Guidebooks

[TrippinBTM]

If I were to bring one guidebook (between the data book, thru-hikers companion, and the thru-hikers handbook) with me on the AT, which should I choose?

[Lone Wolf]

thru-hikers handbook

[Roland]

If I were to bring one guidebook (between the data book, thru-hikers companion, and the thru-hikers handbook) with me on the AT, which should I choose?

I hate to cause you more confusion, but there's a new kid (http://appalachianpages.com/) on the block.

[gungho]

ditto,the thru-hikers companion is definetly the way to go

[hikermiker]

Take the companion & the data book, they are complementary, but tear them into sections so you are only carrying about 1 - 2 weeks worth at a time.

[gungho]

I hate to cause you more confusion, but there's a new kid (http://appalachianpages.com/) on the block.

Just when you think you have it all figured out,here comes another alternative to think about,but really just how much more info do you really need?:-?

[Pedaling Fool]

Take the companion & the data book, they are complementary, but tear them into sections so you are only carrying about 1 - 2 weeks worth at a time.
In 2005 they were complimentary, but since the new format starting in 2006, that would be redundant.

There's so much information out there and services, I don't think it much matters which one you get, but the Data Book does not give info on services.

[Roland]

Just when you think you have it all figured out,here comes another alternative to think about,but really just how much more info do you really need?:-?

Most only need one guidebook. The books vary in the way the information is organized and displayed. Pick the one that works best for you. It's nice to have a choice.

[TrippinBTM]

What is in each of these books? That is, what is each good for? I won't buy the state by state guidebooks, but do the ones I mentioned have that sort of info? Sorry for the dumb a** question...

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Data Book - mileage and points on the trail only
Companion - mileage and info about services (most accurate, but many don't like the format)
Appalachian Pages - mileage and more limited info about services (least accurate, but many like the format)
Thru Hiker Handbook - mileage and best info about services (also very accurate, but many don't like the format

[TrippinBTM]

thanks a ton, i think the thruhiker handbook sounds best. Is it big/heavy?

[Lone Wolf]

about 5" x 8"

[Alligator]

Data Book - mileage and points on the trail only
Companion - mileage and info about services (most accurate, but many don't like the format)
Appalachian Pages - mileage and more limited info about services (least accurate, but many like the format)
Thru Hiker Handbook - mileage and best info about services (also very accurate, but many don't like the formatFD-

I've mentioned this before, but it looks like I will need to say this again. It's very irresponsible of you to be making these claims so early after publication. What sort of objective criteria have you used to determine the accuracy of these three works? Just two days ago (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=530547#post530547) you stated you hadn't even seen The Thru-Hiker Handbook:-?, yet you are making statements regarding its accuracy:confused:. You aren't a thruhiker and admittedly have been unable to do lengthy sections of the trail in recent years. What qualifies you as a critic to these works? Have you used these three works on the trail this year? If so, for what sections?

One of these is brand new and another has a new author. All three works were very recently published and not a single hiker has used any of these in a complete thruhike as of yet (unless Wildcowboy started early:eek:). Some field testing is certainly in order before a complete assessment can be made. In addition, before critically comparing the three, it would help to have some sort of objective criteria to make the comparison.

[OregonHiker]

FD-

. It's very irresponsible of you to be making these claims so early after publication. What sort of objective criteria have you used to determine the accuracy of these three works? .

I wouldn't hold your breathe waiting for FD to back up her assertions with objective observations from her first hand reviews of the three books.

BTW, Isn't the author of the Pages also a co-owner of WB? While I would be just as disappointed if FD shilled for AP, it makes me wonder if there's something simmering in the background:-?

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

FD-

I've mentioned this before, but it looks like I will need to say this again. It's very irresponsible of you to be making these claims so early after publication. What sort of objective criteria have you used to determine the accuracy of these three works? Just two days ago (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=530547#post530547) you stated you hadn't even seen The Thru-Hiker Handbook:-?, yet you are making statements regarding its accuracy:confused:. You aren't a thruhiker and admittedly have been unable to do lengthy sections of the trail in recent years. What qualifies you as a critic to these works? Have you used these three works on the trail this year? If so, for what sections?

One of these is brand new and another has a new author. All three works were very recently published and not a single hiker has used any of these in a complete thruhike as of yet (unless Wildcowboy started early:eek:). Some field testing is certainly in order before a complete assessment can be made. In addition, before critically comparing the three, it would help to have some sort of objective criteria to make the comparison.Jack has come out in public and three other multi-time thrus have told me their thoughts on all three privately - and none of those wish to be named so don't even ask. BTW, after a short trip out of town yesterday I have now seen all three of the publications myself - and had the chance to lay them down side by side and compare. I agree with what Jack and the others have said.

As OR Hiker notes, one of the owners of WB is an owner of one of the publications. That does not sway my opinion one way or another. I'm giving his books props for the format, size and multiple ways it can be provided - NOBO, SOBO, unbound - and for the perforated pages. Why you fellows choose to only focus on the negative aspects of my accessment is beyond me.

My misgivings about ALDHA aren't a deep dark secret, but I'm giving their publication props for accuracy and for having enough info listed about towns to be useful.

"Gator, if you don't think I have what it takes to make the evaluation, please feel free to ignore me - not that you need my permission to do that, but apparently you do need a gentle Dino nudge in that direction.

[Christopher Robin]

I not have the new companion but I have 07 and the datea book along w/ one new addition guide book of NY-NJ. & ME,NH-VT,MA-CT, are 2000. I have read all of the foe my SOBO. trip and find the companion, datea and maps to be the book I'll take w/me. The older guide book had lots of good info. but, the new 2007 had very little info. that was of intrest. I wish they would have keep the 2000 conceped the same. Audrey

[Alligator]

Jack has come out in public and three other multi-time thrus have told me their thoughts on all three privately - and none of those wish to be named so don't even ask. BTW, after a short trip out of town yesterday I have now seen all three of the publications myself - and had the chance to lay them down side by side and compare. I agree with what Jack and the others have said.

The three said it privately it should be kept private. They have their reasons for keeping their thoughts to themselves, you should follow their lead.
As OR Hiker notes, one of the owners of WB is an owner of one of the publications. That does not sway my opinion one way or another. I'm giving his books props for the format, size and multiple ways it can be provided - NOBO, SOBO, unbound - and for the perforated pages. Why you fellows choose to only focus on the negative aspects of my accessment is beyond me. I continue to focus on your negative assessments because you are damaging other hikers' businesses without reasonable objectivity. You are acting as a second hand critic. It is extremely irresponsible.


My misgivings about ALDHA aren't a deep dark secret, but I'm giving their publication props for accuracy and for having enough info listed about towns to be useful.

"Gator, if you don't think I have what it takes to make the evaluation, please feel free to ignore me - not that you need my permission to do that, but apparently you do need a gentle Dino nudge in that direction.I'm not going to ignore you. I am going to question your objectivity and credentials to be making these criticisms. Interested purchasers ought to know that you have been making accusations of inaccuracy without a decent personal review of each. In less than 48 hours you have completed a thorough side-by-side fact check of all three guidebooks?

I asked you these questions:
What qualifies you as a critic to these works?
Have you used these three works on the trail this year?
If so, for what sections?

Your reply appears to be, you've looked at them but haven't field tested them:rolleyes:. It is very clear that you are not an authority on the subject.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

The three said it privately it should be kept private. They have their reasons for keeping their thoughts to themselves, you should follow their lead. I continue to focus on your negative assessments because you are damaging other hikers' businesses without reasonable objectivity. You are acting as a second hand critic. It is extremely irresponsible. Actually, two of the three specifically told me their views and asked me to repeat them on WB and the other made it clear he did not mind me repeating it publicly. Their reason for not coming here and saying this themselves is the bashing that characterizes WB. A lot of people won't participate here because they can't handle the sort treatment you are giving me. Dinos have some pretty thick hide and believe the readership here is intelligent enough to judge for themselves if someone is or isn't qualified to speak. They don't need someone else to decide that for them.

As LW says, the books are basically the same. From my own observation: The Handbook has more info - something that makes it especially suitable for section hikers and family following along on someone else's journey IMO - but the size and layout make it less suitable for hiking. The format of the Appalachian Pages is the best suited for actually hiking with the book in hand IMO, but it doesn't contain as much info as the other two so if having extra info is important to you, this may not be the best choice for you. The ADLHA Companion is somewhere inbetween, but its format is a real pain to use.

My only interest in this is seeing that people have the info to make an informed decision about which book will best suit their needs.

[Appalachian Tater]

Actually, two of the three specifically told me their views and asked me to repeat them on WB and the other made it clear he did not mind me repeating it publicly. Their reason for not coming here and saying this themselves is the bashing that characterizes WB. A lot of people won't participate here because they can't handle the sort treatment you are giving me. Dinos have some pretty thick hide and believe the readership here is intelligent enough to judge for themselves if someone is or isn't qualified to speak. They don't need someone else to decide that for them.

As LW says, the books are basically the same. From my own observation: The Handbook has more info - something that makes it especially suitable for section hikers and family following along on someone else's journey IMO - but the size and layout make it less suitable for hiking. The format of the Appalachian Pages is the best suited for actually hiking with the book in hand IMO, but it doesn't contain as much info as the other two so if having extra info is important to you, this may not be the best choice for you. The ADLHA Companion is somewhere inbetween, but its format is a real pain to use.

My only interest in this is seeing that people have the info to make an informed decision about which book will best suit their needs.

You mean you're not in for a cut of the "profits" and you don't take fees for your endorsements?

[Jack Tarlin]

It is my considered opinion that F.D.'s brief comment above is pretty much on the mark, i.e. while many folks beef about the format of the Companion, it is indeed praised for its accuracy, as it is edited by many people, some of whom have hiked the sections they are writing about quite recently.

The new Thru Hikers handbook is very similar to the old one. There are folks who don't like the format (this will always be the case with any Guidebook); but it also contains a wealth of information on both the Trail, and on Trail towns; this information is quite accurate, and the Handbook absolutely has the best town maps pf any of the guidebooks..

The new addition, Appalachian Pages, has been getting significant praise for its format, and such innovations as elevation profiles; the perforated pages are also a nice touch. On the other hand, in its attempt to "streamline" information and keep things concise, it omits a great deal of information that would be useful to hikers, and as F.D. stated, it does indeed contain quite a few mistakes. The "streamlining" would be useful if the book were significantly smaller or lighter than the other guides, but it really isn't; it's only a few pages shorter, and not a whole lot lighter than the Handbook.

In short, it doesn't really matter which book one takes, the differences between the three are not all that great.

But if I were to leave Georgia tomorrow, I would, in all likelihood, be using the Thru-Hikers Handbook.

[Alligator]

Actually, two of the three specifically told me their views and asked me to repeat them on WB and the other made it clear he did not mind me repeating it publicly. Their reason for not coming here and saying this themselves is the bashing that characterizes WB. A lot of people won't participate here because they can't handle the sort treatment you are giving me. Dinos have some pretty thick hide and believe the readership here is intelligent enough to judge for themselves if someone is or isn't qualified to speak. They don't need someone else to decide that for them.
...
There are people who arrive at WB and don't even know there are three guidebooks, let alone your qualifications as a critic. I asked you to give the readers the information to make their own decision. You put yourself out as a critic, back up why you have the credentials to perform a comparitive analysis. I am also suggesting that one some time be allowed to pass to thoroughly vet the new guidebooks and two that perhaps some sort of objective criteria be looked at when comparing the three books.

But spare me the Dino tears, you were laying into The Old Fhart and ALDHA pretty heavily yourself in the past:rolleyes:.

[Jack Tarlin]

Aligator:

Whose qualifications WOULD you find acceptable? :-?

[Footslogger]

I hiked in 2003 and for the record, I used the Thru-Hikers Handbook, then written by Dan "Wingfoot" Bruce. Allowing for things that change after publication I found it to be a pretty accurate guide.

I recently received my copy of the new guide called Appalachain Pages and have thumbed through it casually but have not put any of the information to test nor have I hiked the trail using this guide.

I read here that the Appalachain Pages guidebook has many inaccuracies. Not saying one way or the other ...but I am curious about what those innaccuracies are ??

Has anyone compiled a list of the inaccuracies ??

Thanks in advance ...

'Slogger

[Alligator]

I would consider the input from multiple sources of 2008 thruhikers and sectioners to be fair. People actually out in the field using the guides. I think a more honest and fair assessment could be achieved at the end of the season.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

You mean you're not in for a cut of the "profits" and you don't take fees for your endorsements?You offering? :D

Seriously, I know many of the ALDHA field editors and know ATTroll well enough to have been part of a group sharing breakfast at TD last year. I've seen AWOL a few times at various functions, but he never had time to talk. I have never met Bob McCaw, but have chatted with him some via PMs. I don't have a dog in the race of which guide is best - no financial or other interest.

[Footslogger]

I'd still like to know what some of the inaccuracies are so that I can make the margin corrections in my book ...

'Slogger

[GGS2]

I'd still like to know what some of the inaccuracies are so that I can make the margin corrections in my book ...

'Slogger

Here's a plan: Hike the trail, making sure to visit all the establishments and trail points mentioned, and also any that have been missed, and then write up all the errata you find. Shouldn't take more than twice or three times the mileage and effort of a straight thru. It would be a great service to the whole community. :)

Of course, just going through the books doing the same exercise from memory is a large task. And also one fraught with error. IMO as a publisher, there has never been any book published without error, even after the closest proofreading attention. Any directory like these estimable publications is a proof-reader's and fact-checker's worst nightmare. You are highly unlikely to get the list of errata before your thru, since all the fact checkers will be out on the trail with you! If you are feeling virtuous and energetic, do make a list of all the errata and omissions you find, and send it to the publishers. I assure you it will get their closest possible attention. In the mean time, be thankful there is such a fine selection for you to choose from.

[Footslogger]

Here's a plan: Hike the trail, making sure to visit all the establishments and trail points mentioned, and also any that have been missed, and then write up all the errata you find. Shouldn't take more than twice or three times the mileage and effort of a straight thru. It would be a great service to the whole community. :)

Of course, just going through the books doing the same exercise from memory is a large task. And also one fraught with error. IMO as a publisher, there has never been any book published without error, even after the closest proofreading attention. Any directory like these estimable publications is a proof-reader's and fact-checker's worst nightmare. You are highly unlikely to get the list of errata before your thru, since all the fact checkers will be out on the trail with you! If you are feeling virtuous and energetic, do make a list of all the errata and omissions you find, and send it to the publishers. I assure you it will get their closest possible attention. In the mean time, be thankful there is such a fine selection for you to choose from.

=================================

Was this meant to be humorous ??

I fully appreciate the selection of books we now have to use in preparing for and hiking the trail. I also appreciate the effort involved in writing and publishing a book.

I would just like to see a sample (or a comprehensive list for that matter) of the inaccuracies cited in the various Hanbooks ...of which I own all.

'Slogger

[GGS2]

Was this meant to be humorous ??

Nope, not really. Just light and friendly. It was meant to remind you, since you already know it, that the information you were asking for has to be won by serious effort and long hours of work, whether on the trail or in an armchair and in front of a computer. No doubt the errors and inconsistencies that are being reported by individuals will accumulate, but who will check the checkers? Every reported error must be confirmed some way. So the task will continue all the way through to the next edition.

That's all. Your call what to do about it.

[mountain squid]

I would just like to see a sample (or a comprehensive list for that matter) of the inaccuracies cited in the various Hanbooks ...of which I own all.
'Slogger
Speaking of which, I started a thread in the 'Class of 2008' subforum titled 'On The Trail 2008'. If anyone does notice inaccuracies or updated info, etc, please post it there. Since it is a 'sticky' this years hikers will have easy access to it.

Thanks and See you on the trail,
mt squid

[Alligator]

Here are the pages with corrections. Enjoy.

Appalachian Pages (http://appalachianpages.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=10)

AT Thruhikers Companion (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.810477/)

The Thru-hikers Handbook (http://www.trailplace.com/news.html)

[Footslogger]

Nope, not really. Just light and friendly. It was meant to remind you, since you already know it, that the information you were asking for has to be won by serious effort and long hours of work, whether on the trail or in an armchair and in front of a computer. No doubt the errors and inconsistencies that are being reported by individuals will accumulate, but who will check the checkers? Every reported error must be confirmed some way. So the task will continue all the way through to the next edition.

That's all. Your call what to do about it.

================================

Whatever ....just seems a bit cheap to announce that one guidebook is less accurate than another and not cite specific examples.

I've used just about all the guidebooks from time to time in years gone by and stumbled into things that were somewhat different than listed.

'Slogger

[max patch]

================================

Whatever ....just seems a bit cheap to announce that one guidebook is less accurate than another and not cite specific examples.



Thats because not everyone that has made comments re the accuracy of the various guidebooks knows what they are talking about.

So far the only review I'm paying attention to is the one Jack made about Hanover.

[whitelightning]

I'm with ya, 'Slogger. I've heard comments about inaccuracies in the guides but without specific examples. It seems the best thing to do is check periodically the websites associated with each guide for updates/corrections. They all have a link for this. It'll just depend on us hikers to report any problems to the authors/publishers. I think most of us understand that none of the guides are going to be 100% accurate after they are published.

After comparing the 2007 Companion and the Thru-hikers Handbook this past year I've decided to use the 2008 Handbook for my thruhike this year. It has the information I need and I prefer the format. But, if I had to use the Companion, I would not have problem doing so. I've considered buying the Appalachina Pages to see what it's like.

[ofthearth]

I hiked in 2003 and for the record, I used the Thru-Hikers Handbook, then written by Dan "Wingfoot" Bruce. Allowing for things that change after publication I found it to be a pretty accurate guide.

I recently received my copy of the new guide called Appalachain Pages and have thumbed through it casually but have not put any of the information to test nor have I hiked the trail using this guide.

I read here that the Appalachain Pages guidebook has many inaccuracies. Not saying one way or the other ...but I am curious about what those innaccuracies are ??

Has anyone compiled a list of the inaccuracies ??

Thanks in advance ...

'Slogger


I'd still like to know what some of the inaccuracies are so that I can make the margin corrections in my book ...

'Slogger


=================================

Was this meant to be humorous ??

I fully appreciate the selection of books we now have to use in preparing for and hiking the trail. I also appreciate the effort involved in writing and publishing a book.

I would just like to see a sample (or a comprehensive list for that matter) of the inaccuracies cited in the various Hanbooks ...of which I own all.

'Slogger


Nope, not really. Just light and friendly. It was meant to remind you, since you already know it, that the information you were asking for has to be won by serious effort and long hours of work, whether on the trail or in an armchair and in front of a computer. No doubt the errors and inconsistencies that are being reported by individuals will accumulate, but who will check the checkers? Every reported error must be confirmed some way. So the task will continue all the way through to the next edition.

That's all. Your call what to do about it.

As a person trying to plan on hiking the AT and not knowing a great deal about the trail, the people involved in these discussions etc it seems reasonable to ask for those noting/ commenting on "errors and inconsistencies" to merely note/list them so we can make note of them or see for ourselves. Again, I don't know anybody involved with any of the books (not even sure which are which as they seem to be refered to differently at different times) I would just like to know what people are talking about. (NOT the personalities, just the books, if that is possible.) After reading some of these posts I started looking and found some"errors and inconsistencies" ie the ADHA on page 117 on the Harpers Ferry map the the Hostel is listed as 3.5 miles ---- the AP lists the Hostel as 1.5 miles. No biggies I guess unless it's cold or raining maybe(hard to know, I've never hiked to AT).

GGS2 suggests :"Here's a plan: Hike the trail, making sure to visit all the establishments and trail points mentioned, and also any that have been missed, and then write up all the errata you find. Shouldn't take more than twice or three times the mileage and effort of a straight thru. It would be a great service to the whole community". While I hope I'm not stepping in the middle of any thing here, it seems to miss the whole point that Slogger was trying to make (and I was wondering myself ).

And I do not mean to question" that the information you were asking for has to be won by serious effort and long hours of work, whether on the trail or in an armchair and in front of a computer." I appreciate what ALL the people do that have made the AT possible and what it is.

Thanks
ofthearth

[Red Hat]

I hate to cause you more confusion, but there's a new kid (http://appalachianpages.com/) on the block.

this one has the local information right across from the milage chart as you go. It also has a topo so you get an idea of the climbs. Great book!

Any you can choose Nobo or Sobo editions!

[OregonHiker]

================================

Whatever ....just seems a bit cheap to announce that one guidebook is less accurate than another and not cite specific examples.

'Slogger

Bingo:sun

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I've put out emails to those who told me for specific examples.

[OregonHiker]

I've put out emails to those who told me for specific examples.

Why don't you post them here?:-?

Perhaps even a new thread?:-?

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Why don't you post them here?:-?I wasn't going to before, but since This has become such a crusade for some, I am going to post them.

[OregonHiker]

I wasn't going to before, but since This has become such a crusade for some, I am going to post them.

Too funny:mad:

[Alligator]

Actually, two of the three specifically told me their views and asked me to repeat them on WB and the other made it clear he did not mind me repeating it publicly. ...


I wasn't going to before, but since This has become such a crusade for some, I am going to post them.
It seems you were already on a crusade. You were going to post that Appalachian Pages was inaccurate[see above]. This was to be based on unknown accusers who we weren't supposed to ask their names. They were simply going to use you as a mouthpiece because they want to take potshots from the shadows. You in fact have to email them for the inaccuracies, I guess not knowing yourself. And you wonder why I'm giving you a hard time here?

[OregonHiker]

It seems you were already on a crusade. You were going to post that Appalachian Pages was inaccurate[see above]. This was to be based on unknown accusers who we weren't supposed to ask their names. They were simply going to use you as a mouthpiece because they want to take potshots from the shadows. You in fact have to email them for the inaccuracies, I guess not knowing yourself. And you wonder why I'm giving you a hard time here?

Sounds more like an "attack" than pot shots :-?

[max patch]

I've put out emails to those who told me for specific examples.

Thats the whole point!!!

YOU don't know if the books are accurate or inaccurate. You are simply passing on information from others that YOU don't know if it is correct or not.

[dixicritter]

You know I've been trying to stay out of these threads on the different guidebooks because I know I'll get blasted with the comments that I don't have enough hiking experience to evaluate any of them, but it seems to me that folks are getting all in an uproar over petty stuff here. If y'all would just stop and think about this for one second even the phone books we get aren't 100% accurate after they are printed due to people getting their phones disconnected for one reason or another, or a business moving, or closing, or whatever. So why can't the same things happen in these guidebooks and it be beyond the respective authors faults?

These authors are putting out guides as a service to the hiking community and all y'all can do is bitch about it. If I were one of these authors I'd say to hell with y'all and pull my product off the damn shelf. Hmmm maybe that's why Wingfoot threw in the towel. :-?

[OregonHiker]

These authors are putting out guides as a service to the hiking community and all y'all can do is bitch about it. :-?

Sorry...I think your just went in the hen house for the sake of clucking too:-?

[dixicritter]

Sorry...I think your just went in the hen house for the sake of clucking too:-?

What? You don't make any sense.

[GGS2]

... Hmmm maybe that's why Wingfoot threw in the towel. :-?

Yup. I'm beginning to have some sympathy for him.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Yup. I'm beginning to have some sympathy for him.Me too. I wouldn't do this for anything. I've helped with a few guidebooks (not for the AT before anyone says that) and it is tedious work.

Dixi makes a good point about the books. None are 100% accurate.

And I can't blame the people who won't come to this site to discuss this after what's gone on here. Maybe they are smarter than I am.

[OregonHiker]

And I can't blame the people who won't come to this site to discuss this after what's gone on here. Maybe they are smarter than I am.

Enough of the pity party. :sun

[Footslogger]

Well ...saying that NO guidebooks are 100% accurate is NOT the same thing as summarizing the available choices and stating that any one is more accurate than another.

Anyone who has hiked the trail using ANY of the guidebooks would acknowledge that sooner or later you stumble onto something that doesn't quite measure up.

Probably splitting hairs here and this is the last post from me on the subject ...but my preference would be that anyone declaring a guidebook as being inaccurate would offer FIRST HAND supportive evidence to back up the claim. At least that is somewhat constructive ...

'Slogger

[quasarr]

For a SOBO, would the Appalachian Pages be a good choice? Even if it has inaccuracies, it would be nice to not need to go backwards through the book.

[Jack Tarlin]

You answered your own question. What's more important to you......that a book is written "in the right direction"........or that it contains more accurate, and more detailed information?

Speaking only for myself, the "convenience" of a guidebook book isn't as important as what's actually IN the book. A guidebook, by definition, contains information that is either vital or useful to one's travels. Seems to me that books that contain more information, and more accurate and up-to-date information, would be my favored choice.

[quasarr]

it depends on what the inaccuracy is...

Hostel really charges $30 when the guidebook says $20 - no big deal

water source location off by a few miles - big deal! :eek:

Like people have said, the book can't be 100% right. As long as the errors aren't a big deal then I'm fine with it!

[Appalachian Tater]

For a SOBO, would the Appalachian Pages be a good choice? Even if it has inaccuracies, it would be nice to not need to go backwards through the book.

I would question the types of inaccuracies. The trail data for all the books and guides come from the same source, as far as I know. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, look at the percentage of inaccuracies, not just raw numbers. The data book is bound to have more errors than the guide books because it contains more facts.

[Jack Tarlin]

Actually, Tater, over the last 15 years, I personally have found the Data Book to be the MOST accurate Trail book. That guy Dan Chazin really does his job.

[rafe]

water source location off by a few miles - big deal! :eek:

Springs and streams don't move around. But they do tend to dry up -- routinely as the summer progresses, and in a dry year (like '07) all bets are off.

I take this discussion (and the books themselves) with a HUGE grain of salt. You need to use all your senses, and the info you glean from other hikers, shelter registers, common sense, and notes pinned to trees and trailhead signs.

A common occurrence will be that spring A is dry, but another (lesser-known, or more distant) spring B will still be flowing. The key is to know about that other "alternate" spring. With regard to water, common sense tells you that it will generally be easier to find in low places, and harder to find on the ridge.

With regard to off-trail services... well, this is one argument for carrying a phone. 'Nuff said.

[ofthearth]

Well ...saying that NO guidebooks are 100% accurate is NOT the same thing as summarizing the available choices and stating that any one is more accurate than another.

Anyone who has hiked the trail using ANY of the guidebooks would acknowledge that sooner or later you stumble onto something that doesn't quite measure up.

Probably splitting hairs here and this is the last post from me on the subject ...but my preference would be that anyone declaring a guidebook as being inaccurate would offer FIRST HAND supportive evidence to back up the claim. At least that is somewhat constructive ...

'Slogger


You answered your own question. What's more important to you......that a book is written "in the right direction"........or that it contains more accurate, and more detailed information?

Speaking only for myself, the "convenience" of a guidebook book isn't as important as what's actually IN the book. A guidebook, by definition, contains information that is either vital or useful to one's travels. Seems to me that books that contain more information, and more accurate and up-to-date information, would be my favored choice.


Springs and streams don't move around. But they do tend to dry up -- routinely as the summer progresses, and in a dry year (like '07) all bets are off.

I take this discussion (and the books themselves) with a HUGE grain of salt. You need to use all your senses, and the info you glean from other hikers, shelter registers, common sense, and notes pinned to trees and trailhead signs.

A common occurrence will be that spring A is dry, but another (lesser-known, or more distant) spring B will still be flowing. The key is to know about that other "alternate" spring. With regard to water, common sense tells you that it will generally be easier to find in low places, and harder to find on the ridge.

With regard to off-trail services... well, this is one argument for carrying a phone. 'Nuff said.

It seems to me that most of the people here are saying the same thing. It's not the end of the world if there are mistakes but why not post them so people ( including the editors) can make note of them and act accordingly. I have not done the AT but plan on doing it. Someone posts info that one/some of the books don't mention the situation at Dartmouth (I think it was). This kind of info for a new person would be useful. For the life of me, I don't see what the big deal is. I think most people appreciate the effort that goes into putting a book together and surely the editors realize there will be errors even with the best effort. My other point would be that as a newbbie (sp?) I look at all the posts/ threads and think it MUST BE A BIG DEAL or there would not be all of the posts. Am I missing something??????

tia
ofthearth

[Terry7]

One way we can all help is to make water reports everytime you stop at a shelter. Knowing where the water is about the most inportant info you can get.

[johnny quest]

if anyone knows of an inacuracy in one of the books now it would be a service to all their fellow hikers that might use that book to make it known on the appropriate site. all the books have some mechanism for posting corrections.
i would appreciate it as a fellow hiker/user and any businessman worth his salt would appreciate being notified in a flaw in his product.
to complain about the mistakes but not do anything about it just aint cool.

[margo]

If the only criteria for reviewing a book was using it to thruhike then no book would have reviews. Since the trail is always in "flux" a few "inaccuracies" here and there would be unavoidable. I person would have to thru hike with a copy of each book, or go on consequtive hikes using differnt books.

[TrippinBTM]

who would want a guidebook 100% accurate anyways? That is, why take all the adventure and spontanaity out of it?

[SGT Rock]

Well for the record - I did have trouble with Troll over his guide but we are patching things up between us. I am going to take a copy of the AT pages with me up the trail and I'll tell you how usefull it was - I'm known for being blunt and honest and I have no other agenda other than to honor a promis made to my partner and to help other hikers. I will state that since I did the BMT I cannot say 100% about things south of Davenport gap in the guide except for my memory of that section from hikes in the past.

And one last point - the ATC freely makes the Databook information available to anyone writing a guide now. So anyone smart enough to take them up on that offer when making one at least has that basic level of accuracy in their book. People can trust in the fact that the mileages and items at those points in any book will probably all have the same errorrs.

[Pedaling Fool]

...I'm known for being blunt and honest and I have no other agenda...
Giving an honest opinion, without regard to allegiance. That's a pretty hazardous thing to do; not many are open-minded and accepting of other's opinions, as they would have you believe.

[SGT Rock]

Giving an honest opinion, without regard to allegiance. That's a pretty hazardous thing to do; not many are open-minded and accepting of other's opinions, as they would have you believe.

I know. What I have experienced is many want to give what they say is unbiased (who am I to argue at times) but some don't want to hear it.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Well for the record - I did have trouble with Troll over his guide but we are patching things up between us. ::: Dino seen rejoicing :::
I am going to take a copy of the AT pages with me up the trail and I'll tell you how usefull it was - I'm known for being blunt and honest and I have no other agenda other than to honor a promise made to my partner and to help other hikers.Looking forward to your assessment.