What do you find helpful in Trail Conditions?

[mookie]

i guess i am not like most people. i dont really want to know what trail conditions are like. will deal with it when i get to it.
interesting read though....

 

[David Metsky]

If you want to put a longer description, then (as Darren says), keep the comments short and write a trip report!

Agreed.

Can you even embed photos in trail conditions?

No.

I have no idea what the text limit is, I've never maxed it out.

It's the same as a regular post, ie, pretty darn high. But if people start writing trip reports in trail conditions it will not be as useful. Please stick to some simple facts and details, limit embellishments.

 

[dug]

Winter: Snow depths, if the trail is broken out, blowdowns.
Spring: Water levels, snow depths, blowdowns
Summer: Nothing (don't ever check them)
Fall: Any ice that may be starting to form.

My gear decisions are based on that day, my experience with the trail, and how my back is feeling, so what may be necessary a week earlier may not be necessary that day...or vice versa.

(Oh, and the Parking at Heath's Gate.... )

 

[Peakbagr]

Tyler,

The Trail Conditions originated as simple TC reports whose purpose was to summarize some of the basics.
The excellent add'l info you're suggesting belongs in Trip Reports.
I often post a brief Trail Conditions and then put the 'extras' in a more fully written Trip Reports where you can add and embellish the bare bones of your TC report.

 

[leaf]

i guess i am not like most people. i dont really want to know what trail conditions are like. will deal with it when i get to it.
interesting read though....

i'm the same way. i don't think i've ever read the trail conditions section, except if i see someone who i invited on a hike but they told me they were sick and staying home.. then i saw they actually lied to me and hiked somewhere else on the other side of the white mountains to avoid me and posted a trail condition report thinking i wouldn't be stalking them.

and i only wrote up one trail condition report in the year or so since i've been a member. but that was only because i wanted to brag because sometimes i think i'm all hardcore and stuff.

 

[mookie]

and i only wrote up one trail condition report in the year or so since i've been a member. but that was only because i wanted to brag because sometimes i think i'm all hardcore and stuff.

well obviously. clearly the only reason to post a trip report. we know you dont care about giving anyone trail advice/conditions.

 

[--M.]

... if people start writing trip reports in trail conditions it will not be as useful. Please stick to some simple facts and details, limit embellishments.

Mmm, I got away from myself a little, but TCs often include URLs to picture-hosting sites.

The Trip Reports (as opposed to bare-bones TCs) also have the capability of dialogue with the participants to answer questions. I notice that at least one (happy?) hiker writes to both areas with a cross-reference. Very helpful, maybe time-consuming.

I usually just need to know when the most people will be in the cafeteria of the Sherman Adams building, so I can walk through like I'm somebody (laughed at that one once).

 

[billski]

more.....

To me, the most valuable condition reports are about less-popular routes. The most popular trails get the most maintenance attention and the most press.

All I really want to know is something which might be a moderate to large hike impediment, or may cause me to rethink my trip plans.
- Missing, erroneous or very ambiguous trail descriptions, trail markers and signs. Finding the trailhead can sometimes be the most difficult.

-Any huge deviation like
0 "the bridge is out, you must walk an additional 2 miles to the trailhead"
0 significant blowdowns,
0 trail changes that result in significant (20-30 minute) searching for a reroute are helpful.
0 Logging in the area has obfuscated the trail.

 

[Dave Bear]

i guess i am not like most people. i dont really want to know what trail conditions are like. will deal with it when i get to it.
interesting read though....

Similarly, when I was first hiking the NH48 I just wanted to look at brief, vague updates on recent conditions. I didn't even actually join the forums until later in the quest. The thing I liked about glancing at a TC and then the weather from obs and going out for my hike was that many peaks I experienced the views, if they were there, for the first time first hand. There have even been times when I took friends and relatives on hikes and kept what they would see or experience (such as Canadian jays) a secret just to witness their surprise! Now that I have been out alot more I have posted alot of pics, not great quality because I can't justify the cost of camera replacement. Was on my fourth by year two. So for what it is worth I like the TC not having pics. It is great if someone says if a snowbridge is still there or how thick the ice on a crossing is though. Great idea for a thread!

 

[Stan]

I've got to admit I lumped trail conditions and trip reports together in my comment. Like I said, it's nice to avoid surprises and that's why I often check but I take basically the same gear on all trips, depending on whether its a dayhike or backpack, and am less influenced by what someone experienced last week than by weather and conditions that I anticipate this trip ... which being New England covers everything.

My goals are not so time or achievement sensitive that recent conditions matter much on my excursions unless I'm leading a group, in which case it is less a matter of whether or not than how much longer will it take.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

Can you even embed photos in trail conditions?

No.

However, you can include links to your photos. I believe --M.'s basic point was that a photo may be worth many words. And yes, you could accomplish that with photo links.

 

[The Feathered Hat]

This may open a can of worms, but...

For those of us who carry cell phones for emergency-only use when we hike, a note in a Trail Conditions report about cell coverage would be quite useful. Coverage is very spotty in the Whites, as anyone who carries a cell knows, but there are regions where coverage is actually quite good (depending on the carrier).

People yakking on phones in the mountains annoy me as much as anyone, and I've thought about leaving my phone at home on general principle, but I hike alone most of the time, often on under-hiked routes, and if I got in trouble -- or, more important, if I came across someone in trouble -- and was in an area with cell coverage but didn't have my phone, I'd never forgive myself.

I think I'm going to start adding cell coverage to my TCs, something like this that also notes signal strength and the carrier:

Cell phone coverage: Zero until just below Garfield summit (on the summit: up to five bars, AT&T).

 

[Stash]

People yakking on phones in the mountains annoy me as much as anyone, and I've thought about leaving my phone at home on general principle, but I hike alone most of the time, often on under-hiked routes, and if I got in trouble -- or, more important, if I came across someone in trouble -- and was in an area with cell coverage but didn't have my phone, I'd never forgive myself.

I think I'm going to start adding cell coverage to my TCs, something like this that also notes signal strength and the carrier:

Cell phone coverage: Zero until just below Garfield summit (on the summit: up to five bars, AT&T).

I can't see a negative here. Embracing technology with the potential to save a life makes sense.

 

[Tom Rankin]

For those of us who carry cell phones for emergency-only

Tyler, can you update the first post with any items that have been mentioned since the thread started?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I'm not one to keep looking at the phone all the way up to report how many bars I have. It drains the battery when you're "that" far away from the nearest tower... I want to have the battery power to make the call when I need to. Plus it would really ruin the hike if someone called (like work.)

Tim

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

This may open a can of worms, but...

For those of us who carry cell phones for emergency-only use when we hike, a note in a Trail Conditions report about cell coverage would be quite useful. Coverage is very spotty in the Whites, as anyone who carries a cell knows, but there are regions where coverage is actually quite good (depending on the carrier).

I think I'm going to start adding cell coverage to my TCs, something like this that also notes signal strength and the carrier:

Cell phone coverage: Zero until just below Garfield summit (on the summit: up to five bars, AT&T).

Excellent thought. I've never thought to include that. I think if you are going to do that it would be important to mention the carrier -- ATT, Verizon etc. I don't think the phone needs to be checked all the time, but a spot check at the trailhead and the summit would be helpful. And if by chance you found you had a signal midway up that might be interesting, but obviously we don't want to overload a report with signal reports.

 

[Fisher Cat]

What is the limit on the number of characters in a TC?

If this has already been answered I apologize I must have missed it. I do know (personal experience)that the maximum amount of chracters in a TR is 10,000. I believe someone mentioned that the amount of text in a TR & TC are the same.

 

[adktyler]

Tyler, can you update the first post with any items that have been mentioned since the thread started?

I believe I have done so. Am I missing anything?

 

[Stan]

This may open a can of worms, but...

For those of us who carry cell phones for emergency-only use when we hike, a note in a Trail Conditions report about cell coverage would be quite useful. Coverage is very spotty in the Whites, as anyone who carries a cell knows, but there are regions where coverage is actually quite good (depending on the carrier).

People yakking on phones in the mountains annoy me as much as anyone, and I've thought about leaving my phone at home on general principle, but I hike alone most of the time, often on under-hiked routes, and if I got in trouble -- or, more important, if I came across someone in trouble -- and was in an area with cell coverage but didn't have my phone, I'd never forgive myself.

I think I'm going to start adding cell coverage to my TCs, something like this that also notes signal strength and the carrier:

Cell phone coverage: Zero until just below Garfield summit (on the summit: up to five bars, AT&T).

I think cell phone users would be wise to turn them off until they are needed and be at the luck of the draw as to whether a signal can be obtained when needed ... and be prepared for the eventuality that it can't.

I've been in the company of hikers who lost power by keeping the phone on and at other times we've each had different luck, at the same location, in getting either a signal or a connection.

My conclusion is that including cell phone information is 1) of no interest to me personally, 2) can mislead others as to when and where to get a signal and a connection, 3) can mislead others into a false sense of security and perhaps inadequate proper preparation, 4) distracts from and clutters what should, IMHO, focus on the essentials of what draws us to the trails.

 

[Tom Rankin]

I think cell phone users would be wise to turn them off until they are needed and be at the luck of the draw as to whether a signal can be obtained when needed ... and be prepared for the eventuality that it can't.

I've been in the company of hikers who lost power by keeping the phone on and at other times we've each had different luck, at the same location, in getting either a signal or a connection.

My conclusion is that including cell phone information is 1) of no interest to me personally, 2) can mislead others as to when and where to get a signal and a connection, 3) can mislead others into a false sense of security and perhaps inadequate proper preparation, 4) distracts from and clutters what should, IMHO, focus on the essentials of what draws us to the trails.

I recently stopped at the bottom of a spur path. Several people in another group were dropping their packs, and they were essentially 'good to go' because they had 2 cell phones in their pockets!