[at-l] Re: [ at-l ] maps

[Slyatpct@xxxxxxx (Slyatpct@xxxxxxx)]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In a message dated 1/30/2003 2:59:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
baltimorejack@hotmail.com writes:

>
>  However, advising others to do likewise is not, in my opinion, wise
> advice.  They are as vital a part of your gear in the backwoods as your
> boots.
>

LOL... some have hiked without boots either.

Great post Jack and your words should be considered seriously.  If you're
totally inept in the woods, on the Appalachian Trail, most all your points
have validity, but you're hardly in the backcountry on the AT.  Half the time
you can hear traffic and almost on the entire trail, with the exception of
the Smokies, you're no more than a few hours or less away from a road
crossing.  I hardly think it's worth bushwacking or taking a blue blaze when
you can just follow the AT.

If you can point out some exceptions, where you actually evacuated someone
from off trai, where it wasn't at a crossing and quicker, I'd like to hear
the story.

Now this is only my opinion and I never advised anyone to hike the AT without
maps, but since the AT is not really wilderness, at least if you hiked
without a map and relied on your senses a little more, you'd a little be
closer to the real thing.   Of course, you'd be cheating by carrying a
databook, handbook or companion.

I had maps off and on.  Although I went through the Smokies without a map the
first time just following the AT, I did have a map the second time and used
it for some blue blazes.   If you can't make it to the next shelter, using
the databook and decide then if you can make it to the next, you're not much
of a hiker.  So yeah, maybe some people do need maps on the AT.  I wasn't an
Einstien, but I figured out pretty quickly just how to hike the AT.  I knew
to pick them up for NE.

Anyone know if John Muir carried maps?

Sly