Map question...
Trying to decide about whether to carry maps on my thru hike. Are the maps most carried those available through the Appalachian Trail Conference? What are other sources? Thanks.
"Just trying to keep life simple."
yup. Get your maps through the ATC. You really should carry maps. More for safety than anything else.
Rather than buy all your maps up front, perhaps you might buy just those for the area south of Damascus. That way, if you have to get off, you won't be stuck with a pile of maps. Also, you might decide that you don't want to hike with the maps any more, and so will not be stuck with the maps. If you decide you do want to carry maps (so, for example, you want a better idea of where water is than the craptacular data book gives), then you can buy the Viriginia ones at the outfitters in Damascus (I think they have them). Repeat in Harpers Ferry, if you want. Repeat somewhere in VT or NH.
Chappy:
This subject has been covered here many times at Whiteblaze; if you do a site search on "Maps" you'll see all sorts of comments. Lone Wolf said it all briefly and well; here's a longer view:
In my opinion, I think it's reckless and foolish to venture into any backcountry situation without current maps and the ability to read and use them. I further think it's reckless and irresponsible for trail "veterans" to imply or state that one doesn't need them. I've been involved on searches and rescues many times on the Trail and elsewhere: In almost EVERY case, the poor lost souls either had no maps; were "separated" from their maps (their hiking partner had the only set); they had sh****y hand-traced, hand-made maps; or they didn't know how to intelligently use whatever maps they had.
There are all sorts of reasons to carry maps: They'll tell you EXACTLY where you are on the Trail, and how far you are from where you need or want to be.
They'll tell you all sorts of things about the terrain that lies ahead of you and beside you. They'll tell you where roads and paths are that'll help you in case of an emergency situation, and you either have to leave the Trail, or if a section of the Trail becomes impassable or unhikeable.....rockslide, flooded stream, impassable ford, etc. They'll tell you where alternate water sources are in dry periods. They'll tell you what the terrain ahead of you is like so can more intelligently plan your hiking days: Do you like to knock off the toughest miles in the morning, when you're fresh, and it's not too hot? Do you hate starting the day with a big climb, or more likely, would you prefer NOT to end the day with one? Or do you want a climb at the end of the day so you can catch a sunset or sunrise, or both? Do you want to know when it'd be wise to go for a big-mileage day, and when it'd be foolish to?
This is the type of information you'll get from maps. Without maps, and the ability to read them, you'll have virtually NONE of this information. Your daily hiking plans will be haphazard; you'll be blind as to what lies ahead or beside you. Your options in an emergency situation, and your ability to help yourself or others is extremely subscribed.
In short, the only reason NOT to carry maps is because of the alleged expense involved, and this is lame: The ATC offers an annual discount rate for those who buy the map sets all at once, and an even greater one to ATC members; over the course of a six-month hike, this means your maps will cost you a bit more than half a buck a day. Assuming one checks one's maps half a dozen times a day, this means that getting a look at your maps will cost you less than a dime each time you do it. Believe me, this is money well spent. Or to put it another way: If you get lost cuz you don't have a map to check; or if you go five miles in July in Pennsylvania without a drink cuz you don't know where the water is; if you get totally turned around and lost in Maine in early October; if you have to bushwhack seven miles because a bridge is out or a stream is flooded; if your hiking partner breaks his ankle in the middle of nowhere and you need to know where a side trail or lumber road leads......well, in situations like this, wouldn't it be worth it to you to have spent a handful of dimes so you have a map at hand on those days?
In short, there are all sorts of good reasons to carry maps. There are very few good reasons NOT to do so. (And incidentally, you can save even more money by checking out E-Bay or other Trail sites; there are often folks looking to sell un-needed or un-used map sets, always at a great savings, so if money is the issue, it's a weak one). And incidentally, if you buy the maps "state by state" instead of all at once, you'll spend MUCH more money in the process. (Or buying the Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia map sets INDIVIDUALLY will cost you almost as much as buying a complete used set on-line or elsewhere).
In short, I don't think it's particularly intelligent to hike the A.T., or any other backcountry trail, without maps. Can it be done? Sure. Have many done so?
Sure. But is this a wise or particularly bright thing to do ? No, it isn't.
To sum up, Chappy, I've seen lots of folks who decided to carry maps and decided on many occasions that they were glad that they did so. I haven't met many who thought otherwise. (I should also mention that EVERY hiker, without exception, who elects not to carry maps REPEATEDLY asks other hikers if they can gander a look at theirs.....which is cheap and shabby, if you ask me, but this is a minor point).
Unless you're in an area of the woods or mountains that you know INTIMATELY, you should be carrying a current map and you should know how to read it. To do otherwise, or to encourage others to do otherwise, is, in my opinion, reckless, irresponsible, and pretty stupid.
Oh, and to your other question: The ATC maps are still the best ones I know of: They're complete, easy to read and use, waterproof, and reasonably priced. They're also updated every few years so they're much more accurate than other maps such as US Geographical Survey maps or others that may be years old and are not put together by Trail people, maintaining clubs, etc. Lastly, purchasing the ATC maps and/or Guidebooks helps the ATC, a very worthy organization. In short, The ATC maps are the best way to go.
Hope this answers your questions.
I couldn't agree more with the thorough answer that Jack Tarlin gave! Well put!
Usually I'm the first to agree with Jack, but in this case I don't. I didn't carry maps on my thruhike for a few different reasons. First, they are expensive. I had a budget to stick to and the maps were on the expensive side. Second, it takes alot of planning to get all the maps organized and forwarded to the post offices. Then you have to start planning your hike around days of the week and towns you must stop in. In my mind it isn't total freedom to have to worry about that kind of stuff. Third, they are heavy. At most times, you will probably be carrying about 3 maps, they will weight about 5 to 8 ounces. That is a good amount of weight. I carried pages out of the data book, and some of the companion and never had a problem. You get an idea of the terrain, and you know what your exit points are. I never once felt in danger of being lost on the trail. I liked the freedom of not knowing were every little bump in the trail was. I however did carry maps through the whites. I thought that was the only place you might run into trouble.
GA-ME 04
GA-VA 05
IMHO I think It is foolish to leave maps at home. There have been many times while section hiking that we have had to find another way around a blocked trail whether it be due to flooding, blow downs, or snow, etc. I have used them to find water several times and I like to know the elevation changes that are coming up. It can help me decide whether to take a break or stop for the night. I also just enjoy looking at them when we have down time!
Anita
I agree with Jack's excellent post and Anita... perhaps it's my training... I will leave behind a compass before I would leave a map...
....::ducking real quick:: ok ok ... I may not carry my expensive compass for AT hikes...but I do have an inexpensive lightweight compass built into my $9.99 plastic watch!
VAMTNHIKER
(Previously known as ScouterSteve)
Thru-hiker Dreamer
Near-term Section Hiker
Usually the mapless ones are trying to get a look at those that carry them.
The mapless ones also count on someone else's first aid kit.
Maps on the AT: Maybe, Maybe Not
Part two of the above quote simply isn't true, although it is very common for people to ask to look at maps. Bill Irwin, presumably, didn't ask to look at other folk's maps.Originally Posted by Jack Tarlin
I am a trail veteran saying that if you are prepared and a competent outdoorsman carrying a compass, it is perfectly rational to hike the AT without maps. Thousands of hikers do. I assure you that no one will ever have to come searching for me on the AT because I am lost without a map. Now if I didn't have a COMPASS it would be possible to get lost in places such as Maine.
There ARE many places in the world where I wouldn't want to be caught without a map, and I have no problem at all with folks who want to carry maps, and for many folks it may make perfect sense for many reasons. For me, I didn't carry maps on the AT and I didn't miss them at all.
Carry the maps, they are a basic survival tool. If you get hurt or the weather turns ugly, you want to know where the nearest bail-out points are and where the roads lead. If you don't want the weight and don't want to look at them every day, thats fine. Photocopy the maps and put them in a zip lock at the bottom of your pack. But to head out into the woods without a map is reckless. I also carried a compass, but a really tiny one. You won't need it for heavy navigation, but knowing the general direction is a good thing.
As for the expense... you wouldn't hike the trail without a pack, would you? Or food? Or a sleeping bag? Maps are just as important... when you need them. If you can't afford the maps (or the pay sites in New England, or the postage to send mail drops, etc..), you can't afford to thru-hike.
Maps really are very important in the backcountry. Maps are not important in the front country, such as in your local city park. Which the AT qualifies as is, perhaps, a personal matter and one of perspective. The notion that maps are necessary for the entire trail is, for myself, an incorrect one. I just don't think that they promote much safety in the mid-Atlantic or even large parts of Virginia and lower New England. A GPS along with a satellite phone would provide much more (real) security, even if it would be more expensive. But, as Chomp and Jack note, how much is your safety worth? Ok. Flame on.
Didn't you ask the original question? Could this be a way to get Jack to write a huge edict from above? In that case you were successful. I always carry maps because I like them, but could care less if others do. If someone is lost I help them out without lording over them.
Wow, Blue Jay, do you pay attention ever, or just run your mouth? It was CHAPPY who asked the original question.
As for helping people out, I have read way too many news stories about hikers getting lost in New England and simply picking up their cell phones to call for a rescue. In some cases, these people were ON a trail. A woman died this year on Lafayette, partly because the couple did not have a map. They took the wrong route off the summit and when they got to an unfamaliar trail junction, they stopped. If they had a map, they would have realized that they were less than a quarter mile from treeline, and safety from the elements.
Now, I understand that thru-hikers don't typically hike in white-out conditions, but there are also a lot of bad things that can happen short of dying too.
You are correct I didn't pay attention, I do when I'm driving but not when I'm typing.
I don't get this comment. I guess maps could show you where other source might be (valleys, etc.), they don't really tell you where it will be found.
I will say that on some maps they point out water sources (with that little blue sperm symbol) that are not always listed in the data book (not sure why they are not in the data book). And, at least in the case of the Maine maps, the "cartoon" map on the back side will callout "unknown stream", etc. in places where the data book doesn't list a water source (again I'm not sure why).
So, there is a good chance you will have a more "complete" list of "possible" water sources if you use the data book and maps.
I think I just answered my own question?
Is Wingfoot's book "better" with this than the databook?
Back on topic, another reason I like maps is that I like to finish the day on a long downhill (to give my knees a rest). So by reading the topo information and/or the profile shown on most maps I can accomplish that goal.
Yellow Jacket -- Words of Wisdom (tm) go here.
Colter, with due respect, your outdoor experience is so much more than most thru-hikers that what you feel comfortable doing might not be relevent. I, for one, wouldn't feel comfortable jumping out of a perfectly good airplane in the best of conditions, much less with a forest fire below me.
Youngblood
Streams are often visible on the maps. Those that appear on the maps generally flow year round, and are therefore more reliable than springs & seeps.
'All my lies are always wishes" ~Jeff Tweedy~
You might be interested in the Map & Compass poll.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
