Talk:French Way

Trail runners

The advice to have "good hiking boots" was changed to "good hiking shoes (trail runners)". In Wikipedia (I didn't find the word in Wiktionary, nor in my dead wood dictionary) "trail runner" redirects to Trail running, which says:

"Since trail running takes place on softer surfaces (e.g., grass, dirt) than road races, cushioning is not as important so often the shoes are less 'cushioned' than their counterparts designed for tarmac."

I haven't done the Way of St. James, but my impression from images I've seen from the French Way is that the trails are mostly hard, somewhat rocky, gravel, and I'd imagine you also walk on tarmac and pavements. Walking all day is also different from running. I'd want cushion.

If you aren't used to walking in the terrain, I'd assume you will want good ankle support when stumbling along a rocky section, tired having walked mostly uphill all day. Normal trail runners give no ankle support.

As your footwear is absolutely critical on a long walk, we should probably have (or point to) a comprehensive discussion on the options.

–LPfi (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating a gear list where these options could be listed. Most people recommend trail runners for this hike nowdays as you don't really need the ankle support and you're much less likely to develop blisters with trail runners and a medium cushion wool sock or blister preventing two layer socks.

Trail runners are a type of hiking shoe with a wide toe box. Altra is a popular brand in the US for review. Clevercamel (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

They might be similar to the "barefoot shoes" (odd they were sold by that name) I used on my last Lapland hike. On soft ground they are really much more comfortable than hiking boots, and they worked even with a backpack with full hiking equipment and food. I would still hesitate to bring only cushion-less shoes for a long walk by road and road-like trail. I am surprised to hear that they are recommended, but if the recommendation is by people with the right experience, who am I to protest. I think a discussion on gear really would be a good addition, but perhaps not here, but in Way of St. James or Long-distance walking in Europe. –LPfi (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

"Sleep"

I don't think this article should have any "Sleep" listings, and I don't think I've ever seen another itinerary article on this site that does. It will quickly become unwieldy. I think it is quite sufficient to list places to sleep in the articles for the towns along the way. Similarly for "Eat" - no listings. It's OK to mention some highlight or other in prose, but the full listings should be in city articles, and per Wikivoyage:Don't tout, it's not OK to list the same restaurant or inn in two places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Not only because of the tout guideline. Having the same listings in two articles is close to certain to give obsolete info in one of them. However, I suppose many of the stops are in small villages, and creating articles for those to be able to link them for the listings does not really help the traveller. In Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Listings outside of the destination, I proposed adding:

If it isn't a realistic sidetrip from any town, but is on or near a road covered by an itinerary, consider adding it there.

It seems not to have made its way to Wikivoyage:Listings#Listings outside a destination. The alternative is:

If the listing in question is in a neighbouring town that cannot support its own article, include it in the article and state in the "Understand" section that "This article also covers [name of town]".

This is a sensible solution when the listing is somewhere that indeed is a realistic sidetrip from the nearest town with an article. If it isn't, then I think including it in the itinerary makes much more sense.

You said you've never seen another itinerary article on this site with Sleep listings. Perhaps not, but how else could the Sleep listings of Nordkalottleden be treated sensibly?

I suggest using the same approach: For towns big enough to have articles of their own, give a short description of the town, including names of lodgings suitable for peregrines, link to its article, and move the listings there (with some copy editing as needed). For the smaller towns and villages, include all listings here, probably in the way they are included now.

For bigger towns that don't have an article and for which you don't want to create one yet, I think the best path is to use the same format, but with the (red) link and the summary. Listings should be moved over when the article has been created. A comment shown in edit mode should probably be added.

–LPfi (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and for your thoughts. Those look to be campgrounds and emergency huts, which are very different from inns and such. The most common procedure when dealing with rustic inns is to cover them in the article for the nearest town. I think we should seriously consider whether that isn't the most reasonable thing to do with any pilgrims' lodges in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Not emergency huts (I think there is just one designated as such), but yes, most are unmanned and "very different from inns". Some of them (most of the Swedish ones) do have hostel-like service and lodging. The point is that they are too far from any town to be a realistic sidetrip. Here we have several places like Hornillos del Camino, which Wikipedia says has 70 inhabitants, 20 km from the nearest city with article, Burgos, and 20 km to the next town, Castrojeriz, with 800 inhabitants. Castroherez could perhaps be a Nearby for Burgos or Palencia, the next city with article, some 50 km from Castroherez, but a list of half a dozen of localities with just an auberge or two is not helpful for those visiting the city. –LPfi (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason I started listing them here instead of in individual towns is to make this a complete downloadable guide. Peregrinos may not have internet access coming from other countries and can download this as a pdf including the contact info for the Albergues so they can make reservations along the way. Furthermore, this itinerary is a pilgrimage where the purpose is to walk from one Albergue to the next you are staying at; they exist specifically for and most are limited to pilgrims walking this itinerary. "The Pilgrim's job is to walk, eat, sleep, wake and do it again." They would also then be included in the GPX file. How do you accomplish having all of the info in one downloadable guide and in one GPX file while still listing them within inidividual town pages?Clevercamel (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but this site has a don't tout policy that forbids listing any business more than once, site-wide. I'm persuaded by the examples LPfi gives, but in towns that have their own article, hotels and restaurants should be listed in the article for the town. A summary can be left here, but no URLs or complete listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way, for you two, the English word is "pilgrims," just so you know. The word "peregrine" is usually used for falcons (peregrine falcons). Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The cities and towns with articles are just nine at the moment, and it seems there aren't many more significant cities on the trail, so if we don't make an effort to move listings to Nearby sections, there is a manageable number of city articles to download or print (in whole or for the relevant listings – you could even just note contact details for the relevant hostels, especially as you will have working internet when there). I think the advantage of having the listings and the rest of the city articles updated also by non-pilgrims outweighs the trouble of handling those. I hope anybody going out on a 750-km walk will prepare well enough that special handling of those nine cities isn't a problem. We can still include coordinates for the cities and recommended hostels, to get those in the same file, just not prices and other volatile info. –LPfi (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually peregrine means wanderer or to wander. It was later applied to the bird. Peregrino(es) is the common term used on The French Way for pilgrim. Clevercamel (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm stating what current English usage is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for that. In the article, the terms used on the trail should be mentioned, and can be used both for flavour and practical reasons (I don't know to what extent we should do that). I think I was carried away after having been reading the article, here on the talk page that usage is unnecessary. –LPfi (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Clevercamel, Ikan Kekek: I see you created Orisson and moved the auberges there. Do you intend to create "city" articles for all the localities? Orisson does not have an article in Wikipedia and you mentioned nothing making the locality interesting other than as a stopover. I think your original thought to keep everything in one article is what best serves the traveller – except for cities and locations with attractions in which also non-pilgrims have an interest. –LPfi (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't create the article; I just inserted a WV:Small city article template into it and deleted the copyvio from an inn's site. If that locality doesn't pass the Wikivoyage:What is an article test, we shouldn't have an article for it, but I would point out that you clearly can sleep there, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with having an article about a stopover. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know, sorry to be unclear. I pinged you because you wanted the listings to be moved away from the itinerary, and this is exactly the articles we will get. These localities pass the Sleep test, but don't have attractions that would get any travellers here, except those en route to Santiago de Compostela. Orisson could be merged with Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port, as most readers of that article will be interested in this stop, but if the nearest town is a normal one, such listings make little sense there.

Also Ledigos is a locality with some 100 inhabitants, down from 300 1850–1950. Wikipedia has little to tell, even if there is an article in several languages. I don't think this will sustain its own article either, or be interesting for readers of Palencia (nearest town, 50 km away). Better to have the description here.

–LPfi (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

On the face of it, your suggestions sound sensible to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I started making individual city listings because of this conversation here. I think it needs to be one way or the other. Put them all in the itinerary or put them all in individual city pages; not some of each. My purpose is to try to make a comprehensive open source travel guide for Camino Frances. I plan on adding more information to each listing such as places to eat/drink. I'm going to do the Camino in May. Governance isn't my strong suit, so if the community decides which is best I'll comply. In the interim I'm continuing to add information. Who has the final word on how this is done? Clevercamel (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The decision making is mostly like among a group of friends: We try to reach a consensus. After some discussion we usually can agree that one path is better than the others, sometimes one or two of us think otherwise, but accept the majority standpoint. –LPfi (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Clevercamel, I'd like to assure you, you have a role in reaching this consensus. Also, I'm sure all three of us would agree that adding the information is the most important thing; we can always make decisions later about where the details should be. Don't copy swathes of text from other sites, though, especially if those sites are not clearly public domain or under Creative Commons Copyleft licenses (though it's OK to copy some text from Wikipedia, when that's the best course of action, with a citation of the source article in your edit summary). You can look at Wikivoyage:Copyleft for this site's policy on using text from other sources. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm currently working on adding the things needed for a pilgrim to survive on the Camino such as albergues with a goal of users not needing to buy a commercial guide to do the Camino. I don't want to make anyone's task here more difficult. I'm new to wikivoyage so will obviously make some mistakes. Clevercamel (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Understood. We appreciate this project. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Orisson

On the Orisson talk page, I proposed merging that article into this one as it had just a few sleep listings. After a couple of weeks, with the only comment being in favour of merging, I did do. Now I come across this discussion and see that there us an objection to having sleep listings here. Sorry for not seeing this earlier.

I think that this article, because it is about a walking route, should be an exception to the general rule (if there is one), about not having sleep listings in an itinerary. There are many villages along the way for which we do not and will not have articles. I think this article is the most useful place for sleep listings for those villages.

I have also brought the article more in line with Wikivoyage style. Ground Zero (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)