and also around the rope passing through anchor ring" -- why is that necessary or important? Note that the left side of File:JokerDirectQuickLinkAttachment.jpg does not satisfy this condition. In fact, satisfying this condition would result in the undesired configuration on the right side, no? —Bahman (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2014 (PDT)

JokerDirectQuickLinkAttachment.jpg demonstrates the attachment point variation. The picture that illustrates the carabiner going around the rope as described in step #3 is the second frame from the left on JokerRiggingSteps.jpg. If the rope doesn't pass through the carabiner at this point, it will be ugly & difficult to complete the rigging. --Bjp (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2014 (PDT)

Hi Ben! What wetsuit thickness did you use/recommend for Jump trip?

Thanks! skunkteeth (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2014 (PDT)

I had a 3mm farmer john + 6/5 vest + 3mm neo gloves + 5mm neo socks. One of our group had a slightly-loose 3mm full (+neo gloves +neo socks) and got very cold. Generally, I'd say full neoprene including socks and gloves, and everything at least 3mm thick. --Bjp (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2014 (PDT)

wrong rating

I accidentally clicked a star when clicking a condition report and rated a canyon I hadnt done. Is there a way to remove a rating? Thanks skunkteeth (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2014 (PDT)

You can review your ratings and conditions report from the link on the Main page entitled "My canyon ratings and condition reports". I just added the capability to delete ratings. If you have any problems, please let me know because the feature is brand new :) --Bjp (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2014 (PDT)

Awesome worked great, thanks!skunkteeth (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2014 (PDT)

Bear Creek

Hi Ben! I am having issues updating Bear Creek. I got Guadalupe Creek done finally. Anyways, I started with the map and it isn't showing up correctly, there's just a gray screen. The map I put together can be found here. I recall when I first added the coordinates it has a black marker with a question mark as an unidentified region. It eventually went away but didn't know the problem. There may be some confusion with another Bear Creek as it's such a common name. The beta from Brennan isn't correct, completely different creek. estunum (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2014 (PST)

Hmm, I see the issue with the KML -- when the map loads on the main canyon page, it just displays gray rather than a map. That shouldn't happen regardless, but the thing that is exposing the problem is that the paths in the KML file you uploaded don't contain any points. This probably causes a parse error in whichever module ends up loading it (though ideally it shouldn't). So, the root problem/question is why your version of the KML has zero-length paths. I'm not sure what the answer to that question is. When I visited your CalTopo link, clicked Export, then clicked Download under "Export to a KML", I got a KML file with full paths. The file is definitely different -- the one you uploaded was only 3k whereas the one I downloaded from CalTopo was 17k. For now, I uploaded the version I re-exported from your CalTopo link, but I'm not sure why you got a 3k version. One way to check KMLs in the future is to open them in Google Earth, though that shouldn't usually be necessary.

You're right about the conflict with Brennen's name. In the future, when you want to add a canyon whose name already exists, you'll want to put distinguishing characteristics in the name. In this case, it would have been better to create a new canyon page and name it 'Bear Creek (Santa Rosa Mountains)'. But, your canyon now has more information in RopeWiki than Brennen's canyon, so I'm going to create a new canyon named 'Bear Creek (San Gabriels)' instead and move his beta link to that page. So, the page Bear Creek will refer to the canyon in the Santa Rosa Mountains and Bear Creek (San Gabriels) will refer to Brennen's canyon.

The unidentified region was probably because there was no region page for Santa Rosa Mountains initially. New regions can be created with the Region form. Thanks for the contributions! --Bjp (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2014 (PST)

Thanks a lot! You know, I did export to GE and noticed it didn't have the paths on the first try. I exported the second time and didn't check it. I've come to work around caltopo pretty fast, so I wonder if the servers weren't ready to export all of the points. Anyways, another issue has risen. I went on to upload a cover picture and I get an error. It is along the lines of insufficient memory so I thought maybe the file was too big. The first attempts were 5.6mb (below the 8mb limit) and made the third ~1mb and still didn't work. This canyon really doesn't want to be known haha. Or I am just screwing things up. You can see the error on the section where the photo should be, but in case it goes away, this is what I get:

Error creating thumbnail: convert: Insufficient memory (case 4) `/var/www/ropewiki.com/images/2/22/Bear_Creek_Banner.jpg' @ error/jpeg.c/EmitMessage/242.

convert: missing an image filename `/tmp/transform_7e2c17464081-1.jpg' @ error/convert.c/ConvertImageCommand/3011.estunum (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2014 (PST)

Hmm, I don't remember seeing that problem before. I'm able to upload images on other pages, so there's something funky with this specific case -- yeah, apparently the canyon does want to stay a secret. I'm having David take a look. --Bjp (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2014 (PST)

Canyon naming

Great! Thank you, that will make it easier. I added another and working up a couple. I have a question about the naming convention for canyons. I read over the stuff when you create a new canyon, but I wanted to see what you thought. Let's take Bear Creek for example. This winter I plan on doing it from the top just like Guadalupe Creek. I believe that's really the true "full" route of a canyon, when you start it when the canyon itself starts. I was planning on adding that trip as an alternate route, or should it be Bear Creek (Upper) or (Top), etc.? I guess the same dilemma can apple to Neon Canyon. For Cedar Creek (Upper) I went for upper as the middle section hasn't been documented. Perhaps I am looking into this too much. estunum (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2014 (PST)

Generally, we want the titles that are the clearest and most natural while meeting all other needs (like, having a different page name for each canyon/variation). The specifics haven't been set in stone, but here's what I think will work well: First, the Wikipedia guidelines are a good place to start. Since canyons are proper names, I think the stuff in parentheses should also be capitalized. When there are multiple canyons with the same name, or multiple variations of that canyon, we haven't been entirely consistent. When I initially dumped a bunch of stubs into the database, I always had the root name of two canyons redirect to a disambiguation page. So, for instance, Rubio Canyon would redirect to Rubio Canyon (disambiguation), and then there were actual pages for Rubio Canyon (Upper) and Rubio Canyon (Lower). But, that was mainly for programmatic convenience. What I think we should do is have the main canyon be listed as the plain name (so, for instance, Rubio Canyon now contains the lower portion) and then have lesser canyons add qualifiers in parentheses (like Rubio Canyon (Upper)). If the variation shares most of the canyon, I'd just put the variation in the same page and add notes about it. An example is again Rubio Canyon which actually lists 3 different variations. But if the variation is substantively different, another page is best. I would judge based on popularity or potential popularity rather than "full" though. For instance, there is a full Eaton route, but nobody does that route (and rightly so), so lower Eaton is the route listed on Eaton Canyon. So, if you think the full Bear Creek would be the preferred route, let's rename the current Bear Creek to "Bear Creek (Lower)" and add that full route as "Bear Creek". Otherwise, let's just add the page "Bear Creek (Upper)". Or, if it's similar enough, you could just mention that variation within the same page. Renaming pages is hard to do manually though, so it's probably easiest if you tell me what you want renamed to what. And, if you have better naming ideas, we might use those instead :) --Bjp (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2014 (PST)

Contact for Error in Sombrio (So Creek)

Hi Bjp,

Wasn't sure how to contact you I just added a new canyon. Sombrio Creek but I named it wrong, how would I rename a canyon or delete and ro-do a canyon?

I named it wrong it should be "Sombrio River II" not So.

Cheers, Chirs Arnold

Renaming canyons takes many steps, so unfortunately the easiest thing to do is to just ask me to do it. I've made the change. Btw, to sign comments like this, just type four tildes (~) in a row at the end of the message. The result is this: Bjp (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

Swift water page separation

Hi Ben! Thanks for your work on the Swift water page. It was getting a bit long in the tooth. Would you mind if I adjusted some of the new page names? For example: Swift water team dynamics -> Team dynamics; Swift water hazards -> Water hazards (or maybe Aquatic hazards). Jesse Houser (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2016 (EDT)

Go right ahead, that sounds great and your work on it thus far has been great also. I forget how the permissions are set up, but let me know if you can't rename them via More (in the upper right) -> Move. In general, just be bold and someone will revert your changes if they were out of line :) But, I don't think that's ever happened here apart from one attempted vandal. Bjp (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2016 (EDT)

Thanks for your reply. You probably noticed I also started some work on equipment pages a while back that could have some relevance to the Swift water topics. The equipment pages are not anywhere near complete yet, but they will get there. Jesse Houser (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2016 (EDT)