We're going around in circles. We already have established that a route can be deemed "popular" because it gets done a lot (i.e. Parking Lot wall routes at Rumney) or because it is aspired to be done a lot but is typically a once in a life time thing. Hopefully this crowd goes by the mostly by the second criteria and doesn't advocate bolting things into submission so they fall into the first category.
This post as well is hard to decipher... "hopefully this crowd goes by the mostly by the... so they fall into the first category."
You say a route can be deemed "popular" because it gets done a lot? Ummm... that is the definition of popular I think. That's like stating a route can be deemed "obscure" because no one seeks it out.
A route is not "popular" because it is a "once in a life time thing". That, my friend, is a "rarity".
No one in this thread has advocated bolting into submission. I climbed 4 new routes at Humphrey's today that all had excessive bolts on them. 5.7 to 5.9 climbs that were over protected at 5.3 moves and under protected at 5.6 moves.
No consistency in thinking about where to place a bolt, whether from stance, hook, or rappel. Some of them are like throwing darts at a a dart board in terms of bolt placement.
My stance, which I doubt will change is this.
1) If you are putting up a new route bolt it for the grade it is under a "PG" mindset. There are enough bold R and X routes for people to test themselves on. Sit back in your rocker at 80 plus years knowing your cool route is getting done rather than gathering lichen.
2) If the FAist wants to retro-bolt their own route, let them. It was their "piece of art" and contribution, and hindsight often is better than onsight.
3) 5.12 climbers putting up new 5.10 x routes suck.
