It's not funny

[Ed'n Lauky]

A couple of days ago I saw a trail conditions report claiming to have bagged Owl's Head with a group of nine. Yesterday, I noticed it was no longer there.

Then I discover a report on Rocket's website stating that the report was bogus. I followed up on this and found that Mike Morse had posted the following report on his website:

I pull into the lot with the ranger and we chat for a few minutes then he goes to work and I do the same. Right from the get go something didnt feel right. The parking lot was covered with snow but a noticable lack of tire tracks. There were a few though, and people carpool so I dont worry too much.
I was making my way down the Lincoln Woods trail and I was looking for signs of usage. Lots of skis, a few boots, snow shoes here and there. I was begining to wonder and worry. I pushed on to the Black Pond trail. It looked a lot like this:
There was an obvious trough in the snow, but unless there was 10 inches of snow last night, the report was fake. Being the optimist I am, I pushed on. The snow wasnt actually that deep, maybe 8 inches of powder that I was crunching down. It wasn’t fast hiking, but I wasn’t killing myself either. Right before Black Pond came into sight, I realized what I was on, old snowed in ski tracks. They went awfully far around the pond though, I skirted the pond following them well past where I’d normally start the whack. (Where all the trees are fallen down after you make the hard right around the corner of the pond.)I did take a neat picture of the fallen logs where something had gone over them:
I looked in the woods to see if maybe I could pick up an old whack route from early December, no luck though. I decided to bail over to Cannon/Kinsmans to make either a 2nd attempt at South or go up Cannon, which I knew was a slam dunk. I was slightly disappointed but I quickly got over it on my way out of the woods. I’d be more bummed if I planned to bag it this weekend.

I just want to say that I don't think that type of bogus report is funny. It could under certain conditions in the winter place someone's life in jeopardy. At the very least it can waste a lot of time and add unnecessary expense. I hope it is not something that is often repeated.

 

[spencer]

I don't think it's funny either.

But I think people who go somewhere b/c they think they have an extra margin of safety due to other trampers are morons

 

[skiguy]

Agreed and definitely a real drag and not funny. Although nothing like hearing it from the "Real Mckoy" or maybe not? The information age certainly has it's pitfalls!

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

I don't think it's funny either.

But I think people who go somewhere b/c they think they have an extra margin of safety due to other trampers are morons

Could be true. Might not be. That raises a philosophical question of its own. Are we morons for believing what someone else says? I guess that question goes on forever. So much for the trail conditions reports.

 

[dr_wu002]

It could under certain conditions in the winter place someone's life in jeopardy. At the very least it can waste a lot of time and add unnecessary expense. I hope it is not something that is often repeated.

Sorry -- not buying it. If you're going to do Owl's Head, be ready to do Owl's Head regardless of what you read online about trail conditions.

-Dr. Wu

 

[David Metsky]

I'm the one who deleted the trail conditions report, and if people suspect the reports are incorrect or a hoax, please report them.

But relying on trail conditions to the extent that if one is incorrect you are in serious danger is also wrong. Someone could put in a typo, or misremember a trail name, or any number of things. If you rely on what you read online instead of prepare for being self-sufficient, well, the outcome is not going to be funny either.

-dave-

 

[Barkingcat]

But I think people who go somewhere b/c they think they have an extra margin of safety due to other trampers are morons

Possibly.

Related to that point, though, is that I think one of the strengths of a site such as this one (and the community involved) is the underlying premise of a posted trail conditions report -- that the poster actually went on the trail.

Obviously, that may not hold true for folks who aren't members and don't have the VFFT-community incentive to tell the truth, but if the information was posted by someone from this forum, and it was untrue, that's sad.

Mebbe it's just me, but I don't see the reward/gain for posting a fabricated trail condition report.

 

[dr_wu002]

But relying on trail conditions to the extent that if one is incorrect you are in serious danger is also wrong. Someone could put in a typo, or misremember a trail name, or any number of things. If you rely on what you read online instead of prepare for being self-sufficient, well, the outcome is not going to be funny either.

Here Here! Be prepared, be smart, be self-sufficient. If you look and see you don't have one of those things then maybe you shouldn't go on that particular hike -- bogus trail conditions or not.

-Dr. Wu

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Preparedness is of course important. It is, however, minimally inconvenient and wasteful of time and fuel when one makes a decision based on reported conditions which are incorrect. I heard from Mike indirectly that it was not broken out and reported it to Dave who deleted it. I suppose he could have added a reply saying "this report is suspect", but he did not.

Someone either wanted to "punish" "trail poachers", or perhaps goad some group into breaking the route out in advance of this weekend. Based on other information contained in this forum, I think it will be the case that OH will be broken out after tomorrow.

Some days you have to break trail, and some days the trail is broken out for you.

Tim

 

[MichaelJ]

Let's keep in mind that just because someone may *want* to hike a broken-out trail instead of breaking trail does not mean that they are unprepared should they find the reported conditions inaccurate. Perhaps they just don't want the extra difficulty on a given day? Or don't want to expend the extra time?

Think of it this way: if someone posted that a river crossing was easily passable, and you read that, so you did the hike, got to the river and found it was not passable, what does that misinformation have to do with your level of preparedness?

 

[RollingRock]

I agree that someone should be self-sufficient. I do like the trip conditions report more to help me prepare as to what conditions I should to expect. I always bring everything regardless because conditions can change quickly. It does ease my mind a bit to know that the trail had been broken. If the trail I'm using does not appear to be broken based on trip condition reports, I still go ahead and do it but it gives me the mindset beforehand that I'll just have to work harder.

So for someone to put me more at ease based on their 'bogus' trip conditions report is just not cool

 

[griffin]

But I think people who go somewhere b/c they think they have an extra margin of safety due to other trampers are morons

Or they're still learning, or hiking with people who are, and are trying to pick trails with that in mind. Just for example.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't COUNT on reported conditions for my safety, but I don't think using those reports to help with trail selection makes one a moron, either.

 

[peakbagger]

One of the downsides to leaving the trail conditions open to non-members of VFTT. Of course that was done deliberately to encourage trail posting by as many folks as possible. To date, I find the advantages of having nonmembers post trail reports far exceed the limitations.

I seem to remember that the moderators did have the capability of tracking posts back to the IP address that posted the bogus report, so whomever posted it is not entirely untracable.

 

[bryan]

i've always thought that the most useful part of this site was the trail conditions section. living in southern nh it's nice to have some idea of what conditions are looking like up north and even better if i can know something about the conditions of my planned route. that's not to say i base my plans solely on what i see in the conditions reports. i just use it as one more piece of information. i don't think it's funny to put up false reports. when i post i try to put up the most accurate and useful information i can and i expect the same from others. my guess is the post in question was inspired by the owls head thread that's been going on this week.
making membership a pre-requisite for posting would be fine with me, but only if vftt went back to the system where one could just sign up and become a member and not have to go through getting a recommendation, etc. that's a whole other thread though.

bryan

 

[griffin]

I seem to remember that the moderators did have the capability of tracking posts back to the IP address that posted the bogus report, so whomever posted it is not entirely untracable.

Depending on the IP, pranksters may be ban-able (I used to help moderate a board that uses the same software as VFTT; we used ip's to suss out multiple accounts, in some cases ban particularly troublesome trolls)

And I agree that the value of having as many people able to post trail reports outweighs the downside of the occasional arsehole-ery.

 

[dr_wu002]

i've always thought that the most useful part of this site was the trail conditions section.

I actually find the trail conditions only marginally useful and more serves as entertainment because I can read what people are doing without having to read an exceedingly long trip report. In terms of practicality though, the information is subjective... someone's idea of a bad stream crossing might differ from mine and they might all differ from yours. If I read that a trail has a "Huge Washout" or is "Severely Eroded" I might expect to find that it is but in general, I'm not at all surprised if it's not.

Not saying that Trail Conditions is worthless by any means and I use it for informational (and entertainment) purposes, but I think the information has its limits (but the entertainment does not).

-Dr. Wu

 

[Peakbagr]

Trail Conditions has been around for years when Darren first wrote the old DOS program. It survived as as attachment to VBulletin software for more years.
While its served an excellent purpose and for many who don't belong to VFTT, it IS the face of VFTT to many. Unfortunately, the old program became the target of spoofs, porn and a vehicle for causing mischief, often from former members. In one case there was a series of very personal attacks on one of our members. Because it was difficult to edit, and Darren was away on business, those TC posts sometimes sat for a week or more before we could remove them.

By eliminating the old format and bringing the TC into the current software, the mods decided to keep just that section open to non members. And of course, the porn bots and 'funseekers' found it. We banned I.P.s and made further adjustment.

Now, before you read a TC from a non-member, Dave and I first see them all. We can edit, add to, or delete, but we have to approve each of them before you read them.
Dave and I already had a report from a sharp eyed member that the Owl's Head TC was bogus and we removed it. Pls report report TC posts that strike you as wrong. In the meantime we'll do our best to keep garbage posts off the Board.

 

[giggy]

really - you folks are making a big deal out of nothing...someone put a bogus trail conditions report for a hiking trail....

life goes on.... focus on real problems.........

 

[MarkJ]

A couple of days ago I saw a trail conditions report claiming to have bagged Owl's Head with a group of nine. Yesterday, I noticed it was no longer there.

Then I discover a report on Rocket's website stating that the report was bogus. I followed up on this and found that Mike Morse had posted the following report on his website:

I pull into the lot with the ranger and we chat for a few minutes then he goes to work and I do the same. Right from the get go something didnt feel right. The parking lot was covered with snow but a noticable lack of tire tracks. There were a few though, and people carpool so I dont worry too much.
I was making my way down the Lincoln Woods trail and I was looking for signs of usage. Lots of skis, a few boots, snow shoes here and there. I was begining to wonder and worry. I pushed on to the Black Pond trail. It looked a lot like this:
There was an obvious trough in the snow, but unless there was 10 inches of snow last night, the report was fake. Being the optimist I am, I pushed on. The snow wasnt actually that deep, maybe 8 inches of powder that I was crunching down. It wasn’t fast hiking, but I wasn’t killing myself either. Right before Black Pond came into sight, I realized what I was on, old snowed in ski tracks. They went awfully far around the pond though, I skirted the pond following them well past where I’d normally start the whack. (Where all the trees are fallen down after you make the hard right around the corner of the pond.)I did take a neat picture of the fallen logs where something had gone over them:
I looked in the woods to see if maybe I could pick up an old whack route from early December, no luck though. I decided to bail over to Cannon/Kinsmans to make either a 2nd attempt at South or go up Cannon, which I knew was a slam dunk. I was slightly disappointed but I quickly got over it on my way out of the woods. I’d be more bummed if I planned to bag it this weekend.

I just want to say that I don't think that type of bogus report is funny. It could under certain conditions in the winter place someone's life in jeopardy. At the very least it can waste a lot of time and add unnecessary expense. I hope it is not something that is often repeated.

Are we taking 1 person's statement that the other report was bougus?
Did anyone call the rangers to verify that a Mr Morse talked to them?

 

[arm]

there are far tougher challenges people face every day ...