Do You Carry Maps?

[AeroGuyDC]

Stupid Question #437 here:

Do you carry maps on your section and/or thru hikes? In a few weeks I embark on a 100 mile section hike that actually requires 4 separate maps from start to finish. That's alot of maps in my opinion, but its just how it fell for this particular hike. Looking at the Thru-hiker's Companion, I feel like all the information I need is found on those pages. Granted, there are benefits to having maps, such as elevation profiles and general spatial orientation, but do you feel the need to have the additional weight and hassle?

Tell me where i'm going wrong.

Thanks!

[Kerosene]

You'll find a number of threads devoted to this topic, with as many opinions.

If it's weight you're concerned with, either split up the maps between food caches, or copy/condense the portions onto double-sided paper.

You're correct, you really don't need the maps to hike the AT...if everything goes as planned. I have several examples where they've proven invaluable, and in one case perhaps life-saving (for another hiker), mainly to be able to tell where bail-out options exist and where you might be should you lose the trail.

[SGT Rock]

Yep. I carry the maps.

[Hikes in Rain]

As do I. I like being able to identify what's around me, and on at least one occasion where a bale-out was necessary, they were essential to routing off the trail and taking a shortcut to the car.

[Johnny Swank]

+1 on carrying maps. I always get people who "don't need them" asking to take a peak at mine.

[fredmugs]

I carry them mostly to see the elevation changes and because I try to pick out a spot every 2 - 3 miles away to plan breaks.

[Jaybird]

Stupid Question #437 here:

Do you carry maps on your section and/or thruhikes?.............ETC,ETC,ETC,..... Thanks!

Yo AG DC,


NO!....follow the WHITE BLAZES!
you dont need NO STINKIN' MAPS!

i simply carry the AT DATA BOOK pages that i need during my 2 week section-hike each year....

some hikers carry the up-to-date-"THRU-HIKERS' Companion" (ALDHA)

No matter what you carry (or DONT CARRY)...GOOD LUCK with your hike!)


i'll be out there (w/ NO MAPS!) Apr 24-May 8
NOBO Clarks Valley,PA to Greenwood Lake,NY
w/ "Jigsaw"

[garlic08]

As said before, this topic is perennially beaten to death here. The best nugget of wisdom I've seen in all the posts is this: "If you have to ask whether you need maps, you should probably take them."

I hiked the AT without maps, taking the advice of some trail veterans I respected and who knew my hiking experience and style. There are about 170,000 whiteblazes on the Trail, per the ATC website (both directions). That works out to one every 140 feet. I could often see three or four at a time in each direction. (The only times I remember being confused was at a few road crossings, which a 200' walk in each direction took care of, and at one tree-less summit with several beaten paths, which took a little scrutiny to find the next blaze. Every time it was easier and faster to look around than it was to pull out a map, especially in the rain.)

Again, if you're not sure, take the maps.

[The Old Fhart]

AeroGuyDC-"....That's alot of maps in my opinion...."

That's because it's a lot of hiking.

"....but do you feel the need to have the additional weight and hassle?"

The hassle is asking other prepared hikers to let you look at their maps.

[AeroGuyDC]

That's because it's a lot of hiking.

The hassle is asking other prepared hikers to let you look at their maps.

Thank you for your input. However, I disagree that 100 miles is "a lot of hiking." Considering that it only covers ~5 percent of the entire trail, 4 maps, two of which have only tidbits of my planned section, does seem like a lot of maps to me. I was looking for experienced input, not sarcastic diatribe.

As far as asking others to look at their map, yes, I can see how that would be a hassle, although i'm not one to lean on others for hardly anything. Not my style.

I was on the fence because I know that the AT is relatively easy to navigate. Spatial disorientation has never been a problem for me, but i'll likely consolidate and photocopy "just in case."

Thanks to everyone for your input.

[Blissful]

I know SNP but I still carry maps. But on my next section there is a seven mile section on one map only when I begin. I will not carry that particular map.

Maps are hardly a hassle. They are part of your life saving gear, imo

[Panzer1]

I like the terrain profile on the maps. They help me plan my day by letting me know how difficult the trail is going to be that day.

Panzer

[jnl82381]

I got a map of the entire Long Trail that is on one map sheet. It's broken up into five vertical maps on each side. If all the Mountain Clubs went to this format instead of what they have now, there would be a lot fewer maps to carry.

Some sections of the AT aren’t bad; others it looks like a strong hiker will go through a map a day! That’s a little excessive. And you can't even blame it on the fact that they are 1:100,000 vs. 1:250,000 because the face is, is that the scale isn't what takes up most of the space on the maps. It's all the marginal data, trail etiquette, flora and fauna, etc. a lot of "extra" stuff on what is supposed to just be a MAP.

There are different Guide Books out there, maybe its time someone else published a new set of maps? Huge undertaking I know. But we’ll see...


BTW, I do carry maps.

[Lone Wolf]

Stupid Question #437 here:

Do you carry maps on your section and/or thru hikes? In a few weeks I embark on a 100 mile section hike that actually requires 4 separate maps from start to finish. That's alot of maps in my opinion, but its just how it fell for this particular hike. Looking at the Thru-hiker's Companion, I feel like all the information I need is found on those pages. Granted, there are benefits to having maps, such as elevation profiles and general spatial orientation, but do you feel the need to have the additional weight and hassle?

Tell me where i'm going wrong.

Thanks!

yes. i always carry maps. nice to know the fastest, easiest way out in case of emergency

[Johnny Swank]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I got a map of the entire Long Trail that is on one map sheet. It's broken up into five vertical maps on each side. If all the Mountain Clubs went to this format instead of what they have now, there would be a lot fewer maps to carry.

I'd pay a premium for a full AT map set like that. I'd like to go at least 150-200 miles per map (front and back), and cutting out some of the extra crap and doing some formatting could make that happen.

[Skyline]

+1 on carrying maps. I always get people who "don't need them" asking to take a peak at mine.

Bet they're the same people who don't "need" stoves, water treatment, etc. but always "borrow" from others. Maybe even the same folks who don't "need" to carry a tent but demand those already crowded into shelters move into tents so they can grab their shelter space.

[10-K]

What's nuts is having a bunch of 1 sided maps.

[Bear Cables]

Make good quality color copies of the trail on each section then cut out the sections that show what you need, tape sections together and seal with clear contact paper. You can also copy just the pages you need from the trail guide and put them on the back side of the pieced together map. Just roll or fold it up and the contact paper protects and strenghtens the map.

[The Old Fhart]

AeroGuyDC-"Thank you for your input. However, I disagree that 100 miles is "a lot of hiking." Considering that it only covers ~5 percent of the entire trail, 4 maps, two of which have only tidbits of my planned section, does seem like a lot of maps to me. I was looking for experienced input, not sarcastic diatribe."

Sometimes when one asks what is a stupid question (your own words), they can expect a range of answers-some they won't like. I always find it amusing that some people complain about the weight of maps. If you want to hike a certain section of the trail and do the wise thing and carry maps, that is part of the trip, just like you need more food and money to hike longer distances. In order to give maps the detail they consider necessary for hiking they have to use a certain scale and that makes the hiking maps larger than your average state road map.

I've carried all 7 ME maps thru the state and that never killed me. Four of the Maine maps total just over 4 ounces, hardly a back breaker. Maybe if I was a gram weenie I'd get concerned about 4 ounces but on a hike I try not to worry about the small stuff. If you were complaining about the quality and detail of the old Keystone maps then you might find more agreement.

[Blissful]

Laurie P of ATC makes a good point to bring maps with the fire danger and possible reroutes - see the trail news forum