Talk:Hiking

Several articles

I think it was right to copy the Appalachian Trail preparation section to a more general article. It should perhaps be replaced there with a reference to here, if it can be supposed to stay here.

But there are several articles. Now the section partly doubles information in the Wilderness backpacking article. Should we have several essays on the same topic, with different flavour? I think that is not the wiki way. They should probably be merged, but with due care.

Perhaps this article should cover day hiking and refer to the other articles for advanced stuff. Hiking in the Nordic countries includes related material, but I have tried to keep it on a general enough level - and specific enough were warranted. There are probably other related articles.

--LPfi (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I like the Wilderness backpacking article and think it should be left alone. I have a problem with the advice from Appalachian Trail, as I think this general article should not talk too much about such demanding long-distance trails. I see that the section is left in the original article (and the copy here nearly identical). I will delete it from here for now. Advice from there can be included, and perhaps a separate Demanding long-distance trails could be created. I think having it here verbatim mostly hinders the development of this article. --LPfi (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Informal hiking trail - how to document?

Swept in from the pub

I'm travelling Yunnan in Southwest China at the moment. In the Xishuangbanna region, a popular activity is hiking through the tropical forests and tea plantations, passing through minority villages. While the possibilities for routes are almost endless, there seem to be two multi-day treks that are commonly done by western travelers (I have no insight into the Chinese scene, unfortunately). Most documentation on them is jotted down in the guest books at Cafe Mei Mei in Jinghong, one of them made it to old editions of the Lonely Planet (but is no longer present in current editions). Wikivoyage currently has no hiking information for this area.

Now, how would I best document these on Wikivoyage? I've considered just adding a "Hiking" section to the Xishuangbanna page, but I'd like to make the instructions quite detailed ("turn right at the Temple [...] hike up the hill, cross the road, [...] pass the lake") and maybe add a map with a GPX track. Is this an acceptable use for an itinerary page, even though this isn't any sort of official or marked trail? LeonHandreke (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you should create itineraries. Here are a couple of hikes I have started to document: Rheinsteig, Rheinburgenweg. Not saying this is the only way to document such a topic. It would be interesting to see a more detailed trail description with directions. Do not think that has been tired yet, give it a go an lets see how it looks. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I think established routes are not a problem. It becomes a problem only if there are many possibilities and people de facto choose their own route, and people start making itineraries based on random choices. --LPfi (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Some limited branching in an established route is also fine. See Orient Express for one example. In general hiking trails are sadly somewhat underrepresented here and it would be great to see that change. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Existing itineraries in the region are Tiger Leaping Gorge and Yunnan tourist trail; either might give you some ideas but the Gorge article is closer to what you want to do. Three Parallel Rivers National Park also discusses trekking. Pashley (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Long distance hiking trails

Swept in from the pub

this article got me thinking - should our coverage in that area be better? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

We could put Via Alpina in WV:RA. /Yvwv (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice to have good coverage, but I think few people here are experts on the matter. E11 hiking trail is good, Appalachian Trail is an outline, but seems to have quite much information, Way of St. James is usable, with a two-paragraph Walk section and quite confusing subarticles. Then we have general articles and a couple more outlines. I think that is about it. The more good articles on hiking trails we have, the more we can hope to attract people interesting in working on the theme, but for the moment I am not very optimistic. --LPfi (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Doc James might be interested in this area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a decent article on the West Coast Trail but we appear to have nothing here. Definitely would be useful to have more on hiking. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"Hiking" vs "Long distance walking"

There is an article named Long distance walking in Europe. Are hiking and long distance walking different by definition? /Yvwv (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not think they are different by definition, but the connotations are different. While there is some overlap, where different people would call the same activity "hiking" or "long distance walking" depending on their own background, I think there are enough differences in the typical scenarios, that crosslinking is better than trying to unify. --LPfi (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

There is also an overlap with Wilderness backpacking. Should that article be merged with hiking? /Yvwv (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No to merge. Hiking is a general term which could mean many days walking in the wilderness but could also be doing a few hours circular walk from your car with no supplies. This article is a start off page that can then reference more specific pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a term for "long-distance walking" which indicates that it takes place in settled land? Intercity walking? Interurban hiking? /Yvwv (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I know of no common term, but "interurban hiking" sounds good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not all long distance walking takes place on developed land. European E1, for one, goes through wilderness for quite some distance, with possibilities even to buy food (without sidetrips) a week or so apart between Kautokeino and Narvik. But do we need to decide? Isn't "Long distance walking in Europe" a good title for that article? If somebody is to write about interurban hiking, then let them do it, but if somebody prefers another viewpoint, then let them decide on a better title for what they are writing about. I think the risk for significant overlap between good articles is quite small at this time. If problems arise, we can merge and divide then, with much more understanding of the issues. --LPfi (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Strollers

Easy terrain, but a stroller? (Tjäkta pass on Kungsleden, enlarge to better see hikers and trail)

Mx. Granger, I am a bit confused about the advice to use strollers or carts on "truly long treks". I suppose they are useful on the longer trails you have been on, but for me it seems strange to have a wide and smooth enough surface most of a longer trek (or all of it, as you suggest carrying it only if it breaks). It seems we have different background; we'd need to figure out how to word the advice so that people can use it where beneficial without having to carry a stroller or cart along where they are no use. Are you thinking primarily about comparably short daily distances, for elderly or otherwise less fit hikers?

I am also not sure what kind of devices you have in mind – seemingly big enough that all your packing fits, but small enough that you can carry them with your backpack (where even a collapsible chairs is cumbersome). Ordinary strollers do not speed you up your pace in my experience (people pushing a toddler usually walk about as fast as I do carrying a moderate backpack), and the pushing or pulling structures have to be good to provide working ergonomics for a trek.

--LPfi (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I've never actually taken a multi-day trek on paths flat enough for a cart to work—I added the paragraph on the basis of advice I've read on other sites but haven't had the chance to try ([1] [2]). I'm imagining a trek that mostly or entirely follows roads or bike paths. To be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest carrying the cart in a backpack, but rather carrying a backpack in the cart, so that if the cart breaks you can leave it behind and just continue with the backpack. Does that help clarify? Given that the paragraph is only based on online research, not my own experience, I'm happy to remove it if you think it's unhelpful/bad advice, or we can rephrase it as appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, the roads or bike paths thing explains it. I can imagine it makes very much sense for the American Discovery Trail (and I notice the stroller used has remarkably big wheels). Up here hiking trails mostly go through forest or up in the fells, where paved roads are few and mostly avoided. I try to rewrite a bit. --LPfi (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

GPS

As I've understood, the main problem with GPS is that it draws a lot of power, and recharging may not be possible on the trail, and that they can fail when you need them. Thus relying on them is usually unwise. But if you have the power, they work most of the time, so I do not really understand the original warning. In modified form the warning is about GPS integrated in mobile phones. Is it common that the phone refuses to cooperate when it doesn't find the network? That is stupid design for something to take to the backcountry, and I suppose it is relevant only for some models. Then we have apps using the GPS, which might rely on mobile data to work, which of course also is stupid for navigating the wilderness.

I suppose the problems are of kinds best described in GPS navigation, with a short warning here. The problem with mobile phones not being able to use the GPS without data connection was new to me, so I'd want to hear some more about it (@AlasdairW, SelfieCity:.

--LPfi (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

To share my experience: I used GPS on my phone to gather coordinates for the Inca Trail article, part of which is in a remote mountain area with no cell service, and I don't remember having any problems. The only times I've had real problems with GPS coordinates on my phone are (a) in narrow city streets or indoors and (b) in China, which uses a different coordinate system from most of the world.

I also occasionally use GPS on my phone while on a flight, to try to identify some island or geographical feature that I'm flying over. This usually seems to work. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. I cannot think of any technical reason GPS would not work without a data connection, but if you use it with a map app that uses online maps, I suspect it could refuse working offline, even for the coordinates, which are available. But can't you get at the GPS without using such an app? This might vary by phone model.

There are other pitfalls too. I know the "112 app" used over here (perhaps the one now installed by default on Android phones) used 3G to communicate the coordinates. Without the data connection you had to call 112 in the traditional way (moreover, I think it did not do any sanity check, so if you activated the GPS unit just before calling, it would send whatever the GPS thought they were, before finding the satellites, perhaps of the place where you turned it off last time).

--LPfi (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it should also be mentioned that when using GPS it is not only you who has access to data on where you are. Philaweb (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

PS. Oh, I'm sorry, I went on to read the GPS navigation article, but posted here. My mistake. Philaweb (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

When I am hiking, I usually use a separate handheld GPS receiver. The first model I bought (around 2000), would often have difficulty in moderately dense forest. My current model (2013?) usually works (but slower) in forest. It will use both the GPS and Russian Glonass systems, and doesn't transmit anything back. It uses AA batteries so I can carry spares. As a result, I don't know much about using a phone other in remote locations. AlasdairW (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

AlasdairW, I see what you mean. This is completely new to me. Searched for: GPS GLONASS handheld receiver AA-battery/ies. Cool. Philaweb (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Advising caution for using GPS in rural areas might be wise. Also, it's true that, in rural areas, there can be no signal for cell phones — you know, for internet, that sort of thing. It can affect applications like Google Maps. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hiking destination standards

Swept in from the pub

Hi there (again)

Do we have any standards for creating information around hiking destinations? I feel this is not properly covered at the moment and I am regularly struggling on how to properly create a hiking destination most useful to readers.

Here is a example what I am doing at the moment, a listing and GPX downloadables: Valdivia#Hiking

While I think this example is already usable, I thought you might have additional ideas and we should create a HowTo for future editors. Also, we might extend the listing template to also cover some hiking specific information and functionality. Furthermore, I am currently providing GPX through the waymarkedtrails functionality to download relations of Openstreetmap, because WV does not provide such an option. However, all those references (2x WD, 3x OM) cause a lot of potential for mistakes.

Also, it seems there are different options to provide the mapshape/geoline functionality, see Israel_National_Trail#Route and editing.

Some thoughts on useful functionality and information:

• When providing the WD ID, we could in addition to the WD link (barcode icon)also provide a GPX icon behind for download of GPX.
• Should we include GPX information of the trail in the GPX download of the article at the top right corner? Maybe this could be extended to two options: download only POI and download POI & trails.
• How can we standardize the hiking listing so OsmAnd can access also the trails and not just the POIs for its guide book functionality?
• Where to store hiking specific information ... should we create a standard information bundle like length,duration,climb,difficulty?
• Can we create a simple GPX download functionality on our side to not rely on external sources?
• For which purpose could we use the lat&long of the listing template, centre of the trail (incl. zoom?) or starting point of the trail?
• Could the trail appear automatically when using the listing template with WD ID instead of the need to ad mapshape? Maybe this could be a shortcut but for complex functionality we can still use the mapshape template.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ceever. I cannot address most of your concerns, but for guidance, I think a combination of Wikivoyage:Itinerary article template and Wikivoyage:Park article template might help, as I don't think we have anything specific to hiking destinations yet.

I looked at Israel_National_Trail#Route and I see you're using HTML and JSON (I think). These can be simplified using wiki templates, as you can see at User:Nricardo/Sandbox3 (code reproduced below).

{{mapframe|31.585|34.994|zoom=8|width=300|height=850|name=Israel National Trail|align=right}}

{{mapshape|wikidata=Q583897|type=geoline|stroke=#003e81|stroke-width=5|title=Israel National Trail}}

--Nelson Ricardo (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nelson. Sorry for having been unclear, I am not really looking for guidance. I can just continue doing what I did before, and I was already using the mapshape.

I was more looking for something we determine together to be best for the readers and potentially extend WV functionality to cover hiking routes better, especially potentiallyextending/improving the listing template and GPS functionality. "Itinerary article template" and "Park article template" do not really tackle questions on GPX and route display.

So, for everyone reading this, please head back to my original message and start from there. 👍

Cheers Ceever (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

A comment on one particular point – I'd say the lat/long in the listing template should generally be for the starting point of the trail. Broadly I agree with you that our hiking coverage could use improvement, and I'll keep thinking about the other points you brought up. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I had the same thought, just that this might overload the maps with too many POIs. It would be good to have the option to hide such "POIs" but still provide the map link functionality, zooming into the start point of the trail.

I think I cannot answer your specific questions, but we indeed need better guidance for editors on how to work with hiking destinations. About the specific listing: the hike is said to be "green" (is that only referring to the map marking?) and "Grade: Easy to medium" – the characterisation would be very much more useful if these grades were described in Chile#Do: Hiking and trekking. Are those grades comparable to the Norwegian scale? Is a "moderate" hike what you would expect as an Englishman? Can you go unprepared on an easy hike? –LPfi (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the colour is arbitrary, of course it would be better to have the actual colour code and actually being able to display a geoline with it on WV.

Also the grades are arbitrary. Of course for someone coming from Germany easy-medium might actually mean hard for an Englishman (little joke) ... we/I should probably instead use a proper international scale. I know the SAC scale, never heard of the Norwegian scale. Are there other, more international ones?

Cheers Ceever (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

OSM has a discussion in connection with their own trail rating system. I think they primarily use a mountaineer scale, but discussed how that would relate to non-mountaineering trails. I read it once, but I don't know how to find it again. –LPfi (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Spare socks in case of blisters?

I don't understand the advice to "carry a spare pair in case of blisters". Double socks is a way to avoid blisters (some hiking socks work as double ones), and having dry clean socks also helps. If a pair refuses to stay fit, you should also change. But I don't see why you would use a spare pair when you get blisters. What exactly are you supposed to do and in what way does it help? –LPfi (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand that either. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Darren-M: (Special:Diff/3712903/3713137) –LPfi (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand having spare socks "in case of blisters". It would be more useful to have adhesive plasters, possibly the specialist "blister plasters". Maybe we should have a separate paragraph on avoiding and treating blisters? AlasdairW (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That would be very useful. Getting a blister when 30 km from the nearest road is not fun, especially if it starts getting bad. –LPfi (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed "carry a spare pair in case of blisters". I have added a blister section - please correct and expand. This mainly covers prevention rather than treatment - there are different opinions on draining blisters. AlasdairW (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice work Alasdair! I definitely should've followed this advice before getting a blister when descending down Mount Tibrogargan, Queensland earlier this year (it was relatively minor though). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. –LPfi (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the wording on loose boots needs rewording:

"[...]; loose boots cause friction and you're more likely to twist your ankle, get a blister, or alike"

Isn't the preceding "Ensure these fit well" enough? Can there be a problem with too loose boots still perceived to fit well? I think there is a greater risk of buying too tight boots with this warning.

I haven't experienced loose boots causing friction and blisters per se. They may cause socks to collapse towards your toes, which is frustrating, but can mostly be avoided by using good socks. Also twisting an ankle because of loose boots seems unlikely to me (but I have never had ankle problems; nowadays I use light shoes without any ankle protection whatsoever).

I removed the addition. If it is important, I think it should be elaborated and included in a paragraph about footwear.

–LPfi (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Another anecdotal experience, though I probably worded it poorly when trying to fit that phrase in. Loose boots made me twist my ankle along the Valley Loop Trail in Yosemite National Park, making me trip, eventually getting blisters. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

:-(

But did they fit well?

–LPfi (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

One shouldn't bring bad equipment, but sometimes that happens. At a hike where it rained all days, mostly all day, I had raingear I hadn't checked the condition of. Luckily it wasn't too cold. –LPfi (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't bothered to bring my good hiking boots 15,000 km across the Pacific so I bought some new boots just before I left. They were slightly wider than my foot, but iirc, most US shoe sizes were like that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)