View Full Version : maps and books
what, if any, maps and books should I bring on the trail that will help me out the most? or do I even need any? If I do need maps, should I just ship them to me as I go or do I just need a couple for a couple spots? Thanks!
Read I might not hike with a map (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40042) for answers to most if not all of your questions and more!
mountain squid
12-31-2008, 15:33
Definetely carry maps which are available from ATC (https://www.atctrailstore.org/catalog/iteminfo.cfm?itemid=190&compid=1) (this is ATC member price) and one of the guidebooks: ALDHA Companion (https://www.atctrailstore.org/catalog/iteminfo.cfm?itemid=634&compid=1), Appalachian Pages (http://www.appalachianpages.com/) or The Thru-Hikers Handbook (http://trailplace.com/hb_2009edition.html). The guidebooks contain town data that you will likley need.
Always carry a map for the section you are in. You can mail the rest to yourself as you need them.
Good Luck and Have Fun!
See you on the trail,
mt squid
Slo-go'en
12-31-2008, 16:33
You don't *really* need trail maps. A state road map to mark your progress through the state is fun and in some ways is better than a trail map to show you where towns are and where roads go.
OTOH, an end to end trail guide book is a must have.
Jack Tarlin
12-31-2008, 16:37
You don't really need shoes, either, but most folks find them pretty useful.
A road map, designed for automobile travel, will NOT contain information vital to your hike, such as elevation features; shelters and campsites; water sources; side trails and where they lead to; scenic views. Most of all, a road map will be of little use in an emergency situation that takes places when you're removed from a road.......as you'll be 99% of the time.
Travelling in the backcountry without a current map and the ability to use it is not particularly good advice.
The fact that plenty of folks have successfully thru-hiked without maps doesn't make it a smart thing to do.
Lone Wolf
12-31-2008, 16:40
OTOH, an end to end trail guide book is a must have.
no it's not
See NH , new laws regarding incompetent hikers (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44634), a newer thread not linked to the thread I mentioned earlier which may be pertinent.
Jack Tarlin
12-31-2008, 16:43
Good point, Shades.
In my experience, a very high percentage of folks who require assistance or rescue in the backcountry either aren't carrying a trail map or don't know how to read one.
And people find themselves lost on the A.T. more often than you might think.
no it's not
People got by just fine before the newer guides existed with only ATC's A.T. Data Book and maps. Before the Data Book existed, people survived believe it not by relying on ATC's Guide Books and the maps supplied with them. Some A.T. hikers even relied upon advice provided by locals who took the time to help hikers.
The newer guides are pretty handy. However, you'll be carrying information you no longer need or don't yet need in addition to what's useful at any point.
Slo-go'en
12-31-2008, 17:24
People got by just fine before the newer guides existed with only an A.T. Data Book.
Thats all I used when I first hiked most of the AT in the mid 80's. Trail maps back then were useless. Everyday was a new suprise. Hikers today have it easy.
Slo-go'en
12-31-2008, 17:35
A road map, designed for automobile travel, will NOT contain information vital to your hike, such as elevation features; shelters and campsites; water sources; side trails and where they lead to; scenic views. Most of all, a road map will be of little use in an emergency situation that takes places when you're removed from a road.......as you'll be 99% of the time.
A trail guide will give you all that information and you can likely pin point your location given the landmarks listed in the guide closer than you could looking at a map.
However, if your in the Whites where there is a confusing maze of trails, having a map is a really good idea. If your mindlessly following the AT white blazes, I still say you don't really need a map, so long as you do have the trail guide. Going without either would be reckless.
[ATC's A.T. Data Book was] all I used when I first hiked most of the AT in the mid 80's. Trail maps back then were useless.
I wouldn't say those maps were useless, but there was so much rerouting going on then it would have been impossible to keep them current. Every new issue of ATN brought notice of still more relocations.
Today's maps are more current, of a much higher quality and there is far less rerouting going on these days.
Lone Wolf
12-31-2008, 18:34
Thats all I used when I first hiked most of the AT in the mid 80's. Trail maps back then were useless. Everyday was a new suprise. Hikers today have it easy.
i hiked the AT in the mid-80s and all the maps were fine except PA
I was thinking Guide to the A.T. in Central and Southwest Virginia left more to be desired.;)
The black and white paper maps included with the Pennsylvania guide I carried in 1980 weren't of the same quality as what was included with the more recently updated Vermont and New Hampshire guide then available.
I don't expect there will be many retro-through hikers carrying any of the 3 map sets I just mentioned when they hike this year. Maybe we should stick to what might be more readily available now.
The Old Fhart
12-31-2008, 22:42
Shades Of Gray-"...The black and white paper maps included with the Pennsylvania guide I carried in 1980..."They were truly ugly. Here's what they looked like.
5367(Click for full size)
It's been a few years since I've seen a Pennsylvania A.T. map from that set, but that's what they looked like.
Sound advice provided by New Hampshire Fish and Game and WMNF can be found at www.hikesafe.com (http://www.hikesafe.com). Note that map and compass appear at the top of their gear list The 10 Essentials (http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php/planning_your_hike/gear_list/the_10_essentials) and read what they have to say about technology (http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php/planning_your_hike/gear_list/technology).
TrippinBTM
01-01-2009, 19:39
you can't compare a guide book to shoes :rolleyes:
I say take the Thru Hiker's Handbook. I'd like to say not to take the maps, but I did, and appreciated them. A picture says a thousand words, you know; a map conveys so much more info than any guidebook could. You can see water sources (streams, anyways) that aren't in the book, so you can plan day-to-day a bit better, with more versatility. And that's just one example.
Oh, and I agree about having a map in the Whites; it's hard to know which trail is the AT otherwise, at least sometimes.
I'm a bit of a map-geek, as I like to say. I'd like to hike without them, for the excitement of just finding things as they come, but I just like looking at a map in the evening, planning the day tomorrow.
I was looking at the link to buy the different maps through out the AT....seems like if i bought a map for every section im gonna be spending several hundred dollars? does that sound right?
I was looking at the link to buy the different maps through out the AT....seems like if i bought a map for every section im gonna be spending several hundred dollars? does that sound right?
that's why ATC offers the Guidebook Special in December every year.
Yes, a complete set of 11 guidebooks with maps costs about $280. Join ATC and save $56.00. While it may sound like a lot of money, remember that it covers 2170 plus miles of trail, 14 states, etc. Not an unreasonable amount.
wcgornto
01-08-2009, 09:28
that's why ATC offers the Guidebook Special in December every year.
Yes, a complete set of 11 guidebooks with maps costs about $280. Join ATC and save $56.00. While it may sound like a lot of money, remember that it covers 2170 plus miles of trail, 14 states, etc. Not an unreasonable amount.
If you just buy the maps, it is $207 for non-members and $166 for members. From everyrhing I've ever read, most thru hikers use the handbook, companion or pages and not the individual state by state guides from the ATC.
TrippinBTM
01-08-2009, 10:06
yeah, the state by state guides are not needed, nor very usefull from what I've seen. Some have some historical and other interesting info, but they're too heavy to justify carrying.
It's been a few years since I've seen a Pennsylvania A.T. map from that set, but that's what they looked like.
And they were an easy target for Bryson too. But they've been different for over 10 years now.
(Have we developed a corollary to Godwin's Law on WB for invoking Bryson, yet? :D )
saimyoji
01-08-2009, 14:13
i hiked the AT in the mid-80s and all the maps were fine except PA
we've come a long way since then. :cool:
that's why ATC offers the Guidebook Special in December every year.
Yes, a complete set of 11 guidebooks with maps costs about $280. Join ATC and save $56.00. While it may sound like a lot of money, remember that it covers 2170 plus miles of trail, 14 states, etc. Not an unreasonable amount.
What might be a estimated combined weight of all these? Im not too keen on the idea of mail drops and such. if its not too much extra weight i might wanna take em all... what about purchasing them along the way? are they accessable at the local stores? or better yet...does anyone have a complete set they dont plan on using for a while they might wanna sell half price?
The Old Fhart
01-08-2009, 22:02
Brett-"What might be a estimated combined weight of all these?"The newer set would be heavier but I just weighed a 18 year old set of guidebooks with maps and they were over 6 pounds. Too much weight and impractical to carry the whole set. Only carry the one you need.
TrippinBTM
01-08-2009, 22:11
Even the maps alone (without the guidebooks) would be too heavy. I had 5 drops along my hike, only because of the maps (and seasonal gear change-outs). I'd send home maps when through with them.
True, maildrops are a major pain in the ass, but you don't want to be carrying maps 4 months before you even get to the state they're for.
I wonder how many "no map" people don't "know how" to use a map and compass. It's a simple skill that anyone going to ANY type of wilderness should master. For the sake of a few oz. I would be APPALLED to have to tell SAR "I didn't THINK"... I needed a map!!!
Johnny Swank
01-09-2009, 10:17
I used the maps, and pages torn out of the databook and ALDHA's guidebook. These were sent to maildrops along the way.
I'm a huge proponent of maps, and I can tolerate a few maildrops for this kind of stuff, but I'm almost to the point that I would trust a GPS with the maps and data (blueblazes, springs, etc) plugged into it for a thru-hike. I managed to not destroy ours when we went down Mississippi River, and it took all kinds of abuse that it wouldn't see on a thru-hike. I'd still want to back it up with a PDF or photo of the map on a separate device that could zoom in (phone or camera), but at that kind of stuff is do-able now.
Hell, I'd like smaller versions of the maps printed on rice paper too, but that ain't happening either :)
Blissful
01-09-2009, 10:26
True, maildrops are a major pain in the ass, but you don't want to be carrying maps 4 months before you even get to the state they're for.
With a little planning ahead of time, mail drops are no big deal. We had no problems with mail drops until Maine (when two boxes sent surface never arrived) and we had 30 of them. I would not have that many next go around, but they are great for maps so you aren't carring a ton of them at once, among other things.
TrippinBTM
01-09-2009, 12:06
I found maildrops to be a pain. Partially because the people I ended up hiking with used them often and I didn't, meaning we'd have to hump it more than necessary to get there before the weekend. But also, even for the few that I had, there were several hassles of things not being sent and so on.
As far as compass skills, I agree they're good to have. But hardly necessary on the AT. The trail is very easy to follow most of the time, and given that you can do the whole thing without a map at all, clearly you can do it with the map but without the compass. There's no real navigating involved: you follow the one and only trail all the way up. A map comes in handy in the Whites and so forth, but mainly it's a comfort not a necessity.
In other regions of the backlands than the AT? Yeah, it's much more important.
ofthearth
01-09-2009, 12:39
I used the maps, and pages torn out of the databook and ALDHA's guidebook. These were sent to maildrops along the way.
.....
Hell, I'd like smaller versions of the maps printed on rice paper too, but that ain't happening either :)
Smaller maps don't need to printed on rice paper. The Florida Trail has a good set of maps that the AT might look at. As soon as I get some weights and distance comparisons I'll post them. And I know they don't need/have topos ( all overpasses are about the same height ;)) running down the side/top/bottom.
Johnny Swank
01-09-2009, 13:38
Here's the profile of the FT
_______________________________________
:)
I'd be fine with the current set for a thru-hike if they were more optimized (selfish, as thru-hikers represent only about 3,000 out of 3.5 million users per year). Any ways, maps on both sides, 1;50,000 or 1:100,000 scale, printed on smaller paper would be fine for me most of the time. A couple of simple boxes with forest service contact numbers and the like instead of lots of writing about LNT or whatever as well.
Non-coated maps are also fine for me, as they're cheaper, lighter, and easier to write on. You sacrifice some durability, but they'd only have to last a couple of weeks anyway. 100-150 trail miles per map, with about 15 miles on either side of the AT would give me all I really needed to know assuming you had the data book and guidebook sections.
Any ways, maps on both sides, 1;50,000 or 1:100,000 scale, printed on smaller paper would be fine for me most of the time. A couple of simple boxes with forest service contact numbers and the like instead of lots of writing about LNT or whatever as well.
Non-coated maps are also fine for me, as they're cheaper, lighter, and easier to write on. You sacrifice some durability, but they'd only have to last a couple of weeks anyway. 100-150 trail miles per map, with about 15 miles on either side of the AT would give me all I really needed to know assuming you had the data book and guidebook sections.
I just had printed a map for another trail that's 1:50,000, going out maybe 5-8 miles either side of the trail, printed both sides of a 19" x 29" sheet, and that covered about 90 trail miles. I might have gotten 100 out of that sheet size but for kinks in the trail alignment so wound up filling in some space with rules and things like that.
One can always re-fold and the heavy Hop Syn plastic stock ensures it might survive for two weeks in the rain. I actually advocated for a smaller scale but changing from 1:24,000 was already a big jump.
If there aren't a lot of side trails or town detail to worry about then 1:63,360 (FLT maps), 1:65,000, 1:75,000 (the Virginia NG maps generally), or maybe even 1:100,000 might work, but I suspect for most Eastern trails 1:100,000 is pushing it.
1:65,000 seems to yield about 1-8.5x11 sheet per roughly 15 mile section. One page a day, one-sided.
However I like to know where I am, others who don't care as much might be ok with the 1:100,000. :)
What about just using the ATC Hiker companion?
Also, what about Trail Illustrated maps from National Georaphic? Tough, water resistant, light, topo, elevation...etc. The price is a tad iffy @ $9 per, but they can be found used. Right?
Jack Tarlin
01-16-2009, 17:25
The National Geographic maps are excellent, and I carry several them, especially the Smokies map; the Nolichucky River area; the Grayson Highlands area of Virginia, etc.
But they don't have elevation profiles, which most hikers find REALLY useful.
While it is true that several of the major Trail guidebooks now include these profiles, I think you'll still want the maps. Considering how often you'll use them and what you'll get out of them, the cost and weight is minimal.
TrippinBTM
01-16-2009, 19:52
Jack is right; the elevations profiles are very handy. The one on the Nat Geo map for the smokies was only about 3 inches long, not very helpful. the ATC maps are much larger and thus more detailed.
You'll still find yourself cursing them, declaring how they lie and there was actually a big mountain where the profile showed a flat section, but, hey, that's hiking.
So that's it? Elevation contour data? I have never seen the ATC maps and books, but I understand they can be relativly bulky to carry. If I know how to read a topo, I know a mountain or gap is coming soon. I know there are flat areas to camp, streams to get water..etc. Truth be told, I could care less about elevation profile.
Question: What specificly do the maps everyone talks about carrying along have, aside from elevation profile and detailed interpretive info I assume, that the ATC Companion and Trial Illustrated maps lack?
Thanks
*No snark intended*:sun
mountain squid
01-19-2009, 09:57
Truth be told, I could care less about elevation profile.
Question: What specificly do the maps everyone talks about carrying along have, aside from elevation profile and detailed interpretive info I assume, that the ATC Companion and Trial Illustrated maps lack?
Actually, I don't pay too much attention to the elevation gains/losses either. You have to hike it anyway.
The elevation profiles also have mileage data, though, which makes it easier to determine distances between shelters, towns and other landmarks. Other than that they're just maps and maps become a necessity when/if you become lost or disoriented.
See you on the trail,
mt squid
If safety is the concern, then I think a whistle should suffice - if you're really injured, you won't be doing technical orienteering anyway.
Jack Tarlin
01-19-2009, 15:38
Gotta disagree. I think the elevation profiles have a lot of uses:
*A study of them in the morning will give you a pretty good idea of what your
day's hike will be like.
*Some folks like to start the day easy.
*Some like to knock off the worst climb of the day early on, when they're
fresh, and more to the point, it isn't hot out.
*The profiles will help tell you where it might be good to go for a big-mileage
day, and when it would be foolish to.
*Most folks hate a really big climb late in the day after they've already knocked down a bunch of miles; the profiles will help tell you whether or not
you want to continue, or whether you should stop and save a good climb for
the following morning.
*The profiles come in really handy if you want to finish the day up high and
maybe catch a sunset or sunrise.
Most of all, tho, they'll tell you what's lying ahead of you, and this is information that most folks wanna know. Yeah, you haveta do the miles anyway, but I still like to know what's coming up.
My days were planned based on elevation profiles.
jersey joe
01-19-2009, 19:33
Gotta disagree. I think the elevation profiles have a lot of uses:
I couldn't agree more Jack. The elevation profiles are very useful, in my opinion, even more useful on a day to day basis then the maps.
fredmugs
01-25-2009, 01:00
I also like to see the elevation changes on the maps as well as knowing where shelters and road crossings are. I never seem to take enough breaks when I hike so I try to find a spot 2 - 3 miles up ahead on the map and then stop when I get there.
I typically do about 150 mile section hikes. Before I leave I print out the relative sections from the ALDHA guide. Then I create an Excel file that list the mile markers of places I think are significant (shelters, water, etc). All of the information I need is contained on a single piece of paper. I take that and the appropriate maps.
Another thing about maps: It's always a good feeling when you get one completed! I actually thought about burning my PA maps last year.
TrippinBTM
01-26-2009, 10:43
So that's it? Elevation contour data? I have never seen the ATC maps and books, but I understand they can be relativly bulky to carry. If I know how to read a topo, I know a mountain or gap is coming soon. I know there are flat areas to camp, streams to get water..etc. Truth be told, I could care less about elevation profile.
Question: What specificly do the maps everyone talks about carrying along have, aside from elevation profile and detailed interpretive info I assume, that the ATC Companion and Trial Illustrated maps lack?
Well, the profiles make calculating milage much easier, because it's the trail laid out linear. And it is is a way to quick look at your map and "count peaks" so say you walk and do three uphills, you can glance at your map and know almost instantly where you are, without studying a topo. So while it's true that you *could* get most of the info Jack Tarlin stated from just studying the topo, it's much simpler on a profile.
But don't worry, the ATC maps are real maps, not just profiles. You're right about looking at the topo part and looking for flat ground for camping, plus it may show water sources not listed in the book (at the very least streams). This helped me out a few times in the Mid Atlantic states.
Oh, and fredmugs, I agree about the PA maps. I've been meaning to write or call someone to grip about them. One sided maps, how I hate them! One of them was only for an 18 mile section! 18 miles!
4eyedbuzzard
01-26-2009, 11:14
The National Geographic maps are excellent, and I carry several them, especially the Smokies map; the Nolichucky River area; the Grayson Highlands area of Virginia, etc.
But they don't have elevation profiles, which most hikers find REALLY useful.
While it is true that several of the major Trail guidebooks now include these profiles, I think you'll still want the maps. Considering how often you'll use them and what you'll get out of them, the cost and weight is minimal.
I agree with Jack that the Nat Geo/Trails Illustrated maps are simply the best especially if you're sectioning or doing/planning loop hikes, and even more so if you're exploring all the other trails in a area that they publish one for. I've got the two map set for NH and it's fantastic for planning weekend/short section hikes given all the info that's on them.
But for a thru-hike they'd be overkill and don't cover all areas of the AT anyway--and they do lack the nicer profiles on the AT maps.
fredmugs
01-26-2009, 16:16
Actually what I meant about the PA maps is that I was so glad to have that state completed I was ready to destroy everything related to it. Something like burning your mortgage when you get your house paid off.
TrippinBTM
01-26-2009, 21:18
Yeah, me too. But I have a special gripe over their ridiculous maps as well.
They were truly ugly. Here's what they looked like.
5367(Click for full size)
Those were bad maps. However, in my opinion, the KTA maps are the best maps on the trail now, so they've made quite a turnaround.
Oh, and fredmugs, I agree about the PA maps. I've been meaning to write or call someone to grip about them. One sided maps, how I hate them! One of them was only for an 18 mile section! 18 miles!I'll agree with you on the one-sided part, but if they're going to err, I'd rather they do it on the side of making the maps too big a scale rather than too small. I'm not happy with the ATC's move to compress the maps. While I understand that you can't do Maine or the Smokies at too big a scale, I don't see what was wrong with the Mid-Atlantic and southern New England maps. There's a lot of twists and turns, road walking through towns, side trails, and so forth, and it's nice to be able to see those things more clearly. Again, I think the KTA maps are the best in this regard.
I also really don't like the directions in the new guides being given only north to south, but that's a whole other thread. . .
TrippinBTM
01-28-2009, 11:05
Those were bad maps. However, in my opinion, the KTA maps are the best maps on the trail now, so they've made quite a turnaround.
I'll agree with you on the one-sided part, but if they're going to err, I'd rather they do it on the side of making the maps too big a scale rather than too small. I'm not happy with the ATC's move to compress the maps. While I understand that you can't do Maine or the Smokies at too big a scale, I don't see what was wrong with the Mid-Atlantic and southern New England maps. There's a lot of twists and turns, road walking through towns, side trails, and so forth, and it's nice to be able to see those things more clearly. Again, I think the KTA maps are the best in this regard.
First, what are the KTA maps?
Second, I hear you on the scale issue, but no matter what, you can fit more on the same scale maps than just 18 miles. Putting them double sided would naturally help... but regardless, none of the other states seemed to be that bad. And while detail is nice, it's not really necessary. You're following a trail mainly, and a little compression in scale isn't going to get people lost.
Anyways, I'm not talking about tiny maps here. Just better layout, mostly. I'm sure they could achieve that without reducing the detail.
4eyedbuzzard
01-28-2009, 12:29
First, what are the KTA maps?...
KTA = Keystone Trails Association (http://www.kta-hike.org/)
First, what are the KTA maps?
The Pennsylvania maps (at least now; I don't know how it was in the past) are done by two different organizations. The Keystone Trails Association does the maps between the Water Gap and Duncannon (two maps, one of which is double-sided.) The Potomac Appalachian Trail Club (PATC) does the rest of the state in three one-sided maps, including the 18-miler you're complaining about (Calendonia SP to the Mason-Dixon line)
Second, I hear you on the scale issue, but no matter what, you can fit more on the same scale maps than just 18 miles. Putting them double sided would naturally help... but regardless, none of the other states seemed to be that bad. And while detail is nice, it's not really necessary. You're following a trail mainly, and a little compression in scale isn't going to get people lost.
Anyways, I'm not talking about tiny maps here. Just better layout, mostly. I'm sure they could achieve that without reducing the detail.It is true that having only 18 miles on one map is ridiculous. On the other hand, I think having everything from Fontana to Springer on two maps is a little ridiculous too; again, I'd rather they err in the first direction than the second. I do agree that doing it double-sided would be nice. As for the level of detail, I will say that having a blow-up inset of Port Clinton was helpful when we were having trouble finding the side trail back to the parking lot. Again, in the wilder areas, you might not need it so much, but around here, where there are a lot of curves and road walks and so forth, I think it's helpful. Of course, I also admit I'm a map freak, so I might not be the most unbiased person on this question. :D
TrippinBTM
01-29-2009, 11:46
I didn't know they were considering putting the AT on two maps. That's ridiculous, might as well leave it at home, for all the detail you'd get. I'm not saying anything like that. A little compression would be ok, but no, not that much.
In general I don't have major complaints about the AT maps; just things like the 18 mile map, one sided maps, and that the elevation profiles on the Maine ones have too much vertical exaggeration. Most of it is just layout issues that could be resolved without any compression of scale.
Actually, since I'm planning on getting into more "off trail" hiking, maps with more detail will definitely be more favorable. But that's a whole other matter.
garlic08
01-29-2009, 12:22
The entire AT on two maps does sound worthless. The only times on the AT I wished I had a map was at three or four road crossings where the trail was offset by a few hundred feet and there was no indication of which way the trail went. I had to walk increasing distances each way before I found it. Not exactly life threatening, just an extra 5 minutes and some grumbling (and it probably would have taken that much time and grumbling anyway to look it up on map, especially in the rain). So if a map didn't have at least that much detail, it would have been worthless for me.
I hiked without a map because I didn't want to deal with the expense, weight, and resupply logisitics, but I took that risk for myself and agree that a map should be on the list especially for an inexperienced hiker. I agree that a guidebook is also very helpful but not absolutely essential. For me, a guidebook was a better investment--I believe I got more info per dollar than the maps provided. I did like the profile in the Appalachian Pages--it was very helpful in planning the days--though the first edition in '08 had more text errors than I liked.
What about this for elevation profile...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5125936/Appalachian-Trail-Elevation-Profiles
I plan on taking Trail Illustrated NatGeo maps and trimmed pages from link above, printed on both sides, lamanated or in a bag, during different sections.
Eh?
TrippinBTM
02-05-2009, 19:42
What about this for elevation profile...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5125936/Appalachian-Trail-Elevation-Profiles
I plan on taking Trail Illustrated NatGeo maps and trimmed pages from link above, printed on both sides, lamanated or in a bag, during different sections.
Eh?
Not bad, looks similar to the profiles on the official maps, in terms of detail. One suggestion, though: take a ruler and draw some lines across the profile at least every 500 feet, if not for every 100 ft as I would do (because I'd want the detailed info). It will help you be able to read the actual elevation changes in numerical terms.
Johnny Swank
02-05-2009, 20:50
I like it. It gives enough detail for getting the gist of what the next few hours would be like. You should be able to download that data and play with the page sizes some. I'd print about 2 pages/side on plain paper and just plan on burning as I went.
You could easily save it as a PDF and just print a few pages from libraries/whatever along the way if you wanted too.
YoungMoose
02-05-2009, 21:04
i would definetly use maps. i would ship them to yourself. I wouldnt get guidbooks. you can have fun guessing whats in the towns
i would definetly use maps. i would ship them to yourself. I wouldnt get guidbooks. you can have fun guessing whats in the townswhat happens when you hitch the wrong direction and end somewhere that doesn't take kindly to smelly transient hiker types because you thought it would be fun to guess where you are going.
Jack Tarlin
02-05-2009, 21:24
Getting to know a town for the first time can be fun, just like you say.
But then again, if you're hurt, it's nice to know where the clinic is and what days it's open.
If there's only one place in town with public internet access, it's nice to know where it is.
If there are three cheap places to stay in town, it's nice to know exactly where they are and what they charge.
Likewise the Outfitter.
Likewise the Supermarket.
Likewise the Chinese Buffet restaurant.
And so on.
So while I'd agree with you that it's fun to explore new places, very often, the purpose of a town visit is to get all the things you need, but also, to rest and recuperate a bit, and knowing exactly what's in a town and where places can be found can come in really handy, especially if all the stores and services are esasentially on one really long street, like Erwin, or Gorham, or Pearisburg. It's a REAL drag doing all your town errands and then realizing you forgot to go to the Outfitter, and then you discover that it's now two miles away, but you came within a block of it three hours before. In other words, knowing where stuff is actually located can really come in handy as you run all your errands and get all your town stuff done as efficiently as you can.
I think somewhere down the line you might change your mind about guidebooks.
Definetely carry maps which are available from ATC (https://www.atctrailstore.org/catalog/iteminfo.cfm?itemid=190&compid=1) (this is ATC member price) and one of the guidebooks: ALDHA Companion (https://www.atctrailstore.org/catalog/iteminfo.cfm?itemid=634&compid=1), Appalachian Pages (http://www.appalachianpages.com/) or The Thru-Hikers Handbook (http://trailplace.com/hb_2009edition.html). The guidebooks contain town data that you will likley need.
looks like i'll go with either Appalachian Pages or The Thru-Hikers Handbook. anyone have opinion/preferences?
YoungMoose
02-07-2009, 20:31
bring them all at once and ship them to urself
Jack Tarlin
02-07-2009, 21:33
Betsi:
The town maps in App. Pages have been greatly improved since last year. However, the descriptions of businesses and services, including prices, is much more extensive in the Handbook. The Handbook's elevation profiles are also better done, and have more identifiable geographic features and places. In that the books are the same size, have almost the same number of pages, and weigh about the same, I'd have to go with the Handbook. Plain and simply, it provides a whole lot more information that's useful to the long-distance A.T. hiker, especially when it comes to towns, services, and businesses.
Jack Tarlin
02-07-2009, 23:29
I should add to the above comment that the other major guide, the Thru-Hiker's Companion, like the Haqndbook, also has extensive commentary and information on towns and services, including phone numbers, addresses, full contact information, and in many cases, prices of offered services.
The AP has greatly improved from last year to this year. I saw a copy of this years Handbook, and it appears that the AP profile is more accurate. I compared the climb out of Crawford Notch for each, and found that the AP showed more of the smaller ups and downs.
Have not seen this years Companion, but it sounds like Sly is taking steps to improve it based on feedback.
Awol2003
02-09-2009, 21:43
The graphic below demonstrates the relative scale and granularity of profiles in the two books.
*** The lower image IS NOT copied from THH. *** It was created using App Pages data and reducing the detail to achieve comparable granularity. The scale is accurate. The website of the Thru-Hiker's Handbook currently has a sample page covering this region, for those who wish to see the actual THH profile.
Appalachian Pages profile maps are larger and have more detail. Thanks to the unique (and copyrighted) presentation of profiles in App Pages, every landmark in the book aligns with the profile without using up extra space in the book - it is the lighter of the two.
App Pages profiles span approximately 8 more miles than THH, so you see more profile per page.
Comparing only the same 20 miles covered by both profiles, App Pages profile is 42 percent larger.
App Pages has 22 landmarks aligned to the profile in this segment, compared with 5 in THH.
http://appalachianpages.com/gallery/data/504/medium/Profile_Compare.jpg