AT Maps

[KEEKER1]

2005 thru-hike planned from Fontana NOBO starting 4.1.4 Have completed the 1st 167 miles(and still have vivid memories of the climb out of NOC!)I have the AT maps for the Smokies to Harpers Ferry. Suggestions please on the use or non use of maps. Assume I can purchase remaining maps @ the AT store. Anybody try to hike w/o maps??:confused:

[The Solemates]

We didnt carry a single map on our thru. Dont need em. Follow the trail N. We carried the handbook for town info.

[Kerosene]

I agree that you don't need a map to follow the Trail. However, they are irreplaceable if you need to go off-trail in an emergency.

[neo]

i dont carry them,i carry the thru hiker hand book:sun neo

[hungryhowie]

This is the same advice that I give to everyone at the beginning of their hike respecting whether to carry maps or not.

Start your hike with the first set of maps. They don't weigh all that much, and if you find them useful, you can purchase/continue to use them all the way to Maine. As the AT is such a well trodden and well marked trail, however, most hikers find that the maps are not a neccesity, and use them more for daily planning (the elevation profiles are very helpful), and finding alternate routes to town (Where does that road go?) As far as helping you once you're lost, however, maps are somehwat useless for most. Besides the fact that you'd need extensive crosscountry and compass experience, a vast majority of the AT maps show no more than a ~2 mile strip of land surrounding the trail, hardly enough to be of real help in an emergency.

Fortunately for northbound hikers, the southern parts of the trail seem to be both the best-marked and the most-trodden. Carrying maps at the beginning will allow you that extra bit of insurance and confidence, however, until you have the experience needed to decide for yourself.

-howie

[rocket04]

I recommend doing a search for "maps" because there were some threads before that dealt with this subject matter that had many excellent answers. In general, people seem to say that for following the trail, the maps are not necessary, but are good for emergencies and also to get additional facts on your surroundings for your personal pleasure.

Having said that, I did not carry any and did not miss them. Although I do recognize the advantages they represent and admit that I took a small calculated risk not bringing any.

[A-Train]

Yah, this debate has been re-hashed over and over on here.

I used maps about 80% of the time on my hike. Only time I didn't use them was when I had maildrop issues. Even then I was traveling with hikers who had them and did NOT mind sharing.

Basically hundreds if not thousands of thru-hikers have walked to Maine or Georgia sans maps. Yes you can just follow the blazes and get by with handbook/companion/data book.

Point is you always run the risk of getting into a sticky situation when you enter the backcountry without maps. Yes the AT is not the Gobi or even the Sierras, but that you're still capable of getting lost in inclement weather, falling and injuring yourself or something along those lines.

It's a personal choice to carry and I don't judge folks who don't, but you should certainly be responsbile for your actions should something happen to you. The thread on Dinwiddie in the SMokies is proof that even experienced hikers who know the area they are hiking can still run into trouble.

Lots of thru-hikers forget, but we're all human

[hungryhowie]

The thread on Dinwiddie in the SMokies is proof that even experienced hikers who know the area they are hiking can still run into trouble.

Lots of thru-hikers forget, but we're all human

A-train, I certainly don't disagree with your assessment on carrying maps (I carried them too, afterall), but I don't think your reference to Dinwiddie in the Smokies is relevant. As such, I don't think it is fair to use him as a reason why people should carry maps. While it would appear that he is certainly an experienced hiker (and it would seem he knows the Smokies very very well), twisting/breaking an ankle really has nothing to do with having or not having a map.

just my $0.02

-howie

[Frosty]

A-train, I certainly don't disagree with your assessment on carrying maps (I carried them too, afterall), but I don't think your reference to Dinwiddie in the Smokies is relevant. As such, I don't think it is fair to use him as a reason why people should carry maps. While it would appear that he is certainly an experienced hiker (and it would seem he knows the Smokies very very well), twisting/breaking an ankle really has nothing to do with having or not having a map.

just my $0.02

-howieI don't think A-Train meant that Dinwiddie should have been carrying maps, only that he is a sort of unfortunate proof that unexpected things can happen to even the most experienced hikers. Looking at it that way, it makes sense to me.

[hungryhowie]

I don't think A-Train meant that Dinwiddie should have been carrying maps, only that he is a sort of unfortunate proof that unexpected things can happen to even the most experienced hikers. Looking at it that way, it makes sense to me.

I should have been more clear. I agree that Dinwiddie's circumstance is unfortunate proof that unexpected things can happen to even the most experienced hikers, but in a thread debating the merits of carrying or not carrying maps, where what happened to Dinwiddie had no correlation to whether he was carrying a map, the example is out of context, out of place, and therefore should not be offered as a means of convincing someone to carry a map.

-howie

[minnesotasmith]

With info on some little-known maps potentially useful for those considering hiking on the AT:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6749

[A-Train]

Howie-

Sorry for the confusion. Frosty is 100% right. I wasn't saying anything about Dunwiddie having maps or not having maps. I don't know if he had them or not. My point was that as experienced as someone may be we as humans have no control over the elements and freak things can happen even to the best of us. Maps just give you one more resource incase you do find yourself in danger.

I know Balt. Jack is a big proponent of carrying maps, even thought he has hiked the trail numerous times. Yes he could easily say he knows the trail, but doesn't roll the dice, which I think is pretty smart should anything God forbid, ever happen.

[Peaks]

Short and sweet. It's irresponsible to hike almost anywhere, including the AT without maps.

[rocket04]

...in a thread debating the merits of carrying or not carrying maps, where what happened to Dinwiddie had no correlation to whether he was carrying a map, the example is out of context, out of place, and therefore should not be offered as a means of convincing someone to carry a map. I disagree, I think it's very relevant. The fact that all kinds of unexpected things can happen is directly related to the merits of carrying maps and as such examples demonstrating the unpredictability of the trail are well within context IMHO. Because if freak accidents couldn't occur, we'd be seeing entirely different replies to this topic.

[Jack Tarlin]

A few quick comments: This subject has been very extensively discussed here at Whiteblaze, and I strongly urge folks who are truly interested in the subject to use the "Search" button and read some of the older threads. Some of them are quite detailed as far as listing the many ways that maps can be helpful, or even crucial, when you're hiking.

I just want to say I disagree stringly with Howie and some of the other posters here. First, Howie's comment that maps are useless for most hikers is simply wrong. Even without "cross-country and compass" experience, a map will display jeep tracks, power lines, roads, and other terrain features. This information can be useful to anyone, regardless of their level of backwoods experience. More to the point, it'll show people WHERE THESE FEATURES are, where they go and where they end up, and this information can be absolutely crucial in an emergency situation, especially if one has to figure out the best way to get off the Trail and get help, either for one's self, or for others. Likewise, if one makes the questionable but sometimes necessary decision to leave the Trail and "bushwhack" in an emergency situation, maps will once again be a great assistance, as far as telling you where roads are, where streams end up, where one will be heading uphill or down, where the easiest terrain is if one is injured or assisting an injured hiker, etc. Without maps, ONE IS ESSENTIALLY BLIND to the features of the land that surrounds them; one knows NOTHING, and one is essentially limited to the A.T. and where it leads. This means that in an emergency situation, one is limited to either going forward on the Trail, or re-tracing one's steps, and this is often NOT the quickest or most efficient way to find help. Or, one might realize that in light of where they are, the best and safest thing to do would be to stay put and wait for help, and this is sometimes, tho not always, the wisest choice. Without maps, it also means one could make a life-threatening WRONG decision, such as heading off in an entirely wrong direction, following a promising-looking stream that abruptly ends in the middle of nowhere, heading to higher ground in bad weather instead of heading down, etc.

I think it's reckless and irresponsible for "veteran" thru-hikers to bluntly tell newcomers that they don't need maps to hike the A.T. Can one thru-hike without 'em? Sure you can, and many folks have. But the question is whether you SHOULD do this, not whether or not you CAN.

The only possible reasons not to carry them is to save a few ounces or a few dollars, and I think these are miserably weak excuses. There are far wiser ways to save pack weight or money. Without maps, one is severely limited in how one can help one's self or others in an emergency situation. (They're also useful for all sorts of things in non-emergency situations as well).

Howie's additional comment that the maps aren't worth much because they only show, at most, a few miles of what adjoins the Trail is also a foolish statement....very frequently, a few miles is all thatyou need: There are many, many sections of the Trail where a few miles or less is all you need to find help, a road, etc. Knowing what is actually out there on either side of the Trail can be crucial in helping you make wise decisions when a problem occurs. And even if your maps only tell you what it's like for a few miles on either side of the Trail, this is far better THAN NOT KNOWING ANYTHING AT ALL, which is where you'd be in an emergency if you weren't carrying them.

Carrying current Trail maps, and knowing how to read and use them, is, in my opinion, one of the most sensible things one can do while hiking, and I wouldn't think of going out into the backcountry without them. Going without them because one is doubtful that that they're needed, or doubtful that they do much good, is simply wrong. And for experienced hikers and backwoodsmen to tell people that maps aren't needed----people who, in all likelihood have less outdoors experience than the folks giving the "advice"------well, this is wrong too. People have the "right" to do questionable or stupid things when they're hiking, but encouraging others to do likewise does not, in my opinion, seem to be either helpful or responsible.

[weary]

Maps are certainly useful for safety reasons, especially in remote states like Maine. But whether they are NEEDED really depends on why one is hiking. I carry maps mostly out of a sense of curiosity. I like to know as much as I easily can about the country through which I'm hiking.

I like to know the names of the streams, where roads lead, the names of the mountains, and the nature of the surrounding terrain. I can't imagine why one would hike 2,170 miles without being curious about what the country holds beyond a narrow foot path.

I went south in 1993 because I was curious about what the southern Appalachians were like. I continued walking north to Katahdin largely because of an urge to see what was around the next bend in the trail and over the horizon. I would have been bored and frustrated without maps.

The trail certainly can be enjoyable without maps. You meet a lot of great people. Just achieving a challenge is reason enough for some. But maps are needed by us curious folks.

Weary

[minnesotasmith]

Maps are handy as Hades, and the worse things are, the more you need them. They can be more critical than food to have along, and chosen wisely, weigh little. Even if someone has a satellite phone, a GPS unit, and is traveling in a group, IMO there can be no excuse for going mapless on an overnight hike, or even a day hike of any length.

[hungryhowie]

hmmm...

It would seem that somehow I ended up in the group of people that advise hikers not to carry maps with them. I think if you go back and read my first post you'll find that I did in fact recommend starting with them, as I always recommend, and carrying the first set before judging for yourself whether you want to carry them or not (as I even said later, I carry them myself).

All I'm saying, is that the current AT maps don't serve the hiking community very well. Their small-scale topography and extremely limited context does little for those in need. I am reminded of several times when I wanted to bush-whack out to roads to get to a town early, but had no idea whether roads connected. Larger-scale maps with larger scale topography showing more context and useful physical features better serve those who are lost, or are trying to find a way out. In the Appalachians, I don't need to see lines drawn every 10-foot of elevation change.

whatever.

-howie

[Pooja Blue]

As a disabled hiker, I needed the maps, for the road information (in case of an emergency) and also for the profiles. While the profiles are notorious for their inaccuracies, they were invaluable for me for planning my day so I didn't end up with a 4000 climb at the end of a long day of hiking. Also, having an idea of what was to come helped me mentally shore up so I could tackle the task at hand.

[Jack Tarlin]

Howie:

You're right. In your first post, you did indeed suggest that folks start out with maps and then decide later on if they needed them for the whole Trail.

But you also clearly implied that you don't think most thru-hikers consider them of vital importance, and that other than a "confidence builder" for hikers at the beginning of their trips, they're not really necessary.

You also made the remarkable comment that "As far as helping you once you're lost, however, maps are somewhat useless..."

What an extraordinary thing to say! In point of fact, maps can be of vital importance when you're lost. They can save your life, or help you to make wise decisions that enable you to help others. How you can say that they're "somewhat useless" if you find yourself lost? Do you think most folks, especially folks with limited backwoods experience would be BETTER off without them if they find themselves lost?

To say or imply that maps are "somewhat useless", especially in an emergency situation, is a statement so extraordinarily wrong that I can't believe that a hiker of Howie's standing would actually say such a thing.

The Fish and Game Department of New Hampshire maintains an excellent educational website for folks planning to hike in the State. It is geared primarily to folks with limited outdoor experience. On the site, they display a list of what they consider ESSENTIAL items that should be carried at ALL times in ther backcountry.

The FIRST item they list is maps.

These folks have been involved in countless Searches and Rescues. Their knowledge and experience is vast. I defer to their expertise: If they put "Maps" on the top of their essentials list, I'm inclined to believe they have a good reason for doing so.

To imply or suggest that maps aren't needed by most folks on the A.T., or to state that they are "somewhat useless" is a statement both incorrect, and irresponsible.

Any Search and Rescue professional will tell you something very different.

[weary]

While the profiles are notorious for their inaccuracies, they were invaluable for me for planning my day so I didn't end up with a 4000 climb at the end of a long day of hiking.
The vertical profiles are necessarily exaggerated, but they strike me as accurate in portraying the relative distance from the trail to the top of a mountain or ridgeline. The major problem is that the maps contour intervals disguise the numerous small ups and downs such as one experiences in the 50 miles or so south of Harpers Ferry. The profile suggests a relatively flat trail, while in fact it makes for difficult days -- at least that is my memory.

Weary

[Peaks]

hmmm...



All I'm saying, is that the current AT maps don't serve the hiking community very well.

-howie

The current AT maps are a big big improvement over the maps of 20 years ago.

[hungryhowie]

Ok, change my statement to "As far as helping you once you're lost, however, the current breed of AT maps are somewhat useless due to their remarkable lack of context.

And as for my implication that most thruhikers don't consider maps to be of vital importance, I think that's an accurate statement from my personal observations. That doesn't mean that not carrying maps the right way to go, but it certainly seems to be the "popular" opinion of thruhikers on the trail. I think it is a stark minority of hikers who consistently carry maps throughout their hike.

I don't deny that good maps are vital, I just don't think that the current AT maps are all that good.

I suppose I've gotten to a point where I no longer like telling people what to do. I just like to make sure all sides are presented,suggest the safest alternative at the beginning, and make sure they know that they have a choice...except when it comes to rainpants :)

-howie

[Lugnut]

Caution:
Those foolish enough to express an opinion on this site should be prepared to accept the consequences! :(

[Jack Tarlin]

I disagree that it's a "stark minority" of thru-hikers that carry maps.

And while there are many folks who don't carry them who don't think they're of vital importance, well, these folks sure like to borrow 'em or sneak a peek at 'em when they someone else studying one. It is virtually impossible to put out a map and examine one without having a mapless hiker immediately ask if he can have a gander. Seems that a lot of folks are too lazy or cheap to buy their own, but they sure find these items extremely useful when someone else has done so!

And in talking about how important maps are, nobody's telling anyone else what to do. This thread was begun by someone who was wondering if it was a good idea to carry them, and in response, he got all sorts of opinions.

Nobody has suggested here that it's absolutely necessary or required that one carry maps on the A.T. Nobody is questioning whether or not one CAN hike without them. Of course you can. What is being debated is whether or not one SHOULD carry them, and in telling prospective thru-hikers or new backpackers that most experts and ALL Search & Rescue or Emergency personnel think maps are absoultely vital......well, this isn't dictating to folks what they MUST do. It's merely telling tham what they probably ought to do, at least if they have any sense.