This HTML5 document contains 9 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
n4http://www.openvoc.eu/poi#
schemahttp://schema.org/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n2http://data.yelp.com/Review/id/
n6http://data.yelp.com/Business/id/
revhttp://purl.org/stuff/rev#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n7http://data.yelp.com/User/id/

Statements

Subject Item
n2:c7joW4moXIlTqh8Wt5M2PA
rdf:type
rev:Review
schema:dateCreated
2011-09-20T00:00:00
schema:itemReviewed
n6:cI4j5iXwxlW1D75YBkvlaQ
n4:funnyReviews
0
rev:rating
3
n4:usefulReviews
2
rev:text
I would like to give Ape Index a higher rating. I really would. The place has some great staff; they were very friendly. They've got nice walls with good features. I especially love the big globe! And the bouldering walls they have going up look very promising. The problem here, and what is really needed to make a climbing gym, is the routes. Don't get me wrong, there are some very good routes. I really enjoyed a couple of them. Unfortunately, all of the routes are very old and I got the sense that they were going to remain there for some time to come. Then there were the routes that weren't so good. Not only were they just as old as the good routes; they had some of the most contrived movement I have ever seen on a rock wall. There were movements which were absolutely outside the grade of the route due to a lack of properly placed holds. It seemed to me that these were simply the result of inexperienced route setters. All in all they were just not pleasant to climb. I really hope that Ape Index proves this review wrong, gets new routes set by experienced setters, that their bouldering wall turns out as good as it looks. Until that happens though, I can't really see myself making the trek up there when Ape just doesn't quite stand up to the other gyms in the valley. (Yet?)
n4:coolReviews
0
rev:reviewer
n7:4GoS7G_fyGEHGMjcQ4msLw