View Full Version : Pet Peeves about trail signs
ridgewalker777
11-10-2004, 20:09
It may sound petty, but thought I'd chime in on pet peeves about trail signs. Gotta love those Dartmouth Outing Club trail signs--red lettering if I remember right. Vermont has the best signs in the northeast, nice weathered plain wood, nothing fancy. One more language complaint is the way the Maine signs regarding side trails to an overlook say "viewpoint". What's wrong with the terse "view"? The word "point" is redundant, at best, and it gives the sign a nerdy sound. Reminds me of a customer I once had who signed his checks "precisely" xxx dollars, actually written out...Of course, there are other issues such as hostels and the like who post info on their business on the A/T itself.
The worst trail signs are the ones you don't see. They are mounted too high or too far off the trail or at a bad angle.
Though my all-time favorite trail signs are the ones that say "Trail". How useless is that? None of these on the AT, luckily.
It may sound petty, but thought I'd chime in on pet peeves about trail signs. Gotta love those Dartmouth Outing Club trail signs--red lettering if I remember right. Vermont has the best signs in the northeast, nice weathered plain wood, nothing fancy. One more language complaint is the way the Maine signs regarding side trails to an overlook say "viewpoint". What's wrong with the terse "view"? The word "point" is redundant, at best, and it gives the sign a nerdy sound. To me, View and Viewpoint are not the same thing. A view is what you see. A viewpoint is the place on which you stand to see it. Perhaps the signs say viewpoint because you are being directed to a place, the Viewpoint. (Perhaps they don't direct you to a view because there may not be a view (clouds, rain, fog, darkness), but the viewpoint will always be there.)
TakeABreak
11-10-2004, 23:15
Personally, I wished that they would remove the majority of the signs, here is an example why.
While going thru Vermont, I came to a lean to about a mile from the next road, as I was preparing dinner and wandering on whether or not it was good place stay (being so close to a road) a day hiker appeared from the river below I had not noticed. I asked him, if he knew of any problems at the lean to since it was so close to the road.
He statement was no problems, here idiots that maintain this area have put up a sign at road yet telling all of the trouble makers, that this place is here so that they can have another place to party and tear up stuff.
don't miss understand me, that was the day hikers statement, I have done trail maintenance and have a great deal of respect for those that do it regularly. I just wish they quit putting up signs all over the place telling people where to go and cause trouble.
Section hikers, responseable day hikers and thru hikers don't need signs they have maps and data book info., if people need signs to tell them where everything is, maybe the should not be out in the woods to begin with.
Kozmic Zian
11-10-2004, 23:31
I say.......The Fewer The Better. Signage is basically, on The Trail, there to let a hiker know what is say, down a trail, or direction, or interesting way points, etc. But any commercial applications or 'other' unofficicial signage should be either not allowed at all, or taken down or both. Who wants signs in the woods, nuff of that stuff on the roads and streets as it is. Should be kept to a bare minimum, and only placed by local hiking club or ATC, or whenever approved by the 'Powers That Be'....and that's it. KZ@
Rocks 'n Roots
11-11-2004, 01:43
I wonder how many people on this board ever made a routed wooden trail sign? I have.
I liked the trail signs as I progressed down the AT because they gave me a sense of continuity and pacing. They are also part of the Trail's traditional features - sort of nostalgic to me. The only thing that ever got me upset with a trail sign was incorrect mileage.
Those people who trash shelters didn't discover them from the signs, they knew they were there already. They were headed to them before they saw that sign believe me. What ATC does now is remove shelters close to roads and move them back further into the woods. There's a certain distance the trashers won't hike to get to a shelter, you'll find that enough climb and distance weeds them out.
The solution is to put the sign a 100 yards down the trail from the road crossing. That way people who were already going that way anyway get the information.
My AT committee in NY once wanted to place signs at Bear Mountain summit showing where the trail ducked back into the woods. I suggested they shouldn't because they would be drawing more casual trippers down the path from the auto road parking lot than hikers.
There's nothing like seeing a shelter junction sign in twilight after a long day...
:clap
Percival
11-11-2004, 02:37
One more language complaint is the way the Maine signs regarding side trails to an overlook say "viewpoint". What's wrong with the terse "view"? The word "point" is redundant, at best, and it gives the sign a nerdy sound.
Reminds me of the dumb phrase "serve up", as in the host served up a plate of spaghetti. Whenever I hear that, I get a picture in my mind of the host coming out with a plate in her hand, and lifting it UP so the guest has to jump and eat at the same time. You either serve something or you don't, altitude has nothing to do with it. Unless you like to serve your food plastered to the ceiling.
Percival
11-11-2004, 02:46
(Perhaps they don't direct you to a view because there may not be a view (clouds, rain, fog, darkness), but the viewpoint will always be there.)
True Frosty, but you improperly put parenthesis within parenthesis. If you want to do something like that, bracket the sentence with the parenthesis inside.
wow...from signs to parenthesis to proper use of brackets!....
Man! this forum degraded quickly :D
Youngblood
11-11-2004, 07:48
First off, it is important to remember that the AT and the signs aren't just for thru-hikers. As a former thru-hiker and a current section hiker, I kind of like signs that point out where I am on occasion as they help me keep track of where I am, just like they are intended to do. (I recall at times wishing they had more signs at/near unpaved road crossings so I could be sure of which road it was.) Signpost that identify locations are good for hikers that like to take photos of their trips and are somewhat like shelters in that they help bring back memories for those who have been there before because they are easily recognizable... usually more so than just a photo of a section of the trail. Some signs have 'character' and leave a lasting impression, this sign: http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/1332/password/0/sort/1/cat/all/page/1 was begging for me to shoot it with my camera when I passed bye.
Youngblood
That sign on top of Katahdin seems pretty damn pointless. Anyone ever get up there and say "I wonder where I'm at?"
JoeHiker
11-11-2004, 13:45
Makes for a nice photo, though.
MadRiver
11-11-2004, 14:20
I heard a rumor that there is a movement afoot to remove all blazing in the White Mountain National Forest. The person who told me this heard it in a meeting with National Forest personnel. I haven’t been able to substantiate his claim within any published document, yet I do believe him that it was discussed. Their rationale was that they would prefer that people rely more on map & compass than blazing/signs. Ok, can we say train wreak waiting to happen?
Rocks 'n Roots
11-11-2004, 15:44
Somehow that doesn't surprise me Madriver. There's a lot of crazy unexpected things happening with the AT.
Youngblood: Exactly! Good post...
Kerosene
11-11-2004, 20:54
I heard a rumor that there is a movement afoot to remove all blazing in the White Mountain National Forest.I've heard the same rumor. I've heard that it's hard enough to follow the AT with all of the intersecting trails through here, let alone in high winds and fog with no visibility to take a sighting!
Percival
11-11-2004, 21:07
It'll never happen. The liability potential would increase 1000x if they removed the blazes. Can you imagine the gov't explaining in court why a hiker got lost and died up there, "we wanted to give the White Mountains a more remote feeling so we removed all the blaze markings to encourgage hikers to develop their compass and bloodhounding skills."
Pencil Pusher
11-12-2004, 03:58
It'll never happen. The liability potential would increase 1000x if they removed the blazes. Can you imagine the gov't explaining in court why a hiker got lost and died up there, "we wanted to give the White Mountains a more remote feeling so we removed all the blaze markings to encourgage hikers to develop their compass and bloodhounding skills."
The sad thing is, that's probably true. Somehow it's the government's fault for the hiker getting lost...:rolleyes:
Pencil Pusher
11-12-2004, 04:05
Fer cripes sake, no edit button! Well Percival's post reminded me of a joke someone recently sent to me (obviously geared towards the elections):
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost.
She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat
below. She shouted to him "Excuse me, can you help me?
I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I
don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're
in a hot air balloon
about 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet
above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes
north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west
longitude.
She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a
Republican."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told
me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to
make of your information, and I'm still
lost. Frankly you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."
"I am" replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or
where you're going. You've risen to where you are due
to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that
you have no idea how to keep, and you expected me to
solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position
you were in before we met, but
somehow now, it's my fault."
I've heard the same rumor. I've heard that it's hard enough to follow the AT with all of the intersecting trails through here, let alone in high winds and fog with no visibility to take a sighting!
The AT, and other trails are relatively easy to follow though the White Mountains, provided they are below tree line. There are two places where caution is needed. First, is at intersections. Second, is above tree line where there are cairns. Cairns mark the trail much better in fog. Doubt if they will ever be removed.
If you have problems following the AT, or get confused, then bring along a map and stop whinning.
Hammock Hanger
11-12-2004, 08:48
Some signs have 'character' and leave a lasting impression, this sign: http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/1332/password/0/sort/1/cat/all/page/1 was begging for me to shoot it with my camera when I passed bye.
Youngblood
YB: I think a lot of hikers shot that sign when going by. Sue/HH
swamp dawg
11-12-2004, 09:53
I do not have a problem with signs on the trail. Many times they help me figure out just where I am or how long I need to go till I get where I need to be. The trail is used by all types of folks with different abilities and skill levels. Most folks who hike on the trail don't have a clue or map, so sign are most important to these day hikers.
Life is good ......... Swamp Dawg
SGT Rock
11-12-2004, 10:17
There is nothing wrong witha few signs, there really aren't that many and how the heck can a trail sign ruin your hike. Geez!
MadRiver
11-12-2004, 10:57
The problem I have with removing the blazing in the White Mountains is that it primarily affects novice day hikers. Most of us who hike on a regular basis are comfortable enough with our map & compass skills that the elimination of blazing would not have an adverse impact on our hike. After all, the Wilderness Protection Area does not have blazing and we have no problem navigating through that area.
Therefore, the burden of eliminating blazing falls to the novice family hiker who does not have the skills or the experience to safely navigate through the forest without having blazing as a guide. I believe before this topic were to come to fruition, the local S&R teams would have a few choice words to say on the subject.
max patch
11-12-2004, 12:08
Most of us who hike on a regular basis are comfortable enough with our map & compass skills that the elimination of blazing would not have an adverse impact on our hike.
Most of the hikers I know - potential thru hikers or regular section/day hikers - wouldn't know how to use a map and compass if they had to. And if you read past threads on the subject, most of them don't even CARRY maps. Saves a whole ounce or so.
MadRiver
11-12-2004, 12:22
Most of the hikers I know - potential thru hikers or regular section/day hikers - wouldn't know how to use a map and compass if they had to. And if you read past threads on the subject, most of them don't even CARRY maps. Saves a whole ounce or so.
You are probably correct. I, however, feel more comfortable when I carry a map & compass even though I rarely use it during my hike. I have on several occasions pulled it out to show a novice day hiker where he/she was in relationship to a particular trailhead.
To me, View and Viewpoint are not the same thing. A view is what you see. A viewpoint is the place on which you stand to see it. Perhaps the signs say viewpoint because you are being directed to a place, the Viewpoint. (Perhaps they don't direct you to a view because there may not be a view (clouds, rain, fog, darkness), but the viewpoint will always be there.)
Keep in mind that some volunteer made that sign with a router -- and most likely freehand. If you don't think it difficult, try it sometime. I did. Just once. You can see my handiwork where the White Brook Trail diverges from the old Fire Warden's Trail on Whitecap.
When my overseer saw the results of my efforts, he was polite. "Let's put up a legitimate MATC sign," he said, and walked on.
Weary
Lone Wolf
11-12-2004, 12:25
I blue-blazed down that Fire Warden's Trail a few years back. One hell of a trail!
max patch
11-12-2004, 12:28
I love to come across old wooden trail signs on the trail.
And if the prices paid for old trail signs retired by the AMC during their annual auction are any indication, then plenty of other people do to.
That sign on top of Katahdin seems pretty damn pointless. Anyone ever get up there and say "I wonder where I'm at?"
Yeah. That's why you never see a picture of the sign when groups of thru hikers converge together on the summit.
Weary
walkin' wally
11-12-2004, 12:32
I blue-blazed down that Fire Warden's Trail a few years back. One hell of a trail!
Absolutely
walkin' wally
11-12-2004, 12:45
One sign often missing in my section leads to the outlet of Rainbow Lake. There is one heck of a view of Katahdin across the lake plus a great place to spend the night. That trail is not blue blazed either therefore it can be easily missed. Some folks like to collect this sign as a souvenir and this is a really remote area.
my PET PEEVE about signs on the A.T. (& any other trails..) is there are too
much signage!
on the last section-hike (Hampton,TN to Damascus,VA....there were signs @ every road crossing on the trail trees!
also "arrows" painted on trees (in WHITE BLAZE paint)....arent the original blazes enuff??????
Rocks 'n Roots
11-12-2004, 15:12
After being motivated by Garvey's book for my first long distance hike the "100 Mile Wilderness" sign and its warning had some impact on me...
Lone Wolf
11-12-2004, 15:16
How about that stupid sign at Ashby Gap, U.S.50 that says "George Washington passed by this stone wall".
After being motivated by Garvey's book for my first long distance hike the "100 Mile Wilderness" sign and its warning had some impact on me...
Yeah, when I got there in 2000, it said 90 miles, not 100. The sign at the Monson end was darn near falling off the post. I think the sign was changed by MATC later that fall.
Oh well, I have a a photo of the "90 mile wilderness" sign.