[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] ALDHA Companion/Endorsements
- Subject: [at-l] ALDHA Companion/Endorsements
- From: email@example.com (rick boudrie)
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:30:37 -0500
>pretension to list ALL the business, nor does it intentionally leave anyone
>out unless they've proved to be a real problem for hikers.
So, if RSCG is excluded from the next Companion then we must infer that the
ALDHA has determined that this provider has proven to be "a real problem"
for hikers, right?
I have a couple questions on this. They are general in nature and not
specific to the RSCG. Since none of the ALDHA Board members on this list
have seen fit to comment on the e-mail in this public forum, I won't go
there. I would encourage them to clear things up directly with Jesnine if
the e-mail did not represent the ALDHA position.
The first question is whether or not the decision to exclude any long-time
trail provider is a decision to is made by a single editor or by the ALDHA
My second question is whether or not the ALDHA offers all facilities facing
exclusion the chance to comment on specific complaints. That would seem to
be the right thing, in my book. After all, exclusion is tanamount to the
ALDHA telling the entire AT Community that the facility was "proved" to be a
"real problem for hikers". In addition, such feedback could make them a
better facility, whether they maintain thier listing or not.
My third question is what constititutes a "real problem". In some cases
this is probably very clear. Establishments that don't cater to all races,
and creeds would be "a real problem". Those which are unsafe or dishonest
would be as well. I suspect that the ALDHA standard is less clear-cut. My
question is simply what the standard is. I know that the AMC constitutes a
"real problem" in the minds of a small but significant minority of thru
hikers. I can't imagine the AMC facilites being excluded fromt the
Companion on the basis of those complaints, however. If the ALDHA is going
to tag a facility as being a "real problem" by removing it from the
companion, it would be good to know what that means. This way, hikers can
make better informed decisions in places where there are no alternative
places to stay. Out of principal,I would NEVER stay in a place where there
was a REAL problem (by my own definition) but very well might elect to stay
a place where ther was a "real problem" by someone else's definition (like
when AAA delisted some motel's because the rooms didn't have peep holes).
So, to restate the question: What constitutes a real problem establishement
per the ALDHA?
I think these are fair questions to ask The Companion is published by the
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online