Re[3]: [at-l] Trail Maintenance: Blazing

[rafeb@adelphia.net (rafeb@adelphia.net)]

On 8 Mar 2002 at 15:35, Weary wrote:

> "...I'm not asking for a blaze on every tree.  I'm asking for one every few
> minutes," says Terrapin while chastising me for endangering children.
> 
>   Which is exactly what I've been saying. As long as you can see a blaze where
>   you are and another down the trail, there's no need for more.
> 
>   On open stretches that means a blaze every four or five minutes at a normal
>   hiking pace. On trails with lots of twists and turns, it means a blaze every
>   half minute, sometimes less.
> 
>   My suggestions were taken directly from the ATC trail maintenance manual. All
>   I've suggested is that the manual recommendations are often violated and
>   blazes are located too close together.
> 
>   "Blazes should be spaced so only one is visible in each direction, usually no
>   closer than 150 feet apart," the manual says. "In remote sections fewer blazes
>   are better. If you blaze more often you may degrade the primitive trail
>   experience."


Suddenly I'm in agreement, or maybe I misunderstood you earlier.

Even I hike a good deal more than 150 feet in a few minutes, 
(most of the time) so I agree the AT guidelines are generous 
enough.

On the few hikes that I did with my teenage nephew from 
Hawaii (not really a "backcountry" boy) I warned him that 
he should count on seeing a blaze every five minutes or 
so.  I don't use a stopwatch, but the presence/absence of 
blazes is something I take pretty seriously.

I don't want to argue about just how dangerous it can be 
to get lost -- that depends on a huge array of factors.  
Let's just bear in mind that not all folks on the AT are 
seasoned hikers; the trail was designed (among other 
purposes) to be used by city folk who may not know the 
proper procedures to follow if they get lost.


rafe b.
aka terrapin