View Full Version : Best guidebooks?
tucker0104
01-26-2009, 17:47
Which guidebook does everyone prefer?
Survivor Dave
01-26-2009, 17:56
This one.
www.appalachianpages.com (http://www.appalachianpages.com)
.
Jack Tarlin
01-26-2009, 19:58
Well, that might be the one that Survivor Dave prefers, but he probably ought to mention in the interest of full disclosure that he's featured and thanked as a contributor to this year's Appalachian Pages. :rolleyes:
Fact is, all three major books are worthy, and it probably doesn't really matter which one you decide to use.
In the weeks to come, I hope to either contribute to, or initiate, a discussion/review of all the 2009 Trail books, and I hope a lot of folks take part in this.
I have to second that, Applachian Pages for me too. Well thought out, put together and the little details like tear out pages, nice. :)
Blissful
01-26-2009, 20:43
Lots of threads on this topic. Might want to do a subject search to help you out.
But I liked the ALDHA companion. And you can see a sample of it online on their web stie.
TrippinBTM
01-26-2009, 21:09
My hiking partners and I had an ongoing (and good natured) fight over which guide was better; we divided into two camps, those scoundrels using the Companion, and us good guys using the Handbook.
In truth, the handbook is more detailed in the listing of mile by mile waypoints. It lists things like power lines and logging roads that can be helpful in letting you know where you are. It listed more water sources too, and I never liked the abbreviations/symbols the Companion used, which I always found confusing.
On the downside, I will admit, the town maps are not to scale and thus less useful than they could be. Also, there is occasionally less info in the notes, but then again, sometimes that info is pretty pointless.
One other downside which I dispute, is that the Handbook lists "nonexistent" (according to those aforementioned scoundrels) water sources. But I maintain that it just depends on the weather and season. What would be a stream in springtime is just a dry ditch in summer. Especially in the Mid-Atlantic states where this problem cropped up the most.
I hate to point this out, because I do favor and suggest the Handbook... but you can get the previous year's Companion free from the ALDHA website. You could copy it, and with a word processing program reduce the font size, and thus make yourself an even more compact version. Plus you save money and can print out only the parts you need.
TrippinBTM
01-26-2009, 21:13
one other good point to the Handbook. The mile-by-mile listing is all in one section, from Springer to Katahdin, with all the notes in another; while in the Companion the two are combined in sections, with the mile-by-mile and notes in groups.
Some find that convenient, but I always found it annoying when using someone's Companion. It's as if the index to a book was not all at the back, but was at the end of each chapter; it'd be harder to even find that section of the index that you want, because you'd have to look for the end of the right chapter.
It's better to have it all together, and you can just look at it in order, all at once. Then flip to the appropriate notes section.
Jack Tarlin
01-27-2009, 14:54
Just got my copy of the new Handbook in the mail. Like this years App. Pages, there are many improvements, including some new town maps, and some very well done and easy-on-the-eye Trail elevation profiles. Am looking forward to seeing the new Companion, too.
(Full disclosure: I'm thanked and listed as a contributor to this year's Handbook, and it was very gracious of Bob McCaw to do so, but in truth, I contributed very little, mainly I just answered some questions and gave him some updates on New Hampshire, especially Hanover. And I've been a field editor for the Companion for several years (there are quite a few of them!), but I have no vested interest and certainly no financial interest in any of these books, as several people have asked me recently. I'm glad that there are different options and different styles of guidebooks for folks to choose from; I'm gladder still to see these books getting better with each passing year, and at the end of the day, competition is probably a good thing; it keeps these works fresh and encourages improvements; as to which is "best", I think they all have their good points, and it probably doesn't matter which one you decide to use).
And I've been a field editor for the Companion for several years (there are quite a few of them!), but I have no vested interest ...
Anyone that's an AT enthusiast has a vested interest in the Companion.
Jack Tarlin
01-27-2009, 15:22
Sly made an interesting point, and I applaud the fact that the Companion is produced by two worthy non-profit organizations, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy and the Appalachian Long-Distance Hiker's Associsation.
That being said, tho, there's nothing inherently wrong with a book being produced by individuals, either, and let's get real.......nobody's getting rich off of A.T. guidebooks.
And if they were REALLY serious about making money from the Companion, i.e. if they were REALLY serious about getting folks to support the "non-profit"
guidebook, then why on earth do they gave it away for free each year by posting it on the Internet? This must cost ATC and ALDHA thousands of potential dollars each year. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a nice thing to do, but if folks were really interested, or had a "vested interest" in supporting the "non-profit" book, then they should look into getting it off-line.
In any case, competition is a good thing. It keeps the books from stagnating, and encourages innovations, like improved maps, changed formats and sizes, added features like elevation profiles, etc.
Both Appalachian Pages and the Thru-Hikers Companion are much improved over last year's editions. I hope the same proves true with the Thru-Hikers Companion. But as to what "interests" hikers, it's pretty simple: They're interested in getting complete information in an easy-to-use format, and they don't really care who the author, publisher, or owner is.
And if they were REALLY serious about making money from the Companion, i.e. if they were REALLY serious about getting folks to support the "non-profit"
guidebook, then why on earth do they gave it away for free each year by posting it on the Internet? This must cost ATC and ALDHA thousands of potential dollars each year. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a nice thing to do, but if folks were really interested, or had a "vested interest" in supporting the "non-profit" book, then they should look into getting it off-line.
.
Consider it a service.
I'm in the process of printing a bunch of free info for the Grand Enchantment Trail but if Brett had a hard copy guidebook, I'd gladly buy it, because at the end of the day, I'm not really saving anything considering time, paper and ink.
The online Companion is great for planning but for $14 you're much better off buying the hard copy.
If one section hikes, the online Companion is a great free resource. Hopefully, those that use it ill either join ALDHA or the ATC. (considering they sell 5 x as many books as thru-hikers, it's probably not that big a loss)
Both Appalachian Pages and the Thru-Hikers Companion are much improved over last year's editions. I hope the same proves true with the Thru-Hikers Companion. .
As editor, you have me for two years. I'm open to all suggestions in making the Companion the most recommended guidebook.
But as to what "interests" hikers, it's pretty simple: They're interested in getting complete information in an easy-to-use format, and they don't really care who the author, publisher, or owner is.
Not all hikers Jack.
TrippinBTM
01-27-2009, 20:29
So wait, are you saying the Handbook now has elevation profiles? Awesome! That was the one thing I really liked about the Appalachian Pages (which, though I've only glanced at once, and know little about, I have heard the profiles were inaccurate. But then again, everyone gripes about elevation profiles). Now that the Handbook has it, I recommend it all the more.
Jack Tarlin
01-27-2009, 20:39
The Handbook does indeed have elevation profiles now. The graphics are crisp and very easy on the eye; the profiles also include shelters, major peaks, and major roads. All in all, a great addition.
That being said, I hope that folks don't think that simple elevation profiles are a substitute for, or an excuse not to carry maps.
TrippinBTM
01-27-2009, 20:48
Well, I won't think that, anyways. I'm a big fan of maps. But then again, they aren't really necessary for a thruhike. Just [very] helpful. Same goes for the guidebooks.
For the time being, in lieu of elevation profiles, here's a tip for every trail I've ever hiked, don't sweat the small stuff, plan on going up and down. Enjoy.
Jack Tarlin
01-27-2009, 21:18
I dunno about that, Sly.
Speaking just for myself, I like to start the day with some mild hiking, and if there are monster climbs, I'd much rather do them in the morning, which gets them over with, and also means you won't have to deal with them later on, when you're tired, and plus, when it's much hotter. If there's a four thousand foot climb in there, I'm MUCH rather do it at 9:30 in the morning than at 4:30 in the afternoon, especially if I've already done 15 miles before starting the climb.
In short, I really like the idea of kowing what sort of terrain lies ahead of me, and it really helps with my daily planning, i.e. I know when to go for a big-mile day, and I also know when this isn't such a hot idea.
In short, I find Trail elevation profiles really useful, and use them all the time, every day.
To me, this isn't "small stuff".
I dunno about that, Sly.
Speaking just for myself, I like to start the day with some mild hiking, and if there are monster climbs, I'd much rather do them in the morning, which gets them over with, and also means you won't have to deal with them later on, when you're tired, and plus, when it's much hotter. If there's a four thousand foot climb in there, I'm MUCH rather do it at 9:30 in the morning than at 4:30 in the afternoon, especially if I've already done 15 miles before starting the climb.
In short, I really like the idea of kowing what sort of terrain lies ahead of me, and it really helps with my daily planning, i.e. I know when to go for a big-mile day, and I also know when this isn't such a hot idea.
In short, I find Trail elevation profiles really useful, and use them all the time, every day.
To me, this isn't "small stuff".
Huh, you plan your entire day around profile maps? You can figure most of that out by elevation changes in the data of the guidebooks
I must be used to the PCT and CDT where they have no profile maps. You go up, you go down. The CDT guidebooks are great and have data for every 50' change in elevation. That said, I generally plan on a set number of miles a day looking ahead to where I'll end up and just do it.
If there's a four thousand foot climb in there, I'm MUCH rather do it at 9:30 in the morning than at 4:30 in the afternoon, especially if I've already done 15 miles before starting the climb.
Except for Katahdin are there ANY 4,000' climbs on the AT? I think not.
Jack Tarlin
01-27-2009, 21:42
Think again.
If you start your day at Crawford Notch and go all the way to Mt. Washington, it's over 5,000 feet of elevation gain.
There are plenty of places where one will go 4,000 up, and I can't think of any of them I'd wanna do late in the day.
Except for Katahdin are there ANY 4,000' climbs on the AT? I think not.
Going SOBO, the Priest is darn close enough.
Going SOBO, the Priest is darn close enough.
Just over 3,000' and it's noted in the data. You don't really need a profile to figure it out.
Just over 3,000' and it's noted in the data. You don't really need a profile to figure it out.
My mistake Sly, you're right, but it sure seemed like 4,000 ;)
My mistake Sly, you're right, but it sure seemed like 4,000 ;)
No doubt. The trail nobo up to Three Ridges is no picnic either. As far as I can recall those are the two biggest climbs on the trail 'cept for maybe a couple in the Whites and Katahdin
As editor, you have me for two years. I'm open to all suggestions in making the Companion the most recommended guidebook.
Sly, the elevation profiles may not be a big deal to you, but it sounds like they are to a lot of people. Hmmm.... maybe that's a suggestion.:D
There are spots in the companion where it might note two landmarks, each at 3,500 feet for instance. What the companion will fail to show is the 800 foot drop between them. It makes you believe it's a flat ridge, when that's not the case.
Besides that, seems like a find handbook that simply needs to be reshaped to be physically easier to handle.
Ramble~On
01-28-2009, 07:06
My 2009 copies of The Thru Hiker's Handbook and Appalachian Pages arrived yesterday. Both are excellent!
One will stay home with my roomie so she can kind of follow where I am along the trail and have it should she head out to hike a few days herself..The other is going with me..and it's going to be a tough call on which one I take along...they are both really good....:-? and I haven't seen the Companion yet this year.
If anyone cares....The two books are exactly the same size. 8"x5" or roughly (20.5x 13)
Appalachian Pages is 181 pages and weighs 7 ounces (200 g)
The Thru-Hikers Handbook is 194 pages and weighs 7 3/8 ounces (208 g)
Survivor Dave
01-28-2009, 07:30
Well, that might be the one that Survivor Dave prefers, but he probably ought to mention in the interest of full disclosure that he's featured and thanked as a contributor to this year's Appalachian Pages. :rolleyes:
Fact is, all three major books are worthy, and it probably doesn't really matter which one you decide to use.
In the weeks to come, I hope to either contribute to, or initiate, a discussion/review of all the 2009 Trail books, and I hope a lot of folks take part in this.
Hey Jack, I answered the question that was asked. I do not get paid or am not on staff. I did it because of my interest in the Trail and this was an endeavor that I was interested in.
You seem to want to knock that for some reason.
There was no need to interject my association with that.
As a matter of fact Jack, I spent a boatload of hours on Trail to get info for this on my own time. I don't see what I do for AP, and the hikers that it might benefit, bothers you so much.
As you mention in the future that you want to contribute or initiate discussion about the other guidebooks. I hope you will be honest, open minded, and objective.
Remember Jack, there are folks that benefit for their books and have families to support.
Lone Wolf
01-28-2009, 09:31
Well, that might be the one that Survivor Dave prefers, but he probably ought to mention in the interest of full disclosure that he's featured and thanked as a contributor to this year's Appalachian Pages. :rolleyes:
Fact is, all three major books are worthy, and it probably doesn't really matter which one you decide to use.
In the weeks to come, I hope to either contribute to, or initiate, a discussion/review of all the 2009 Trail books, and I hope a lot of folks take part in this.
the original poster asked what people prefer for a guide. Survivor Dave posted what he preferred. back off jack. you don't run this site. quit lecturing folks all the time
Survivor Dave
01-28-2009, 09:36
the original poster asked what people prefer for a guide. Survivor Dave posted what he preferred. back off jack. you don't run this site. quit lecturing folks all the time
Thank you Lone Wolf.
Thanks for contributing to the AP SDave! :)
And if they were REALLY serious about making money from the Companion, i.e. if they were REALLY serious about getting folks to support the "non-profit"
guidebook, then why on earth do they gave it away for free each year by posting it on the Internet?
I have to agree with Jack about the business end of the Companion, it just takes money from the pot that could be used for their necessary business. The internet makes most info about the trail easy to gather, but the fact remains that they need support, and the Companion is the perfect vehicle for that. Sometimes people like to support an organization, but just a donation might not be good enough - the Companion is certainly a more than fair 'payoff' for supporting them - and a great book too, I've used it, but I really dig the AP :)
Sly, the elevation profiles may not be a big deal to you, but it sounds like they are to a lot of people. Hmmm.... maybe that's a suggestion.:D
I completely understand. If you noted I said "for the time being" the Companion doesn't have them. Since they're they new rage that hikers can't do without, I'll look into getting them in next years Companion.
It funny how some folks want all the info and some the bare necessities. I was just trying to point out that on other trails people do fine without any elevation profiles. If you move on from the AT to the PCT or CDT don't freak out, you can hike the trail without them.
TrippinBTM
01-28-2009, 10:58
There are spots in the companion where it might note two landmarks, each at 3,500 feet for instance. What the companion will fail to show is the 800 foot drop between them. It makes you believe it's a flat ridge, when that's not the case.
I was going to reply the same thing. That was one of the most irritating things about using the guidebooks for elevation planning. More like guessing.
I agree with Jack, that knowing the elevation is really helpful so you don't have to do the big climbs at the end of the day. Or at least helps you plan around them. On a day where it's flatter, I'm more likely to just charge ahead, but when I know I've got climbs coming, especially late-in-the-day ones, I pace myself better.
Is this necessary for a section hiker? No. But for a thru-hiker, who has to finish the trail in one go, he needs to push miles (to some extent anyways), and being better able to pace yourself helps you do this without wearing yourself out. Knowledge is power, eh?
Think again.
If you start your day at Crawford Notch and go all the way to Mt. Washington, it's over 5,000 feet of elevation gain.
There are plenty of places where one will go 4,000 up, and I can't think of any of them I'd wanna do late in the day.
I said some places in the Whites but the fact is that's related in the data with a dip at Mizpah.
Is this necessary for a section hiker? No. But for a thru-hiker, who has to finish the trail in one go, he needs to push miles (to some extent anyways), and being better able to pace yourself helps you do this without wearing yourself out. Knowledge is power, eh?
Let's speak realistically. What difference does it make between section hikers and thru-hikers? It shouldn't make any.
If the elevation profiles are so needed to thru-hike how to people hike other long trails? It's just a matter of mind. What's ironic, it seems most are turned off when looking at a profile.
TrippinBTM
01-28-2009, 11:26
The difference is time. Sectioners have more of it, because they don't have to hike a certain distance (namely, 2175 miles) all in one go to fulfil their goal
The difference is time. Sectioners have more of it, because they don't have to hike a certain distance (namely, 2175 miles) all in one go to fulfil their goal
Actually section hikers have less time.
I think I'm like most (maybe not) and hike a predetermined number of miles a day from point A to B. They could be shelters, water sources, camp sites, saddles or miles based on the data. By saving the big climbs for the next day you're missing some amazing views and campsites. But to each their own.
Alligator
01-28-2009, 12:20
As a sectioner, it is very important for me to know elevations. I have a predetermined amount of time, with 1/4 and 1/2 day periods included as well. I might plan on hiking into a shelter 3 miles on a Friday night if it is flat or a short climb, but I'm not going to run up a 1500 ft climb in addition to those 3 miles in the dark if I don't have to. I also have to make sure that I'm not adding in too many climbs over the course of the day or several days.
cravj1988
01-28-2009, 12:46
The 2007 Thru Hikers Companion was on the money for me. The glue on the binding will hold up, even when you rip out sections and bounce the remainder of the book up the trail.
Jack Tarlin
01-28-2009, 14:14
Geez, Dave, you seriously could stand to lighten up.
All I said was that if someone is an active contributor to a published work, well this is something that should probably be stated, as it would certainly explain an individual's bias towards one work or another. I don't have any problems acknowledging which books I've helped out over the years, so I don't know why you're so huffy about it. And certainly, nobody's "knocking" you about it. Calm yourself.
And as far as your fears about my honesty, open-mindedness or objectivity in regards to these discussions and these books, Dave, look at the post of mine that you yourself quoted. In speaking about this year's guideboks, Dave, I said "Fact is, all three books are worthy, and it probably doesn't really matter which one you use." And in two other posts, I remarked that I thought this year's Appalachian Pages was much improved. In fact, I even wrote a letter to one of the book's authors in which I told him that I thought the new book was handsome, and that it was obvious that a great deal of work had gone into it.
So I'm sorry that Dave has concerns about my honesty, open-mindedness, and objectivity on this subject.
He needn't worry about it.
Let's speak realistically. What difference does it make between section hikers and thru-hikers? It shouldn't make any.
If the elevation profiles are so needed to thru-hike how to people hike other long trails? It's just a matter of mind. What's ironic, it seems most are turned off when looking at a profile.
What's the difference between a section hiker and a thru-hiker?
For me, it's resupply. As a section hiker, I just need to figure out the logistics of getting dropped off and picked up at the other end. I never bought the Handbook or Companion until I did a thru-hike and needed to figure out resupply.
Jack Tarlin
01-28-2009, 17:03
Gotta disagree with Sly on that quote......if most folks are indeed "turned off" by looking at Trail profiles, then how come, each and every time I take my map out, there's always someone who wants to have a look at it? :D
I'm sensing cabin fever.
LOL I was thinking the same thing reading all the posts the last few days!
Gotta disagree with Sly on that quote......if most folks are indeed "turned off" by looking at Trail profiles, then how come, each and every time I take my map out, there's always someone who wants to have a look at it? :D
I didn't mean they're turned off by looking at the profiles, but by the climbs ahead.
All I'm trying to say is they're like many things people become used to and now can't live without. Similar to cellphones.
As a section hiker profiles were very important to me. After several years the profiles became much less important. Sooner or later you accept (and enjoy) the miles....whatever is thrown at you.
As a section hiker profiles were very important to me. After several years the profiles became much less important. Sooner or later you accept (and enjoy) the miles....whatever is thrown at you.
What's the old saying? Embrace the brutality. :D
TrippinBTM
01-28-2009, 20:31
Actually section hikers have less time.
I think I'm like most (maybe not) and hike a predetermined number of miles a day from point A to B. They could be shelters, water sources, camp sites, saddles or miles based on the data. By saving the big climbs for the next day you're missing some amazing views and campsites. But to each their own.
I suppose if you absolutely have to get to a certain point for being picked up. But if not, they can just hike till their trip is over, whenever they decide that to be. If they'd planned on doing 300 miles, and only do 250, no worries. They call their ride to pick them up at the new location. There's no milage demand on them. The fact that they have to get to water or whatever applies to everyone, not just sectioners, so I don't think that counts.
Do you plan your miles before your trip? I plan my day and pick where I'm going (usually in camp the evening before), but that decision is always open to revision. That's the fun in hiking: freedom.
I agree to your last point, though. I loved camping up on the balds/open summits whenever possible. But most of the time its just another wooded summit, with the added burden of having to haul all the night's water up with you. In that case, I'd rather leave it till morning, carrying less water and feeling fresh. So I guess it depends (as always) on the situation.
TrippinBTM
01-28-2009, 20:34
I'm sensing cabin fever.
Bro, you have no idea...
Do you plan your miles before your trip? I plan my day and pick where I'm going (usually in camp the evening before), but that decision is always open to revision. That's the fun in hiking: freedom.
I don't plan my miles before a trip but I know what I have to average over the course to make it at an approximate end date.
I'll use an example from the CDT which is the only trail I've done in one season. I knew in order to complete the trail on my birthday (5 months and a week from the start) I'd have to average about 19 miles a day. Of course, I didn't start out that fast. I tried to average 17's for the 1st month. This average was reduced to 15 mpd in the South San Juan's due to the difficulty of the trail in CO. I added a couple miles per day each month until I reached about 22 miles a day. I finished two days before my birthday.
TrippinBTM
01-29-2009, 11:52
First, congrats on the CDT, that's awesome.
Second, I don't think I could live with a schedule like that, where I have to do a specific average. Had to do it for a week in VA cuz I was meeting a friend from off the trail, and it sucked. In fact, that was my biggest complaint about my AT thru; always feeling the whip of time on my heels, driving me on when I'd rather hang out at some cool place or other. For me, that kind of schedule or external demand has no place in hiking, and I try to get away from it whenever I can. Leave it for when I have to be at work, but I'd rather not take it into the woods with me.
Of course, that requires a lack of demands, like bills, house payments, and such, which at least for now I'm happy to do without. I had no such obligations on my thru. Obviously most people are not in the same situation, especially sectioners.
First, congrats on the CDT, that's awesome.
Second, I don't think I could live with a schedule like that, where I have to do a specific average.
Thanks.
It was only an average I used over the course of the trail. I had three mile days and 28 mile days.
The CDT isn't like the AT where you can start in Feb and end in Oct. There's only a certain time frame due to snow in the higher mountains.
If you were to start the AT 4/1 and wanted to finish by 9/15 you could use the same method.
hikingshoes
01-29-2009, 12:39
well,here is a newbie point of view.being that ive been in the army res.for 22yrs. its nice to plan ahead with the INFO you can get,for as map/profile/elev.so you can plan your day and have idea of what is going on.so the more the better is the way i see it.HAVE TO SAY ABOUT WB IT IS A VERY GOOD WEB SITE.Be safe,Charles
jersey joe
01-29-2009, 13:57
The ALDHA companion was my choice because it was FREE!!! I have no complaints.
Awol2003
01-29-2009, 15:22
Anecdotes and opinions about handbooks are fun, but it seems as though a good summary of features and facts would be most useful. Here they are for App Pages 2009:
EDITIONS
There are 3 editions: northbound, southbound, and loose-leaf(northbound).
PERFORATED PAGES
The northbound edition has perforated pages; the southbound does not. All other attributes hold for all 3 editions.
SIZE
192 pages, 5" x 8", weighs 7oz.
COST
Cost is $15.95. When bought from the website, a heavy-duty zip-lock bag (4mil) is included free. Shipping is $3.95.
FORMAT
Town info and trail data run side-by-side. Left hand pages have town info, right hand pages have data, and they stay somewhat in parallel.
PROFILE MAPS
App Pages was the first full-trail handbook to have them. Profile maps are overlaid on every page of data, and *every* landmark aligns fairly well with the profile. Each data page covers 25 miles of trail, and the profile covering those 25 miles is 7 1/8" long. For comparison: that’s about 3.5 miles per inch; smaller miles/inch means more detail.
DATA
There are over 2000 landmarks (streams, peaks, valleys, shelters, road crossings).
TOWN MAPS
There are 30 town maps. 14 of them are full-page maps (@ 7.5" x 4.25"). They are all proportionally scaled. We chose to print much information on the maps; PO hours and phone numbers are always on the map, as are many clues to distances around town. For cumulative map comparison: there are 904 places of interest plotted on the maps and the total area devoted to town maps is 708 square inches.
TRIPLE SHELTER MILEAGES
Notation below every shelter shows the distance to the next three shelters to the north and to the south. No more adding up shelter-to-shelter distances during planning. (BTW: in 76 locations, the distance to the 3rd shelter is 20 miles or less.)
PARKING AREAS & COORDS
GPS-format coordinates are provided for over 200 trailhead parking areas. Enter them into your vehicle's GPS for help navigating to trailheads.
SYMBOLS
There are about two dozen symbols representing common services like shelter, water, hostel, campsite, resupply and outfitter. The symbols are used in the data description, town write-ups, and on maps, so that resources are readily identifiable.
FONT SIZE
Handbooks generally make efforts to minimize book size, so small fonts are common, and readability is an issue. The town information is printed with 10-point font; data pages have 9-point font. The font is Myriad Pro, recognized for its readability in small sizes and chosen by Apple for use in IPODs and other products.
Frick Frack
01-29-2009, 15:34
You had dinner with us at Rambunny's Happy Hiker Hostel and later sent us a pic of our entry at the ATC in Harper's Ferry. Thanks!
Thanks also AWOL for the awesome Appalachian Pages. We chose it in 2008 mostly b/c it was the only southbound specific book but also b/c of the profiles. The profiles give you an idea of what to expect and how to plan accordingly.
Think again.
If you start your day at Crawford Notch and go all the way to Mt. Washington, it's over 5,000 feet of elevation gain.
There are plenty of places where one will go 4,000 up, and I can't think of any of them I'd wanna do late in the day.
My sentiments exactly, but I do it with the companion by reading the elevations and not using a map. I do hate long climbs at the end of the day or at 7:00 A.M. My favorite time is 9:00 A.M. to take on a big one. Rest at the top and have lunch.
TrippinBTM
01-30-2009, 16:58
The CDT isn't like the AT where you can start in Feb and end in Oct. There's only a certain time frame due to snow in the higher mountains.
If you were to start the AT 4/1 and wanted to finish by 9/15 you could use the same method.
Yeah, but I'd hate that, knowing I had to finish by a certain date. And that's why I'd have a hard time doing the CDT, and why I'm sorta waffling about doing the PCT. Long distance hiking is great, but in a way, it puts a lot of external demands. I cant count how many times I'd hike by a great campsite on the AT because it was too early to stop hiking.
My sentiments exactly, but I do it with the companion by reading the elevations and not using a map. I do hate long climbs at the end of the day or at 7:00 A.M. My favorite time is 9:00 A.M. to take on a big one. Rest at the top and have lunch.
Yeah. The only problem is sometimes, it's a shortish climb, but very steep or otherwise difficult. The guidebooks only show change between two points, but not the steepness. Maybe that 400 ft climb occurs over the whole mile between those two points, or maybe it's flat for 3/4 mile and then goes straight up. I hate that :mad:
Yeah, but I'd hate that, knowing I had to finish by a certain date. And that's why I'd have a hard time doing the CDT, and why I'm sorta waffling about doing the PCT. Long distance hiking is great, but in a way, it puts a lot of external demands. I cant count how many times I'd hike by a great campsite on the AT because it was too early to stop hiking.
LOL... You need to finish the AT by a certain date too. No one says you need to do the entire trail in one season.
Unless I have a book to read, there not much else to do on the trail but walk.
I just received my '09 Companion, and now have all three '09 AT guidebooks in my possession.
I'm happy to report that it seems to me all three are improved in one way or another over their respective '08 editions. No one will go seriously wrong by choosing one over the other. Raw data seems to be expanded in volume, and more accurate. I'll leave it up to '09s hikers to report who's elevation profiles are closer to reality.
All three guidebooks beefed up their data collection processes for '09. Appalachian Pages and Thru-Hikers Handbook publishers made serious efforts to visit much of the Trail and near-Trail venues. Companion improved upon an already-good system of local field editors. The latter also changed its page size to be more like the other two, instead of the more vertical format used in the past.
As in the past, each guidebook has some info the other two do not. To get a maximum of data, purchasing more than one book would be the way to go. But not everyone is into such info overload.
If one is going to purchase just one guidebook, then the subtle differences in format between each might be a factor in deciding which one to buy. Those differences have already been mentioned here so no need to repeat them.
Competition can be a good thing, and '09s AT hikers are the beneficiaries of this competition. I sincerely hope that each guidebook will continue to improve and will prosper.
As a postscript, let us not forget the longest-published book, the AT Data Book. It's bare-bones info in the smallest, lightest format, and some hikers in the past have found this was all they needed or wanted.
TrippinBTM
01-30-2009, 22:29
LOL... You need to finish the AT by a certain date too. No one says you need to do the entire trail in one season.
Unless I have a book to read, there not much else to do on the trail but walk.
I had plenty of time, since I had no outside obligations, plenty of money, and only had to worry about the coming winter. But those western trails have a smaller time-window, and are longer.
But I did have to finish it, for myself. Anyways there was nowhere else I really wanted to be.
As for entertainment, well, just sitting there enjoying nature, the peace and all that "intangible" stuff... ah man, how I miss it. I guess I'm more of a "thru-camper" than a thru-hiker (to borrow a friends term for herself). The hiking is secondary to the actual just being out there.