[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] Trail Maintenance: Blazing
This is ridiculous; my last salvo: Why can't Jim read all of what is
said in response, and not pick out pieces? My main point was simple:
People are gonna differ on this, and to me if the Trail maintainers
shoot for an average, reasonably prepared hiker, then they've done their
job, and avoided the slippery slope of how far further to go to get
closer to idoit-proffing the Trail at the expense of the wilderness
experience. End of story; let's move on!
thru-thinker
Jim and/or Ginny Owen wrote:
>
> Kahley wrote:
> >At 04:13 AM 3/9/02 +0000, Jim and/or Ginny Owen wrote:
> >>Let's make it simple - the AT is supposed to be a "blazed" trail from
> >>Georgia to Maine for the use and enjoyment of the American public -
> >>meaning "people". Any people, any experience level, anyplace on the
> >>Trail, anytime. If anyone has a problem with that "definition" then let's
> >>hear it.
> >
> >Err .......I do. Remember this?
> > **********
> >Seems like some folks need a different trail experience than
> >others <VVVBG>. Do we want to fulfill these people's ideas of
> >how to make the AT more enjoyable?
>
> Kahley -
> I remember those things very well. But none of them make the slightest
> difference in what I was saying. The fact that some people are ignorant
> and/or idiots doesn't mean they should be denied access to the AT or any
> other trail. Nor does it mean their "desires" should be catered to. As
> users, they should be able to see "at least" two blazes if they're standing
> on the trail - the one behind them (if they turn around to look) and the
> next one in front of them. If they get lost because a minimalist maintainer
> fails to make that happen, then the maintainer has failed to do his job. If
> they get lost because they weren't paying attention even though the trail is
> adequately blazed, then it's their fault. If hikers (plural and separately)
> get lost on a regular basis in a particular section or at a particular turn,
> then we're back to the maintainer again. You've seen that - the places
> where the trail turns left but there's a "trail" straight ahead where a
> large number of hikers missed the turn because it wasn't adequately blazed.
>
> Someone said I was trashing maintainers - Bullhockey. If someone fails to
> meet the responsibilities for the job they're supposed to be doing, I'm
> perfectly willing to point that out - whether they're an engineer, a teacher
> - or a maintainer. Remember - I'm a maintainer, too.
>
> Someone also said the trail should be accessible to "the average, reasonably
> prepared hiker". I don't think you'll find that in the ATC Mission
> Staetment - nor in the National Trail System Act verbiage ---- nor will you
> always find those "reasonably prepared hikers" in practice. Think about
> some of the Boy Scout Troops you meet along the Trail - or the church groups
> - or the dayhikers - or about the thruhikers who start in Georgia every
> year. And remember that 40% of those thruhikers have never put on a pack
> before they start the approach trail at Amicalola. "average, reasonably
> prepared hiker"?? Really?? I've met a Hasidic group on the trail -
> complete with suits, ties, white dresses and white shoes. I've met an
> Indian family headed down the Trail at dusk - in sandals, no water, no pack,
> no food. I've met thruhikers who were headed north and were walking south.
> I've met a group just before full dark, some of them in sandals, who were 3
> miles and a 2500 ft climb from their car with no flashlight. Some of these
> people are idiots - but they have every right to be where they are - and a
> reasonable expectation that their level of "expertise" will be met at least
> in terms of trail marking. There are now laws in some places that might
> make them pay if they need rescue - but up to the point where they need to
> be rescued, even if they're not prepared to be where they are - they DO have
> the right to be there. Some of them even learn from the experience. And
> it's incumbent on the maintainers to mark (blaze) the trail well enough that
> the SAR crews get called as little as possible.
>
> >Hmmm..can you be more specific that significant? I agree that if a
> >maintainer
> >reads reports of hikers getting lost in the registers, they really should
> >survey the situation and add blazes if needed.
> <snip>
> >Should we blaze to people's insecurity?
>
> Sometimes - yes. Weary quotes the "book" which basically says if you're
> standing by one blaze you should be able to see two blazes - the one behind
> you and the one in front of you. In some places, that "might" be a quarter
> mile, in others it might be 5 yards. The "quarter mile" (even on the AT) is
> a rare and wonderful thing for an Eastern trail - and even there, my
> question would be - can you actually see a blaze that's a quarter mile away?
> You know the answer to that, don't you?
>
> Oh yeah - "significant" - someone mentioned 1% (.01). In Georgia, with 3000
> people starting thruhikes, that's 30 people - plus the dayhikers, section
> hikers, touristas, etc. Say 40 to 50 people or more. Enough that it's in
> the maintainers interest to keep them on the trail cause if they all get
> lost at any one spot, they'll make a secondary trail into the woods that'll
> have to be blocked/obliterated --- by the maintainer. Who generally doesn't
> need that extra workload.
>
> Is it in the maintainers interest to keep the trail well-blazed? Yeah.
>
> Is it in the hikers interest to keep the trail well-blazed? Yeah.
>
> >I hiked with a person who really would have had a blaze on every tree if he
> >had his way.
> >He also wanted them_much_ bigger and to be reflective so they could be seen
> >at night.
> >Should we blaze to his level of enjoyment?
>
> Who said anything about accomodating anyone's (much less "everyone's")
> "level of enjoyment"? One of my two points was that the "blazing" (whatever
> form it takes) on a National Scenic Trail needs to be such that those who
> use the trail won't get lost because of a "minimalist" policy on the part of
> the maintainer. Nor, as someone pointed out, should they be subjected to
> "blazes on every tree". Blazing to that level is the responsibility of the
> maintainer (and the maintaining organization). The "book" definition
> generally works pretty well - but not in ALL situations.
>
> >This has become an issue for me.
> <snip>
> >now I have to pay more attention.
>
> Yep --- :-)))
>
> >On the other hand.....the blazing at roads is a problem. I hate dithering
> >at a road crossing as to which way is _the_way. I want to be able to get
> >back into the woods
> >and as quickly as possible, for safety's sake..
>
> Rabid agreement. Road crossings (and road walks) are the most frequent
> blazing nightmares for hikers. And the most frequent points of failure for
> maintainers.
>
> >I HATE any delay in crossing these zones. If I had my way, the rocks would
> >be blazed <g>.
>
> Some of them are - although probably not as often as you'd like :-))
>
> Walk softly,
> Jim
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT-L mailing list
> AT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l