[at-l] Re: Negative stress on the trail

[daveh at psknet.com (David Hicks)]

Ah!  The profile on AT maps!

I look at them for a rough idea -- a very rough idea.  I look at the map's 
contour intervals for details.

If the map is current, there are seldom surprises.

If it is not current, the map often provides the first clues that your day's 
expectations are suspect because of a re-route, or something of the sort. 
When the trail under foot deviates from the one on the map (contour, 
direction, location of features, etc), it is most often because the trail has 
been moved since the map was published and your expectations based on it are 
suspect.

Sometimes, just studying the map gives you a clue to where the trail is likely 
to go and what your "new" expectations might be.  Does it look as if the trail 
is headed over a "viewshed," a PUD, etc.?  Is there a feature ahead on the old 
trail (such as going though a town, along a road, near a ski lift, etc.), 
which the ATC might want to by-pass?  Does the old route go straight up, or 
down, a grade, which the ATC wants to switchback?  Is the trail on the map 
over a series of PUDs and the trail under foot look like new, or relatively 
new, sidehill?  If any of the above, where is the re-route likely to tie back 
into the old route and what is the new route likely to be?  Sometimes, you can 
figure it out.  Others you just need to walk it out.

Chainsaw


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nina Rogers" <infpeace@gmail.com>
To: <at-l@backcountry.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 1:34 PM
Subject: [at-l] Re: Negative stress on the trail


>>
I love maps, too, and it's tough not to get stressed when the terrain
is supposed to be flat (according to the profile) and isn't.
<<