Knock it off.
https://sectionhiker.com/appalachian...-help-us-stop/
Printable View
Knock it off.
https://sectionhiker.com/appalachian...-help-us-stop/
I seriously do not understand what people get out of doing this crap. For me it is right up there with littering, bullying, stealing and compulsive liars.
Well, It is most likely all the same people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambit McCrae
Matc know its one person who was going sobo earlier in the year. Trail name was something Korean, or Korean something.
Man, that's nothing. Down here in the mountains of TN we have idiots out patrolling the woods and pulling out signs from the ground and scattering them far off in the woods.
Attachment 40390
Here's the trailpost to the Brush Mt trail in the Citico wilderness which someone pulled out of the ground and threw in to the river.
Attachment 40391
I had to wade out into the water and fetch the pole--it was heavy at about 100 lbs---and drag it back to its post hole etc. A backpacking buddy just returned from here and told me both posts are missing again.
Attachment 40392
The top trailhead to Brush Mt also had its post removed and thrown into the woods. I found it and replaced it---but I think it's gone again.
Attachment 40393
Some other idiot snapped this trailpost off on the BMT in Sandy Gap.
With that said most of AMC is great and a great asset to the trail and to the hikes, but their motives can not be overlooked $$$.
But the scratching out of signs is disgusting eye for a eye bull*****, and is equally condemnable and should be by thru hikers, trail angels, ATC and AMC, both the scratching out of trail names on signs AND the non-inclusion of trail names of signs. And a understanding that there should have been at least a AT indicator on such signs.
So yes AMC is the initiator in this, but the AT thru hiking community has responded in a very inappropriate and destructive way if they deface the signs.
You'll notice that these signs are not all AMC signs. What do you guys have against the DOC or the RMC or the MATC or the USFS or any number of the other organizations that maintain the AT through the Whites? Nevermind most of the signs that have been damaged already said AT on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starchild
be careful not to propagate mis-information - from MATC facebook pageQuote:
Originally Posted by egilbe
https://www.facebook.com/MaineATC/
"RETRACTION: Crazy Korean only inserted missing information on already disfigured signage, he did not do the disfiguring. The original posting (now removed) basis was resultant from an email to MATC which clearly was not accurate and was clearly not consistent with other's view of Crazy Korean. Doug Dolan's (who misrepresented the MATC views) post went too far, Period. Apologies at this point are insufficient to right the wrong, but are absolutely sincere."
Huh, once its out there, its out there forever. My apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by D2maine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starchild
but couldn't the result be achieve through a different route than vandalizing the sign?
like maybe a map? or ( and i have not been in that area) a blaze?
No excuse to deface signage like seen in these examples. Those are vandals and it caught, should be prosecuted as the law allows. I will concur that the signage and the blazes get pretty sketchy for following the AT in sections of the Whites. I recognize that AT hikers are only a small percentage of the hikers in that area, but as others have said, there is a lot of "hiking" money that flows in that area and a little better marking would be appreciated. One of the things people kept telling us, was that when you get to Maine, the trail is really well marked. They were right, it changed almost immediately.... it also got more difficult.
There are no blazes to note in the Whites. It was so rare that the one I recall I assumes it was painted in protest. The signs which are designed to be informational and are of a safety nature did not include the AT on them which is really irresponsible. Again I was happy to see the scratched in AT to correct this oversight.Quote:
Originally Posted by TNhiker
As for a map, most thru hikers do not carry them, and will not carry them. The AT is more of a front country highway then a backcountry trail to them. It is their home.
With that said it is very sad that this resulted to the other trail names being scratched out.
(AT)
Four characters, five if you add the direction.
Four. .
I still dont understand how people can be confused that the AT follows older trails. Those trails are not the AT, the AT follows those trails. Its Crawford Path, Its Gulfside, its Madison Gulf. Those are the trail names. When the AT has to follow a road, is the name of the road or Hwy changed? The trails in the Whites predate the AT by 50 to 100 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starchild
I am not proposing changing the trail names, only indicating that it is also the AT. It is done all the time, even on roads, there are white blazes, sometimes signs with Appalachian Trail on them. In CT there was a detour of the AT over roads instead of the wood path due to a bridge replacement. The route was marked with orange detour signs with simply white blaze on it - I'm sure some drivers must have wondered what that meant. This is the care shown to AT hikers and helps make the AT what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by egilbe
Again I don't know what the predating has to do with providing some indication that this is also the AT route, and your statement does have a tone of typical 'french snootiness' to it. If you are referring to the scratching out of the names of the trails, yes that is wrong and petty. I don't see hikers tearing off the Interstate Route 80 sign at the Delaware Water gap, or painting it over with AT. But then again it has white blazes, so it is not needed.
I still say the reason for the scratching out of the names and the scratching in of the AT was prompted by the removal of any indication of the AT (a few years back) which was also petty and perhaps reckless and it should have never been done. I still stand by adding a small but noticeable AT on the sign is helpful and morally applaudable, but anything beyond that morally reprehensible.
Or, you can buy a map that clearly marks out which trails the AT follows. That is the easiest and simplest solution.
That never happened. Save for the Crawford Path sign (the oldest trail in the country), all the signs pictured in the article already had AT, APPALACHIAN TRAIL, or the old AT badge on them. Standing at the Ethan Pond sign you can see no less than 6 blazes in 1 direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starchild
On my thru hike in 2013 blazes were practically non-existant. And most of the signed were absent any marking of the AT except for the scratched in ones. But as you say they all have them (with one exception you note), so it's a non-issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshandBaron
But again just because the Crawford path is the oldest trail does not mean safety goes out the window. Have you read the warning signs about how dangerous this area is? If those warning signs are true and should be heeded the trail signs for the sake of safety should also have a indication of the AT, which is the most direct route between the refuges of the huts and summit building.
At that junction there is no safety issue. It is for the Eisenhower loop which goes to the same spot as the Crawford Path and is almost an identical distance. The AT is very prominent on the signs before and after this .5mi section. Also, maps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starchild
Its kind of real obvious where the Crawford and Gulfside trails go on the Presidential ridge, considering much of it is screed in to keep the crowds from stomping on the alpine plants. Unfortunately some folks are on autopilot as they are far to busy checking the once in lifetime scenery or running along to meet some self imposed deadline.
Unless things have changed, the PCT was far less blazed than the AT. Hikers dont realize that the blazing standards used for the AT tend to be quite sparse. As long as the trail is well defined and relatively straight, there is no need for a blaze to be in sight every inch, generally when there is a distinct change of direction or a potentially confusing junction there is sign and then a confirming blaze a short distance out from the point. It doesnt help that the AT blazes are white and that tends to blend in with the local granite. There is also white quartz interspersed with the granite so that further confuses the unaware.
I ultimately consider it vandalism by idiots. Its not just AT signs that routinely get defaced, idiots are all over. Some just happen to be hiking the AT.
Not gonna lie, I really appreciated the few times somebody etched "JMT N <-> S" into some of the signs along the JMT. There were some junctions that would have been mighty vague otherwise.
I don't think this thread is complaining about people who "improve" a trail sign by adding an indication which way the AT goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPritch
After all, the article the OP linked to speaks of "scratching out the names of the trails the AT runs along".
It show a lot of disrespect when someone scratches out the name of a local trail and attempts to replace it with "AT". After all, as someone pointed out, the AT actually owes its existence to these trails that were linked together to create the AT.
It also shows a lot of disrespect when someone scratches over the lettering on a sign with AT symbols... as if the suggest the AT is a more important trail.
But I think it was unfortunate that the article included a picture of the "RAWFORD PATH" sign. It simply makes too much sense to utilize the extra space on the sign to include an indication that this trail is also the AT trail. Actually, I think it would have made a beautiful sign if the original creators would have included the AT symbol on each end of the sign like the "vandals" attempted. I don't understand why the creators of such signs don't include these kinds of indicators when they KNOW they are putting up these signs along major well know trails.
[Soap Box]
When I hiked the JMT, I was quite disappointed in the lack of JMT signs... especially in Yosemite National Park. At times it felt like they didn't want to acknowledge that the JMT was even there? Off hand, the only signs I recall seeing in YNP were the ones at the trailhead letting you know the JMT is 210 long, and a sign indicating the split between JMT and Mist Trail, and a sign along the road in Tuolumene Meadows that indicated the JMT was up ahead (even though according to National Geo, the road IS the official JMT trail in the area).
[/Soap Box]