Do I really need the ATC maps?

[nfields222]

I'm planning a thru hike and some of things I've read have mentioned the maps not being worth the weight. I have the 2008 Appalachian Pages and I'm wondering if I'm really going to need all of those expensive maps to find my way around or if the blazes and the Appalachian Pages will be enough to guide me.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

[Kirby]

I'm planning a thru hike and some of things I've read have mentioned the maps not being worth the weight. I have the 2008 Appalachian Pages and I'm wondering if I'm really going to need all of those expensive maps to find my way around or if the blazes and the Appalachian Pages will be enough to guide me.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Yes you will. You should never hike without maps. Become a member of the ATC, and have a net savings of nine dollars on the maps. Maps weight should never be question, even on the Appalachian Trail.

Kirby

[Bilko]

You do not need to purchase the maps. Many have completed the trail without maps. I imagine you could hike the entire trail just using blazes.

I however, like to read the maps, enjoy plotting out where I'm going and looking at where I have been. I also like to see what is surrounding the trail and may even take a little side trip if I think it is interesting.

To answer the question. You do not really need ATC maps.

[Lone Wolf]

..............

[Pedaling Fool]

Read through these posts

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31410&highlight=maps

[Cindy from Indy]

maps not being worth the weight.

I'm getting the maps just so I know what to expect. I don't plan to carry every one of them with me though.

I'll strategically carry the first couple, then have the next couple sent in my re-supply box, and so on.......

Good luck on your hike!!!

[Lilred]

Get the maps. They're not for finding your way along the AT, they're for finding your way off the AT should you need to in a hurry. Would you drive from Georgia to Maine without maps?? Why not? the roads are clearly marked.....

[SGT Rock]

If you take it as a given it takes about 183 days to thru-hike the AT. That means it costs you $1 per day for maps. It's free to hike the trail, and the ATC needs money to keep it going and protect it. Think of it as a donation to the ATC and a free set of maps.

[shelterbuilder]

Get the maps. They're not for finding your way along the AT, they're for finding your way off the AT should you need to in a hurry. Would you drive from Georgia to Maine without maps?? Why not? the roads are clearly marked.....

WELL SAID!

[Cookerhiker]

Get the maps. They're not for finding your way along the AT, they're for finding your way off the AT should you need to in a hurry. Would you drive from Georgia to Maine without maps?? Why not? the roads are clearly marked.....


WELL SAID!

My sentiments exactly.

[swamp dawg]

The only time I did not carry a map I needed one so just invest in the maps. You can have the maps of the section you are about to hike sent to you, then send them back when you finish a section. I make notes on the map in pencil so if I ever come back to a section I can kind of get a idea of what to expect.
LIFE IS GOOD ON THE TRAIL.... Swamp Dawg

[emerald]

When you are finished with your maps, sell the entire set to someone who wants to hike next year for a price less than ATC. Someone will grab them right up just like text books reused the next semester.

You really do need the maps, they're not too heavy and I don't care what anyone else says. I carried the guide books too, sometimes 2 of them, plus the maps.

[scavenger]

Most people who say you don't need maps are experienced, stupid, or stubborn enough that they're gonna make up their own minds anyway. If you even need to ask, get the maps. Better to be prepared and have an extra ounce in your pack. You can sell them after your hike if you dont trash them.

[hopefulhiker]

You can get used maps too. I depended on Wingfoot''s data in 05 a lot though. Taking a little compass is good too...

[nfields222]

Ok, ok...I'm taking the maps. Thank you to everyone who offered constructive advice. As for those of you who made me feel like a dumb ass for even asking, you may want to consider that there are better ways to get a point across in a public forum than to exclaim your disbelief in the poster's stupidity. I get enough criticism from my family about this hike and I don't need any from within the hiking community. This site should be a place of support & encouragement and members should never be made to feel ignorant for asking a question.

[Lone Wolf]

research the archives before asking a question. :) sorry if i was gruff

[HIKER7s]

I'm planning a thru hike and some of things I've read have mentioned the maps not being worth the weight. I have the 2008 Appalachian Pages and I'm wondering if I'm really going to need all of those expensive maps to find my way around or if the blazes and the Appalachian Pages will be enough to guide me.

Thanks in advance for any advice.


While The guidebooks are great, I really think you also need the maps. In the books your reading where your going, on the maps your seeing where you go and you also see the entire area through which your traveling.

[clured]

Nope, maps are useless and they destroy the sense of adventure that makes the AT so incredibly entertaining! What's the fun in knowing what's coming up? Let your eyes do the telling, not some dinky little piece of paper.

On 99% of other trails they are a must-have, on the AT they are a waste of weight. Does a track runner need a map while running a race? No, he just stays in his lane. Such is the AT.

[Lone Wolf]

very stupid advice. don't listen to this clown :rolleyes:

[GGS2]

Funny thing about maps, they're just dead weight until you get confused. Then they save anywhere from a few minutes to your life. But it depends o your experience. If you know the ground, you don't need the map. But if you've never been through there before, better take the best map you can find. Same with all sorts of other better safe than sorry equipment. I always carry a knife, compass, water, extra layer, fire, even on a day hike.

[clured]

very stupid advice. don't listen to this clown :rolleyes:

blah blah, where's your sense of adventure? Scared is no way to live. Trust yourself, not your maps/gps/phone/helicopter/friends.

[Lone Wolf]

sure cluless. you da man! or should i say packsniffer wannabe

[Pedaling Fool]

Nope, maps are useless and they destroy the sense of adventure that makes the AT....
Some would say the same thing about all those White Blazes; they completely destroy any sense of adventure.

[woodsy]

clured: Trust yourself, not your mapsThis advice is what keeps search and rescue crews busy.

[dessertrat]

Get the maps. You won't be sorry.

[clured]

Some would say the same thing about all those White Blazes; they completely destroy any sense of adventure.

Yeah, they pretty much do.

Whew, look at the geezers pounce! Meow! Just because you're pathologically risk-averse doesn't mean everyone is!

[take-a-knee]

blah blah, where's your sense of adventure? Scared is no way to live. Trust yourself, not your maps/gps/phone/helicopter/friends.

Clueless, you can't even wax philosophical without showing your ignorance, I've been scared a lot in my life, in fact, I've never felt more alive than when I was in harm's way. "Trusting yourself" to the non-moron means taking reasonable and prudent precautions and preparations. If the weight of a map is too much for you, you desparately need a conditioning program.

[woodsy]

Yeah, they pretty much do.

Whew, look at the geezers pounce! Meow! Just because you're pathologically risk-averse doesn't mean everyone is!

Its one thing to practice your philosophy on such matters
its another thing to be preaching it to the public
S & R crews would love to get their hands on you

[Lone Wolf]

Yeah, they pretty much do.

Whew, look at the geezers pounce! Meow! Just because you're pathologically risk-averse doesn't mean everyone is!

you've never hiked the trail cyberboy. you know nothing :)

[clured]

I hike alone, always. Maps are only useful (maybe..) if you have someone else to go running for help when you get hurt. But if there is no companion, a map is completely useless. Maps alone cant heli-drop me to safety.

So really, guys, if you want to nag on me for not carrying maps, you better condemn every single hiker that thru-hikes solo, which is a significant percentage. Are they all irresponsible? Foolish? Clueless? No.

You call me a fool for not carryin maps, but I'd wager that each of you will drive a car today, which I'm sure is far more dangerous statistically than strolling in the woods without a little piece of paper with lines on it.

[dessertrat]

Yeah, they pretty much do.

Whew, look at the geezers pounce! Meow! Just because you're pathologically risk-averse doesn't mean everyone is!

It's not about being risk averse. It's about being able to plan when you need to, which helps you make more miles in greater comfort. Knowing where the next water and food are is not a crime. It's also not a bad thing to know where a shelter/tentsite is.

I don't like the idea of camping thirsty and digging an unnecessary cathole to crap in, and then finding out the next morning that water and a privy, and possibly some good company and a fire pit, were a quarter mile further down the trail.

All for the price and weight of a map? What a bargain.

[HIKER7s]

sure cluless. you da man! or should i say packsniffer wannabe


:-? I'm not even sure he looks like a wannabe

[clured]

It's not about being risk averse. It's about being able to plan when you need to, which helps you make more miles in greater comfort. Knowing where the next water and food are is not a crime. It's also not a bad thing to know where a shelter/tentsite is.

I don't like the idea of camping thirsty and digging an unnecessary cathole to crap in, and then finding out the next morning that water and a privy, and possibly some good company and a fire pit, were a quarter mile further down the trail.

All for the price and weight of a map? What a bargain.

Um, exactly! That's why you carry a data book! I cherished my Companion last summer.


you've never hiked the trail cyberboy. you know nothing

Hehe, I already fell for this once!

[Pedaling Fool]

I hike alone, always. Maps are only useful (maybe..) if you have someone else to go running for help when you get hurt. But if there is no companion, a map is completely useless. Maps alone cant heli-drop me to safety.

So really, guys, if you want to nag on me for not carrying maps, you better condemn every single hiker that thru-hikes solo, which is a significant percentage. Are they all irresponsible? Foolish? Clueless? No.

You call me a fool for not carryin maps, but I'd wager that each of you will drive a car today, which I'm sure is far more dangerous statistically than strolling in the woods without a little piece of paper with lines on it.
I don't have a problem with you not carrying maps. I just put in my 2 cents worth for people that ask questions on a topic that they are getting started in something new to them. They can make their own descion on who's advice to take. The fact is a map can be very helpful in a bad situation, there are plenty of examples to support this. Just because one has hiked 10,000 miles on the AT and never needed a map does not mean a map is useless. I've never used my first aid kit, maybe that's useless.

[dessertrat]

Um, exactly! That's why you carry a data book! I cherished my Companion last summer.



Hehe, I already fell for this once!

Why would you carry a data book but not a map? If you want excitement, you should go without any of it, lest you be thought an old geezer.

[weary]

A lot of people have hiked the trail without maps. Just as a lot of people have ridden in cars without wearing seat belts. That doesn't make the practices wise.

Aside from the obvious safety concerns, maps are useful for fully getting to know the trail. I like to know the names of the nearby mountains and something about the terrain I'm walking through.

I know. For some the trail is just a challenge to be met. For them the goal is not to hike and enjoy six months in the woods and mountains, but to be able to say "I hiked the Appalachian Trail."

If it's the latter, struggle by without maps if you wish. You'll most likely quit after a little bit anyway. For those not interested in their surrounding, the trail can be long and monotonous. Unless you are hiking because it's fun you can easily find an excuse to quit.

Weary

[DuctTape]

I always carry the maps, but I know plenty of people who do just fine without them.

[Pedaling Fool]

OK clured, you got me again

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=493698#post493698 (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=493698)

[GGS2]

Whew, look at the geezers pounce! Meow! Just because you're pathologically risk-averse doesn't mean everyone is!

Speaking as a card carrying geezer, it's like this. If you are at home somewhere, not just surviving but thriving with no need for anything you can't lay your hand on real quick, then maps and other navigation aids are a bit redundant. But if you are out of your element, whether it be in a city or in the wilds above tree-line or wherever, then you are on the edge. It takes far less to push you over the edge than many would credit. The AT is usually not very far from some sort of support, so it's not quite the same as being lost on, say, the barren lands north of 60, but for most people just contemplating their first great adventure out in the "wilderness". it may be the first time they have ever been in this situation. We geezers are concerned about these folks. If you opt out of that group, fine. Go do whatever you like. All we are counceling is, don't send newbies out with no training or familiarization AND without equipment that can save their trip and possibly their lives.

[emerald]

I always carry the maps, but I know plenty of people who do just fine without them.

You mean like the hikers I read about in the local newspaper who someone needs to go find?;)

[Pony]

You call me a fool for not carryin maps, but I'd wager that each of you will drive a car today, which I'm sure is far more dangerous statistically than strolling in the woods without a little piece of paper with lines on it.

I carry a road atlas in my car too. As a matter of fact this atlas helped me find a campground between Yellowstone and Grand Teton. Both parks were closed for the evening and there was a really nasty storm rolling into the area. The only other road was a gravel road going into Idaho without a town for 70+/- miles. I could have been in real trouble out there without a map, yes even a road map. Maps of any kind are valuable.

[The Old Fhart]

OSUBCS#1-"I carry a road atlas in my car too."...and my handheld GPS has street routing software loaded so I can get through a city without getting lost. Anyone who has tried to drive through the maze of city one-way surface streets without a good map or GPS knows what it is like to check into the Hotel California (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPIuIwSJ41s)!:eek:

[scavenger]

I don't drive. SO THERE.

[Blissful]

Get the maps. They're not for finding your way along the AT, they're for finding your way off the AT should you need to in a hurry. Would you drive from Georgia to Maine without maps?? Why not? the roads are clearly marked.....


oh I like this. :)

And the trail is NOT clearly marked in many areas. I needed my maps several times to see where the trail went, esp crossings. (and yes, there were times I didn't need them, but I liked them nevertheless) In wilderness areas the blazes are few and far between. My son Paul Bunyan got lost in Maine without a map (I had it) and had to have a family drive him five miles back to the trail because he thought the white markings on trees down this gravel road were the trail. We couldn't find the trail in places in PA and some areas down south. So the idea that you only follow the blazes (and you're an - ahem, idiot for wanting or using maps) is a load of horse hockies.... (sorry I am in one of those moods today)

[clured]

...and my handheld GPS has street routing software loaded so I can get through a city without getting lost. Anyone who has tried to drive through the maze of city one-way surface streets without a good map or GPS knows what it is like to check into the Hotel California (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPIuIwSJ41s)!:eek:

That's not the point. I'm not comparing trail maps to road maps. Just that if you are willing to get into a car and drive, then it is clear that you are mentally equipped to accept a relatively enormous amount of personal risk. The chance that you are going to die in a car accident is HUGE, really, and the fact that modern Americans - obsessed as we are with personal safety - are willing to accept the statistical dice-roll of driving is incredible, a real wonder of psychology.

My issue isn't so much with map-carrying hikers that tell people that don't carry maps that they are stupid; this is annoying, but it is symptomatic of something more basic: the weird idea that hiking is a high-risk activity. It isn't. Things like war, driving, and sex are high-risk. Hiking is a walk in the woods.

Before I came to these forums I thought people went hiking because they were out looking for a little a$$-kicking by the woods, a little bit of healthy hardship. I thought hiking was about sticking your neck out a little bit, getting out of your comfort zone. I still think so, but apparently this has become an irresponsible attitude (?).

[Jack Tarlin]

Clured:

I've been involved with searches/rescues many, many times, both on and off the A.T.

I never, and I mean NEVER was involved with searching for someone who had a map.

So yeah, hiking without a map is indeed irresponsible. It puts both the hiker, and the potential rescuer at risk.

If people want to make their trips riskier or more reckless, that's entirely up to them.

But encouraging other people to do likewise, especially when some of these peope may have limited outdoor experience, is not, in my opinion, a wise or prudent thing to be doing, here on Whiteblaze or anywhere else.

[SGT Rock]

Actually not everyone looks for asskicking by the woods. I'm not exactly sure what that even means....

Asskicking in the woods?

We have a saying in the Army, the most dangerous person is someone that did something once.

The AT is one of the best marked trails ever, but it isn't always well marked or easy to find on every inch. If you are hiking during a peak hiking season it is easy to just follow the crowds or the tracks of the crowds and claim to be living on the edge, but in truth you're sort of "living in the herd" - depending on the assumption you never get off the path on accident or have to get off the path because of some accident or event.

I've seen it happen even in the Smokies, folks end up on Leconte because they are following the trail and make one very slight mistake. I've seen it in Vigina near Buzzard Rock, I've seen it other places too. So if you are hiking totally by guidebook and make one of these mistakes you can end up miles away from the AT - at least where you got off if you can even figure out where you screwed up at. With a map, you could find you are only a half mile away from the trail if you hang a left and walk a side road or trail.

The other possibility is you get messed up somewhere on the trail or someone else gets messed up and you need to help them. The awsome guidebook may tell you that 7 miles up you cross a road and that would be the way to go to get to a hostel or whatever, but a map of the area could show you that when you are at a gap 1/2 mile up you are within 50 yards of a road or other trail that gets you to civilization even faster.

Sure a guidebook gets you from point A to point B, but if there is anything else that has to happen that ain't in the guidebook... well a prudent person gets the point.

Anyway, there are other good reasons to get maps I ain't even covered. But this is like a teenager telling you that you can max out a credit card and not pay - paying is for people that don't live on the edge! It may not seem important until someday...

[Lilred]

nfields222, here's a little yardstick to decide whose advice to follow. Check out the number of posts the person has made and how long they've been a member here at Whiteblaze. It's not 100% accurate, but it gives you an idea of the experience of the poster when nothing else does.

Clured---52 posts, member for about a year.

Lone Wolf---13,670+ posts, member for over 5 years

Jack Tarlin--7,767 posts, member for over 5 years

Who do you want to take advice from???

[Kirby]

Nfields222:
I apologize if you found my opening post to be rude or offensive, that was in no way my intention.

It's nothing against you, I'm just suffering repeat thread syndrome, there have been several threads along this line recently, which is why some people may have seemed hostile, which is not the intention (for most of the people).

As Wolf said, the search feature of this site is wonderful, you will find a lot of useful information browsing through old threads.

See you on the trail,
Kirby

[Lilred]

Oops forgot to add Rock to that list of experienced hikers, and there are many many more here on Whiteblaze. When I was a newbie, this is how I decided who's advice to follow. Worked well for me.

[Jack Tarlin]

Actually, I'm not sure that's such a great yardstick......some of the wisest things I've read here at WB have been said by folks who post quite rarely. The sheer number of one's posts doesn't always indicate that someone is right. (I know that's sometimes true with me!)

On the other hand, the vast majority of folks who have extensive (and in some cases VERY extensive) experience on the Appalachian Trail believe that it's a really good idea to bring current maps and to know how to use them, and that to encourage people not to do so is not particularly good advice.

[GGS2]

Before I came to these forums ... I thought hiking was about sticking your neck out a little bit, getting out of your comfort zone. I still think so, but apparently this has become an irresponsible attitude (?).

Comfort zone, maybe. Those who go looking for risky situation just to get an adrenalin rush are trusting to dumb luck to pull it out for them when they can't/don't pull it out themselves by skill. Sooner of later they will come up short, if they don't learn something along the way. You don't get an infinite number of chances. I don't go base jumping or rock climbing not because a lot of people who do that come a cropper sooner or later, but because I am not looking for a rush in everything I do. Looking to self medicate with endorphins is not the point. I know that's what a lot of people do, but it doesn't mean that is the whole point of being. I go out solo because there I can meet myself and see who I am, and do something about it. I always come back from a solo having learned something about myself, and become a bit more sane, a bit more human. I get into trouble because I'm an idiot. That's not a virtue.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that there are fabulous views, marvelous creatures and other people better than me out there too.

[gungho]

Actually, I'm not sure that's such a great yardstick......some of the wisest things I've read here at WB have been said by folks who post quite rarely. The sheer number of one's posts doesn't always indicate that someone is right. (I know that's sometimes true with me!)

On the other hand, the vast majority of folks who have extensive (and in some cases VERY extensive) experience on the Appalachian Trail believe that it's a really good idea to bring current maps and to know how to use them, and that to encourage people not to do so is not particularly good advice.

I have observed that as well. It isn't as much about the posts as it is about how long the person has been associated with whiteblaze. That at least gives you a sense that they have done their research or have experienced it on their own or through someone elses eyes.

[Mags]

I just go out into the woods because I enjoy it.

But I'm an admitted wimp. I'll leave the asskicking to others.

[Lion King]

I'm planning a thru hike and some of things I've read have mentioned the maps not being worth the weight. I have the 2008 Appalachian Pages and I'm wondering if I'm really going to need all of those expensive maps to find my way around or if the blazes and the Appalachian Pages will be enough to guide me.

Thanks in advance for any advice.


No. Absolutely not.

They are fun to look at, but the AT is easy to navigate.

[Lion King]

Ya know...I will add this.

Some people NEED maps, some will have problems without them cuz they rely on them so much...which is great, and I do like looking at them, but I think its a personal choice, but as Rock says, it helps out the ATC if nothing else.

I was saying as for me, personaly, they arent needed.

[Jack Tarlin]

In other words, King, you don't think they are needed, but you admit that you enjoy looking at them.

By this, I presume you mean that you enjoy looking at other people's, right? :D

I hope this philosophy of relying on other people is not applied when it comes to such things as your gear, your shelter, your clothes, your food.

Cuz sooner or later one's fellow hikers would get pretty tired of this. :rolleyes:

[Montego]

There is an old saying, "There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots". To not use maps is not foolish. To not have maps available to use is.

[HighlanderII]

1) I use the maps for planning (while on the trail) -- the profiles give me an idea of the difficulty of the trail for the next day (of course the last long hike I did, I would just pick a fixed distance to go and hike that distance the next day so this is probably only a psychological benefit).
2) I use them very seldom to determine where water is.
3) I use them very seldom to determine which way to go to get to town at road crossings.
4) I use them sometimes to determine where a good campsite would be based on the map contour lines. This is especially helpful when hiking long days and you're planning a stopping in an area that doesn't look especially campable.

I carry the data book and companion in addition and probably could get by without the maps given what I use the maps for.

The trail is (or at least was in 2003) well enough marked so the maps really weren't necessary for a thru-hike (this was entirely different in the early 90's but times have changed since them). Relos can be more difficult to follow but in that case the maps really don't do any good anyway. The caveat I would put on this is that if you're planning on hiking at the front of the pack or when the leaves start to drop in the Fall, it might be better to have the maps -- once 1000 people walk over a section of trail it is pretty apparent where it goes but this doesn't apply at the front of the pack. But if you are new at it, I'd probably at least start with the maps and then stop carrying them if you decide they're of no value.

As far as who to trust on the site, I already know what I'm doing so I'm more interested in seperating the wheat from the chafe in what some people say. If they have a journal or something like that, I'll take a look at it, otherwise I'm somewhat wary of any info. Realize that people have different hiking styles and opinions so what works for one may not work for another.

[Lion King]

In other words, King, you don't think they are needed, but you admit that you enjoy looking at them.

By this, I presume you mean that you enjoy looking at other people's, right? :D

I hope this philosophy of relying on other people is not applied when it comes to such things as your gear, your shelter, your clothes, your food.

Cuz sooner or later one's fellow hikers would get pretty tired of this. :rolleyes:


Oh, if they have them out I will sure look at them, but not for planning or plotting.

I think they just are neat.

And far as all that other stuff, its all sponsered so I just rely on the gear folk:D

[clured]

I think these discussions get blown out of proportion; I certainly don't mean to run around like a rabid madman calling everyone that carries maps a pansy, although I realize that it could seem that way. My only objection is the condescending attitude of some posters (L.Wolf, Jack Tarlin), the idea that non-map-carrying hikers are "foolish" or "irresponsible" or "clueless."

This is really just flame-bait. If someone dies in a car wreck, would you call them a irresponsible fool? He/she knew the risks when the got in the car, as all drivers do. The point is that we all tolerate a certain amount of risk, and surely not carring maps on the AT falls into the "tolerable" category if driving does. What percentage of hikers suffer catastrophic injuries on the AT? How many die? Not many. Hiking in the American East in the summer is really incredibly safe.

If safety is a personal concern, then by all means carry maps! Even if it just makes you rest easier at night, it is probably worth it. It is true, they weigh nothing. My objection is the idea that people who happen not to carry them are fools. I think L.Wolf and Jack Tarlin, with all their sagely wisdom, could agree that this is an overstatement.

I think that people tend to exaggerate the danger involved with hiking. There is a tendency to "explornography" on these forums - the inflation of the risks of hiking, which presumably makes the whole affair more romantic and glorious.

Also, no one has answered my question about solo hiking. If you condemn map-less hikers, then you have to call all solo hikers fools as well, because all the pro-map/emergency scenarios always involve "give the map to your buddy..." or something similar, some uninjured third party. Really, injuries fall into two groups: walkable and non-walkable ("walkable" becomes a broader category in a real emergency; it's incredible what people can make motion on). If you are alone, and the injury is non-walkable, you are f-ed either way; maps do nothing for you, because you do not have any capacity to follow them anywhere. You're going to hunker down no matter what (which isn't a problem on the AT, since it is so temperate!)

But look, here we are again at explornography. I could get hit by a car on the way home from the library tonight; but was I really a fool for coming?

[SGT Rock]

Also, no one has answered my question about solo hiking.
Actually they ignored it because your point is not very good.

[Appalachian Tater]

You don't need maps. If you get lost, just call 911 on your cell phone and they will come get you out with a helicopter. This is also handy if you get blisters.

[SGT Rock]

I helped a lost hiker this year (well two of 'em) on the BMT. It was the classic example of a guy with a GPS and a cell phone but no map. He had instructions from his friend which he thought he was following but screwed it up. Since he didn't have a map he had no idea where exactly he was or which way to go as he had left the area he had instructions for.

Now extrapolate that to the AT and a guidebook. If you get off the guidebook route or loose where you think you are in the guidebook, then you have nothing to cross reference it until another hiker (like me) shows up with a map.

When I got there, he was on the phone with someone trying to get this person back in Atlanta to tell him where he was and which way to go. Once he got a look at the map and we figured out from the instructions where he was supposed to go, we got both of them back on track.

Think of a guidebook like a set of instruction on how to put together a bike. You might be able to follow the book and never get lost at all, but if you had a picture of what the bike is also supposed to look like then you have a way to tell if you are doing it right.

[The Old Fhart]

Clured-"That's not the point. I'm not comparing trail maps to road maps. Just that if you are willing to get into a car and drive, then it is clear that you are mentally equipped to accept a relatively enormous amount of personal risk."That's not the point at all. It has to do with getting from point A to point B and trying to be aware of your surroundings. No one, not even you:rolleyes: can memorize the entire 2176 miles of the A.T. and know escape routes, etc. What I exactly said was:

TOF...and my handheld GPS has street routing software loaded so I can get through a city without getting lost. Anyone who has tried to drive through the maze of city one-way surface streets without a good map or GPS knows what it is like to check into the Hotel California (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPIuIwSJ41s)!:eek:

Clured-"My only objection is the condescending attitude of some posters (L.Wolf, Jack Tarlin), the idea that non-map-carrying hikers are "foolish" or "irresponsible" or "clueless.""It isn't condescending, it's simple fact. How many knowledgeable people have to tell the same thing before you realize it? I've been instructing map and compass in NH AMC workshops for over 25 years and I'll tell you that your flaunting your lack of understanding of the value of maps makes you look "foolish", "irresponsible" AND "clueless.";)

Clured-"...If someone dies in a car wreck, would you call them a irresponsible fool? "..but if If someone dies in a car wreck and they weren't wearing their seatbelt that might apply.:-?

Clured-"If safety is a personal concern, then by all means carry maps! "Exactly! And the logical conclusion of that statement is if safety isn't a personal concern, then you don't carry maps. That fits the definition of irresponsible.

Clured-"I could get hit by a car on the way home from the library tonight; but was I really a fool for coming?"...but if you act irresponsibly and ignore safety considerations then maybe you should stay home because you'd be a fool coming or going!:D

[GGS2]

Also, no one has answered my question about solo hiking.

Ok, I'll bite. The situation you propose, as Sgt. Rock suggests, is not illustrative of the utility or not of maps. As a solo, I do not carry maps so that my buddy can get me out of trouble, or so that when I am in **** up to my ears I can while away the time I have left by looking at the pretty contours. I carry a map to help me avoid getting into the **** in the first place. In new country, it is easy to get turned around unless you are practicing full orienteering discipline. The sun goes away, the trail twists, and there you are, wondering why the trail goes there when it aught to go here. And then you come to an ambiguous blaze series and you're confused. Don't smile, it has happened to everyone. All it takes is a quick glance at a map to straighten yourself out, and you're back on track. Walk past the confusion in a moment of inattention, and you're wrong, and may not realize it for quite some time. You can be miles off the route and thoroughly turned around before you know it. Explorers are very familiar with this scenario, and hikers who depend on herd following and the like are bound to lose their way also. Most of the time, it is of no particular consequence, which is why people are not upset at all the rank novices who set out to walk across a continent with no experience in route finding or orienteering. But for some, it may lead to unfortunate experiences which are thoroughly avoidable, and which, in the wrong circumstances can be actually dangerous.

I have gone into well marked but unfamiliar trail systems with the intention of getting lost, because I knew that I could simply walk my way out of that loss. It is a good way to learn a nice, contained trail set. After a few adventures of no consequence, you know what everything looks like, and you have the picture of the ground in your mind. Then a map is just a nice way to confirm the details and look for things that you may have missed.

I have also walked on a long trail without a proper map, and spent several hours exploring side trails that I didn't intend to follow. I also got off on the wrong side of a ridge and cost myself time and money to get to where I wanted to be in the cold rain and mud. If I had been a rank amateur, I could have caused considerable trouble to people who might have had to rescue me. As it was, it was just me who suffered needlessly.

Given the choice, I would not pass on having a good map when attempting an AT thru for the first time. It's just not worth it. Even when you come upon a relo which is not on the map, the map will tell you where the old trail went, and therefore will give you a good idea of where the new trail is going, too. All the trail guides will tell you to follow the blazes, but there are lots of situations where the blazes are just not completely clear. If you already know the trail, no problem. If you don't, this can lead to lots of anxious minutes while you walk down a beaten path that may or may not be the main trail. Every advantage helps.

Now, if you are an experienced outdoorsman, and you don't like following blazes, and you just want to follow the land, well and good. Be my guest. But do not try to convince novice hikers that this is good and safe practice for them. They will not thank you for it, and nor will other people if things go wrong.

[Lone Wolf]

I think these discussions get blown out of proportion; I certainly don't mean to run around like a rabid madman calling everyone that carries maps a pansy, although I realize that it could seem that way. My only objection is the condescending attitude of some posters (L.Wolf, Jack Tarlin), the idea that non-map-carrying hikers are "foolish" or "irresponsible" or "clueless."

This is really just flame-bait. If someone dies in a car wreck, would you call them a irresponsible fool? He/she knew the risks when the got in the car, as all drivers do. The point is that we all tolerate a certain amount of risk, and surely not carring maps on the AT falls into the "tolerable" category if driving does. What percentage of hikers suffer catastrophic injuries on the AT? How many die? Not many. Hiking in the American East in the summer is really incredibly safe.

If safety is a personal concern, then by all means carry maps! Even if it just makes you rest easier at night, it is probably worth it. It is true, they weigh nothing. My objection is the idea that people who happen not to carry them are fools. I think L.Wolf and Jack Tarlin, with all their sagely wisdom, could agree that this is an overstatement.

I think that people tend to exaggerate the danger involved with hiking. There is a tendency to "explornography" on these forums - the inflation of the risks of hiking, which presumably makes the whole affair more romantic and glorious.

Also, no one has answered my question about solo hiking. If you condemn map-less hikers, then you have to call all solo hikers fools as well, because all the pro-map/emergency scenarios always involve "give the map to your buddy..." or something similar, some uninjured third party. Really, injuries fall into two groups: walkable and non-walkable ("walkable" becomes a broader category in a real emergency; it's incredible what people can make motion on). If you are alone, and the injury is non-walkable, you are f-ed either way; maps do nothing for you, because you do not have any capacity to follow them anywhere. You're going to hunker down no matter what (which isn't a problem on the AT, since it is so temperate!)

But look, here we are again at explornography. I could get hit by a car on the way home from the library tonight; but was I really a fool for coming?

how much of the AT have you walked, kid?

[clured]

how much of the AT have you walked, kid?


All of it, last summer. Every blaze.

[Kirby]

All of it, last summer. Every blaze.

Did you at any point during your trip look at anyone's map for any reason what so ever?

Kirby

[clured]

Ok, I'll bite. The situation you propose, as Sgt. Rock suggests, is not illustrative of the utility or not of maps. As a solo, I do not carry maps so that my buddy can get me out of trouble, or so that when I am in **** up to my ears I can while away the time I have left by looking at the pretty contours. I carry a map to help me avoid getting into the **** in the first place. In new country, it is easy to get turned around unless you are practicing full orienteering discipline. The sun goes away, the trail twists, and there you are, wondering why the trail goes there when it aught to go here. And then you come to an ambiguous blaze series and you're confused. Don't smile, it has happened to everyone. All it takes is a quick glance at a map to straighten yourself out, and you're back on track. Walk past the confusion in a moment of inattention, and you're wrong, and may not realize it for quite some time. You can be miles off the route and thoroughly turned around before you know it. Explorers are very familiar with this scenario, and hikers who depend on herd following and the like are bound to lose their way also. Most of the time, it is of no particular consequence, which is why people are not upset at all the rank novices who set out to walk across a continent with no experience in route finding or orienteering. But for some, it may lead to unfortunate experiences which are thoroughly avoidable, and which, in the wrong circumstances can be actually dangerous.

I have gone into well marked but unfamiliar trail systems with the intention of getting lost, because I knew that I could simply walk my way out of that loss. It is a good way to learn a nice, contained trail set. After a few adventures of no consequence, you know what everything looks like, and you have the picture of the ground in your mind. Then a map is just a nice way to confirm the details and look for things that you may have missed.

I have also walked on a long trail without a proper map, and spent several hours exploring side trails that I didn't intend to follow. I also got off on the wrong side of a ridge and cost myself time and money to get to where I wanted to be in the cold rain and mud. If I had been a rank amateur, I could have caused considerable trouble to people who might have had to rescue me. As it was, it was just me who suffered needlessly.

Given the choice, I would not pass on having a good map when attempting an AT thru for the first time. It's just not worth it. Even when you come upon a relo which is not on the map, the map will tell you where the old trail went, and therefore will give you a good idea of where the new trail is going, too. All the trail guides will tell you to follow the blazes, but there are lots of situations where the blazes are just not completely clear. If you already know the trail, no problem. If you don't, this can lead to lots of anxious minutes while you walk down a beaten path that may or may not be the main trail. Every advantage helps.

Now, if you are an experienced outdoorsman, and you don't like following blazes, and you just want to follow the land, well and good. Be my guest. But do not try to convince novice hikers that this is good and safe practice for them. They will not thank you for it, and nor will other people if things go wrong.

Well, I guess my personal experience is just different from yours. Last summer I thought the AT was over-blazed to the point of excess. I'd say that I "lost" the trail four or five times during my hike, but in each case I realized that something was up within ten minutes, and easily backtracked.

I found that the constant procession of white blazes became a sort of silent ticker in my head, a constant that I came to expect. I remember that when made a wrong turn, I would be walking along and suddenly I'd just feel like something was up, and the first thing I'd do was look up and see if I could see blaze; if I couldn't, I would walk another five minutes, and if nothing showed up I knew I was off the trail. In all of the cases that I got "lost," I realized what had happened almost instantly. I guess I could have pulled out a map in these cases, but what would it have really told me? Backtrack? I don't need a map to tell me that.

Interestingly, GGS2, you have nothing to say about my real question about solo hiking - the injury issue. Would you agree that a disabled solo hiker is up the same creek, maps or no maps?

As for my being clueless, Old Phart, listen to what I am saying (also, why so acrimonious?). Should you carry maps and compass in the Whites? Absolutely. My argument is ONLY for the AT. Next summer on the PCT (if the money adds up..) OF COURSE I will carry maps, because the trail is not consistently blazed. I am not a reckless cowboy. I just think that the AT is a special case because of the incredible trail upkeep, blazing, and infrastructure (cheers to the people that make this happen).

[clured]

Did you at any point during your trip look at anyone's map for any reason what so ever?

Kirby

Yes. A southbounder just offered to give me a map for the Caratunk - Monson section in Maine the he had already hiked. I took it, and it was fun I guess; I liked looking at it. But also useless. And in some ways disappointing. I knew exactly what to expect. This isn't fun.

[Lone Wolf]

did you ford the river

[clured]

did you ford the river

No. The official route is in the canoe, and I don't cheat!

[Lone Wolf]

puss. what about adventure. cheat? sheeple. post a copy of your certificate :D

[The Old Fhart]

Clured-"As for my being clueless, Old Phart, listen to what I am saying (also, why so acrimonious?)."I am listening to what you're saying and the fact that you can't even spell my name correctly speaks volumes about your abilities.

Sorry if you think my pointing out your foibles is somehow acrimonious, I'll repeat it is "foolish", "irresponsible" AND "clueless." How someone can claim to have hiked the A.T. and can see no use for maps clearly supports that.

[clured]

puss. what about adventure. cheat? sheeple. post a copy of your certificate :D

Hehe agreed, it was a cowardly decision; I took wingfoot's alarmist advice... I'll do it next time I hike.




I am listening to what you're saying and the fact that you can't even spell my name correctly speaks volumes about your abilities.

Sorry if you think my pointing out your foibles is somehow acrimonious, I'll repeat it is "foolish", "irresponsible" AND "clueless." How someone can claim to have hiked the A.T. and can see no use for maps clearly supports that.


Oh, haha, sorry I misspelled your ridiculous, ignorant, already-misspelled nickname. My abilities? Oh my, I would welcome a contest of verbal capacity! My claim to have hiked? That's an interesting word choice..

[Lilred]

Actually, I'm not sure that's such a great yardstick......some of the wisest things I've read here at WB have been said by folks who post quite rarely. The sheer number of one's posts doesn't always indicate that someone is right. (I know that's sometimes true with me!)

On the other hand, the vast majority of folks who have extensive (and in some cases VERY extensive) experience on the Appalachian Trail believe that it's a really good idea to bring current maps and to know how to use them, and that to encourage people not to do so is not particularly good advice.


Ya, I know, that's why I said it wasn't 100% accurate, but when you're a newbie and don't know who to listen to, that is just one way to weed out the 'cyberhikers'.

[kayak karl]

I always carry a map. my dad taught me to read a TOPO map at 10 yrs old. right after the thanksgiving day disaster hike. we got lost. 3 hrs late for dinner. had to toss our hats in the front door to see if we were welcome. over the years ive learned, those that say u dont need maps, can't read them:D. even if their life depended on it.:D

[The Old Fhart]

Clured-"Oh, haha, sorry I misspelled your ridiculous, ignorant, already-misspelled nickname. My abilities? Oh my, I would welcome a contest of verbal capacity! My claim to have hiked? That's an interesting word choice.."First you misspell my name, then try a feeble attempt to insult me, and challenge me to a pi**ing contest. You've already lost, better quit before you show more of "abilities" or your claimed level of "verbal capacity".:D

[GGS2]

Interestingly, GGS2, you have nothing to say about my real question about solo hiking - the injury issue. Would you agree that a disabled solo hiker is up the same creek, maps or no maps?

Sure. Disabled is disabled. If you're out solo, especially off the beaten track, the trick is not to get that way in the first place. That was my point. If you are really disabled, as in broken leg or something equally bad, you have to go into survival mode for a while to heal up or whack together a mobility rig out of whatever you can find, or wait for the SARs. If you panic, you're sunk. If you have no idea what survival means, you're sunk. If you can't make a fire or a shelter, ditto. If you don't know what signs to make to increase your visibility... If you want to try to hump it out to the nearest road, then a map will greatly increase your chances. Surprise! It also helps to have a map if you get a chance to speak to SAR on a phone. Even better if you know where you are (map coordinates).

If we are talking about being bear whacked through no fault of your own, on a long solo with no ETA or other backup, your chances of survival depend on how well you did in your survival course. Do you remember enough of the stuff you learned? Every person who goes into the great wild takes their life into their own hands. But we were talking about the AT, weren't we? The AT is kind of the Interstate of hiking trails. Not much chance of being overlooked unless you lost your way and fell off a cliff. Watch out for cliffs. They're marked on the maps.

End of discussion for me. HYOH as they say, but please don't mislead too many people while you're at it.

[kayak karl]

First you misspell my name, then try a feeble attempt to insult me, and challenge me to a pi**ing contest. You've already lost, better quit before you show more of "abilities" or your claimed level of "verbal capacity".:D
....?....

[clured]

First you misspell my name, then try a feeble attempt to insult me, and challenge me to a pi**ing contest. You've already lost, better quit before you show more of "abilities" or your claimed level of "verbal capacity".:D

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Unfortunately, "losing" is a rather subjective thing!

Isn't it a big shame there's no more frontier? No more new world? No real excitement? No real adventure? Tossing the maps reclaims a speck of this lost thing in the world.

Cheers Old Fhart, over&out.

[SunnyWalker]

I used the maps on the AT and not guidebooks. I had friends who used the guidebooks. They would read those little things and tell me what I could not do and etc., mostly it was around water issues. I would sit there and say, "Well, see here on this map, there is water there". And they would say "No, no water until . . ." you get the drift. My maps never failed me. Also was helpful in planning the next day or week and replenishment to go to towns. -SunnyWalker

[The Old Fhart]

Clured-"Unfortunately, "losing" is a rather subjective thing!".."losing" or being lost doesn't happen if you carry a map and know how to use it!:D


Clured-"Tossing the maps reclaims a speck of this lost thing in the world."Ignorance is never bliss, it is just ignorance. ;)

[clured]

.."losing" or being lost doesn't happen if you carry a map and know how to use it!:D

Ignorance is never bliss, it is just ignorance. ;)

Ah ha! Ignorance is ignorance, but discovery of the unknown is bliss!

[dessertrat]

The difference between solo hiking and hiking without a map is that there are good reasons to hike solo. There doesn't seem to be any very good reason to hike without a map other than being cheap or lazy.

[Appalachian Tater]

There doesn't seem to be any very good reason to hike without a map other than being cheap or lazy.

Helicopter rides.

[hopefulhiker]

I do like the watermarked profiles in the Appalachian Pages guidebook.. I know some people who just cut out the profiles out of the map set and carried them... I carried a used mapset, two or three at a time, as a just in case measure...They were accurate enough...

[The Old Fhart]

Clured-"Ah ha! Ignorance is ignorance, but discovery of the unknown is bliss!Wrong again. Living in an alternate universe and trying to pretend you're "discovering" the unknown wonder on the A.T. isn't bliss, its delusion. ;)

[HIKER7s]

Walking a blazed trail without a map. Lets take the AT for example.

Its one thing going on a day hike, in a known area, hiking a known trail without a map. However, you dont do that on an unfamiliar trail and/or one youve never been on before.

Since you dont use maps, do you use a compass? Do you use a GPS (and thats why your not using maps :), which you should have as a backup anyway)

So if your just going to trailblaze; what happens at the first juncture where the trail is blurred due to blowdowns, a missed turn, just following the path in your thoughts never realizing the AT branched off somewhere and your now on some other path. Then, you track-back to find that now (sometimes those side trails branch off many times) your in a quagmire of trails and each one looks like its the way to go.

What about your blazes themselves. As you go on your way are you just following the white blazes? That, in some areas can get you hosed too as (cant remember, I think its either state or national park boundries) at times the trail intermingles with a white DOT trail (your following the rectangles). If you dont recognize it right away, that can get you going where you didnt want to go. Then if youve gone far enough, your gonna need a map or spend alot of time re-finding the AT.


And what I guess is one of the most important reasons for a map. If something happens to you or another hiker you come upon and you need to relay the information as to your location to rescuers how better to pinpoint where you are.

[Cheesewhiz]

I carried the maps in 06 and do not regret it one bit. I never NEEDED the maps but it was cheap insurance if I did get in a situation. I did not buy all the maps all at once. Maps are ever changing. The chances of everyone finishing are slim so I purchased GA - Damascus before I left then ordered them as I needed in about 500 mile blocks from the ATC and got them shipped ahead. The main problem about maps is that you end up carrying them for all the other dip ****s that thought they would never need or use them on their hike and now they want to see the forever lying elevation profile's every break you take.

[Cheesewhiz]

Remember that the AT has been rerouted so many times in so many locations it is easy to take the old AT and not realize it because they are sometimes still blazed, faint but still blazed. Don't be a fool and always carry a map familiar or not.