PDF Guides are missing pitch grades on multi-pitch routes

[rouletout]

What happened? Most of our routes a multi pitch, but this is not reflected in the PDF guide. Instead, just the max grade is displayed. This could dissuade climbers from climbing just the first pitches.

Instead it would be good if the number of pitches could be displayed after the route name and grades of pitches shown separated by commas

Eg. Breached As Bro 50m Sport 2 pitches 23,22

See: https://www.thecrag.com/climbing/pacific-islands/tonga/eau/area/1517151729

If you look at this route:

https://www.thecrag.com/climbing/pacific-islands/tonga/eau/route/1517158026

(please also provide urls and screen shots)

What you expected:

There is a breakdown itme in the header, which we should include below the route name in the pdf.

[scd]

Compare how the description for Bard is written to the description for Skywalker in Eua

https://www.thecrag.com/climbing/australia/arapiles/route/11967355

https://www.thecrag.com/climbing/pacific-islands/tonga/eau/route/1517158026

I think we need to make a business decision here.

1. We add the pitch breakdown automatically to each route and this info will be duplicated for descriptions written like in the Bard.

OR

2. We get contributions to standardise how they write pitch descriptions for routes.

If we adopt the second options then

This route follows the outside of the huge cave and cranks through a roof to ascend the pocketed orange headwall above. Skywalking was required before the first ascent.

Pitch 1: Starting downhill from the large cave where the lichenous south facing wall gives way to cleaner rock, climb up trending left to belay below a roof.

Pitch 2: Crank through the roof to a stance below the orange headwall.

Pitch 3: Navigate the slightly overhung, well-pocketed wall to clip the chains in a small recess below sharp grey rock.

BECOMES

This route follows the outside of the huge cave and cranks through a roof to ascend the pocketed orange headwall above. Skywalking was required before the first ascent.

1) 30m (17) Starting downhill from the large cave where the lichenous south facing wall gives way to cleaner rock, climb up trending left to belay below a roof.

2) 15m (22) Crank through the roof to a stance below the orange headwall.

3) 20m (23) Navigate the slightly overhung, well-pocketed wall to clip the chains in a small recess below sharp grey rock.

We should still keep the comma separated grades and heights but just get contributions to also add it to pitch info.

Note that the comma separated grades and heights are used for multi pitch routes.

[rouletout]

Cross link with https://github.com/theCrag/website/issues/2659

I think we have multiple deficiencies here. It is nice and easy to add teh length and grades with comma separation, but why can't we do that with e.g. bolts? Also, why can't we do more structure pitch information, having a description field per pitch too?

I still think it should be made as easy as possible to add a multi pitch route using the current system but allow for more stuctured input, essentially multiplying the fileds for each pitch AND having a summary description to cover gear, way down and general info for a route.

My point is, just because pitches are on top of each other we shouldn't treat them differently compared to routes that are next to each other...

[brendanheywood]

Fundamentally this is a tension between having a perfect data model vs making it easy to enter the data, and also having a way to cater for all the weird edge cases. eg it is quite common to have two alternate pitches or random text between pitches like:

1) blah
2a) go left and up
2b) go right and up
3) more up
There is a ledge here where you can bail off to the left if yo want.
4) more up up up
5) up up

We can either stick with the less structured markdown which is easy and flexible, or move to a more rigid data model where everything is broken up into it's own fields and would be way more painful to do the data entry. There is also a middle ground where we keep augmenting our flavor of markdown to make it more aware of climbing specific concepts and educate / encourage people to use it.

In particular 3 related issues that have been on our radar for some time is:

• Recognize grades anywhere in markdown #1192 - easy to implement but could easily produce false positives
• honoring the original pitch numbers (markdown resets them and ignores the 2a / 2b above) #1571 - this one is fairly easy
• being able to parse the markdown and extract all the data #1769 - this one is a potential minefield

[brendanheywood]

Merged from https://github.com/theCrag/website/issues/3330 by @rouletout

What happened?

For example in this area: https://www.thecrag.com/climbing/mexico/el-salto/area/1667175816 this route (https://www.thecrag.com/climbing/mexico/el-salto/route/581524854) is registered as a 4-pitch route. See screenshot:

The PDF Topo does not show the number of pitches and their respective grades. This is making you believe that the first pitch is actually harder than it is and not providing the right info. See screenshot:

What you expected:

Correct display of number of pitches and their respective grades on the PDF Topo