Section Hike as series of out and backs...double counting?

[tdoczi]

Yes, for me personally it would add to my hike. I could show it to my family, I could hang it on my wall and remind me of the hike every day. Every time I saw that cert a memory or a feeling would hit me again.

Now that I have told you why a cert would matter to me. Tell me why my getting a cert would make you upset.

when did i ever say it would make me upset?

so if a hike you wanted to take didnt get you the certificate you wanted, you'd plan a different hike? thats the unstated implication of asking whether your hike will get you a certificate before youve even started it.

[Mtsman]

when did i ever say it would make me upset?

Your actions and arguments against the certifications show that you are upset about it. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be putting this much effort into it. By effort, I mean arguing against multiple different people for multiple different days. I consider that a fair amount of effort.

Before you put words in my mouth on this idea I will explain my position a bit more. I care only because I am defending another persons right to hike his own hike. If you were in the defensive position trying to defend YOUR hike and not the attacking position of demeaning another persons way of hiking, you could bet I would be on your side. (also, this isnt personal for me, I hope it doesn't become that for you)

so if a hike you wanted to take didn't get you the certificate you wanted, you'd plan a different hike?

Now you are just being silly. I didn't say it would MAKE my hike. I said it would ADD to my hike. I didn't say it would take away from my hike either. I didn't even say it was part of my hike. I simply said it would ADD to my hike. Maybe I should have said it would add to the memories of my hike. I tried to provide examples of why it would add to my hike by stating that when I saw the cert it would remind me of my hike. Notice that I never once implied that it was the only reason I would hike.

thats the unstated implication of asking whether your hike will get you a certificate before youve even started it.

This is simply a fallacious argument. The reality is, you took my statement of ADDing to my hike and came to the illogical conclusion that I would bypass certain hikes because they didn't have a certification. For me to imply that I would do that I would have to strongly suggest that was the case. I did not strongly suggest that I would not hike a hike because it didn't have a certification.

You keep ignoring/bypassing all my questions but yet I attempt to directly answer all yours that I see. My questions are there so that I can understand your position in the debate and possibly come to understand your thought process. If I can do that, we can come to an agreement and you could possibly even sway me in the direction of your debate. If you keep attacking my position without providing any evidence for your case I have no option to understand your thought process.

Directly answer just one of these questions, feel free to pick which one:

Why does someone getting a certification for a hike matter to you and your hike?

Do you feel that someone hiking a hike a certain way cheapens the way you hiked your hike?

Why do you care if someone doesn't hike a hike the way you did?

[Traveler]

To make this even more infuriatingly silly, lets look at a different wrinkle of the same issue. Using the same method of hiking though a state like Connecticut, using day to hike out and back sections of the AT. There are approximately 52 miles of trail in CT, doing sections this way effectively doubles the mileage to 104 doing the same miles north and south.

So, if one were to do this 21 times they would cover the same approximate distance of the entire AT. In this wrinkle, can the hiker get the 2000 mile status?

[Gambit McCrae]

Here is the way I look at it, Keep data books, a northbound, and southbound version, or 2 companions. Mark off in each one when you have done a section each way. If all the miles are checked off, you have in fact walked it twice.

I'm sure people doing the smoky challenge have started a second map before completing their first...

[Pedaling Fool]

So, if each time I do a hike/section, I park in a lot, hike somewhere, and return, and do the whole trail this way, I will actually have hiked the whole thing twice....once north and once south. ...does it dount twice?

To make this even more infuriatingly silly, lets look at a different wrinkle of the same issue. Using the same method of hiking though a state like Connecticut, using day to hike out and back sections of the AT. There are approximately 52 miles of trail in CT, doing sections this way effectively doubles the mileage to 104 doing the same miles north and south.

So, if one were to do this 21 times they would cover the same approximate distance of the entire AT. In this wrinkle, can the hiker get the 2000 mile status?

When I got into this discussion, my only intent was to answer the basic question of the OP. And the answer is that if the OP did the entire trail in the method described than he would have completed the entire trail twice -- once in the NOBO direction and once in the SOBO direction, period.

I didn't address certification and all that, because I couldn't care less about the 2,000-miler certificate and how they issue it; however, I do know that to get a 2,000-miler certificate is about completing the entire trail, from end-to-end, not just 2,000 miles, nor an equivalent number of trail miles, but you MUST complete the entire trail, regardless if done in one time or over a period of years. And it does not matter what order you do it. As far as multiple certificates -- I don't know the answer and don't really care


So, no, just doing over 2,000 miles on any section of the AT will NOT get you a certificate. You could do 5,000 miles in one section of the AT and not qualify for the 2,000-miler certificate. Unless, of course you lie and tell them you did the entire trail

[tdoczi]

Your actions and arguments against the certifications show that you are upset about it. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be putting this much effort into it. By effort, I mean arguing against multiple different people for multiple different days. I consider that a fair amount of effort.

Before you put words in my mouth on this idea I will explain my position a bit more. I care only because I am defending another persons right to hike his own hike. If you were in the defensive position trying to defend YOUR hike and not the attacking position of demeaning another persons way of hiking, you could bet I would be on your side. (also, this isnt personal for me, I hope it doesn't become that for you)



Now you are just being silly. I didn't say it would MAKE my hike. I said it would ADD to my hike. I didn't say it would take away from my hike either. I didn't even say it was part of my hike. I simply said it would ADD to my hike. Maybe I should have said it would add to the memories of my hike. I tried to provide examples of why it would add to my hike by stating that when I saw the cert it would remind me of my hike. Notice that I never once implied that it was the only reason I would hike.



This is simply a fallacious argument. The reality is, you took my statement of ADDing to my hike and came to the illogical conclusion that I would bypass certain hikes because they didn't have a certification. For me to imply that I would do that I would have to strongly suggest that was the case. I did not strongly suggest that I would not hike a hike because it didn't have a certification.

You keep ignoring/bypassing all my questions but yet I attempt to directly answer all yours that I see. My questions are there so that I can understand your position in the debate and possibly come to understand your thought process. If I can do that, we can come to an agreement and you could possibly even sway me in the direction of your debate. If you keep attacking my position without providing any evidence for your case I have no option to understand your thought process.

Directly answer just one of these questions, feel free to pick which one:

Why does someone getting a certification for a hike matter to you and your hike?

Do you feel that someone hiking a hike a certain way cheapens the way you hiked your hike?

Why do you care if someone doesn't hike a hike the way you did?

to answer your questions 1) it does not matter. at all
2) nope, not in the least
3) i do not.

see, what you dont understand and where you are putting words into my mouth is that you seem to think i am saying the OP shouldnt do the hike he intends to do or should do something else. i've never said any such thing. not even close. i can sum up my response to him like this- do the hike you want to do whether or not someone is going to give you a certificate for it. dont try and plan on doing a hike simply to get a very meaningless piece of paper that certifies nothing. i think the OP got my point quite a ways back, when he said he is rethinking his motivation.

get it? we good now? yeesh. do you have an issue with my sentiment? i really dont think you do.

[MuddyWaters]

So, no, just doing over 2,000 miles on any section of the AT will NOT get you a certificate. You could do 5,000 miles in one section of the AT and not qualify for the 2,000-miler certificate. Unless, of course you lie and tell them you did the entire trail

Id wager there are many credited with hiking the whole trail, that missed parts. I also would wager that earl schaffer and emma gatewood are among them. The early hikers were constantly getting lost.

So....it really doesnt mean much...imo. The only place it matters is in the mind of the person hiking. For some, yellow blazing is ok, for some, aqua blazing, for some, walking on skyline dr, etc. How could it possibly matter when trail changes year to year? It doesnt.

Its strange, the desire to say they hiked the whole thing resonates in some though, so they keep at it year after year, when really only part of the AT is worth the effort. Time and miles would better spent in CO or the sierra, but gotta get that piece of paper, while missing the entire point of hiking, which is to go to wild and spectacular places.

[Traveler]

Id wager there are many credited with hiking the whole trail, that missed parts. I also would wager that earl schaffer and emma gatewood are among them. The early hikers were constantly getting lost.

So....it really doesnt mean much...imo. The only place it matters is in the mind of the person hiking. For some, yellow blazing is ok, for some, aqua blazing, for some, walking on skyline dr, etc. How could it possibly matter when trail changes year to year? It doesnt.

Its strange, the desire to say they hiked the whole thing resonates in some though, so they keep at it year after year, when really only part of the AT is worth the effort. Time and miles would better spent in CO or the sierra, but gotta get that piece of paper, while missing the entire point of hiking, which is to go to wild and spectacular places.

This really rings well, "going to wild and spectacular places". With permission I think I will add that to my response to the question, "What do you do in your spare time". My current response is, "I walk the earth" as a take off from Pulp Fiction, but this completes it well and will be, "I walk the earth going to wild and spectacular places".

Great notion, thanks!

[JustaTouron]

ATC own guidelines say it is okay to miss some of the trail and get he certificate as long as you made a good faith effort to hike substantial all.

The governing body says it is okay to get lost and still call it a thru hike, it is others who impose their own stricter standard

Sent from my SM-T110 using Tapatalk

[rickb]

ATC own guidelines say it is okay to miss some of the trail and get he certificate as long as you made a good faith effort to hike substantial all.

It is a subtle distinction, but the current application form does not ask those requesting to be acknowledged as "2000 Milers" just "made a good faith effort to hike substantially all the AT"

Rather, they ask that those applying "have made an honest effort to walk the entire Trail".

But you are certainly correct that getting lost and missing some white blazes as a result has been accepted since Earl Shaffer acknowledged doing so when he reported his thru hike.

I think it is important to keep in mind that the "2000 Miler" designation is not bestowed by a hiking organization, but rather by a trail organization-- an organization to which it was of supreme importance that the ENTIRE trail be continuous and marked.

No surprise that their special award reflected that. Makes sense, right?

To those who think the less magnificent sections don't really matter -- that one would be better off shunning them in favor of our beautiful western mountains-- I say, that's fine.

But you just don't get it.

[dudeijuststarted]

The material result of completing the AT, at best, is a certificate stating that you did it. The shine wears off in a few months.

Moments, people, places, and things along the Appalachian corridor are the real reward. How many times you walked past them, the direction in which you did so, or how fast you went about doing so have very little substance.

[MuddyWaters]

But you just don't get it.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

[Traveler]

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Indeed, which primes the axiom; "Semper ubi sub ubi"

[Mtsman]

to answer your questions 1) it does not matter. at all
2) nope, not in the least
3) i do not.

see, what you dont understand and where you are putting words into my mouth is that you seem to think i am saying the OP shouldnt do the hike he intends to do or should do something else. i've never said any such thing. not even close. i can sum up my response to him like this- do the hike you want to do whether or not someone is going to give you a certificate for it. dont try and plan on doing a hike simply to get a very meaningless piece of paper that certifies nothing. i think the OP got my point quite a ways back, when he said he is rethinking his motivation.

get it? we good now? yeesh. do you have an issue with my sentiment? i really dont think you do.

That is why explaining your stance helps. I was under the impression that you cared if the person gets a certification regardless if they were going to hike that hike anyway. After this post, I re-read all your posts and saw that I read one other post from another person, as your post, and applied it to your quick statements thereafter. The only reason I jumped into this thread in the first place is you kept saying they couldn't be cert-ed and definitely wouldn't give two of them, when in fact they did.

Wow, that was difficult over this medium. Thanks for sticking it out with me.

[tdoczi]

That is why explaining your stance helps. I was under the impression that you cared if the person gets a certification regardless if they were going to hike that hike anyway. After this post, I re-read all your posts and saw that I read one other post from another person, as your post, and applied it to your quick statements thereafter. The only reason I jumped into this thread in the first place is you kept saying they couldn't be cert-ed and definitely wouldn't give two of them, when in fact they did.

Wow, that was difficult over this medium. Thanks for sticking it out with me.

the thread did drift a bit into a general discussion of the certificate, and i have my opinions on the certificate, one of which, evidently, is not in line with how it actually works. thats fine. but my opinion as to what someone should or should hike is the same either way.

[Traveler]

The Certificatorer is pleased.


"Is it not wiser to know a muskrat is not a dog than to not"

[JumpMaster Blaster]

To make this even more infuriatingly silly, lets look at a different wrinkle of the same issue. Using the same method of hiking though a state like Connecticut, using day to hike out and back sections of the AT. There are approximately 52 miles of trail in CT, doing sections this way effectively doubles the mileage to 104 doing the same miles north and south.

So, if one were to do this 21 times they would cover the same approximate distance of the entire AT. In this wrinkle, can the hiker get the 2000 mile status?

Lol, no. But I see what you did there.

[RockDoc]

Come on, give me full credit for taking 40 years; June 1974 to Oct 2014!

Some people can take up to 20 years to complete a thru-hike via section hiking.