Figuring milage

[JokerJersey]

This isn't really directed at the AT, but more hiking in general. When hiking in areas with few distinguishing land features, how do you know how far you have gone in a day? Some trails are marked with milage markers, but some aren't. I know GPS units will tell you how far you've gone, but if you don't have one or it breaks, then what? I've been out twice now where I thought I was within 20-30 mins of a water source based on my map and how fast I thought I had been hiking, but it turned out I was actually about twice that far from it. Wasn't a big deal since I still had enough water and it was mid-day, but what happens if it gets dark and you still don't know how far you are from a campsite/water source/ranger station/trailhead?

I'm sure once you've been hiking for a long time, you'll get a rough idea of how many miles per hour you've done and can make a pretty accurate estimate based on that. But prior to that, how did you do it? Pace count? Just guessed? Didn't care?

[Doc]

I have been amazed many times to find out that my average is very close to 2 miles per hour unless I'm doing something like climbing Moody Mt. here in Maine. Although I seldom wear a watch at home, on the trail I always have a watch and multiply time hiked by 2. This tends to be very accurate for me even when there are places where I slow down some and other places where my pace picks up a little. Over several hours 2 mph works for me. Obviously, those in better or worse shape will have a different number. Short breaks and quick visits to the bushes really don't impact this rate, but If I take a half hour break I will deduct that from my time.

[Tin Man]

I have been amazed many times to find out that my average is very close to 2 miles per hour unless I'm doing something like climbing Moody Mt. here in Maine. Although I seldom wear a watch at home, on the trail I always have a watch and multiply time hiked by 2. This tends to be very accurate for me even when there are places where I slow down some and other places where my pace picks up a little. Over several hours 2 mph works for me. Obviously, those in better or worse shape will have a different number. Short breaks and quick visits to the bushes really don't impact this rate, but If I take a half hour break I will deduct that from my time.

ditto on the watch and knowing your pace. amazingly simple dead reckoning tool.

[Lyle]

Void of reliable landmarks (VERY rare), I just make my best estimate based on my knowledge of my own pace (modified for terrain) and time lapsed. Basically, just what you said about once you have a bit of experience.

Experience is the best teacher once you know how to read a map and understand the basics of using a compass. If you don't really understand how to read a map and relate it to your surroundings, then that should be your priority before you go too far afield.

The AT is a pretty safe place to learn, but it is by no means devoid of landmarks. If you are having problems relating the AT to the map, this is where you need to spend some time - find someone who knows how to navigate to teach you the fundamentals, then practice. It's best to keep track of your progress on the map as you hike along, not try to figure out where you are only intermittently. Carry your map in a handy pocket, and refer to it frequently.

Practice, Practice, Practice.

[Lyle]

I have been amazed many times to find out that my average is very close to 2 miles per hour unless I'm doing something like climbing Moody Mt. here in Maine. Although I seldom wear a watch at home, on the trail I always have a watch and multiply time hiked by 2. This tends to be very accurate for me even when there are places where I slow down some and other places where my pace picks up a little. Over several hours 2 mph works for me. Obviously, those in better or worse shape will have a different number. Short breaks and quick visits to the bushes really don't impact this rate, but If I take a half hour break I will deduct that from my time.


Agree with this statement, but as a new hiker, one has to consider if they have learned to pace themselves consistently. This is something that eventually comes naturally, but some new hikers still fall into the "boy scout" technique of blasting out of the starting gate, then dying for a time, then blasting ahead again. Until one learns to hike at a constant, sustainable speed, basing miles hiked on time hiked is much less accurate.

[10-K]

2 mph works for me.

Also, if you have maps you can tweak the time even further by comparing how long it's taken you to hike between landmarks like shelters, gaps, road crossings, etc.

[NCYankee]

I am one of those location obsessed hikers... I need to know exactly where I am at any given point, including what I have just done and what I am about to do.

For the AT it is really easy because you can get by with using the databook to identify locations which are normally reasonably well marked or definable (at least in the southern portions I have hiked).

For other trails, such as the Lakeshore Trail (which I just did this past weekend) it is tougher. I normally figure that, including nonpack drop breaks (just catching my breath and stopping for a minute to five), I cover 2 mile per hour of hiking. I always wear a Timex watch so that I can use the timer to know how long I have hiked for the day (as well as use the alarm).

After getting lost many many many times (my given trail name is Wrong Turn) I never leave without map and compass (GPS is just too heavy for me). I always make a point to mark any definable location and check it off when I pass... this is the most reliable method I have come up with.

Some people like going out and just getting lost in the woods and enjoying their trip, I am not one of those people.

A couple of great suggestions to improve your skills could be:
1. My local REI has a free map and compass class that was really beneficial
2. My local parks and rec has free courses introducing orienteering, a great way to read maps and mark features
3. My buddy took me geocacheing, a great method for learning to follow directions
4. I went to office depot and got a hand clicker and counted steps up a trail that is 2 miles to the top, divided by 2 and got my mile count step (it breaks the pain cycle on really big climbs by focusing my mind onto something else)
5. Lots of stores carry pedometers, I don't know how much I trust them, but they range from $5-$200 and have a variety of features

You can be as basic as just timing your miles and using a guestimate or counting steps to really becoming proficient with a map and compass to getting into expensive GPS units.

The simple answer is that there are a lot of methods and you can have fun figuring out which is the ideal solution for you. Of course, this is just my experience.

[garlic08]

I agree with others above that knowing your pace in various conditions is a great way to navigate. And that this takes a lot of practice in known terrain. The best tools are a watch, map, and pen. Write down the time on the map at every known location (trail junction, road crossing, shelter, stream) and calculate your average pace and write that down, too. Over a season or two, you'll see an trend for your pace on climbs, descents, roadwalks, etc.

For me, it's a 2 mph daily overall average, good for longer-term strategy like where to camp for the night. But it's 3 mph while walking on decent tread like much of the AT, which I use for short-term concerns like navigation to the next known point like a water source. 3 mph works out to a tenth of a mile in 2 minutes, so you can get really accurate. If your next water is 1.3 miles, it should be a 26 minute walk if you don't take a break.

This skill is extremely important on unmarked trails like the CDT. I use my watch way more than I use my compass. Or maybe I never have to use my compass because I use my watch.

Also, when I'm hiking alone, I set the hourly chime on my watch to remind me to check the map and take a bearing or a guess as to where I am. That keeps me on my route, and reaffirms my pace.

[rgarling]

A cheap pedometer works ok, but you should probably shorten the length of your pace by about 10% for trail walking as opposed to road walking.

[JokerJersey]

Thanks for all the responses guys! I've been spending a lot of my hiking time in the Pine Barrens of NJ lately, as it is close by and affords me the option of hiking a lot more often. Like I mentioned though, it's not very geographically diverse and there aren't many terrain identifiers to go by.

Thanks for the idea of noting times on the map Garlic, I'll have to start doing that. I remember taking a land nav. course in the military awhile back and they had us use the pace count method plus the pace cord, but I don't remember what my stride was like and I never remembered to count my knots so it was next to useless anyway. I'm good in the map department, in that I know how to read them, how to orient myself, and how to shoot azimuths/back azimuths to find a point, but I remember a lot of that is dependant on finding distinguishing terrain features. In my area, those are hard to come by.

As far as pedometers go, I'm kinda leary of them. My girlfriend got one for free at work and after a 7 mile marked hike, it said we had gone 9.1 miles. Needless to say, that was the last time we used it.

Thanks again for the tips and ideas all!

[Dogwood]

Start from a base walking rate of 2 miles per hour and adjust according to elevation changes, about 1/2 mile less per hour for every 1000 ft elev. gain and add 1/2 mile per hr. for elev. loss. These are just generizations as how much wt. one is hauling, physical condition, steepness of the trail, tread conditions, how many miles hiked earlier in the day, etc. can all play a factor in how fast, and therefore how far, a hiker has gone. After awhile you will get so good at determining your hiking rate under various conditions, and therefore how far you have traveled, you will be able to generally determine where you are on the trail. Same with wt. I can generally tell, within 5 %, how much wt. is in my pack just by picking it up. Pine Barrens are very flat though.

[NCYankee]

Actually yesterday my wife and I were trying to kill an hour before we could get a table in a restaurant and we ended up in a dollar tree (dollar store). At the check out they had a pedometer that measures steps just by the bounce in it.

I'm not saying that it is a bulletproof method, because it isn't measuring distance but rather strides, but it is a good backup solution.

For $1 I figured it was hard to go wrong.

[rgarling]

As far as pedometers go, I'm kinda leary of them. My girlfriend got one for free at work and after a 7 mile marked hike, it said we had gone 9.1 miles. Needless to say, that was the last time we used it.


You must set your stride length correctly for the pedometer to accurately indicate distance. In my case, decreasing the (correctly set) stride length for flat roads by 10% resulted in a quite accurate distance along a rough trail. I have often used time to dead-recon distance and a pedometer is more accurate. A 10% reduction is just a recommended starting point. You must adjust it for your average stride length along the trail.

[Summit]

In my experience, a really really long, ridiculously long way is about a mile! :D :p

[GeneralLee10]

Alot have said the same as I'm going to say 2miles per hour is a very good average. The average human does not walk much faster than that. If you know much about History in Fl and sure many other places. You will find that most towns are around 8 to 10 miles apart, why? That was cause of the simple fact a person could make it from 1 town to the next in a day's time. Not having to walk in the night or set camp was safer for us White man due to the Indian attacks that usually happened at night. So I would stick with the 2mi. per hour and if you find that you are faster than that you will be a happy Hiker at the end of the day. Plus I think good made it this way cause counting by two's is much easier:D That rule of thumb has never led me wrong I have always made it to my destination on time using 2mi per hr.

Time is relative