Trail Blazing inconsistencies

[MtDoraDave]

I've noticed that there are inconsistencies on how different trail clubs mark intersections or direction changes. In Georgia and NC, I have found that they are generally done the way I understand to be correct; at an intersection where you go straight, a double blaze with one directly above the other, and if the trail turns to the right, the upper blaze is offset to the right - and if the trail turns to the left, the upper blaze is offset to the left.

But north of Damascus, the double blazes for when the trail turns (at an intersection), the double blazes aren't offset, but simply put one above the other.

This led to a bit of confusion some places where the trail came to an intersection that wasn't obvious where to go, I had to hike a while looking for the next blaze... when I didn't find one, I had to turn back and look again. The places where the trail simply turned (not an intersection) it wasn't really a big deal, since there wasn't a "wrong way" to go... but shouldn't all the trail clubs along the AT use a standard marking format?

The reason I'm posting this is as much to suggest trail clubs follow a standard format, as it is to let new hikers know to be alert and attentive when coming to double blazes.

[tdoczi]

I've noticed that there are inconsistencies on how different trail clubs mark intersections or direction changes. In Georgia and NC, I have found that they are generally done the way I understand to be correct; at an intersection where you go straight, a double blaze with one directly above the other, and if the trail turns to the right, the upper blaze is offset to the right - and if the trail turns to the left, the upper blaze is offset to the left.

But north of Damascus, the double blazes for when the trail turns (at an intersection), the double blazes aren't offset, but simply put one above the other.

This led to a bit of confusion some places where the trail came to an intersection that wasn't obvious where to go, I had to hike a while looking for the next blaze... when I didn't find one, I had to turn back and look again. The places where the trail simply turned (not an intersection) it wasn't really a big deal, since there wasn't a "wrong way" to go... but shouldn't all the trail clubs along the AT use a standard marking format?

The reason I'm posting this is as much to suggest trail clubs follow a standard format, as it is to let new hikers know to be alert and attentive when coming to double blazes.

southern PA is also like this. it drove me nuts. at one point, near mt holly springs i believe, the trail comes to a T. all 3 parts of the T are equally built up, equally meticulously maintained and groomed trails. the blaze at the intersection is two whites directly over each other (as it is at all the turns around there).

by coincidence, a few minutes after correctly guessing the right way to turn, i ran into a trail maintainer and asked him about this. he responded that both ways are common and its the tradition of the trail club in the area to use two blazes directly over each other to mark all turns.

and things like this is why i like spending time in the woods. alone.

since then i've noticed this at a few other locations, but it is rare, thank god. i cant say ive ever seen two blazes directly over top indicating go straight though, interesting though. to me, in what you and i think of as "normal" blazing, two blazes directly over top of each other indicates a switchback. you don't see this marking very often either, but ive seen it several times.

[peakbagger]

Its maintaining club preference. The standard is double blazes one directly lined up above the other. The offset upper blaze is optional. So there is standard, you just got spoiled by the optional offset blaze. I have seen a NPS reference book calling out proper blazing but it was long ago. A group I was in blazed a pretty major new trail in the whites one year and the leaders had to be certified in blazing by the FS. Unfortunately the local trail club tended to overblaze so we got crap for following the standards which is pretty minimal blazing.

I believe that the intent of the double blaze is not necessarily indicating an intersection or a turn as much as it is a notification that the hiker should be more aware of trail conditions. An example of a non turn is crossing a woods road. A hiker should apply a bit of extra awareness so they don't accidently head down the woods road but there is no turn.

I would speculate that down south the average trees are larger in diameter with plenty of room for an offset. In the higher elevations in New England there are a lot of spruce/fir woods where the average tree size aren't that big so trying to offset a blaze is not going to look right. A two inch sapling can hold a standard double blaze but it would need to be 6" or more to include an offset and keep it fully visible.

Note at one time there was a third variation which was a vertical bottom blaze with the upper blaze tilted in the angle of direction. I think that one is no longer acceptable.

[tdoczi]

Its maintaining club preference. The standard is double blazes one directly lined up above the other. The offset upper blaze is optional. So there is standard, you just got spoiled by the optional offset blaze. I have seen a NPS reference book calling out proper blazing but it was long ago. A group I was in blazed a pretty major new trail in the whites one year and the leaders had to be certified in blazing by the FS. Unfortunately the local trail club tended to overblaze so we got crap for following the standards which is pretty minimal blazing.

I believe that the intent of the double blaze is not necessarily indicating an intersection or a turn as much as it is a notification that the hiker should be more aware of trail conditions. An example of a non turn is crossing a woods road. A hiker should apply a bit of extra awareness so they don't accidently head down the woods road but there is no turn.

I would speculate that down south the average trees are larger in diameter with plenty of room for an offset. In the higher elevations in New England there are a lot of spruce/fir woods where the average tree size aren't that big so trying to offset a blaze is not going to look right. A two inch sapling can hold a standard double blaze but it would need to be 6" or more to include an offset and keep it fully visible.

Note at one time there was a third variation which was a vertical bottom blaze with the upper blaze tilted in the angle of direction. I think that one is no longer acceptable.

continuing to do something because its a "standard" or a "tradition" when there is an obvious flaw in it's design and there is a better way which is also equally standard and has become/is becoming equally traditional is just... beyond description without using impolite language. the blaze in souther PA i cite is particularly illuminating. what is this blaze supposed to tell hikers? that there is a turn? its a T of course there is a turn. of course you are going to have to look and pay attention. that double blaze, painted that way, communicates nothing important to anyone and as such is basically pointless defacing of the tree it is painted on. it is a prime example stupidity done simply because "thats how we do it."


x

[nsherry61]

. . . that double blaze, painted that way, communicates nothing important to anyone and as such is basically pointless defacing of the tree it is painted on. it is a prime example stupidity . . .

I say:

Quitcherbelliaching, carry a map, and go hike out west where there are rarely any blazes at all.

That being said, if one is going to deface the forest, may as well do it consistently. . . that and everyone in the world should speak the same language.

[tdoczi]

I say:

Quitcherbelliaching, carry a map, and go hike out west where there are rarely any blazes at all.

That being said, if one is going to deface the forest, may as well do it consistently. . . that and everyone in the world should speak the same language.

i'm all for not blazing the trail, trust me. in the inevitable recurring arguments about the lack of blazing in the whites i'm firmly on the get over it and learn to read a map side.

its more about the lunacy of bothering to paint a set of marks on a tree that does no one any good at all. if you're going to bother painting them, do it in a way that serves a purpose. or don't do it.

x

[Sandy of PA]

You noticed it didn't you? When I started hiking on the AT in 1969 a double blaze meant pay attention, not just a turn. If it was not obvious why, it was time to look at your guidebook and map.

[tdoczi]

You noticed it didn't you? When I started hiking on the AT in 1969 a double blaze meant pay attention, not just a turn. If it was not obvious why, it was time to look at your guidebook and map.

i, and anyone else, would notice that intersection whether there was a blaze or not. it was a perfect T junction. 90 degrees, perpendicular, on the nose. saying one might not notice it without the blaze there is like saying one might walk to the end of their block and not know when they reached the corner unless they consult a map or someone has painted a couple of white splotches somewhere.

that blaze is an extreme example, but it communicates nothing. it should either be painted in a way that serves a purpose or it should not exist. it should not be painted because "well gee thats just what us folk do at junctions 'round these here parts."

one day im really bored ill go back and take photos of it. sadly i forgot my camera on that trip.

x

[ScareBear]

SMH...

So, what the complaint really is about is that there should be directional arrows at all trail turns and intersections so there is no possibility of losing the trail? Or am I missing something here?

[tdoczi]

SMH...

So, what the complaint really is about is that there should be directional arrows at all trail turns and intersections so there is no possibility of losing the trail? Or am I missing something here?

SMH...

not remotely. my position, for like 5th time is, either paint meaningful marks that serve a purpose **OR PAINT NOTHING**.

please note- painting nothing is, in my expressed viewpoint, a perfectly acceptable, if not preferred, alternative.

clear now? hope so.

if not i guess i can just say again a different way.

[ki0eh]

In my opinion the offset double "Garvey" blaze is one of the greatest inventions in Eastern trail work.

Leading volunteers is like herding cats, and as in many other aspects of life, those who have a little power like to wield it, so when the Garvey blaze was made optional, some old fuddy duddies refused the option.

I believe some clubs have since come around and changed their minds, but as in many other areas of life, it's a bureaucratic process and not instantaneous.

Those who cherish inconsistencies could hike Great Eastern Trail instead. http://www.gethiking.net/p/guides.html

[ScareBear]

SMH...

not remotely. my position, for like 5th time is, either paint meaningful marks that serve a purpose **OR PAINT NOTHING**.

please note- painting nothing is, in my expressed viewpoint, a perfectly acceptable, if not preferred, alternative.

clear now? hope so.

if not i guess i can just say again a different way.

Right. So, in your opinion, it's directional arrows or nothing? And you choose nothing?

[tdoczi]

Right. So, in your opinion, it's directional arrows or nothing? And you choose nothing?

in my opinion blotches of paint on trees that do not convey any useful information are graffiti and as such shouldnt be there.

[ScareBear]

You noticed it didn't you? When I started hiking on the AT in 1969 a double blaze meant pay attention, not just a turn. If it was not obvious why, it was time to look at your guidebook and map.

+1 true to this day...just sayin......

[peakbagger]

For those who want to standardize blazing, your last chance to be heard is in Waterville Maine at the last ATC annual national convention. I expect they would be glad for you to find some place to set up a table and explain to anyone who will listen your opinion. Of course I don't think the ATC has the final say so expect they will need to make a recommendation to the NPS and the NPS will have to move it upon top of their priority list ahead of far less important things like protecting the trail from threats to decide that the blazing standards have to be changed and then make the change and let it them become the new standard.

[Deadeye]

From the Appalachian Trial Fieldbook, which is given to volunteers on the AT and LT, here are guidelines for Appalachian Trail blazes (I didn't type them all, just the ones pertinent to this thread), with my own added emphasis here and there:

- place at eye height, facing approaching hikers, generally on the right side of the Trail

- place at regular intervals. Frequency is determined by the character of the trail and hiker safety. where the trail is conspicuous, place a blaze at five-minute intervals, about 800 to 1,000 feet apart. In obscure areas, place blazes no more than 100 yards apart, but be sure that, except at junctions, along highways, or in open areas, you can never see more than one blaze at a time

- Double blaze (one blaze 2 inches directly above the other) before confusing turns, junctions, or areas requiring hiker alertness (not including switchbacks)

- use offset double blazes only when the whole club section will use offset double blazes...

Conditions to avoid:
- blazes placed at erratic intervals, so marking appears unreliable or hikers wonder if they are on the trail
- nonstandard markings, such as arrows and directional indicators... symbols other than the standard blaze seem to deface Trailside rocks and trees
- too frequently placed blazes, so that hikers find the quantity unsightly, defacing the natural setting
- double-blazed switchbacks - switchbacks are rarely confusing to hikers

Sometimes, the trail club clearly didn't follow the guidelines. I've been in places on the AT where you can see 5 blazes in each direction, and minor turns are double-blazed. There are just plain way too many blazes on the trail, both per the guidelines, and the observations of many on this thread.

[Deadeye]

That's Appalachian Trail Fieldbook, of course! My point, if I wasn't clear, is that the ATC already has blazing standards, but the volunteers that do the blazing aren't always sticking to them. They may not be getting the information in the first place.

[Starchild]

I've taken the tradition as single blaze is the path, a double (one above the other), indicated be aware of such things like a turn.

The offset is not part of the tradition but has worked its way in the blazing system.

[Dogwood]

Have scratched my head in fretful worry as a NEWB seeing 6-7 white blazes in sight 600 ft forward and another 6-7 as I turned around looking at where I came from and then not seeing another blaze for 1/3 of a mile as I continued... for no apparent reason other there was an unemployed artist on the trail blazing painting assignment.

NSherry is right. Some of ya should hit up some hikes where you're fortunate to have any regular blazing and trail signage.

[tdoczi]

I've taken the tradition as single blaze is the path, a double (one above the other), indicated be aware of such things like a turn.

The offset is not part of the tradition but has worked its way in the blazing system.

can you, or anyone else, explain to me why this "traditional" method, now that we have another, obviously better method, is ever preferred? what is the advantage of doing it this way rather than an offset blaze, as you see it? if one is going to pain two blazes at a turn. what end does not off setting one of them serve?