View Full Version : Trail Blazing inconsistencies
MtDoraDave
03-01-2017, 08:13
I've noticed that there are inconsistencies on how different trail clubs mark intersections or direction changes. In Georgia and NC, I have found that they are generally done the way I understand to be correct; at an intersection where you go straight, a double blaze with one directly above the other, and if the trail turns to the right, the upper blaze is offset to the right - and if the trail turns to the left, the upper blaze is offset to the left.
But north of Damascus, the double blazes for when the trail turns (at an intersection), the double blazes aren't offset, but simply put one above the other.
This led to a bit of confusion some places where the trail came to an intersection that wasn't obvious where to go, I had to hike a while looking for the next blaze... when I didn't find one, I had to turn back and look again. The places where the trail simply turned (not an intersection) it wasn't really a big deal, since there wasn't a "wrong way" to go... but shouldn't all the trail clubs along the AT use a standard marking format?
The reason I'm posting this is as much to suggest trail clubs follow a standard format, as it is to let new hikers know to be alert and attentive when coming to double blazes.
I've noticed that there are inconsistencies on how different trail clubs mark intersections or direction changes. In Georgia and NC, I have found that they are generally done the way I understand to be correct; at an intersection where you go straight, a double blaze with one directly above the other, and if the trail turns to the right, the upper blaze is offset to the right - and if the trail turns to the left, the upper blaze is offset to the left.
But north of Damascus, the double blazes for when the trail turns (at an intersection), the double blazes aren't offset, but simply put one above the other.
This led to a bit of confusion some places where the trail came to an intersection that wasn't obvious where to go, I had to hike a while looking for the next blaze... when I didn't find one, I had to turn back and look again. The places where the trail simply turned (not an intersection) it wasn't really a big deal, since there wasn't a "wrong way" to go... but shouldn't all the trail clubs along the AT use a standard marking format?
The reason I'm posting this is as much to suggest trail clubs follow a standard format, as it is to let new hikers know to be alert and attentive when coming to double blazes.
southern PA is also like this. it drove me nuts. at one point, near mt holly springs i believe, the trail comes to a T. all 3 parts of the T are equally built up, equally meticulously maintained and groomed trails. the blaze at the intersection is two whites directly over each other (as it is at all the turns around there).
by coincidence, a few minutes after correctly guessing the right way to turn, i ran into a trail maintainer and asked him about this. he responded that both ways are common and its the tradition of the trail club in the area to use two blazes directly over each other to mark all turns.
and things like this is why i like spending time in the woods. alone.
since then i've noticed this at a few other locations, but it is rare, thank god. i cant say ive ever seen two blazes directly over top indicating go straight though, interesting though. to me, in what you and i think of as "normal" blazing, two blazes directly over top of each other indicates a switchback. you don't see this marking very often either, but ive seen it several times.
peakbagger
03-01-2017, 10:10
Its maintaining club preference. The standard is double blazes one directly lined up above the other. The offset upper blaze is optional. So there is standard, you just got spoiled by the optional offset blaze. I have seen a NPS reference book calling out proper blazing but it was long ago. A group I was in blazed a pretty major new trail in the whites one year and the leaders had to be certified in blazing by the FS. Unfortunately the local trail club tended to overblaze so we got crap for following the standards which is pretty minimal blazing.
I believe that the intent of the double blaze is not necessarily indicating an intersection or a turn as much as it is a notification that the hiker should be more aware of trail conditions. An example of a non turn is crossing a woods road. A hiker should apply a bit of extra awareness so they don't accidently head down the woods road but there is no turn.
I would speculate that down south the average trees are larger in diameter with plenty of room for an offset. In the higher elevations in New England there are a lot of spruce/fir woods where the average tree size aren't that big so trying to offset a blaze is not going to look right. A two inch sapling can hold a standard double blaze but it would need to be 6" or more to include an offset and keep it fully visible.
Note at one time there was a third variation which was a vertical bottom blaze with the upper blaze tilted in the angle of direction. I think that one is no longer acceptable.
Its maintaining club preference. The standard is double blazes one directly lined up above the other. The offset upper blaze is optional. So there is standard, you just got spoiled by the optional offset blaze. I have seen a NPS reference book calling out proper blazing but it was long ago. A group I was in blazed a pretty major new trail in the whites one year and the leaders had to be certified in blazing by the FS. Unfortunately the local trail club tended to overblaze so we got crap for following the standards which is pretty minimal blazing.
I believe that the intent of the double blaze is not necessarily indicating an intersection or a turn as much as it is a notification that the hiker should be more aware of trail conditions. An example of a non turn is crossing a woods road. A hiker should apply a bit of extra awareness so they don't accidently head down the woods road but there is no turn.
I would speculate that down south the average trees are larger in diameter with plenty of room for an offset. In the higher elevations in New England there are a lot of spruce/fir woods where the average tree size aren't that big so trying to offset a blaze is not going to look right. A two inch sapling can hold a standard double blaze but it would need to be 6" or more to include an offset and keep it fully visible.
Note at one time there was a third variation which was a vertical bottom blaze with the upper blaze tilted in the angle of direction. I think that one is no longer acceptable.
continuing to do something because its a "standard" or a "tradition" when there is an obvious flaw in it's design and there is a better way which is also equally standard and has become/is becoming equally traditional is just... beyond description without using impolite language. the blaze in souther PA i cite is particularly illuminating. what is this blaze supposed to tell hikers? that there is a turn? its a T of course there is a turn. of course you are going to have to look and pay attention. that double blaze, painted that way, communicates nothing important to anyone and as such is basically pointless defacing of the tree it is painted on. it is a prime example stupidity done simply because "thats how we do it."
x
nsherry61
03-01-2017, 10:33
. . . that double blaze, painted that way, communicates nothing important to anyone and as such is basically pointless defacing of the tree it is painted on. it is a prime example stupidity . . .
I say:
Quitcherbelliaching, carry a map, and go hike out west where there are rarely any blazes at all.
That being said, if one is going to deface the forest, may as well do it consistently. . . that and everyone in the world should speak the same language.
I say:
Quitcherbelliaching, carry a map, and go hike out west where there are rarely any blazes at all.
That being said, if one is going to deface the forest, may as well do it consistently. . . that and everyone in the world should speak the same language.
i'm all for not blazing the trail, trust me. in the inevitable recurring arguments about the lack of blazing in the whites i'm firmly on the get over it and learn to read a map side.
its more about the lunacy of bothering to paint a set of marks on a tree that does no one any good at all. if you're going to bother painting them, do it in a way that serves a purpose. or don't do it.
x
Sandy of PA
03-01-2017, 10:53
You noticed it didn't you? When I started hiking on the AT in 1969 a double blaze meant pay attention, not just a turn. If it was not obvious why, it was time to look at your guidebook and map.
You noticed it didn't you? When I started hiking on the AT in 1969 a double blaze meant pay attention, not just a turn. If it was not obvious why, it was time to look at your guidebook and map.
i, and anyone else, would notice that intersection whether there was a blaze or not. it was a perfect T junction. 90 degrees, perpendicular, on the nose. saying one might not notice it without the blaze there is like saying one might walk to the end of their block and not know when they reached the corner unless they consult a map or someone has painted a couple of white splotches somewhere.
that blaze is an extreme example, but it communicates nothing. it should either be painted in a way that serves a purpose or it should not exist. it should not be painted because "well gee thats just what us folk do at junctions 'round these here parts."
one day im really bored ill go back and take photos of it. sadly i forgot my camera on that trip.
x
ScareBear
03-01-2017, 15:15
SMH...
So, what the complaint really is about is that there should be directional arrows at all trail turns and intersections so there is no possibility of losing the trail? Or am I missing something here?
SMH...
So, what the complaint really is about is that there should be directional arrows at all trail turns and intersections so there is no possibility of losing the trail? Or am I missing something here?
SMH...
not remotely. my position, for like 5th time is, either paint meaningful marks that serve a purpose **OR PAINT NOTHING**.
please note- painting nothing is, in my expressed viewpoint, a perfectly acceptable, if not preferred, alternative.
clear now? hope so.
if not i guess i can just say again a different way.
In my opinion the offset double "Garvey" blaze is one of the greatest inventions in Eastern trail work.
Leading volunteers is like herding cats, and as in many other aspects of life, those who have a little power like to wield it, so when the Garvey blaze was made optional, some old fuddy duddies refused the option.
I believe some clubs have since come around and changed their minds, but as in many other areas of life, it's a bureaucratic process and not instantaneous.
Those who cherish inconsistencies could hike Great Eastern Trail instead. http://www.gethiking.net/p/guides.html
ScareBear
03-01-2017, 17:52
SMH...
not remotely. my position, for like 5th time is, either paint meaningful marks that serve a purpose **OR PAINT NOTHING**.
please note- painting nothing is, in my expressed viewpoint, a perfectly acceptable, if not preferred, alternative.
clear now? hope so.
if not i guess i can just say again a different way.
Right. So, in your opinion, it's directional arrows or nothing? And you choose nothing?:confused:
Right. So, in your opinion, it's directional arrows or nothing? And you choose nothing?:confused:
in my opinion blotches of paint on trees that do not convey any useful information are graffiti and as such shouldnt be there.
ScareBear
03-01-2017, 18:30
You noticed it didn't you? When I started hiking on the AT in 1969 a double blaze meant pay attention, not just a turn. If it was not obvious why, it was time to look at your guidebook and map.
+1 true to this day...just sayin......
peakbagger
03-01-2017, 18:32
For those who want to standardize blazing, your last chance to be heard is in Waterville Maine at the last ATC annual national convention. I expect they would be glad for you to find some place to set up a table and explain to anyone who will listen your opinion. Of course I don't think the ATC has the final say so expect they will need to make a recommendation to the NPS and the NPS will have to move it upon top of their priority list ahead of far less important things like protecting the trail from threats to decide that the blazing standards have to be changed and then make the change and let it them become the new standard.
From the Appalachian Trial Fieldbook, which is given to volunteers on the AT and LT, here are guidelines for Appalachian Trail blazes (I didn't type them all, just the ones pertinent to this thread), with my own added emphasis here and there:
- place at eye height, facing approaching hikers, generally on the right side of the Trail
- place at regular intervals. Frequency is determined by the character of the trail and hiker safety. where the trail is conspicuous, place a blaze at five-minute intervals, about 800 to 1,000 feet apart. In obscure areas, place blazes no more than 100 yards apart, but be sure that, except at junctions, along highways, or in open areas, you can never see more than one blaze at a time
- Double blaze (one blaze 2 inches directly above the other) before confusing turns, junctions, or areas requiring hiker alertness (not including switchbacks)
- use offset double blazes only when the whole club section will use offset double blazes...
Conditions to avoid:
- blazes placed at erratic intervals, so marking appears unreliable or hikers wonder if they are on the trail
- nonstandard markings, such as arrows and directional indicators... symbols other than the standard blaze seem to deface Trailside rocks and trees
- too frequently placed blazes, so that hikers find the quantity unsightly, defacing the natural setting
- double-blazed switchbacks - switchbacks are rarely confusing to hikers
Sometimes, the trail club clearly didn't follow the guidelines. I've been in places on the AT where you can see 5 blazes in each direction, and minor turns are double-blazed. There are just plain way too many blazes on the trail, both per the guidelines, and the observations of many on this thread.
That's Appalachian Trail Fieldbook, of course! My point, if I wasn't clear, is that the ATC already has blazing standards, but the volunteers that do the blazing aren't always sticking to them. They may not be getting the information in the first place.
Starchild
03-01-2017, 19:18
I've taken the tradition as single blaze is the path, a double (one above the other), indicated be aware of such things like a turn.
The offset is not part of the tradition but has worked its way in the blazing system.
Have scratched my head in fretful worry as a NEWB seeing 6-7 white blazes in sight 600 ft forward and another 6-7 as I turned around looking at where I came from and then not seeing another blaze for 1/3 of a mile :confused: as I continued... for no apparent reason other there was an unemployed artist on the trail blazing painting assignment. :)
NSherry is right. Some of ya should hit up some hikes where you're fortunate to have any regular blazing and trail signage.
I've taken the tradition as single blaze is the path, a double (one above the other), indicated be aware of such things like a turn.
The offset is not part of the tradition but has worked its way in the blazing system.
can you, or anyone else, explain to me why this "traditional" method, now that we have another, obviously better method, is ever preferred? what is the advantage of doing it this way rather than an offset blaze, as you see it? if one is going to pain two blazes at a turn. what end does not off setting one of them serve?
Starchild
03-01-2017, 20:16
can you, or anyone else, explain to me why this "traditional" method, now that we have another, obviously better method, is ever preferred? what is the advantage of doing it this way rather than an offset blaze, as you see it? if one is going to pain two blazes at a turn. what end does not off setting one of them serve?
Some people see it as a dumbing down where pathfinding along with map and compass (or God forbid GPS) skills some would go so far as to like to have all blazes removed and people would use skills to stay on the trail.
As for me the current offset system is fine but I do like it once and a while to find the traditional blazes.
As Starchild said the offset blaze to the right or left above another means a left or right turn while the one blaze directly above the other might mean turn or something else to be aware. Lots of blazes on the AT and until blazing NEEDS to be updated maybe some slightly different blazing techniques are simultaneously in use. This doesn't cause a problem for the masses.
Some people see it as a dumbing down where pathfinding along with map and compass (or God forbid GPS) skills some would go so far as to like to have all blazes removed and people would use skills to stay on the trail.
As for me the current offset system is fine but I do like it once and a while to find the traditional blazes.
and i can get behind that. but in that case, don't blaze. half measures are pointless. you want a system that can help people just a little bit but we are going to deliberately NOT do something that would make it more helpful and would cost and hurt nothing? thats nothing but snobby elitism and refusal to change and update.
As Starchild said the offset blaze to the right or left above another means a left or right turn while the one blaze directly above the other might mean turn or something else to be aware. Lots of blazes on the AT and until blazing NEEDS to be updated maybe some slightly different blazing techniques are simultaneously in use. This doesn't cause a problem for the masses.
its not just a matter of old blazes not being updated. there are trail maintaining clubs painting blazes right now, today the "traditional" way.
Some people see it as a dumbing down where pathfinding along with map and compass (or God forbid GPS) skills some would go so far as to like to have all blazes removed and people would use skills to stay on the trail.
As for me the current offset system is fine but I do like it once and a while to find the traditional blazes.i just had a great idea. in the spirit of not dumbing down the trail too much, but still providing some degree of assistance to hikers who are seemingly only slightly capable while still weeding out the totally helpless, lets start putting up signs that say things like "katahdin MAY be this way, check your map" or "one of these trail goes to the summit clingman's dome, but you have to figure out which one."
good idea?
x
For those who want to standardize blazing, your last chance to be heard is in Waterville Maine at the last ATC annual national convention.Yikes. I am out of the loop. Last convention? Too bad. ALDHA gatherings might fill the void, but the ATC ones I have attended in New England were all wonderful.
AfterParty
03-01-2017, 21:51
I would put an arrow with sticks on the ground when back tracked if that were the case.
4eyedbuzzard
03-01-2017, 21:59
I honestly don't have a lot of issues with the slightly different blazing standards in use.
The inconsistency in cairn size, shape and construction, however, drives me nuts! Something has to be done! :rolleyes:
Perhaps I'll start a thread . . .
i just had a great idea. in the spirit of not dumbing down the trail too much, but still providing some degree of assistance to hikers who are seemingly only slightly capable while still weeding out the totally helpless, lets start putting up signs that say things like "katahdin MAY be this way, check your map" or "one of these trail goes to the summit clingman's dome, but you have to figure out which one."
good idea?
x
he he he then point them towards a cliff face or Devil's Racecourse and dare them to play blindfolded pin the tail/search for the tail on the donkey. Erect a big sign on the south shore of the Kennebec River saying 'Ferry service has been discontinued.' Have a sign underneath that says 'BSP Officials are considering closing down Mt K summit bids for the yr earlier than usual.' Here's one: Erect a sign that says 'Caution - This AT Lean-to has been closed due to bear activity and norovirus' that you want to yourself. NJ humor.
"...in the spirit of not dumbing down the trail too much,..
Too late. :p
Seriously, what do I know? I haven't even read all your complaints. :rolleyes:
I would put an arrow with sticks on the ground when back tracked if that were the case.
That's helped me a lot on trails out west, CDT for example, and lately even on the Sassafras Mt - Caesars Head SP spur of the FHT. Saw it at some weird unsigned BMT and PT junctions as well. Hayduke Tr, PNWT, and AZT has a bunch too. Saw some in Olympic NP too. I don't need no stinking GPS.
ALLEGHENY
03-01-2017, 23:46
When ever I wasn't sure,I learned early on the AT to just look for the divots and scratches in the rock. Made by all those hiking sticks. Plenty of other traces left to follow too.
MuddyWaters
03-02-2017, 00:43
The double blaze means "pay attention" mostly. Usually for an immediate turn or intersection mostly.
But theres a lot of them out there seemingly for no reason. No turn, no intersecting trail, leaves you wondering what the person painting was thinking
its not just a matter of old blazes not being updated. there are trail maintaining clubs painting blazes right now, today the "traditional" way.
All those trail maintaining clubs folks painting blazes consists of unemployed, and eager to be employed, aspiring artists. :D
So where did you get your start learning how to paint those masterpieces Mr Picasso? The Appalachian Trail. I specialize in Cubism.
The double blaze means "pay attention" mostly. Usually for an immediate turn or intersection mostly.
But theres a lot of them out there seemingly for no reason. No turn, no intersecting trail, leaves you wondering what the person painting was thinking
Sometimes they are there to funnel foot traffic into a narrower path like going up or down rock studded slopes where erosion has occurred from ever widening paths occurring from people trying to avoid trail construction steps. Sometimes the double blaze is there to show the safest or most expedient route when other non official or non maintained parallel routes might exist. The LT does this too to keep people from making 20-30 ft wide multiple laned trails as they attempt to avoid mud. Sometimes they are there to keep switchback and other short cut offenders on the path to avoid sensitive ecological areas or areas prone to greater erosion.
MtDoraDave
03-02-2017, 08:46
Its maintaining club preference. The standard is double blazes one directly lined up above the other. The offset upper blaze is optional. So there is standard, you just got spoiled by the optional offset blaze. I have seen a NPS reference book calling out proper blazing but it was long ago. A group I was in blazed a pretty major new trail in the whites one year and the leaders had to be certified in blazing by the FS. Unfortunately the local trail club tended to overblaze so we got crap for following the standards which is pretty minimal blazing.
I believe that the intent of the double blaze is not necessarily indicating an intersection or a turn as much as it is a notification that the hiker should be more aware of trail conditions. An example of a non turn is crossing a woods road. A hiker should apply a bit of extra awareness so they don't accidently head down the woods road but there is no turn.
I would speculate that down south the average trees are larger in diameter with plenty of room for an offset. In the higher elevations in New England there are a lot of spruce/fir woods where the average tree size aren't that big so trying to offset a blaze is not going to look right. A two inch sapling can hold a standard double blaze but it would need to be 6" or more to include an offset and keep it fully visible.
Note at one time there was a third variation which was a vertical bottom blaze with the upper blaze tilted in the angle of direction. I think that one is no longer acceptable.
Thank you. Dead on. I got "spoiled" by the optional offset blaze.
Turned into a pretty good thread though.
Finger Lakes Trail used to have a double blaze with an arrow below (really a > or a < ), they've now gone to the offset double.
Many PA trails used to have two paint slashes. PA DCNR (state forestry and parks) in 2008 standardized on the offset double. Horse-Shoe Trail and the former Link (now Standing Stone) trail have switched over to the offset double. Conestoga Trail seems to be sticking to the slashes. Converting from one to the other can be tedious. The best thing to do is to put two coats of tree bark color matched obscuring paint over the old slashes, then two coats of new blaze paint over top of the obscuring paint. It's rare to have a volunteer with enough time available for this procedure and enough rain-free mid-week days in a row to do this.
All trail volunteers say they are hikers. Some are humble and observant enough to understand there is a continuum. The most dedicated trail workers probably never leave their township. I see Jennifer Pharr Davis took her kid to all 50 states before he was 2 years old, I suspect she's not painting blazes. Unfortunately those who observe, and those who implement, best practices are largely two different sets of people. The trail maintainers usually see only their own clubs, and often don't go to the meetings of those. Here's one new effort to increase communication among these folks: https://www.facebook.com/groups/BlazePainters/
One of my mantras is that blazing is "almost as simple as it looks." Poorly done blazing is surprisingly difficult to correct. I've observed in the past resort to cutting trees down with offending blazes. That's usually looked on as rather too drastic.
The "other" trails, lacking easily defined treadway, seem always to have too few blazes, despite usually many more than the A.T. Fieldbook says. My feeling is there should be enough to find your way in all seasons and weather conditions. Would you see six blazes in a row when the fog rolls in? Is the green tunnel over the rocks as obvious in the wintertime?
peakbagger
03-02-2017, 09:31
Heck MATC used to have mile markers. They stopped maintaining them when they had to move much of the trail onto the ridgelines over the last 30 years. I expect since the AT mileage varies every year with relos someone would need a lot of time to repaint the markers every year ;)
The white blazes in the whites are quite handy as the AT is not necessarily the most popular route. Since some thru hikers elect not to use maps and seem to be unable to read trail signs at intersections, at least at some point they will look up and see a different color blaze. Of course in VT using that theory they may accidentally end up at the Canadian border as the Long Trail is also blazed white.
The White Mountain National Forest has several wilderness areas with minimal blazing allowed luckily the AT only crosses into one of them (although it does have a tricky turn that thru hikers seem to miss on occasion). There are some trails in the areas where the FS had painted over the blazes with gray paint. I know if few areas the newer gray blazes are really handy as the older blue blazes have faded.
colorado_rob
03-02-2017, 10:38
Glad this thread settled down, it was a bit weird for a while...
Anyway, I've hiked the entire AT and LT, and really never noticed these "discrepancies". really simple, double blaze means pay attention, sometimes with an offset, sometimes not.
My only "gripe" is the lack of good AT direction in the whites... we kept getting "lost", I suppose we were just so distracted by the views, we kept missing the signs! I got the feeling that the AMC up in those parts actually downplays the AT along the white mountains, at least from Gorham to Kinsman (we were going SOBO), but I realize this is a cynical view. This is the only part of the AT where an actual map is sure handy!
Glad this thread settled down, it was a bit weird for a while...
Anyway, I've hiked the entire AT and LT, and really never noticed these "discrepancies". really simple, double blaze means pay attention, sometimes with an offset, sometimes not.
My only "gripe" is the lack of good AT direction in the whites... we kept getting "lost", I suppose we were just so distracted by the views, we kept missing the signs! I got the feeling that the AMC up in those parts actually downplays the AT along the white mountains, at least from Gorham to Kinsman (we were going SOBO), but I realize this is a cynical view. This is the only part of the AT where an actual map is sure handy!
the AMC doesnt "downplay" the AT, the AT is not nearly as important to the whites as many of us around here fantasize it is. thats not the AMC's doing, thats just the way it is.
x
peakbagger
03-02-2017, 11:08
Thru hikers are a minority in the whites. Most users are dayhikers on out and back hikes or on loops so those trails get a lot more use.
Thru hikers are a minority in the whites. Most users are dayhikers on out and back hikes or on loops so those trails get a lot more use.
i would go a small step further and say hikers of any type (day, section, thru) who are intentionally using the AT because it is is the AT are a minority. a big one. most people who set foot on the AT in the whites aren't on it because its the AT, they are on it because its a trail that gets them to wherever they are going. one of many many such trails no more or no less important than any of the numerous others.
Those who cherish inconsistencies could hike Great Eastern Trail instead. http://www.gethiking.net/p/guides.html
... or the Ice Age Trail. :eek: :eek:
Thru hikers are a minority in the whites. Most users are dayhikers on out and back hikes or on loops so those trails get a lot more use.
Thru hikers are a minority on the AT.
colorado_rob
03-03-2017, 12:16
Thru hikers are a minority in the whites. Most users are dayhikers on out and back hikes or on loops so those trails get a lot more use.
Thru hikers are a minority on the AT.
Perhaps a better way of saying what PB said is that AT hikers (including weekend AT hikers, longer section hikers and thru hikers) are a minority in the Whites, more so than perhaps other places along the AT. And I would agree. But I still think the AMC cops an attitude towards the AT and basically downgrades it's importance as a national trail more than it should be, perhaps purposely not marking it better. But again, probably just my own perspective from the fact that I was a complete AT hiker, and thus think my poop doesn't stink. I do want to return to the whites and hike a bunch of the other trails, but definitely off-season!
Perhaps a better way of saying what PB said is that AT hikers (including weekend AT hikers, longer section hikers and thru hikers) are a minority in the Whites, more so than perhaps other places along the AT. And I would agree. But I still think the AMC cops an attitude towards the AT and basically downgrades it's importance as a national trail more than it should be, perhaps purposely not marking it better. But again, probably just my own perspective from the fact that I was a complete AT hiker, and thus think my poop doesn't stink. I do want to return to the whites and hike a bunch of the other trails, but definitely off-season!
its only downplayed if you begin from the notion that it should be more important. do you think the AMC treats their other trails better than the AT? if so i've never observed it, and i don't think thats what you are saying. i think you reflexively treat their acting as if the AT was just any other trail (which it is) as them "downplaying" it. it isn't.
i think you're arguing the AT should be treated as special and it is not. whenever this comes up, to me, it just shows a lack of depth of understanding of the white mountains are and the history of the region. the AT is the johnny come lately trail that just showed up in this place where people had long been hiking. the AT is a guest. one that could leave and it would make no difference to the WMNF or the AMC at all. it is treated appropriately to that fact and i don't see anything wrong with that. its perfectly reasonable.
colorado_rob
03-03-2017, 13:03
i think you're arguing the AT should be treated as special and it is not. whenever this comes up, to me, it just shows a lack of depth of understanding of the white mountains are and the history of the region. the AT is the johnny come lately trail that just showed up in this place where people had long been hiking. the AT is a guest. one that could leave and it would make no difference to the WMNF or the AMC at all. it is treated appropriately to that fact and i don't see anything wrong with that. its perfectly reasonable.Perhaps you should read my second to last sentence, where I'm basically being self deprecating. You should also perhaps look up the definition thereof and consider adding it to your constant rantings, even though in your case, you'd be faking it.
And, the AT is a national trail. The rest of the trails in the Whites are not. It is special (the AT). Most of us WB'ers think it is, do we not?
The AT is special in the sense of losing my LD backpacking virginity but not everyone only experiences/marries the one they lost their virginity to. :D
And, the AT is a national trail. The rest of the trails in the Whites are not. It is special (the AT). Most of us WB'ers think it is, do we not?
you think it is. you're entitled to your opinion. the overwhelming majority of the people who manage and recreationally use the white mountains do not share it, and for perfectly valid reasons if one cares to open one's mind and look at them. who's viewpoint should rule? the view of a few thousand people who represent a small percentage of seasonal visitors, or the people who are the managers and regular users of the place? its all very self evident if one steps out of the AT centric bubble and thinks about it.
Mr. Clean
03-04-2017, 16:55
The double offset blazes are called garveys, named after the trail pioneer Ed Garvey, who invented them. A better way to blaze direction of trail, to be sure.
The reason for infrequent blazing in parts of the Whites has nothing to do with dislike of the AT, it has to do with that section running through a wilderness area, where it is against the law to blaze. Also, the AT has different names in the Whites because most trails were around and named long before the AT became an idea.
The double offset blazes are called garveys, named after the trail pioneer Ed Garvey, who invented them. A better way to blaze direction of trail, to be sure.
i guess his legacy will forever be tarnished by his "dumbing down" of the trail by having the nerve to figure out a way to paint blazes that actually mean something. good thing theres still a handful of trail clubs out there who are keeping it pure and refuse to be bamboozled by his efforts.
i guess his legacy will forever be tarnished by his "dumbing down" of the trail by having the nerve to figure out a way to paint blazes that actually mean something. good thing theres still a handful of trail clubs out there who are keeping it pure and refuse to be bamboozled by his efforts.
ironically, ed garvey was president of the PATC. a group who, at least in part, seems to have never adapted his blaze. (the place in southern PA i referred to is maintained, ultimately, by PATC).
LittleRock
03-09-2017, 13:58
Funny story (which happened because of confusing trail blazing):
On the AT going through farmland north of Atkins, VA the trail stopped at a "T" intersection with clear trails going left and right and a 4"x4" post with a single white blaze marking the intersection. I tried the left junction first and it led about 100 yards around a corner and down to a trough where a herd of cows were hanging around waiting to be fed. I backtracked and tried the right junction, which also led about 100 yards around a corner and dead-ended at a barbed wire fence.
When I turned around, I realized the entire herd of cows had followed me and they just stopped and stared at me. It was a little intimidating! I made my way back through the herd to the intersection, stared for a minute, and finally discovered a very faint trail going straight ahead through the grass. As it turns out, that trail was the AT!
This thread reminds me of why I get lost momentarily in all the different Home Depots since the floor layouts aren't all exact replicas. Oh the horror.
Tennessee Viking
03-09-2017, 18:26
It really depends on the trail club. Some trail clubs are very active in AT maintenance out almost weekly and also have people who maintain and regularly walk sections.
Some clubs only get out once a month or couple times a year. And rely on the AT trail crews for demanding projects.
I know GATC, CMC, TEHCC are very active. And are some of the most innovative clubs in trail maintenance.
A problem that PATH has is that a lot of its maintainers are based out of NC-Charlotte, the Triangle, the Triad...with smaller groups of local maintainers near the adopted trail in Virginia. They meet up only 1-2 times a month.
peakbagger
03-09-2017, 19:01
MATC is begging for maintainers, way to many miles for a very rural state to maintain.
its only downplayed if you begin from the notion that it should be more important. do you think the AMC treats their other trails better than the AT? if so i've never observed it, and i don't think thats what you are saying. i think you reflexively treat their acting as if the AT was just any other trail (which it is) as them "downplaying" it. it isn't.
i think you're arguing the AT should be treated as special and it is not. whenever this comes up, to me, it just shows a lack of depth of understanding of the white mountains are and the history of the region. the AT is the johnny come lately trail that just showed up in this place where people had long been hiking. the AT is a guest. one that could leave and it would make no difference to the WMNF or the AMC at all. it is treated appropriately to that fact and i don't see anything wrong with that. its perfectly reasonable.
Tdoczi, you have made me step back and think. The AT is a special trail to me, and to thousands of others. Still, you have made me wonder about the perspective of people from the northern areas. Maybe some day I can get up there long enough to see it from your view.
Tdoczi, you have made me step back and think. The AT is a special trail to me, and to thousands of others. Still, you have made me wonder about the perspective of people from the northern areas. Maybe some day I can get up there long enough to see it from your view.
i encourage you to do so, if for not other reason than going to the whites thinking the AT is the only thing, or even the central thing there, is to really miss out.
but i will add, it is not my view (i'm not from there, i'm a visitor like most of us, (and an infrequent one at that) and that i dont think this generally concept just applies to the north or the AT or the AT in the north.
sometime after my last post in this thread, i thought of an example that illustrates the point. some may say that this is completely different or some such, but it really isnt. its just an example with a more extreme contrast which i think is useful in helping us see the issue.
anyway, the continental divide trail runs through, amongst other places, glacier national park and yellowstone national park. is the continental divide trail of particular importance to those parks? should those parks in any way dedicate extra resources to the upkeep and maintenance of those trails in a way that is above and beyond what is done to other trails and resources in the park?
the answer is obvious, the same relationship, while at a much lower contrast, exists between the AT and the WMNF and all concerned parties.
MtDoraDave
03-13-2017, 07:21
Funny story (which happened because of confusing trail blazing):
On the AT going through farmland north of Atkins, VA the trail stopped at a "T" intersection with clear trails going left and right and a 4"x4" post with a single white blaze marking the intersection. I tried the left junction first and it led about 100 yards around a corner and down to a trough where a herd of cows were hanging around waiting to be fed. I backtracked and tried the right junction, which also led about 100 yards around a corner and dead-ended at a barbed wire fence.
When I turned around, I realized the entire herd of cows had followed me and they just stopped and stared at me. It was a little intimidating! I made my way back through the herd to the intersection, stared for a minute, and finally discovered a very faint trail going straight ahead through the grass. As it turns out, that trail was the AT!
On my section hike last November near Atkins, VA, I was dropped off by the shuttle driver 85 mi north of Damascus (Ceres VA) and hiked south (back to Damascus). Hiking through one of the several pastures, I was following the trail and there was a post sunk next to the trail with a blaze on it, quite faded. The trail continued straight - easily visible, as much of the AT is; it was a clear rut. I happened to look to the left and saw a blaze over on the edge of the pasture. Huh? I went over to it, and sure enough THAT was the trail. The cattle had made the "clear trail rut" that I thought was the continuation of the trail going straight. Apparently, the faded post blaze was a double blaze indicating a turn, but it must have been covered with barbed wire or something, because I didn't notice that it was a double, or maybe I didn't pay it much attention because the trail seemed to clearly keep going straight. Not sure how long I would have followed the cattle trail if I hadn't happened to see a blaze off to my left. lol.
Wait til you hike somewhere the trails are poorly maintained, might not have been hiked on for years, and then there are illegal side trails that are not marked on any map so you come to an intersection and have no idea which way you are supposed to go because there aren't any blazes at all.
peakbagger
03-13-2017, 10:58
Wait til you hike somewhere the trails are poorly maintained, might not have been hiked on for years, and then there are illegal side trails that are not marked on any map so you come to an intersection and have no idea which way you are supposed to go because there aren't any blazes at all.
Yes they are called Wilderness areas in the Whites. The so called "wilderness areas" were quite popular and beaten down prior to the wilderness area designation. The FS has stopped maintaining blazes in these areas and frequently the current route diverges off the older much more obvious routes. There are usually signs at intersections and an occasionally an arrow may appear where the trail turns abruptly but you cant plan on it. I and others feel its just a long term plan to make the trails in these areas get used far less often that will eventually will lead to official trail abandonment. I expect that in the whites, the trail network as big as it will get and 20 years down the road there will be less of them.
4eyedbuzzard
03-13-2017, 11:03
Thru hikers are a minority in the whites.
Thru hikers are a minority on the AT.
Thru-hikers are a minority even here on Whiteblaze.
To the vast majority of hikers, the access trails to the AT and "blue blazed" connecting trails are just as important as the AT itself. Yes, in many areas you can access the AT directly at road crossings. But in many other places you have to take an access trail of some sort, and often loop hikes, either single or multiple day, are done in conjunction with another trail even if directly accessing the AT at some point.