Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 86
  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-10-2005
    Location
    Bedford, MA
    Posts
    12,678

    Default

    In 2008 I planned a trip with my nephew on the JMT. I'd heard the bit about the removal of trail markers and that had me worried, so I spent about $300 at REI on a DeLorme GPS (PN-20). It just wouldn't be cool to get lost in the Sierras with my sister's kid.

    It turned out to be quite unnecessary, on that trip or any other. I never used it. But all was not lost, I finally sold it at a yard sale for $20 a few weeks ago.

  2. #62
    Registered User
    Join Date
    11-20-2002
    Location
    Damascus, Virginia
    Age
    61
    Posts
    31,163

    Default

    i walked the AT thru the whites at least 7 times. never got lost or sidetracked on another trail. i had a real map. always. still do when i walk in the woods. you folks that rely on gadgets get what you deserve

  3. #63
    Registered User
    Join Date
    04-01-2006
    Location
    Bastion, VA
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,603
    Images
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Wolf View Post
    i walked the AT thru the whites at least 7 times. never got lost or sidetracked on another trail. i had a real map. always. still do when i walk in the woods. you folks that rely on gadgets get what you deserve
    Yes , but people who get called in for a rescue don't. Risking injury to a rescue worker paid or volunteer because your battery died or phone broke is negligent in my thinking.

  4. #64
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    6,964
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    I have a number on my house so guests and tradesmen can find it easier -- common courtesy.

    So long as a trail sign exists, there is no good reason not to have an AT symbol on it -- common sense.

  5. #65
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rickb View Post
    I have a number on my house so guests and tradesmen can find it easier -- common courtesy.

    So long as a trail sign exists, there is no good reason not to have an AT symbol on it -- common sense.
    its been awhile since ive been on the AT in the whites, but i dont recall there being a prevalence of signs marking the AT that dont have the AT notated on it somewhere.

  6. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-10-2005
    Location
    Bedford, MA
    Posts
    12,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Mike View Post
    Yes , but people who get called in for a rescue don't. Risking injury to a rescue worker paid or volunteer because your battery died or phone broke is negligent in my thinking.
    I'm not suggesting anyone hike without a map. On the other hand, lack-of-map is not the sole cause of rescues in the White Mountains.

  7. #67
    Registered User
    Join Date
    04-01-2006
    Location
    Bastion, VA
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,603
    Images
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rafe View Post
    I'm not suggesting anyone hike without a map. On the other hand, lack-of-map is not the sole cause of rescues in the White Mountains.
    It wasn't in reference to your post. Just seeing it as a trend now. "You don't need maps to hike the AT! Just follow the white blazes." Get so & so app. etc. And now becoming more prevelant on PCT. People think if the app fails they can just call 911 or hit help on their Spot. This puts a lot of people in danger. Even a simple rescue can result in a slip leading to a broken bone putting rescuer out of work for week/months. HYOH is fine untill someone is unprepared for conditions. THe current wave of UL hikers with 0 experience scares me. Watching youtube videos doesn't count. I believe we all need to have the experience to self rescue.

  8. #68
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-12-2016
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Age
    29
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by burger View Post
    I'd like to see these regulations. I just looked over the national USFS regulations, and they clearly allow signage in Wilderness. Also, no one said there had to be a White Blaze every 100 feet, but minimal signage could easily include a small AT symbol and an arrow at junctions, much as they have the USFS trail names on signs at many junctions inside and outside of wilderness.

    Also, I know you're jealous of my Ph.D. Just go to grad school for 6 years, too, and I'll happily call you Dr. Peakbagger (btw, you should use the period with "Dr." Looks kind of dumb without it).
    Doesn't look nearly as dumb as someone flaunting his PhD (sans periods) who incorrectly uses "their" not once but twice in the same sentence:

    Quote Originally Posted by burger View Post
    ...given the weather and visibility up their, but their still ugly as f***). Would white blazes, even just at trail junctions, really take away from the wilderness experience?
    Nice job, Dr................................................ ............................................

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by New_2_Hikin' View Post
    Doesn't look nearly as dumb as someone flaunting his PhD (sans periods) who incorrectly uses "their" not once but twice in the same sentence:



    Nice job, Dr................................................ ............................................
    hehehehehehe

  10. #70

    Default

    That's a burn!

  11. #71
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-10-2005
    Location
    Bedford, MA
    Posts
    12,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rickb View Post
    I have a number on my house so guests and tradesmen can find it easier -- common courtesy.

    So long as a trail sign exists, there is no good reason not to have an AT symbol on it -- common sense.
    I agree. Maybe chalk it up to New England provincialism. Found this on Google Images, at least one sign that's pretty explicit. Found many others with no "AT" designation at all.

    trail_sign.JPG

  12. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-10-2005
    Location
    Bedford, MA
    Posts
    12,678

    Default

    A few more, from Google... three say AT explicitly. One does not.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  13. #73
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    6,964
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rafe View Post
    I agree. Maybe chalk it up to New England provincialism. Found this on Google Images, at least one sign that's pretty explicit. Found many others with no "AT" designation at all.

    trail_sign.JPG
    Yea, but was that one located in the National Forest, or a State Park?

  14. #74
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-10-2005
    Location
    Bedford, MA
    Posts
    12,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rickb View Post
    Yea, but was that one located in the National Forest, or a State Park?
    You tell me, I don't pay much attention to that stuff. It was 100 feet from Lonesome Lake Hut. Says so on the sign.

  15. #75
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    6,964
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rafe View Post
    A few more, from Google... three say AT explicitly. One does not.
    The first one is also in the State Park (I think) but the second one is the most interesting.

    image.jpg

    The Franconia Ridge Trail is marked as the AT on the Top sign, but the Garfield Ridge trail is not.

    What's up with that? I won't quibble with the lack of AT on on the Liberty Spring line.

    Edit: And pictures 3 and 4 look to be of the same sign post (Lafayette).
    Last edited by rickb; 06-24-2016 at 23:04.

  16. #76
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-10-2005
    Location
    Bedford, MA
    Posts
    12,678

    Default

    No ambiguity, really. Or, there shouldn't be. You know you're on the summit of Lafayette. You know you're traveling the ridge toward Garfield (nobo) or Mt. Liberty (sobo.) The third sign (which can't be read in that photo) obviously points down, off the ridge.

    Yes, I'm assuming here that a thru hiker would have checked their maps have an idea of names of summits, side-trails, shelters and campsites they might be encountering on any given day. That's common sense, too.

    Approximately zero weekenders and day hikers will be heading to or from Garfield at that point. Only thru hikers go that way. Seriously. There are plenty of easier ways to get to Garfield summit...

  17. #77
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    6,964
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rafe View Post
    Approximately zero weekenders and day hikers will be heading to or from Garfield at that point. Only thru hikers go that way. Seriously. There are plenty of easier ways to get to Garfield summit...
    We made a nice loop going that way starting in Lincoln Woods once.

  18. #78
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rafe View Post
    Yes, I'm assuming here that a thru hiker would have checked their maps have an idea of names of summits, side-trails, shelters and campsites they might be encountering on any given day. That's common sense, too.
    i would hope they would, but lets be for real, a lot of them, especially the people who complain about having trouble following the trail, clearly are not. theres maybe 2 spots i can think of in the whites where even with a map and an awareness of where you're going and what to look for that someone might get confused if they dont take the time to think about it. anyone who gets confused at the sign in this picture because it doesnt say AT as clearly as it might isnt prepared to hike in the whites, its really that simple.

  19. #79
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    6,964
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdoczi View Post
    i would hope they would, but lets be for real, a lot of them, especially the people who complain about having trouble following the trail, clearly are not. theres maybe 2 spots i can think of in the whites where even with a map and an awareness of where you're going and what to look for that someone might get confused if they dont take the time to think about it. anyone who gets confused at the sign in this picture because it doesnt say AT as clearly as it might isnt prepared to hike in the whites, its really that simple.
    Last time my wife and I were at that sign some people coming up from the hut took out their cameras to film us-- they said they wanted footage to give to the media once we got in trouble.

    It got so windy we litterly were on our hands and knees for a bit. Only two guys followed us to Garfield some hours later, one of whom lost his sleeping bag to the wind.

    Point being, there are plenty of times when the map just isn't going to come out of your pack-- for any number of reasons. In a three way intersection like that it would be hard to get confused, but the picture is illustrative. Why not just add the AT symbol consistently? Most every hiker-- not just thrus-- are very familiar with the AT up there.

    I hate graffiti but where hikers have felt compelled to add the AT symbol to a sign with a sharpie or pen knife, I am OK with that.
    Last edited by rickb; 06-25-2016 at 08:22.

  20. #80
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rickb View Post
    Most every hiker-- not just thrus-- are very familiar with the AT up there.
    your point was valid until you said that. i'm sorry, ive said it many times in this thread and you obviously disagree, but that statement is flat out wrong. go to a crowded hut and talk to the other hikers (not just the thrus who might be there) there and see how many of them say anything about the AT. ive literally had many many many such people not even know the AT was anywhere near by when i mentioned i was hiking on the AT. if someone were to say to you "what trail did you take here?" if you were to answer "The AT" as opposed to something like "the crawford path" most likely the person you are talking wouldnt know what you were talking about. this is fact. this is true 100% and to deny it shows you are hopelessly out of touch with those around and you just stay within a very AT focused mindet. it is this mindset that makes AT hikers unable to follow the trail or to understand why it is marked or laid out the way it is.. its a much bigger world out there friend.

    your point earlier about the AT "connecting" the huts illustrates this-

    lonesome lake- started in 1876
    greenleaf- 1930
    galehead- 1931
    zealand- 1932
    mizpah- 1964
    lakes of the clouds- 1901
    madison spring 1888
    carter notch- 1904

    remind me what year the AT was built again?

    you look at the whites and you see huts that were built along a trail that connects them, but that is not reality. the reality is the huts (And all of the trails) were already there and the people creating the AT decided to use the trails that went by the huts. look at it from that perspective instead of thinking its all about the AT and it suddenly makes a lot more sense.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •