PDA

View Full Version : A.T. grows 4200 feet



TJ aka Teej
01-11-2005, 10:34
Everything below lifted from www.appalachiantrail.org

The 2005 edition of the Appalachian Trail Data Book is now available, with a
new official length of the Trail—2,174.9 miles, or 0.8 mile longer than
reported in 2004. This is the 27th edition of the Data Book compiled by volunteer
Daniel D. Chazin of the New York-New Jersey Trail Conference and the ATC board's
publications committee. Trail mileage varies slightly every year as clubs and
the ATC complete relocations, working to place the A.T. in its optimal,
protected location.

Where did the mileage change?
Pennsylvania -0.1 mile
Maryland/W.Va./Northern Va. +0.3 mile
Central Virginia +0.9 mile
Tennessee/North Carolina -0.1 mile
North Carolina/Georgia -0.2 mile

Recent A.T. Mileage
2005 2,174.9
2004 2,174.1
2003 2,172.6
2002 2,168.8
1995 2158
1990 2143
1980 2085
1970 2003
1965 1999
1948 2028
1937 2049

DebW
01-11-2005, 14:47
Guess there weren't any 2000 milers in 1965. Wonder how often they update the Katahdin sign? In 1980, the sign said 2025.0.

Lobo
01-11-2005, 15:09
I'm glad I did my hike in 2000 when the distance was only 2,167.1 miles!

The Solemates
01-11-2005, 15:48
Wonder how often they update the Katahdin sign? In 1980, the sign said 2025.0.

I know Ive seen this somewhere, but I couldnt find the info on the AT"C" website. Something like every 5 or 10 years or something. I know the old one is hanging in headquarters.

DebW
01-11-2005, 17:19
I know Ive seen this somewhere, but I couldnt find the info on the AT"C" website. Something like every 5 or 10 years or something. I know the old one is hanging in headquarters.

That's about what I'd expect.

Jack Tarlin
01-11-2005, 18:01
Geez, like Virginia wasn't long enough already!

The good news, however, is that we seem to have lost 176 yards in Pennsylvania somewhere, which is, of course, a good thing.

Thanx, Teej, for sending this along.

Footslogger
01-11-2005, 18:23
Geez, like Virginia wasn't long enough already!

The good news, however, is that we seem to have lost 176 yards in Pennsylvania somewhere, which is, of course, a good thing.
============================
Sure hope it's 176 yards in NORTHERN PA

'Slogger
AT 2003

MedicineMan
01-11-2005, 19:41
maybe the powers that be secretly want the AT as long as the PCT?

TJ aka Teej
01-12-2005, 10:34
Wonder how often they update the Katahdin sign?Although the mileage changes every year, the sign is only redone when it weathers. It seems like 3-4 years is the life of wood on Baxter Peak, and Rick StCroix is (I believe - Weary, who does this chore?) the MATC maintainer who packs the signs up and down the mountain. In days gone by the sign would be damaged more by vandals than weather.

Crash
01-13-2005, 15:35
The big question is 'how many miles of trail we have now are the same where Earl planted his boots?

Jack Tarlin
01-13-2005, 17:05
Fewer than you might think, at least if you're talking about his first thru-hike. Back in 1948, before the Appalachian Trail Conference's extended land-acquisition efforts, a great deal of the Trail was on roads. Much of the path he trod in '48 is no longer part of the oficial Trail. This was still true during Earl's second thru-hike in 1965. However, there hasn't been THAT much of a change since his last hike in '98; this means that today's thru-hiker is indeed walking in Earl's footsteps for much of the Trail, or at least it'd be accurate to say that you're still seeing most of what he did, at least in 1998.

weary
01-13-2005, 17:43
The big question is 'how many miles of trail we have now are the same where Earl planted his boots?
Probably 200 miles in Maine have been relocated since Earl did his first walk. Around 170 of those miles occurred in the 70s and early 80s after Congress set a time definite for the trail location to be determined.

MATC wanted the trail to be on the high ridges -- not the valleys that Myron Avery followed in places to take advantage of old logging roads. Part of the change was to create a more scenic and challenging Trail. But part was because the paper and logging companies wanted their roads back.

The change is not universally popular. In the 70s I was exploring the new route over the Bigelow Range when a two-time thru hiker came by. He expressed disgust with how difficult the trail had become since his first hike and said he was following the old route whenever he could find it.

Earl Shaffer expressed the same feelings. But overall, I prefer the new, though I sense some of the relocations were not carefully thought out. We are spending a lot of time, volunteer effort, and money creating rock steps on steep trail sections that might better had been switch backs.

MATC, like most maintaining clubs with sections not publically owned, existed for most of its first 50 years by cooperating with the private landowners that owned the land used by the trail. Some remnants of that culture of doing what the landowners will allow persists to this day.

REmember also that most maintainers are mostly weekend hikers, if they hike at all. (Some just like to build things in the woods) seek a challenging trail for weekend hikes, not necessarily a trail that most thru hikers would prefer after having already hiking 2000 miles.

Weary

Jack Tarlin
01-13-2005, 20:10
Earl's dismay over how the Trail had changed is well-known; he did indeed feel that the Trail had become needlessly difficult.

It should be remembered tho, that this new level of difficulty was not merely due to trail re-locations, land acquisitions, and attempts to put the Trail in wilder places.

I vividly remember in 1998 Earl telling me how the Trail had changed (and not for the better) and how much harder it was than it used to be.

I didn't have the heart to tell Earl that this was no doubt due, at least in part, to the fact that he was now fifty years older!

Crash
01-13-2005, 22:56
Earl's dismay over how the Trail had changed is well-known; he did indeed feel that the Trail had become needlessly difficult.

It should be remembered tho, that this new level of difficulty was not merely due to trail re-locations, land acquisitions, and attempts to put the Trail in wilder places.

I vividly remember in 1998 Earl telling me how the Trail had changed (and not for the better) and how much harder it was than it used to be.

I didn't have the heart to tell Earl that this was no doubt due, at least in part, to the fact that he was now fifty years older!
Especially in Pennsylvania I noticed relocations that were rockier and harder to do. At least he cant say AT hikers are slackers & trying to make the trail easier.
thanx for the info.