Union Leader has two stories on line that lack accuracy

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
erugs

erugs

New member
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
2,434
Reaction score
141
Location
Manchester, NH
Cabot/Horn: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20140112/NEWS07/140119823. The story doesn't mention Milo, Tom's dog, at all! The "girlfriend friend who went in and helped find Tom, had actually never met either one of them but the reporter didn't know that. I watched the events unfold on Facebook as it was happening as I'm sure others here did, too. Just think of what the reporter could have written if he had good source material!



Mt. Webster: not so serious an error, but they call an ice climber a hiker. I know, I'm just being picky now.

Gotta keep those reporters on their toes!
 
"Because of the time of year, remoteness of the area, and the fact that we didn't know if Mr. Rogers was hurt, a rescue mission was conducted. Mr. Rogers did nothing wrong, was completely prepared, and exercised good judgment by turning back when he couldn't find the trail," Ober concluded."

Nothing to see here. Move along.
Actually... I do believe 2 weeks ago, I made some comment about how they never write stories about people who do things right and come out unscathed. I guess they called me on that one...
 
TheUnionLeader said:
Rogers was in an area without a cell phone signal and couldn't notify his girlfriend that he was late, said officials, who credited him with being fully equipped and accompanied by his dog.
Click to expand...

I see a mention, not by name though.

Tim
 
what exactly is the point of this thread?
 
The overdue/needless worry/rescue is usually my biggest concern, especially in cell dead-zones. We had a close call last year when we go out a few hours late due to a missed turn and our loved ones were debating on calling us in (even though we had called to let them know we were running behind, we didn't realize how much longer it would be to the car).

That area past the campsite is pretty open. IIRC, there is a sharp left in the birch glade that would be easy to miss with the tread covered. I wonder if he had a map and a compass, and if so, if he could he have followed the drainage to the southeast (and possibly found the trail as well)? Bummer to have to backtrack all that way, but hey, it worked. :)
 
Interesting. There are some lessons in that:

Around the NE, you do not have to be very far off trail for the trail to no longer be visible, at which point it does not matter if you are 50' or 5 miles off.

It's easy to have a GPS say you are "on trail" when you are far enough off to not be able to see the trail.

Trail locations on maps are often inaccurate. This is especially true on "club maps" (ADK, AMC, etc.). The geographic features such as topo lines may be reasonably accurate, but trails drawn in afterward by non-cartographers may be way off (hundreds of feet, more than enough for it to become a bushwhack).

(Also, since we are including commentary in this thread, this is also an opportunity to take a poke at the ridiculousness of wilderness area trail "standards." Anyone who wants a bushwhack experience (and even those who do not, like this gentleman) can simply walk a few yards off trail, and they can trip over all the blowdown they want.)
 
So fully equipped and accompanied by his dog. So in the case of solo hiking, is he hiking alone? Did Milo help with the route and trail finding? Are you not negligent if it's you and your dog?

Is hiking with some breeds better than others? Border Collies and descendents of Lassie or St. Bernards carrying rum.

Glad he was fine and never in any real danger. Must have been a slow news day for the UL.
 
TCD said:
It's easy to have a GPS say you are "on trail" when you are far enough off to not be able to see the trail.
Click to expand...
Sometimes all you have to do is step off the trail to be unable to see it. And sometimes it isn't even visible when you are on it either... (Becca and I encountered several spots on an overnight BC ski on the Shoal Pond Trail where trail following consisted of pushing through the youngest trees--which were still taller than we were.) Open woods with snow on the ground can also give you no clues to work with.

Trail locations on maps are often inaccurate. This is especially true on "club maps" (ADK, AMC, etc.). The geographic features such as topo lines may be reasonably accurate, but trails drawn in afterward by non-cartographers may be way off (hundreds of feet, more than enough for it to become a bushwhack).
Click to expand...
GPSes have errors. Maps have errors. GPS navigators need to be aware of them and take them into account. (The accuracy of modern consumer GPSes now make these errors visible to users.)

I wouldn't trust the trails as drawn on maps for GPS navigation--IMO they are only good for telling you that a trail is somewhere nearby. I am also a bit leery of amateur GPS tracks but have had pretty good luck with the professional WMNF FS GPS tracks. (See http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?52139-GPS-tracks-for-NH-4K and http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?38643-WMNF-GIS-trails-data-GPX.) My GPS track on the above referenced ski trip was essentially identical to the WMNF track in some spots but something greater than 50 ft different in at least one spot*. (I have no way of knowing if the error was from my GPS, in the WMNF track, or both.)

* This spot may have had a less than ideal skyview. Fortunately, we were able to spot the trail on the ground without difficulty.

(Also, since we are including commentary in this thread, this is also an opportunity to take a poke at the ridiculousness of wilderness area trail "standards."
Click to expand...
Irresponsible, IMO. (But they don't listen to me...)

I would also like to see glass-bead paint (road sign paint) used for blazes to aid night navigation. (But they don't listen to me on this either...)

Doug
 
DougPaul said:
I wouldn't trust the trails as drawn on maps for GPS navigation--IMO they are only good for telling you that a trail is somewhere nearby.
Click to expand...

Lots of good points in your post. I highlighted the part above because I think I remember hearing once that the AMC maps are often intentionally incorrect in order to better show trail features that are below the scale of the map. So for example, switchbacks and water crossing may be exaggerated so they show up better.


TCD said:
(Also, since we are including commentary in this thread, this is also an opportunity to take a poke at the ridiculousness of wilderness area trail "standards." Anyone who wants a bushwhack experience (and even those who do not, like this gentleman) can simply walk a few yards off trail, and they can trip over all the blowdown they want.)
Click to expand...

That's a good solution, since tripping over blowdown is pretty much the goal. Taking this logic a bit further, once someone invents silent cars, we can finally put roads into the Pemi, and have the trails just far enough off the road that hikers won't see the cars. Then anyone who wants a wilderness hiking experience can simply walk a few yards off the road, and they can hike over all the rocky trail they want.
 
Last edited:
>> Union Leader has two stories on line that lack accuracy

Only two ?? :)

DougPaul said:
Sometimes all you have to do is step off the trail to be unable to see it. And sometimes it isn't even visible when you are on it either...
Click to expand...
I remember one winter bushwhack to Davis Path S of Isolation from leanto, we had reached the ridge and the guy wanted to turn R up ridge to find the trail, I told him we were standing on it but it was unbroken and here it circled off the far side of ridge

Another time we bushwhacked from Little River to Guyot col, sent out people both directions but nobody found trail. I was sure it wasn't my way so went other way, they had walked right across it
 
RoySwkr said:
>> Union Leader has two stories on line that lack accuracy

Only two ?? :)


I remember one winter bushwhack to Davis Path S of Isolation from leanto, we had reached the ridge and the guy wanted to turn R up ridge to find the trail, I told him we were standing on it but it was unbroken and here it circled off the far side of ridge

Another time we bushwhacked from Little River to Guyot col, sent out people both directions but nobody found trail. I was sure it wasn't my way so went other way, they had walked right across it
Click to expand...

It's funny how any unbroken trail in open woods makes everything look like a trail. It can really help to scout out an area in summer first, but even then things can look very different with the snow cover. And following someone's tracks is nice, so long as they knew where they were going (and weren't just bushwhacking around!).
 
cushetunk said:
Lots of good points in your post. I highlighted the part above because I think I remember hearing once that the AMC maps are often intentionally incorrect in order to better show trail features that are below the scale of the map. So for example, switchbacks and water crossing may be exaggerated so they show up better.
Click to expand...
Hadn't heard that, but I suspect that if true, it was from the pre-GPS era. I believe the trails on the more recent AMC maps were plotted from GPS tracks. However, even if the trails are accurate, the map scale (~1:80K) does not allow them read to anywhere near the accuracy of the original tracks.

Doug
 
TJsName said:
It's funny how any unbroken trail in open woods makes everything look like a trail. It can really help to scout out an area in summer first, but even then things can look very different with the snow cover. And following someone's tracks is nice, so long as they knew where they were going (and weren't just bushwhacking around!).
Click to expand...
There is a spot on the Thoreau Falls Trail (heading N along the river) where the trail enters a large open section. The first time I skied the lollipop route (2002), I wasted some time looking for the trail before I realized that the trail would be easy to find on the far side due to terrain restrictions. On the 2011 repeat with Becca, I recognized the spot and we headed directly over to the far side. (There were no tracks to follow either time. And, of course, one cannot always tell if the tracks go where one wants...)

There was another spot on the Shoal Pond Trail where the trail appeared to go through a large open area. After scratching our heads for a bit, we consulted the GPS (with the WMNF tracks installed) which said that it was below a cliff off to the side. We looked and could see a faint corridor down below. There was no clue as to where the trail dropped down and it took us quite a while to find a route. Without the GPS, we probably would have had to turn back. (I have talked to someone else about this spot--he got "confused" too...)

You don't need to be on the trail all the time--you just need to know that you can find it (and get to it) when you need it.

Doug
 
Last edited:
DougPaul said:
There is a spot on...
Doug
Click to expand...

Doug - you keep using the word spot. In a story about finding lost hikers perhaps another word would be less confusing. Of course, we know you would always capitalize Spot when you meant that kind of spotting device. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top