[at-l] Re: [ AT-L ] : Maps

[Slyatpct@xxxxxxx (Slyatpct@xxxxxxx)]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In a message dated 1/31/2003 4:04:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,
baltimorejack@hotmail.com writes:

> Perhaps not in so many words, Sly, but several folks, including yourself,
> have commented on how easily they navigated the Trail without them, and
> therefore clearly implied that they weren't necessary.  Someone else
> clearly
> suggested that they weren't worth the money and could easily be done
> without.  So while folks may not have flat-out said "Don't carry them!"
> they
> certainly implied that they were an expensive, un-needed extravagance that
> could easily be done without.
>

I wonder how many first timers know how to even read a map?  The maps are
only as good as the person reading them.

Weary and others are right, maps are great for idenifying mountains, steams,
towns etc.  I especially like the few places on the entire trail when someone
had their map out and we could follow the ridge that we had just walked.
Jack you're right, maps can help save valuable and precious time in a
emergency situation.  As a hiking tool to plan mileage, food drops, that's
stretcthing it.  Most people have their food drops and daily mileage planned
before they reach Springer.  Most adjust accordindly using the guidebooks and
databook.

Here's what I'm saying, hiking on other trails, in white outs or off season,
excluded.  If you pay attention to the trail and stick to the white blazes, a
thru-hiker can get by fine without maps on the AT for navigation.  There's
more than enough road crossings each day to reach civilization, if need or
want be, and that info can be found in the databook.   Maps can, and very
well may, come in handy in northern NE for a number of reasons that become
apparent before you get there.   Maps are more useful for blueblazing,
blueblazers and off trail adventures than purists.

If I were to advocate bringing maps, I'd also suggest learning how to use
them first.

Sly