Trail Sign Correlation in the Whites

[blacklab2020]

I tried doing a search with no success on this topic to see if it has come up before.

Its not a terribly important issue, but just out of curiosity...

Has anyone noticed that mutiple trail signs pertaining to the same stretch of trail do not correlate correctly with the mileage. There are a couple signs over towards kinsman and I think even some through the Franconias and over towards Crawford. We hiked the AT through the whites and found it odd that all throughout... a noticeable amount trail distances didnt match between signs.

Any thoughts or comments?

~J

 

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

Yes, I've noticed this in several places in the Whites. Don't trust the trail signs as far as distance is concerned.

 

[David Metsky]

Signs are maintained by a variety of organizations that maintain different stretches of trail, that will introduce some variations.

Relocations are made which lengthen or shorten trails, it's a real pain to go out and route all new signs, especially if the change didn't happen in your trail section.

Different people wheel the trail at different times and get different distances, it happens.

Mistakes are made and not corrected since it takes a while to prep and route signs, then haul them in and replace the old ones.

Signs last a while, but they're usually accurate at the time they are put up.

-dave-

 

[Pete_Hickey]

One of the reasons I hike, is to get away from the world of precision and accuracy. I LIKE signs that err on distances. For me, it is part of the charm of hiking.

No, I wouldn't appreciate a sign indicating 3 miles when it is really 10 miles, but a bit of an error doesn't make a bit of a difference to me. A sign erring on direction, howeer, would annoy me.

 

[MichaelJ]

One of my favorites, at the Zealand trailhead, is that the two signs barely 10' apart list different mileages to Zealand Hut.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

One of my favorites, at the Zealand trailhead, is that the two signs barely 10' apart list different mileages to Zealand Hut.

Well, <putting on nerd hat> they could be correct. If from one of the signs, the distance is 2.75 - 5 feet, and the other it's 2.75 + 5 feet, rounding off to one place after the decimal would leave the signs correct.

 

[MichaelJ]

Well, <putting on nerd hat> they could be correct. If from one of the signs, the distance is 2.75 - 5 feet, and the other it's 2.75 + 5 feet, rounding off to one place after the decimal would leave the signs correct.

Gimme that axe!

Thwack!

In fact, if you look at the picture, you'll see the signs are across the trail from each other, one on the right and one on the left.

There's a reasonable explanation, one sign being USFS and the other AMC, and the person who made the newer one did so in a workshop somewhere without the knowledge of what the other sign said, and wasn't going to redo their work when arriving at the trailhead to install the sign.

But still ... it's pretty funny.

 

[Double Bow]

I've noticed that often signs will say .1mi to something that is much less than that, like .1mi is the shortest measure they can use.

A sign erring on direction, howeer, would annoy me.

Don't try to do a Moat Mountain traverse then! When I did that in July, we came across a sign that pointed us to cross the stream. We did and then couldn't find the trail on the other side. We consulted the map and saw that we were not yet supposed to cross the stream so, we crossed back over and continued in the CORRECT direction. Steve Smith and WMNF have both been informed. Here are pictures of the trail junction and the sign itself.

Junction

Sign

On second thought, maybe you should go there with your axe and "correct" that sign!

 

[blacklab2020]

So to follow this up then.. what maps or resources are the most accurate to the region?.. The AMC White mountain guide or the Appalacian Trail Conference ETC....

 

[hockeycrew]

We encountered this when we hiked the hancock loop a few weeks ago. Our maps, the book and the signs all disagreed on the distance between the two summits (1.3 - 1.7 miles). This actually slightly confused us making us wonder if the summit to south hancock was actually down a herd path from the sign.

Otherwise, I never worry too much about distance. After 4 years in the US, I still get confused between kilometers and miles anyways. I always use my AMC guide to figure it out, but I don't really care about accuracy that much.

 

[Pucknuts61]

Somehow on Stoneybrook to Imp you lose .4 tenths of a mile between the trailhead sign and the intersection of Carter/Moriah and then to Imp.
After doing some research, we found that the trail had been rerouted as Dave Metsky explained, and this seems to be the most common reason for the variances. The trails change but the signs don't.
It's not an exact science when it comes to the trails (heck, has the "true" mileage for the AT ever been calcualted....it differs every time they try!), so I just use the signs as a guide and work it all between books, maps and GPS to get a pretty reasonable idea of the mileage....give or take a tenth or two.

 

[David Metsky]

So to follow this up then.. what maps or resources are the most accurate to the region?.. The AMC White mountain guide or the Appalacian Trail Conference ETC....

The AMC maps and guide are most accurate and up-to-date, but there are differences even in those.

-dave-

 

[bill bowden]

My personal favorite (hopefully corrected by now)

On the Skyland Trail headed North to Mount Cardigan: Just past the smmit of Crane(?) Mountain is a sign: Mount Cardigan 0.8 Miles; two miles further North on the same trail: Mount Cardigan 0.8 Miles. so you hike for about an hour and are no nearer the summit.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

so you hike for about an hour and are no nearer the summit.

Yeah, I've been lost too.


or......

This can easily be explained in non-euclidian geometry.

 

[Doc McPeak]

One of the reasons I hike, is to get away from the world of precision and accuracy. I LIKE signs that err on distances. For me, it is part of the charm of hiking.

No, I wouldn't appreciate a sign indicating 3 miles when it is really 10 miles, but a bit of an error doesn't make a bit of a difference to me. A sign erring on direction, howeer, would annoy me.

Plus, it's fun to see the look on someone's face doing the Haystack Basin loop when the sign says (after doing Haystack!) that there's 1960' of climbing ahead on the way to Basin! (It's under 1000')

I do find it keeps you mentally nimble adding up all those contradictory numbers.

 

[AntlerPeak]

It is not only on trails where signs get muddled. On the way home from climbing Jay and Big Jay on Wed we were driving VT 100 south. There was a sign, " Waitsfield 11 mi." A few minutes later a second sign reporting " Waitsfield 11 mi." One minute or so later a third sign, " Waitsfield 11 mi.".

Two important things, (1) yes we were moving and (2 ) We were not going around in a circle.

 

[RoySwkr]

Signs last a while, but they're usually accurate at the time they are put up.

I disagree,they are only as accurate as what the sign maker was told. Sometimes they agree with guidebook mileages and both are wrong

Probably the most confusing place I have been is the E side of Grandfather Mountain NC where the trail signs don't agree with the mile markers which don't agree with the map, and I felt none of them was correct

If a trail is relocated to become longer/shorter that may invalidate existing signs, but it's even worse when they move the old sign to the new trailhead which happened when they moved the N Twin trailhead from Little River Rd to Haystack Rd. And it just happened again at the jct of Newbury and Rim Trails on Sunapee.

 

[SteveHiker]

It is not only on trails where signs get muddled. On the way home from climbing Jay and Big Jay on Wed we were driving VT 100 south. There was a sign, " Waitsfield 11 mi." A few minutes later a second sign reporting " Waitsfield 11 mi." One minute or so later a third sign, " Waitsfield 11 mi.".

Two important things, (1) yes we were moving and (2 ) We were not going around in a circle.

Vermont is great for that. Try driving from the VT/NH border west on route 131 towards Ludlow. If you pay close attention, you'll wonder what kind of rip in the space-time continuum you're in. You get closer and then further away and then closer, etc. to both Cavendish and Ludlow (at least according to the signs)

as for trails, I've noticed times where the map, book and trail signs don't agree. But they're usually close enough that it doesn't matter much.

 

[AntlerPeak]

Steve I'll look for that when I drive toward Ludlow when I go down to climb Mt Snow.

 

[el-bagr]

The AMC maps and guide are most accurate and up-to-date, but there are differences even in those.

-dave-

A reliable source has informed me that since the AMC maps show trails' locations based on GPS -- but do not show watercourses or some peaks based on GPS -- the "location" of the trail can be right despite appearing on the wrong side of a stream. I'll try to remember the examples we reviewed. Of course, non-GPS based maps (older maps) get relative positions right but may be off on absolute locations.

I love that set of signs on the Airline. Classic.