I am quite a bit late to the party, but in my opinion the conclusion here is flawed because the question after the edit is so good. I think we agree that the question after Charlie Brumbaugh's edit is much better, the stats he posted concur with that.
Nevertheless the question after the edit is a different question. Answers are relevant to the original question, as they are about the same topic, but they are not directed at this specific problem. One aspect was the disparity between the rules applied by authorities and the missing information of the climbing community (no signs, ...). This is obviously much more boring and less useful for a greater public than what the edit asks, but it is a legitimate question.
In my opinion this question should have been closed as unclear or too broad. Charlie Brumbaugh's question should have been posted as a new question.
After all if you don't have edit privileges and start an edit the following guidelines are displayed:
And I completely forgot the licensing stuff brought up in comments: That's a joke right? Sure the license allows for extended edits, but the license is not what defines how the community works. It is vice versa: The license (should allow) allows to do what the community wants. So arguments should be about what SE wants to achieve as a community with edits, not what the license/ownership allows.