Someone recently added a Lost City section to the RC.com database, with the first route and photos included for "Texas Flake". I started a thread about whether Lost City should be included here.

The post is in the regional form and not heavily trafficked, but any locals with better insight and accounts there may want to chime in.

Historically, Lost City has intentionally remained undocumented. All published guidebooks have respected this local tenet.

Yes, Marc, I've heard that line before, but ... things are changing.

They maybe changing on the Internet front, but as far as guide books go, I still think the local tenet should be upheld. (with LC and the few other of the undocumented cliffs on the ridge legal for climbing)

As far as drips and drabs on this route or that at LC on the net I see no issue.

I've always liked the ethic and appreciate it more as I grow older. Unfortunately I don't pull hard enough to enjoy most of the offerings.

Oh ya almost forgot the preserve had requested at one time for the area of LC to not be documented in guide book. Hank at the preserve would know more.

First rule of lost city is you dont talk about lost city!
Second rule about lost city is YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT LOST CITY!
But judging by the amount of new faces alot of you have been breaking the first two rules!!!!!

I heard Kent and Paul are going to be selling a guidebook



(sorry, couldn't resist)

I love the adventure of climbing at Lost City. Keeping the routes unpublished lets me pretend I'm making FA's on some newly discovered crag. I pretend all the top-ropers next to me are really photographers documenting my historic assents, the chalked holds are bird shit, and the parking lot fifteen minutes away is where I keep my pirate ship.

Rock climbing at the gunks was established by respecting authority. If someone says Lost City shouldn't be documented, that's good enough for me.

Er, respecting authority in a vulgarian sort of way, that is.