View Full Version : AT Guidebook
wcgornto
10-04-2008, 17:46
Companion, Handbook or Pages????
What is most useful, informative, etc.?
Order all three and see what format you like. They all have info laid out in different ways.
john gault
10-04-2008, 18:07
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39168 (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39168)
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35408 (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35408)
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39828&highlight=appalachian+pages (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39828&highlight=appalachian+pages)
Pages for me, I love the profiles in it!
companion is my vote, pages still has a lot of stuff missing and the handbook was way out of date two years ago and doesn't look like much has really changed. All of this is trail information that I am talking about, town info seems correct for all of them.
Blissful
10-04-2008, 20:27
Used first two, the other came out this year. Liked the companion the best IMO, but haven't used the third.
lonehiker
10-04-2008, 21:32
Saw all three used this year. Even saw several people using out-of-date data books. All have the same basic information. All have minor errors in them. Pick one and have a great trip.
Jack Tarlin
10-05-2008, 14:25
The Companion has the most Field Editors, and in most cases, these people actually live in the sections they're writing about, are very familiar with their sections, have hiked these sections multiple times, and are in a good position to keep up with changes and additions, especially when it comes to town facilities and businesses. Most of the Companion Editors are also former thru-hikers. What this means is that the Companion is generally the most accurate of the major trail guides.
The format of the Thru-Hikers Handbook is probably the easiest on the eye; the Handbook absolutely has the best town maps; also, the accuracy of the Handbook has improved since Bob McCaw took over publication.
I would be interested to hear from 2008 hikers which book they saw most often in the hands of other hikers. Maybe a ratio. One hostel owner down south said he saw App Pages over the Handbook 4 to 1.
Jack Tarlin
10-05-2008, 19:27
I'd disagree strongly with that percentage, but like you, I'd be very curious as to feedback from more folks who actually were hiking this year.
I can only state based on what I saw, so this is in no means all inclusive. I saw equal amounts of the ATC and wingfoots among thru-hikers this season. Not as many had the pages. I think that the 4 to 1 figure is grossly overestimated. I used the App. pages from Ga>MA then lost it and could only find the wingfoot guide(now Bob Mccaw). I found this guide much better than the pages because of the detail in landmarks it gives. However, it was nice to have the elev. profile of the pages. Anyway, they all have errors and if I had to go back and do it again, I would use the Thru-hikers guide(ewither old wingfoot version or Bob mccaws version) and buy the maps. Of course, everyone will say something different....
Appalachian Pages was the dominant handbook among the SOBO's I saw with their handbook, mainly because they liked the fact that there was a book designed for going SOBO.
It seems it was pretty evenly split this year, with an edge going to the Handbook. Most people I saw who started with the Companion traded out because they were not fond of the format. Most commented that the ideal book combined the + factors of all three books. Most wanted the town information from the Handbook, some history from the Companion, and the profile from the Pages.
Even I admit there were times when I wondered "What is the history of this trail area?", and would reference Cookie's Companion. There were also times when I referenced the closest Handbook for some more town information that what I was given in the Pages.
However,95% of the time, the Pages did it for me, and there were a lot of times when people referenced my profile to determine if they would hike on or stay where they were for the night.
Hope this helps,
Kirby
lonehiker
10-05-2008, 21:09
Saw all three used this year. Even saw several people using out-of-date data books. All have the same basic information. All have minor errors in them. Pick one and have a great trip.
I hiked this year and saw all three used. Maybe, the Companion was used slightly more than the other two (just my observation). And, as I said earlier, saw way more people than I would have anticipated simply using the Data Book (mostly outdated at that).
Pick the format that suits you (or flip a coin) and you will have a guidebook that will get you to where you want to go.
I hiked this year and saw all three used. Maybe, the Companion was used slightly more than the other two (just my observation). And, as I said earlier, saw way more people than I would have anticipated simply using the Data Book (mostly outdated at that).
Pick the format that suits you (or flip a coin) and you will have a guidebook that will get you to where you want to go.
Cookie, my hiking companion, used the data book for his day to day operations on the trail. He only referenced the companion when it was time to go to town and needed to know information.
I was even at the point where I would say "what's the data book say Cookie?"
Kirby
I can only state based on what I saw, so this is in no means all inclusive. I saw equal amounts of the ATC and wingfoots among thru-hikers this season. Not as many had the pages. I think that the 4 to 1 figure is grossly overestimated. I used the App. pages from Ga>MA then lost it and could only find the wingfoot guide(now Bob Mccaw). I found this guide much better than the pages because of the detail in landmarks it gives. However, it was nice to have the elev. profile of the pages. Anyway, they all have errors and if I had to go back and do it again, I would use the Thru-hikers guide(ewither old wingfoot version or Bob mccaws version) and buy the maps. Of course, everyone will say something different....
Appalachian Pages (http://www.appalachianpages.com) will have hundreds of more mileage reference points in the 2009 edition. The book was put together quickly when we learned that the Thru Hiker Handbook was no longer going to be published in 2009 because Wingfoot was giving it up. We did not want to leave a void where thru hikers did not have a good book such as the THH and we had some very innovative ideas. Bob McCaw bought the TTH from Wingfoot late in the year after Appalachian Pages was already put together and carried on where Wingfoot left off.
We have already added hundreds of more reference points. In fact I am typing this from a motel room in Vermont because I have been on the road the last two days collecting data and verifying information for our 2009 edition. Awol is also on the road right now doing the same thing in Virginia and I am driving trail towns in New Hampshire, Vermont and some of Mass.
Ron Haven
10-06-2008, 23:44
I have been paying $5 ea for clean old companions and thru hiker hand books if they haven't been written in or none of the pages torn out.
Chaco Taco
10-07-2008, 00:07
Pages had alot, and i mean alot of mistakes and inaccuracies. However, the others also had inaccuracies and mistakes. I will give Pages the benefit of the doubt being the first year. The town info was really bad in some spots. Seems like some of the info was copied from other books and put in because some of the places to stay had been closed for 3 years. Example, Deleware Water Gap, a listing for a hotel that shut down 3-4 years ago from a flood was still listed in Pages, but i also think it was listed somewhere else. I was really let down that I had to tent behind the church. Really wanted that hotel room! The maps in Pages were awesome and it seemed that alot of the listings in towns were more numerous. I thik that with time, Pages will become the dominant book. 501's book was good too, I check it out a bunch. The profile in Pages was a nice addition even though it was off big time in some spots. Also think that some of the towns with maps should have been replaced with other towns. Some had maps while others didnt. Phone numbers missing on some spots that really could have used them. The PO listing in back was helpful but some of teh numbers in smaller towns were just the USPS main line and they redirect you over and over when you call them just trying to get a box forwarded from a PO in small towns. Just see the importance in checking to make sure places are still open instead of assuming
Chaco Taco
10-07-2008, 00:09
We have already added hundreds of more reference points. In fact I am typing this from a motel room in Vermont because I have been on the road the last two days collecting data and verifying information for our 2009 edition. Awol is also on the road right now doing the same thing in Virginia and I am driving trail towns in New Hampshire, Vermont and some of Mass.
Crucial! Good job collecting that info. Im still puting info together for you. Should be ready to go here soon.
Appalachian Pages (http://www.appalachianpages.com) will have hundreds of more mileage reference points in the 2009 edition. The book was put together quickly when we learned that the Thru Hiker Handbook was no longer going to be published in 2009 because Wingfoot was giving it up. We did not want to leave a void where thru hikers did not have a good book such as the THH and we had some very innovative ideas. Bob McCaw bought the TTH from Wingfoot late in the year after Appalachian Pages was already put together and carried on where Wingfoot left off.
We have already added hundreds of more reference points. In fact I am typing this from a motel room in Vermont because I have been on the road the last two days collecting data and verifying information for our 2009 edition. Awol is also on the road right now doing the same thing in Virginia and I am driving trail towns in New Hampshire, Vermont and some of Mass.
Thats great ATTroll! I wasn't trying to say the pages was unusable. If I could have found it when I lost mine, I would have bought it again. With more references, it could be the book to go to. Thanks for all the hard work and good luck!
Serial 07
10-07-2008, 01:14
i too hiked this year and i'll tell you, when i lost the companion (which was inevitable), it was a great day...i celebrated and knew that that book wasn't gonna make it to katahdin...it was bad...if you can find a wingfoot, though there were some errors and a new shelter you're gonna have to learn about, i think that's the best book i've seen over the past two years...
Jack Tarlin
10-07-2008, 15:49
Must take issue with Troll's comment about not wanting "to leave a void where the thru hikers did not have a good book such as the THH" (Thru-Hiker's Handbook).
Even if the Handbook had not continued publication under the good hands of Bob McCaw, there would still have not been a situation where the hikers "did not have a good book" available. The hikers would still have had the Thru-Hiker's Companion available, which has been used by thousands of hikers over the years. To imply that in the absence of the Thru Hikers Handbook that there'd be no good book available for thru-hikers to use is a statement that is simply untrue. If folks wanted to produce another guidebook for whatever reason, well that's fine and dandy, but to imply that Pages was being rushed into publication because of a fear that there'd be no "good book" available for hikers is just wrong. The Thru-Hikers Companion, was and remains a "good book."
Jack
I am not going to turn this into a heated discussion about guiidebooks. I will just say I probably could have worded my reply a little bettter and leave it at that.
Jack Tarlin
10-07-2008, 18:25
I don't want to get in a heated discussion either, and my comment wasn't meant to provoke one.
This thread is merely an open discussion of the pros and cons of each of the major Trail guidebooks, and I think we all can acknowledge that all of the books have their pros and cons.
Christopher Robin
10-07-2008, 19:04
Appalachian Pages (http://www.appalachianpages.com) will have hundreds of more mileage reference points in the 2009 edition. The book was put together quickly when we learned that the Thru Hiker Handbook was no longer going to be published in 2009 because Wingfoot was giving it up. We did not want to leave a void where thru hikers did not have a good book such as the THH and we had some very innovative ideas. Bob McCaw bought the TTH from Wingfoot late in the year after Appalachian Pages was already put together and carried on where Wingfoot left off.
We have already added hundreds of more reference points. In fact I am typing this from a motel room in Vermont because I have been on the road the last two days collecting data and verifying information for our 2009 edition. Awol is also on the road right now doing the same thing in Virginia and I am driving trail towns in New Hampshire, Vermont and some of Mass.
I Thur-hike has far as MA. I'ill flip flop next year. I would like to menion two different errors, 1.Happy Hill Shelter - Thistle Hill Shelter is 8.7 ml. in the Vt., but it is 9.7 mls. It's listed in both shelters, & I meet the person how walked it w/ a wheel.
2. When you come to the end of the trail before West Harthord you cross a road & go under the Interstate thire is a faded White blaze & know info. how to get to the next trail head. Back to which book I used, I started w/companion & data book until Handover becuase a lot of hikers was liking the new handbook. Now I only use the handbook & like the town maps, elovaion from place to place, & gives you a page number for different interesting places in the area you are hiking through at that time. I then saw lote for hikes useing this book, also LT. had it w/them.
TJ aka Teej
10-07-2008, 20:08
At Katahdin a few weeks back, Circuit Rider and Sherlock were full of compliments to the Companion volunteers. I met Optimus and Turok's parents at Katahdin Stream and found out both sets of parents had used the Companion for planning mail drops and meet ups. The two zoot-suited hikers joined in the praise when they came down from their summit of Katahdin. That same night I took some firewood into the Birches and had a great talk about guides with Marley, Rodeo, FreeWill, and Micro. All had good things to say about our book and the ATC Databook. 1/2 Elvis was there too, showing me his prized '08 Companion with Duct Tape covered covers that he'd carried and annotated all the way from Springer. Got to visit a couple times with Abol Bridge trail runner Bluebearee (a Companion editor like me), she's taken over my Baxter State Park section and hit a home run with her insider's perspective.
I saw a copy of the Pages at the Abol Bridge store, and the VT, NH, and ME bits looked pretty good.
Wingfoot's book was just the Philosopher's Guide with updated motel prices for the first years, then went to press after the Companion info was out for a few years, and then cloned the ATC's Databook in an attempt to keep itself relevent. Good luck to the new guy, I hear good things.
As far as which book is "best" - none will get you to Katahdin, and none will get you killed. Earl Shaffer used the Companion to plan, and the Databook to hike with, but read Wingy's book and all the State guides and maps too. If the Pages were around when Earl was still with us, I'm sure he'd be reading that too. I once tried to impress Earl by telling him I helped write for the ALDHA Companion. "Guidebooks ain't worth spit," said he, "at the very best all they can be is a report of what the trail was like last year."
So my advice is to be like Earl. Read 'em all, and then hike your own hike.
trailangelmary
10-08-2008, 12:20
Have to disagree with some of Teej's post.
If Wingfoot "cloned" the A.T. Data Book by incorporating its information (mileage, campsites, water, road crossings, shelters, etc.), then the Companion and Appalachian Pages have done the same thing in recent years. If you're going to criticize Wingfoot for using information that wasn't compiled or collected by himself, well the editors and authors of the other books did likewise.
Jack Tarlin
10-08-2008, 12:22
The above post was written by me, and not Mary. I forgot to sign her off before posting myself.
max patch
10-08-2008, 12:32
Wingfoot's book was just the Philosopher's Guide with updated motel prices for the first years, then went to press after the Companion info was out for a few years, and then cloned the ATC's Databook in an attempt to keep itself relevent.
How do you think the Companion got started?
trailangelmary
10-09-2008, 03:32
"Guidebooks ain't worth spit," said he, "at the very best all they can be is a report of what the trail was like last year."
So my advice is to be like Earl. Read 'em all, and then hike your own hike.
Sounds accurate and reasonable to me.
Awol2003
10-13-2008, 22:01
Example, Deleware Water Gap, a listing for a hotel that shut down 3-4 years ago from a flood was still listed in Pages, but i also think it was listed somewhere else.
Colonel Chaco is referring to the Pocono Inn, which is listed in all three guidebooks in 2008. It was closed due to the flooding in June 2006, about 1 1/2 years before the guidebooks went to print. I can not recall the source of info for every place of business; we compiled information from a number of helpers. One possibility is that the owner still had a phone number in service, and gave information based on his hopes of being open this year.
I hold nothing against the information in the Companion, just the way it's formatted.
BTW, the profile in the AP is meant as a guideline, and the dotted lines from the reference point to the profile was not meant to show where it was on the profile, most of the time. There was an arrow on the profile for the location of the shelter, which was usually quite accurate.
Future thru hikers:
KEEP your handbook in tact though your hike. I am regretting tearing mine as I went, which is why I am ordering a new 2008 AP, as well as a 2009.
Kirby
Also, a lot of water sources are tough to list. There are a lot of seasonal water sources that come and go that are not listed in the guidebooks. DO NOT determine how much water you carry solely based on these guidebooks.
Kirby
Jack Tarlin
10-15-2008, 15:01
Lots of folks cite the trail profiles in Appalachian Pages as some sort of asset
that distinguishes the book from the other guides.
Three quick comments:
*The profiles in the book aren't that complete and are presented on a scale
that inevitably leaves a great deal out.
*If these incomplete profiles encourage anyone to not carry trail maps, or
to believe that the presence of these profiles means they don't need maps,
well this is unfortunate.
*And lastly, I'm curious as to how the information for these profiles was
compiled. Did either of the authors of this book hike the entire Trail and
take regular GPS readings? Or was the profile information gleaned from
other sources, which is a roundabout way of asking this: Was this data
simply cribbed from other published works? If not, then where did it come
from?
Just asking.
Alligator
10-15-2008, 15:14
The centerline data is freely provided by the ATC and the National Park Service here. (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.851255/k.4226/Appalachian_Trail_GIS_and_GPS_Data.htm)
That data would have needed to be overlaid onto a digital elevation map layer. DEM's are also available for free from the USGS.
AWOL explained the process here. (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=570986&highlight=profile#post570986)
Also, the developers make it available for free here. (http://www.topofusion.com/at-gps.php)
Jack Tarlin
10-15-2008, 15:20
Gator:
Thanks for answering my question so quickly.
The post you cited was written in March of this year; I was hiking in Georgia at the time and never saw it.
That being said, I've talked to many hikers who've told me that thanks to these profiles, "I don't need to buy or carry maps."
I happen to strongly disagree with this contention, but to each their own.
Gator:
Thanks for answering my question so quickly.
The post you cited was written in March of this year; I was hiking in Georgia at the time and never saw it.
That being said, I've talked to many hikers who've told me that thanks to these profiles, "I don't need to buy or carry maps."
I happen to strongly disagree with this contention, but to each their own.
That really is unfortunate, the profile is no substitute for actual maps. It's mainly convenient for planning the day.
Kirby
Jack Tarlin
10-15-2008, 15:27
P.S. Gator:
I just checked the ATC link that speaks about this data.
It said clearly that folks using this material must appropriately cite the original source, so I'm assuming App. Pages did this. Can't be sure as I don't have the book in front of me. I assume any and all folks using this data do likewise.
The ATC link also says the data should be used "appropriately."
Quick question: Is it appropriate to take data paid for, compiled, and published by a non-profit Trail advocacy group andthen turn around and re-publish it in a privately held for-profit publication? Is this proper or "appropriate"?
Once again, opinions on this may vary.
P.S. Gator:
I just checked the ATC link that speaks about this data.
It said clearly that folks using this material must appropriately cite the original source, so I'm assuming App. Pages did this. Can't be sure as I don't have the book in front of me. I assume any and all folks using this data do likewise.
The ATC link also says the data should be used "appropriately."
Quick question: Is it appropriate to take data paid for, compiled, and published by a non-profit Trail advocacy group andthen turn around and re-publish it in a privately held for-profit publication? Is this proper or "appropriate"?
Once again, opinions on this may vary.
The guidebook in the opening pages gives credit to the company that helped create the profile. Please also keep in mind that the AP gives proceeds to the ATC.
Kirby
Alligator
10-15-2008, 15:38
I don't have my copy available either.
Since the disclaimer includes the NPS, it's likely free to the public. A great majority of geographic data is produced by the government and therefore is free to use. Many major mapping programs utilize USGS data. Another huge data source is Census data, also very often put to commercial use.
I don't see anything wrong with it if the entity gave permission to use it, especially since the data was actually transformed into the profile. There was value added and on top of that the profile data was returned to the public domain.
The Old Fhart
10-15-2008, 16:28
I met Del Doc in Atkins, VA in 2002 when he was carrying a professional Trimble GPS to map the entire trail and I believe this is where most of the GPS data everyone uses came from. If you check the ATC site you can see almost all of the file dates are 2002. This would mean the track for the centerline of the A.T. will not have any relos made after 2002 and will have some errors.
Also (for you GPS users) the data on the ATC site for the centerline and shelter location uses NAD27, not the more common WGS84 datum. What all this means is no only is the data 6 years old but it has a built in error for most users if they use the default WGS84 datum setting on their GPS receivers. Go to this site (http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/1114687/page/0/vc/1) and you will find this explanation from February 2008:
“I wanted to let y'all know that the previously posted "888578-AppalachianTrailCenterline.kmz" and "21124-Appalachian Trail Shelters.kml" files are inaccurate because the coordinate data uses the NAD27 datum, whereas Google Earth requires WGS84 datum.
I've been working extensively with this data since some friends are hiking the entire AT in 2008 and I'll be joining them for a section. I decided to translate the AT centerline data into something I could use in my GPS unit. Man-oh-man did that open up a can of worms! After much work and a lot of pain, this is what I discovered:
The original data used to create the AT centerline file and the AT shelters file came from the AT conservancy website, from their GPS and GIS data page. That webpage clearly states that the data is NAD27. Apparently when these data were converted into .kmz and .kml files the coordinates were not translated to WGS84 as is required by Google Earth.
Because the wrong datum is used, the coordinates are offset to the west and slightly to the south. You can see this effect by loading the "Appalachian Trail Datum Comparison.kmz" file (in a follow-on post) into Google Earth. Take a look at the Description in the Properties page for more information. Briefly, the red NAD27 track (from "888578-AppalachianTrailCenterline.kmz") is displayed west of the green WGS84 track (from attached "Appalachian Trail.kmz") and the green track clearly lines up with the AT whereas the red track does not. Also the shelter waypoints are clearly offset west in the NAD27 data and miss the actual shelters whereas the WGS84 waypoints land on the shelters - or at least closer :-).”
Note that if you want files with shelter locations corrected to WGS84 to use on your GPS, they are available at the above site.
Appalachian Pages (2008 ed.) says:
“Elevation profiles and GPS data processing by Scott Morris of TopoFusion.com. TopoFusion GPS Mapping Software was used throughout the process.” So even though they may use the same free information as everyone else, Appalachian Pages had some outside company generate the profiles. It doesn’t say whether they used NAD27 or converted it to WGS84 datum. This wouldn't really affect the profiles in Appalachian Pages noticeably. The error generated by using the wrong datum varies with location but I believe in NH it might be in the order of a couple of hundred feet. If you use the right datum setting and the data is correct, most GPS receivers should get you within 10-20 feet on a good day. As I mentioned, I don't know the answer to some of the questions that would affect the accuracy of the information because it wasn't available from the sources I checked.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.;)
Alligator
10-15-2008, 16:59
You must of missed it TOF, the company says
This data was derived from the Appalachian Trail Conservancy's GIS/GPS page (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.851255/k.4226/Appalachian_Trail_GIS_and_GPS_Data.htm). It was been cleaned up, merged, converted to GPS (WGS84 datum) and had elevation data added, all using TopoFusion (http://topofusion.com/) software. The data is available in several options:
Colonel Chaco is referring to the Pocono Inn, which is listed in all three guidebooks in 2008. It was closed due to the flooding in June 2006, about 1 1/2 years before the guidebooks went to print. I can not recall the source of info for every place of business; we compiled information from a number of helpers. One possibility is that the owner still had a phone number in service, and gave information based on his hopes of being open this year.
This is a good point. No book is the gospel or completely up to date. One should always call ahead of time to a business they plan on patronizing. The guidebooks are meant to better prepare the hiker in the field, but the nature of a thru-hike is one filled with unexpected sitautions and the need to improvise.
Jack Tarlin
10-15-2008, 19:25
Some interesting posts. What hasn't been discussed is this: Do people think it's "appropriate" for anyone to take information presented as a public service by a worthy non-profit entity and to then take this information, re-package it, and sell it for profit? Is this an appropriate use of this data?
Speaking for myself, I'm not sure I approve of this, regardless of who's doing it. It just seems sort of distasteful.
I'd really look forward to hearing other thoughts on this.
Some interesting posts. What hasn't been discussed is this: Do people think it's "appropriate" for anyone to take information presented as a public service by a worthy non-profit entity and to then take this information, re-package it, and sell it for profit? Is this an appropriate use of this data?
Speaking for myself, I'm not sure I approve of this, regardless of who's doing it. It just seems sort of distasteful.
I'd really look forward to hearing other thoughts on this.
Jack:
The ATC got their information from the US government. Who is the US government funded by? You, and your friends, and your friends friends.
So, technically speaking, the AP took information that is owned by the US government, seeing as any non-classified information can be requested from the government. This is a case where the AP used information assembled with the use of public funds.
Kirby
Jack Tarlin
10-16-2008, 15:19
Kirby:
The ATC gets its information from all sorts of sources, not just the Federal government. A great deal of Trail information, including a lot of GPS/elevation information was NOT obtained from the government, but instead, was obtained from ATC members, employees, and volunteers. I'm not sure how these folks would feel about their work being used by others in order to make money, but I do know this: There are certainly folks who would not approve.
Jack
I am not going to turn this into a heated discussion about guiidebooks. I will just say I probably could have worded my reply a little bettter and leave it at that.
It happens to the best of us, perhaps even to all of us, as I've learned in recent days. It's easy to be misunderstood, though the consequences are less unpleasant, I suppose, if you own the site.
Weary
Kirby:
The ATC gets its information from all sorts of sources, not just the Federal government. A great deal of Trail information, including a lot of GPS/elevation information was NOT obtained from the government, but instead, was obtained from ATC members, employees, and volunteers. I'm not sure how these folks would feel about their work being used by others in order to make money, but I do know this: There are certainly folks who would not approve.
Not to forget... Myron Avery, Daniel Chazin, Del Doc and countless ATC and ALDHA volunteers.
garlic08
10-16-2008, 16:06
My experience this year with the Pages overall was not a good one--inaccuracies, mainly, like elevation points being off exactly 1,000', a non-existent creek called out, etc. I understand it's a new book, and the price was right, and the profile was great. My partner's Companion had only one or two errors, so we used that for text, and my Pages for the profile. Good luck in future editions.
Bearpaw88
10-16-2008, 17:12
I remember saying this in another thread about books, but I'll say it again. My experience with the pages this year was not a great one. I found many inaccuracies with water landmarks and town information that was the biggest problem but I also found the elevation profiles to be of no help whatsoever. The milage on each page is differenct so the profiles become either condensed or elongated depending on how many miles are on the page. The only thing I gained from the profiles were a general idea if I was going up or down. Next time I will be using the companion.
Also using not for profit public information and compling it for profit unfortunatly happens often, but it doesn't make it right. :rolleyes:
Pages had alot, and i mean alot of mistakes and inaccuracies. However, the others also had inaccuracies and mistakes. I will give Pages the benefit of the doubt being the first year. The town info was really bad in some spots. Seems like some of the info was copied from other books and put in because some of the places to stay had been closed for 3 years. Example, Deleware Water Gap, a listing for a hotel that shut down 3-4 years ago from a flood was still listed in Pages, but i also think it was listed somewhere else. I was really let down that I had to tent behind the church. Really wanted that hotel room! The maps in Pages were awesome and it seemed that alot of the listings in towns were more numerous. I thik that with time, Pages will become the dominant book. 501's book was good too, I check it out a bunch. The profile in Pages was a nice addition even though it was off big time in some spots. Also think that some of the towns with maps should have been replaced with other towns. Some had maps while others didnt. Phone numbers missing on some spots that really could have used them. The PO listing in back was helpful but some of teh numbers in smaller towns were just the USPS main line and they redirect you over and over when you call them just trying to get a box forwarded from a PO in small towns. Just see the importance in checking to make sure places are still open instead of assuming
Wether you use the Pages, Wingfoot, or the Companion, the information printed is only as good and up to date as the information that the editor has at the time of publication.
If you find inaccuracies, omissions, errors, then the best thing to do is to make suggested corrections and mail them to the editor so they don't get repeated in the next year's edition. (And even when things are right, it's reassuring to just note "OK" and forward that on.) I think by the time I finished the AT, about all that I had left of Wingfoot was the front and back cover!
How do you think the Companion got started?
It started when Wingfoot cried he wasn't getting enough attention from the ATC, and started publishing his Handbook on his own.
Jack Tarlin
10-16-2008, 18:34
Peaks' post #50 above really nailed it.
Every book has errors, omissions, incomplete information. People that were out this year can really be of service to other hikers by doing what Peaks suggested and letting guidebook editors and authors know about these things, in order for improvements to be made in the books' next edition.
max patch
10-16-2008, 18:38
It started when Wingfoot cried he wasn't getting enough attention from the ATC, and started publishing his Handbook on his own.
You answered the question out of context.
The question, in context, was "Where do you think the Companion got their information when they published their first edition?"
There is a reason the person I asked the question to didn't reply.
It started when Wingfoot cried he wasn't getting enough attention from the ATC, and started publishing his Handbook on his own.
I believe Wingfoots complaint was that everyone working at Harpers Ferry was being paid a salary except him, and that he had to earn a living also. When ATC and the Companion began using his information with only slight modifications in wording, he further complained that they were using his "intellectual property" without compensating him.
It's my understanding that Wingfoot and ATC settled the matter by allowing Wingfoot to print the databook information in his trail guides.
Hikers also need to keep in mind that the maintaining clubs and ATC earn part of the money they need to maintain and manage the trail by the sale of maps and data books.
Most of the maps -- probably all -- are based on federal topographical maps as I believe Kirby was saying. These are available to everyone for small fees. Modifications to these maps for the benefit of hikers belongs to whoever made the modifications or paid to have them made.
I guess we'll have to ask the Appalachian Pages where it got the information about a business that had closed months before the pages was being compiled. My guess is they may have "borrowed" it from another publication.
I don't know much about intellectual property except what I read in Consumer Reports. The magazine regularly sues people it thinks is stealing the work of it's engineers and others it hires to test consumer goods -- and if the magazine can be believed, it usually wins.
Having said all this, I probably should confess that I made my living for nearly 35 years reporting on what people said and facts that people had uncovered. It's a gray area of the law, though courts increasingly protect intellectual property.
Weary
Awol2003
10-16-2008, 18:46
The milage on each page is differenct so the profiles become either condensed or elongated depending on how many miles are on the page. :rolleyes:
Every page covers approximately 28 miles, so that the profiles can be cut into equal chunks maintaining the same scale. There is no compression or elongation. In 2009 there will be fewer miles per page so that better granularity can be shown, as well as better alignment with the landmarks.
TJ aka Teej
10-16-2008, 20:46
There is a reason the person I asked the question to didn't reply.
Educating you isn't a high priority for me. Do a search if you still don't know the answer to your 'question'.
TJ aka Teej
10-16-2008, 20:47
Peaks' post #50 above really nailed it.
Every book has errors, omissions, incomplete information. People that were out this year can really be of service to other hikers by doing what Peaks suggested and letting guidebook editors and authors know about these things, in order for improvements to be made in the books' next edition.
Amen, brother.
TJ aka Teej
10-16-2008, 23:10
It's my understanding that Wingfoot and ATC settled the matter by allowing Wingfoot to print the databook information in his trail guides.
http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/0504/msg00540.html
http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/0504/msg00540.html
TJ. Your link doesn't refute what I had posted. It didn't address the critical matter. The link says wingfoot had permission to use the data. It doesn't say why ATC gave permission.
The link also claims that the format is a separate matter, and that the source doesn't know whether ATC had a legal complaint.
Weary
Wether you use the Pages, Wingfoot, or the Companion, the information printed is only as good and up to date as the information that the editor has at the time of publication.
If you find inaccuracies, omissions, errors, then the best thing to do is to make suggested corrections and mail them to the editor so they don't get repeated in the next year's edition. (And even when things are right, it's reassuring to just note "OK" and forward that on.) I think by the time I finished the AT, about all that I had left of Wingfoot was the front and back cover!
Peaks' post #50 above really nailed it.
Every book has errors, omissions, incomplete information. People that were out this year can really be of service to other hikers by doing what Peaks suggested and letting guidebook editors and authors know about these things, in order for improvements to be made in the books' next edition.
Peaks and Jack are exactly right and Peaks hit the nail on the head. If you find errors or problems in any book the best thing to do is contact the editor or the authors and let them know so that they can get these issues corrected. If things go unreported how are they to know if there are wrong and improve on it for the following years hikers.
trippclark
10-17-2008, 10:51
Some interesting posts. What hasn't been discussed is this: Do people think it's "appropriate" for anyone to take information presented as a public service by a worthy non-profit entity and to then take this information, re-package it, and sell it for profit? Is this an appropriate use of this data?
Speaking for myself, I'm not sure I approve of this, regardless of who's doing it. It just seems sort of distasteful.
I'd really look forward to hearing other thoughts on this.
Jack,
I must say that in light of the discussions that you and I had back at Hog Camp Gap this past spring re. politics and such, it sort of surprises me that you would come down so hard against the free market at work here. I am not saying that you are right or wrong, it just seems a bit of a disconnect with other philosophies you espouse.
Personally, I find nothing wrong with this at all and think that the hiking community benefits from competition being injected into this arena. It inspires innovation. If there was just one guidebook out there, I dare say that we would not see the innovations that we are seeing with three guidebooks, each competing to be the best. And as far a "profit," well, I really think that is a bit of a joke. The two privately produced Guidebooks -- the Handbook and Appalachian Pages are hardly runaway best sellers from Grisham. I'd venture to say that the individuals backing both are taking considerable risks financially for rather modest returns considering the rather small market that they are competing for. No, I think that in both cases the individuals involved are producing their guidebooks because of a passion for the Trail and a desire to build a better mousetrap, and, as I stated earlier, we in the hiking community benefit from their risk taking.
You also ask the question if it is "'appropriate' for anyone to take information presented as a public service by a worthy non-profit entity and to then take this information, re-package it, and sell it for profit?"
Sure, why not? If the information is improved upon and packaged in a way that is more useful or more convenient for the end user, then that end user should have the option to pay for that more convenient presentation of data. It happens all the time in other circles with info that is in the public domain. It also is not unprecidented in the "AT World." I own a few of the Mapdana's developed and sold by AntiGravity Gear. These too are just a re-presentation of info available elsewhere but packaged in an innovative way. I also own the MapTech Appalachian Trail on CD-ROM was produced back around 1999 or 2000. Again, this was a repackaging of info available elsewhere that was, admittedly, done in partnership with the ATC, but still was sold as a for-profit product by MapTech. You could even extend your argument against profit to other service providers along the trail -- from shuttle providers and hostels to outfitters. Should shuttle providers only charge exactly what it costs to operate their vehicles for a hiker shuttle since they are driving on roads which were financed by public dollars and shuttling folks to a trail that is developed and maintained by a noble non-profit?
Tripp
trippclark
10-17-2008, 12:35
That being said, I've talked to many hikers who've told me that thanks to these profiles, "I don't need to buy or carry maps."
I happen to strongly disagree with this contention, but to each their own.
Jack,
I completely agree with you here. I just got back from a 57 mile section over 4 days and can say, however, that while I carried with me the 2 maps that cover this section and would consider it foolish not to do so, by having the profile from Appalachian Pages with me, I did find myself consulting the maps much less frequently.
Tripp
TJ aka Teej
10-17-2008, 14:02
I believe Wingfoots complaint was that everyone working at Harpers Ferry was being paid a salary except him, and that he had to earn a living also. When ATC and the Companion began using his information with only slight modifications in wording, he further complained that they were using his "intellectual property" without compensating him.
Wingfoot volunteered to assume the volunteer task of continuing Maret's Philosopher's Guide, wich had been turned into an ATC publication. WF soon demanded pay, and claimed the entire Maret authored contents of the ATC publication as his own. After kicking Wingy to the curb for this baloney, ATC turned to ALDHA volunteers to help continue publishing thier guide. Wingy in turn sued ATC for compensation for the hours he claimed to have worked, and settled out of court for something less than $8000. To this date, no ALDHA volunteer has ever sued ATC claiming a right to similar compensation.
....You also ask the question if it is "'appropriate' for anyone to take information presented as a public service by a worthy non-profit entity and to then take this information, re-package it, and sell it for profit?"
Sure, why not? ....It happens all the time in other circles with info that is in the public domain. ....Tripp
Ah. there's the problem. Very little of the information in a trail guide is in the public domain. In fact, other than base topo maps and the information the maps contain, probably none of it is. It was gathered by people for a specific project. All is subject to copyright law. All is someones "intellectual property."
BTW under American law everything gathered and written down is automatically protected by copyright and cannot be reproduced without permission.
Weary
Wingfoot volunteered to assume the volunteer task of continuing Maret's Philosopher's Guide, wich had been turned into an ATC publication. WF soon demanded pay, and claimed the entire Maret authored contents of the ATC publication as his own. After kicking Wingy to the curb for this baloney, ATC turned to ALDHA volunteers to help continue publishing thier guide. Wingy in turn sued ATC for compensation for the hours he claimed to have worked, and settled out of court for something less than $8000. To this date, no ALDHA volunteer has ever sued ATC claiming a right to similar compensation.
Teej. What evidence do you have that Wingfoot sued? Or that the case ever went to court? I know there has been a lot of talk about this, but I've never seen any evidence that the matter went beyond an exchange of letters.
Weary
Personally, I find nothing wrong with this at all and think that the hiking community benefits from competition being injected into this arena. It inspires innovation. If there was just one guidebook out there, I dare say that we would not see the innovations that we are seeing with three guidebooks, each competing to be the best.
Without the trail, there would be no hiking community. It's my desire, in the next couple years to make the ALDHA Companion, published by the ATC, the most recommended AT guidebook but, will do so, with suggestions from hikers, not competition from the other books.
trippclark
10-17-2008, 18:01
It's my desire, in the next couple years to make the ALDHA Companion, published by the ATC, the most recommended AT guidebook but, will do so, with suggestions from hikers, not competition from the other books.
And if the Companion indeed becomes the best guidebook out there -- significantly outshining the others -- then the others will improve also or die a natural death because of lack of demand. Ah, the market at work!
And if the Companion indeed becomes the best guidebook out there -- significantly outshining the others -- then the others will improve also or die a natural death because of lack of demand. Ah, the market at work!I thought that the market at work meant that the gov't would bail out the failing guidebooks?
Jack Tarlin
10-17-2008, 18:14
Tripp----
Nothing at all wrong with the free market. But taking other people's work and either re-printing it wholesale, or tweaking it just enough to make it look "original", well sorry, this isn't the free market at work. Instead, it is essentially plagiarism, and it leaves a bad taste. Taking information compiled by volunteers and then repackaging it to make money is indeed distasteful.
Writing a book is a lot of work.
And when completed, what's in the book should be the author's OWN work.
trippclark
10-17-2008, 18:19
I thought that the market at work meant that the gov't would bail out the failing guidebooks?
Now THAT'S Funny!!!!! :clap
trippclark
10-17-2008, 18:26
Tripp----
Nothing at all wrong with the free market. But taking other people's work and either re-printing it wholesale, or tweaking it just enough to make it look "original", well sorry, this isn't the free market at work. Instead, it is essentially plagiarism, and it leaves a bad taste. Taking information compiled by volunteers and then repackaging it to make money is indeed distasteful.
Writing a book is a lot of work.
And when completed, what's in the book should be the author's OWN work.
Jack,
I don't think that there is any evidence that this is the case here. This is not "creative writing." These guidebooks are a string of compiled facts . . . locations, phone numbers, contacts, directions, etc., all of which can be compiled and verified. If one person compiles a set of facts about a place or series of places, and another person compiles a similar set of facts, how is that wrong? The location, phone number, hours, and rates of a given business listed in a guidebook could hardly be proprietary information; even less so, the location of a stream or overlook.
Tripp
Jack Tarlin
10-17-2008, 18:45
First off, Tripp, the compiling of this information is NOT easy.
Speaking as someone who's done it, compiling information of this sort is time-consuming, it's difficult, and it can be a pain in the ass. Then the information has to be checked and re-checked before publication.
Failure to do this results in avoidable, and often embarassing errors. No book is perfect, but some are better than others. Some books are sloppy with their fact-checking; some merely re-print lots of information from other books. These errors are easy to see......for example, when a guidebook's description of a Trail town includes a business that has been shuttered for years, the editor obviously wasn't very attentive, or, in all likelihood, merely cribbed his data from another book, without realizing that the data was no longer true.
But in any case, I disagree with you about how easy it is to research and compile this information.
It ISN'T an easy or enviable task, but it's got to be done.
And some folks do it better than others.
First off, Tripp, the compiling of this information is NOT easy.
Speaking as someone who's done it, compiling information of this sort is time-consuming, it's difficult, and it can be a pain in the ass. Then the information has to be checked and re-checked before publication.
Failure to do this results in avoidable, and often embarassing errors. No book is perfect, but some are better than others. Some books are sloppy with their fact-checking; some merely re-print lots of information from other books. These errors are easy to see......for example, when a guidebook's description of a Trail town includes a business that has been shuttered for years, the editor obviously wasn't very attentive, or, in all likelihood, merely cribbed his data from another book, without realizing that the data was no longer true.
But in any case, I disagree with you about how easy it is to research and compile this information.
It ISN'T an easy or enviable task, but it's got to be done.
And some folks do it better than others.
As happens from time to time, quite often in fact, Jack is again right.
Weary
None of the three books is perfect. Because of its structure of Field Editors, in 2008 the Companion was probably the most accurate and inclusive. Still, each of the other books had factual information that the Companion did not have, and vice versa.
I lean toward giving both the Handbook and AT Pages a break for 2008. That doesn't mean the '08 edition of either one was irrelevant or not useable--just that there is room for improvement. Perhaps a little more room than for the Companion.
For good reasons:
HANDBOOK: Bob assumed the reins from Wingfoot late enough in '07 that he did not have enough time to do as thorough of an update job as he might have done otherwise—in fact is doing right now for the '09 edition.
AT PAGES: Believing that the Handbook would not be published at all for '08 when Wingfoot "retired," this brand new publication was sort of rushed into print. Its format has loads of potential. The fact-checking is the #1 need for '09, and I have every reason to believe that, too, is being done right now.
I would expect the Companion to be as good or better in '09. I would expect both the Handbook and AT Pages to improve considerably in '09 as well, since both publishers will have a full year to do research, and can learn from their first-year endeavors.
Those of us who have hiked long-distance trails other than the AT know without a doubt that AT hikers have more information available to them, from a myriad of sources, than hikers of almost any other trail on the planet. Even when it's imperfect. In '09, the AT info stream will get even better.
trippclark
10-17-2008, 21:12
First off, Tripp, the compiling of this information is NOT easy.
Speaking as someone who's done it, compiling information of this sort is time-consuming, it's difficult, and it can be a pain in the ass. Then the information has to be checked and re-checked before publication.
Failure to do this results in avoidable, and often embarassing errors. No book is perfect, but some are better than others. Some books are sloppy with their fact-checking; some merely re-print lots of information from other books. These errors are easy to see......for example, when a guidebook's description of a Trail town includes a business that has been shuttered for years, the editor obviously wasn't very attentive, or, in all likelihood, merely cribbed his data from another book, without realizing that the data was no longer true.
But in any case, I disagree with you about how easy it is to research and compile this information.
It ISN'T an easy or enviable task, but it's got to be done.
And some folks do it better than others.
Yeah, I agree that it is not easy. In re-reading my post, I thought better and changed the reference to "easy" sometime before your reply. I am sure it is not easy, but would be time consuming and require diligence.
When are the '09 versions of these guides available to be purchased?
Jack Tarlin
11-02-2008, 14:43
Most likely early in January, tho there's a possibility they may be out by the end of the year.
When are the '09 versions of these guides available to be purchased?
I can not speak for the other two guidebooks but Appalachian Pages (http://www.appalachianpages.com) ships in mid January. We are taking pre-orders right now. For every pre-order you will receive a free copy of the 2008 edition, shipped as soon as the order is received.
whitelightning
11-03-2008, 00:16
Of the 3 guides available this year, the Companion and the Handbook were what I saw on the trail most often, with a slight edge going to the Companion. The Pages were used by some, but I heard more complaints of inaccuracies compared to the other guides. I was also surprised at the number of thruhikers I met that didn't use a guide at all.
I used the 2007 Handbook and the Companion for planning purposes. I carried the 2008 Handbook (and maps) for a few reasons. I like the format better and I feel it has more useful information for the size and weight. The mileage data section has more landmark notes than the Companion and the town info/maps seemed to be better. I also noticed definite updates by Bob McCaw from the 2007 to the 2008 Handbook. I only found a handful of inaccuracies. Most of these are noted on the updates page on his website. Others were understandable due to changes that happened after the guide was printed. If I were to do another thruhike in 2009, I'd most likely use the Handbook and maps again.
There were several occasions where I was hiking with someone using the Companion where it would list a business that had been closed for several years. This was especially frustrating when it was a food opportunity. Nothing was worse to me than to look forward to eating some good food only to arrive where it's supposed be and have it not be there. And then find out it hasn't been there for years. :mad: For this reason I can't give too much credit to the Companion for being any more accurate than the other guides. As mentioned by others, they ALL have inaccuracies.
One common discrepency in the guides are the prices for services. I know the Handbook's listings were frequently lower than the actual rates. Usually the differences were slight, but over a thruhike add up. I found this to be true more often in New England. With the current state of the economy this really isn't surprising. Those planning for next year should probably expect to pay slightly higher prices than those listed in the current guides.
As far as compiling information for a guidebook (or any other published work), credit should be given to those who contributed the information and the sources cited. From what I understand, all three guides use the ATC Data Book for a base of reference. If there is other information used without permission, then that's unethical. It seems it would be hard to prove though. The guides are naturally going to have much of the same information in them.
There is no legal protection of the compilation of facts, only the form in which they are presented is protected. Nor should there be. If those who took the time compiling the facts wish to have their work preserved they need to focus on the form in which it is presented. As Justice O'Connor noted in Feist v. Rural Telephone, "This case concerns the interaction of two well-established propositions. The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are. Each of these propositions possesses an impeccable pedigree. That there can be no valid copyright in facts is universally understood. The most fundamental axiom of copyright law is that "no author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates."
Anyone can take any fact presented in any guidebook and repackage in any form they wish. They only need to change the manner in which it is presented with a minute degree of originality. Those who took the time to compile these facts and expected some sort of ownership over their work were sorely mistaken. Non-profit status plays no role in the ownership of facts. However, it wouldn't hurt if those guidebooks that followed acknowledged and paid gratitude to their forerunners.
As was stated before, the free market will decide which presentation of the facts is best. But there is no market in facts. They belong to the commons.
Just ordered by 2008 and 2009 Appalachian Pages.
Kirby
Bare Bear
11-04-2008, 15:59
Gee I go hike for a month and come back to find I missed this exciting discussion?!
Bob McCaw
11-04-2008, 17:35
The Handbook has some new material in 2009. There are a number of new town maps and each hiking page has a corresponding elevation profile on the same page. My admitted biased opinion is that the Handbook has a lot more useful detail than the other books.
For a sample page, check www.trailplace.com/Sample.pdf.
Attention, handbook editors. In hopes that all of you read these pages, let me suggest that you all properly identify the ownership of the Hermitage, through which the trail passes in Maine, enroute to Whitecap and Katahdin.
The 25 acres were settled in 1890 by an immigrant from Scotland. It later became a sporting camp. IN 1967 the Hermitage became the property of the Nature Conservancy.
All the guidebooks I've seen list it as remaining in Nature Conservancy ownership. I can understand that because until recently, I thought that was true also.
In fact, the Hermitage was transferred to the National Park Service on January 28, 2002.
In trying to figure out just where the WHL is and on who's property it is leased from, I opened the official guide to the Appalachian Trail in Maine and discovered the transfer to the National Park Service occurred seven years ago.
Weary
Lone Wolf
11-05-2008, 07:06
Companion, Handbook or Pages????
What is most useful, informative, etc.?
they're all basically the same. all 3 are useful, informative, etc.
Montana Mac
11-05-2008, 08:53
Appalachian Pages sample page
http://appalachianpages.com/index.php?pageid=samples
Awol2003
11-05-2008, 12:13
Appalachian Pages sample page
http://appalachianpages.com/index.php?pageid=samples
In 2009 App Pages:
Many town maps are about twice as large as they were last year, and there are more of them. Each data page covers a little less mileage, so profile maps are larger, have better granularity and align well with the data. Trailhead parking areas (added “P” symbol) have coordinates, so you can use your GPS to navigate to them. Get the 2008 book free when you preorder 2009.
TJ aka Teej
11-05-2008, 13:07
Appalachian Pages sample page
http://appalachianpages.com/index.php?pageid=samples
That's a good map! Is it from Mapquest or GoogleEarth?
http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Hanover&state=NH#a/maps/l:::Hanover:NH::US:43.702202:-72.290001:city:Grafton+County/m:hyb:13:43.702202:-72.289998:0:::::/io:0:::::f:EN:M:/e
twoshoes06
12-03-2008, 13:08
I used the Handbook in 2006 and loved it. It looks like the 2009 is going to be really up-to-date with some new features packed into the same size book. I would go with the Handbook definitely.
River Runner
12-04-2008, 19:59
The Handbook has some new material in 2009. There are a number of new town maps and each hiking page has a corresponding elevation profile on the same page. My admitted biased opinion is that the Handbook has a lot more useful detail than the other books.
For a sample page, check www.trailplace.com/Sample.pdf. (http://www.trailplace.com/Sample.pdf.)
Love the profile map added to the bottom!
I like the idea of the Appalachian Pages with the tear out sheets, and the fact that it is from WhiteBlaze (more or less), but I really like the layout and format of the Thru Hikers Handbook.