I think I have answered these questions now, but other may have better or more complete answers. Other comments are welcome. --LPfi (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see the status was changed to "usable". I am glad for that. The topic still very much needs review from people with more experience from Sweden and Norway (and of course with experience other than mine also from Finland). It may contain faulty generalisations and I am sure there are important issues not taken into account. --LPfi (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The intro has the sentence "For Iceland, Denmark, Faeroe Islands and Svalbard, see their own articles." This is not because I think information about these could not be included in the article, but I know too little about the subject to state which parts of the article are relevant also for them. If there are hikers from or with experience from these other areas, I welcome thoughts about whether they should be included, information put in their own articles (as I think is the right thing to do at least for Svalbard) or separate articles created. And please plunge forward with writing what you can. --LPfi (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Svalbard is so different that hiking there should be treated in a separate article. Same is perhaps true for Denmark as it is difficult to make generalizations that apply to for instance Norway and Denmark at the same time. Iceland and Færoe islands can perhaps be included. --80.212.79.2118:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following remark is misleading in the case of Norway: "In less steep areas there is often an easy to walk fell heath above the tree line." In Norway the surface quality primarily depends on altitude, not steepness. At high altitude the surface is as a general rule rough, virtually no soil and mostly boulders, often loose boulder. As this picture indicates:
At high altitude certainly, but directly above the tree line? It might be that steepness is not the key, but I figured it might be one. There is fell heath (is that the right expression?) in many areas; the images from near Pallastunturi and from the Nordkalottruta show typical landscapes. --LPfi (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, not directly above the tree line, but at higher altitudes (depending on latitude) the ground is no more "solid" soil and vegetation, but instead is covered by boulders/stones, gravel/sand and patches of snow. Some places the bedrock is uncovered thus offering very solid ground for the hiker. I think the key is to make hikers aware that in the high mountains, the surface can rather rough. I would say about 1000 to 1500 meters boulders/stones start to dominate. The tree line is generally a good reference point though. Regards --80.212.79.11919:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The tree line should be used as reference, as it goes down to 300-400 metres in the north, while much higher in the south. I tried to rephrase. --LPfi (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word list may be a good idea, but perhaps we should discuss what words to include. We cannot have a list of words of all terrain features and a list of the most obvious and common words for the most common features is perhaps not what serves the traveller best.
Most mountains, rivers, lakes, forests and mires are clearly marked as such on the maps. I think we should concentrate on words often giving hints about things not obvious from the map and perhaps not appearing in small dictionaries.
Sámi words for mountains of different shapes. A geographer or orienteerer might be able to tell the shape from the contour lines, but others usually not very well.
Words used on the map to clarify the meaning of a symbol, e.g. wilderness huts are "houses" on the general Finnish maps, but with the text "autiotupa". Such explaining words may also be used for reindeer round-up areas, ferries, palsa bogs, hiking trails etc. (these examples from Pöyrisjärvi Wilderness Area in online maps). I have not made more extensive map studies.
Parts of names hinting about sights or traditional routes. "Pyhä" (holy) is part of many Finnish names of mountains and lakes.
Many places are named after animals. There are too many animals to have all included, but some are frequent in place names. Same goes for other words hinting about past use as pastures, fishing waters, hunting grounds etc.
...
One should perhaps carefully study maps of different regions to find often used useful words or word parts.
Largely agree. The list was my initiative. I think some basic terrain features should be on the list (even if these features can be read from a good map), partly because Norwegian (and Swedish) placenames are usually compounded from generic words, for instance all names "-dal" refers to a valley - even if the valley is visible from contour lines on the map it may not be obvious to the foreigner that "...-dal" refers to the valley. But I agree that the list easily becomes too long so should be restricted to basic or main features. Agree that it is probably more important to list things that are not obvious from the map, for instance type of lodging (in Norway with or without food is essential, also manned vs unmanned hut). --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there somebody who knows Sámi (or Sámi placenames)? In the north most places have Sámi names, and when there are Finnish/Norwegian/Swedish names, I think the Sámi names often are more accurate (see above). Explaining oaivi ("head" i.e. rounded peeks), duottar, celgi (selkä?), skaidi, kielas, jeaggi (jänkä?), vuopmi (vuoma?), njarga, eatnu (eno?) etc. would be valuable. Perhaps the Sámi and Finnish word lists should be combined, as many Sámi words have been borrowed into Finnish (in this context, see some examples above) and others have common roots (johka=joki, jávri=järvi, ...). --LPfi (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'd be useful to have a word list for land formations in Sámi. But I'm sure we don't have anyone here on WV who understands the language so the names need to be taken from maps, the Sami Wikipedia or some other resource. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I.e. some other source. Names in Sámi and another language on any specific place may only be a transformation, not necessarily a real translation; Meallevárri is Melavaara, but does that mean "mealle" means mela (paddle), or is there only a phonetic connection? There is also big differences about how a word is used in general and how it is used in place names, e.g. eno in Finnish place names means river (more or less), while most people probably only know the meaning "uncle". --LPfi (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look bad for a Usable article. What would be needed to upgrade it to Guide status? Getting rid of the red links in one way or another plus expanding See and Do are things I notice need to be done. Would there be something else? --ϒpsilon (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps more specific information about variations in landscape and climate. Now only described in general terms, that is important, but in my experience it is generally difficult for the overseas visitor to fully comprehend the great differences even across short distances. Perhaps climate maps? Tables? Snow depth maps or tables for key dates? --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very good points. And also something more about equipment needed here (cold weather gear etc.).
Equipment and gear is an imporant point. Perhaps differentiate by season and type of hiking/terrain? I am trying to piece together more info on landforms, elevations and climate (using maps and satelite images) - take look and say what you like! --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It was mostly to illustrate type/quality of map/satelite image. I will keep looking for something that captures climate, vegetation and landscape. --Erik den yngre (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What should be done about the see and do sections? They are all too short and general now, but what should they be like? Are there any good examples on some other pages? When I go hiking I go to experience the nature, experience the tranquillity, enjoy the views. Hard to write about those things, and probably people going to a national park abroad know quite well what they want.
There should of course be a reason to come here instead of doing the hiking at home. For some, there simply is no large wilderness or "untouched" areas at home. First-timers may need quite a lot of explanations about what hiking is about. I have no idea what kind of explanations they need (some might better fit in Wilderness backpacking).
Some come because of unique features of the Scandinavian or Finnish nature. Such features should be explained to some extent, but one can give but some examples. What is considered unique would also differ quite much between people coming across the pond, from Japan and Saudi Arabia. One important aspect may be accessible real wilderness in ordered societies (i.e. safe, with services available). I have tried to make that point obvious, but perhaps one should write about it even more explicitly.
I have tried to use as varied images as possible, to give some idea about the landscapes, but perhaps different types of environment (the high fells, the lower fells, the lakeland, bird areas, what have you) should be presented in their own sections under See, a little like another Destinations. This would be make for a very large See section.
The Do section is even trickier. One should perhaps write mainly for those who are not accustomed to hike on their own, and give examples on different packages offered by tourist businesses. Glacier hikes, mountain climbing and Northern lights watching are obvious candidates – but small niches in this context – while I would try to keep activities involving snowmobiles, helicopters and other vehicles to a minimum (important for the tourist industry, but not real hiking by my book). There are many businesses prepared to arrange a one-week hike by foot or ski only, in true wilderness, but I have not much experience with them. Then there are thematic hikes, most importantly with fishing, but also e.g. mushroom courses, gold panning etc., which could be mentioned, but they are also quite marginal as hiking, at least in the typical setting.
The present do points (swimming, sauna, fishing, hunting, berry picking etc.) could be expanded, but they should refer to separate travel topic pages for the general discussion and only talk about the local specifics. Probably a subsection of a few paragraphs each would be ideal at this stage.
Hiking is about "See" too, on the other hand much of that is already presented in the "Understand". I think we could tell readers about flora, fauna and landscape you wouldn't see in warmer climates/elsewhere on a general level. The pictures in the article are good, they show different landscapes and seasons.
The topics in the Do section could be turned into prose, like most other sections and they should indeed just have the information relevant for the Nordic countries. As the article is about hiking (getting around by foot), we shouldn't have other kind of transportation here more than what's absolutely necessary. For the arranged hikes, if they don't include any additional activity (fishing, wildlife spotting, cross-country skiing for beginners etc.), they violate WV's tour policy.
I can try to write something in the weekend when I have more time. Danapit, AFAIU you're interested in Scandinavia so maybe you could give a "tourist's perspective" (or what should I call it? :)) on highlights in the Nordic nature? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. I'd include cross-country skiing, though, as a means of travel equivalent to hiking proper in this context: it's the same folks, the same landscapes and the same accommodation. For arranged tours, I'd make one objection: telling what a hiker could expect from such a tour would be valuable. The tour may be only what you would do with a more experienced fellow hiker, but it is still valuable if you have no such company (an extreme example would be a glacier tour). I think we should not list individual businesses on this page (not these, nor any others), but such tour operators could and should be listed at destination articles. --LPfi (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that cross-country/backcountry skiing (ski touring) should be included. In the Nordic context, skiing and hiking are the "same" albeit different equipment. Perhaps an unusual idea for continental Europe where skiing is done in ski resorts with ski lifts. In Norway, skiing and hiking seasons overlap, so for instance in spring we often carry skis uphill to snow, or we hike to a upland cabin where skis are stored. Skiing (cross-country/back-country) and hiking are often substitutes. --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just some minor remarks and suggestions for additions, mainly from what I personally relate to when I travel north:
Other atmospheric phenomena (not only Aurora Borealis), like light pillars, sun dogs (and other sun and moon halos generally) - nordic countries are a great place for observing and photographing those
I suspect equipment needed in the Nordic countries does not differ significantly from any other places with similar climate. The list now starts to resemble Packing for a week of hiking, which I think should be improved instead (I tried to include some warmer clothes there).
I am not sure how things ought to be done. It is probably not worthwhile to try to include any conceivable hike in the general packing article, but at least gear for Nordic low-land summer hikes could be covered there, with some special considerations pointed out here. Does the gear needed here differ significantly from that used e.g. across the pond? Even for moderate winter hikes?
This is perhaps still the place to talk about tougher winter hikes, unless that is handled in cross-country skiing. Winter hikes of several days with sub -20°C temperatures are probably regarded as extreme in most parts of the world, but quite normal for many hikers over here.
I realize that making comprehensive list is very difficult as it depends on lots of contingencies such as altitude, season, latitude, length of hike (a "stroll", a serious day hike, multiday hike etc). Perhaps we should instead focus on things that are specific to the nordic area, things that are generally important and common mistakes (such as using too soft shoes). --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear from hikers from other areas. It might still be good to have a list to start from, to be able to discuss what is missing and what is obvious. If we say "warm clothing is necessary" someone might think "ok, I'll take my jacket and scarf".
Already you and me have quite different background. Good hiking boots should be obvious also from somebody with experience from the Rocky mountains. But there are few areas in Finland where they are needed (I mostly use rubber boots, sport shoes are OK in dry areas/times). We should note that those hiking boots are necessary in high mountains and other rašša landscapes.
Perhaps we should make a few lists at Packing for a week of hiking, covering a demanding winter hike, an autumn hike at moderate elevation, a summer hike in the mountains (no glaciers or mountaineering) and a summer hike in supposedly good weather (i.e. minimum on a long hike in Nordic conditions). For short hikes clothing according to weather should be enough, except for a few things we should point out (and if necessary point to the lists for a week's hike).
So you suggest putting the detailed list under "Packing for a week of hiking" and link to that? I like the idea of specifying recommended gear for a handful of "typical hikes", for instance "autumn hike in the forest" and "summer hike to summit". Strangely perhaps, but words like "hiking" and "trekking" do not translate well to Norwegian. Instead we talk about "fjelltur" a word that includes hiking as well as "light mountaineering"; or "lodge-to-lodge" or "tent trip" (hiking with a tent); or "tur i marka" (an easy hike in forest/hills). For instance reaching the summit Slogen is a kind of light mountaineering (climbing skills and equipment not needed, but mountain experience is). --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slogen summit
Couldn't resist the temptation to upgrade the article to Guide. Everything I can come to think of concerning hiking is here now. Will also nominate it for FTT — it'll probably be up on the Main Page in July. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about the redlinks? There are now redlinks to a couple of national parks and similar (Norway 3, Finland 3, Sweden 1) and to the mentioned trails except Kungsleden (UKK trail + Nordkalottruta). We could remove the links, but they may inspire someone to write the articles. We could also change images to ones from destinations with articles, but I'd like not to have that restriction on choosing images (and images may be seen as substitute for stubs in presenting the areas).
I think the redlinks were disturbing only at the trail section. I removed the E-trail links for now. They can be found via the Long distance walking in Europe article and will hardly be written any soon. Someone could take care of the Nordic trail sections first.
There is only a handful of redlinks now, I think that is OK. An article on for instance Rondane can easily be written using material from Wikipedia. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Norway, National Park is a protection status for undeveloped nature/landscape and for the visitor they are not much more than lines on the map. National Parks generally does not have roads and only a minimum of services and no guards on duty, no gates and no fences. In addition there are Protected Landscape which covers somewhat developed areas with roads, some farming etc, often on the edge of national parks. Trollstigen-Romsdalen and Geirangerfjord are protected landscapes and offer some of the most rewarding and scenic hikes in Norway, and are easily available, but these areas are not NPs. Many visitors are not familiar with the NP concept in Norway. --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While Rondane (a mountain range) and Rondane national park (a NP covering Rondane) are not identical, from traveler's point of view there is no reason to distinguish the two. See similarly Jotunheimen. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought so. But I first though the Rondal National Park would be a better name, to have consistency among national parks, only then realizing the point is the area itself (and that consistency thus goes the other way). --LPfi (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some other editor changed the name to Rondane NP as WV policy apparently does not allow articles on mountain ranges ("Rondane" now redirects to the NP). For Norway articles, that policy is a bit cumbersome to implement because NPs are not really distinct sights. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should ignore that policy in this case: A mountain range is normally not a destination, but if it is seen as one, then whether there is a national park in the area or not is irrelevant, and calling the article "X National Park" is just confusing in some cases. I do not know whether it is in this case. Anyway, the content is what matters; the name can be changed later. --LPfi (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made the redirect - sorry if it caused confusion, but if there is a national park that is synonymous with the mountain range (see comment above: "from traveler's point of view there is no reason to distinguish the two") then why wouldn't we follow normal standards and create an article named for the national park? Prior to redirecting I also looked at w:Rondane, which is a redirect to w:Rondane National Park, so using the park name for the article name is the approach favored on Wikipedia. On a related note, even if the article is named after the mountain range instead of the national park, wouldn't it still be using the park article template, thus implicitly admitting that the article is about the park? -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are arguments for both name alternatives. Rondane is a redirect to the national park in Bokmål Norwegian Wikipedia as well, though in New Norwegian the mountain range has its own article.
On the other hand, in the New Norwegian article it says that the national park is "located in the mountain range", ie. that the official park comprises just a part of the mountain range. As you can hike in Norway pretty much everywhere you like, there might be popular and interesting places also outside the official park and if those are included in the article too, it would be better to call it just Rondane.
If the Rondane National Park article includes information about things outside of the national park then please move it back to Rondane, but if it really is true that "from traveler's point of view there is no reason to distinguish the two" I would recommend leaving it as-is. There is a similar situation with the Grand Canyon - that article is about both the national park and the neighboring tribal areas, so Grand Canyon is the article name, and Grand Canyon National Park redirects to it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Back to margin) The name is not important, in the case of Rondane there is not a substantial difference anyway, so let's leave it as it is. More important perhaps is that in Norway "National Park" is basically lines on the map and a set of rules, most hikers will be unaware if they are inside or outside the official park (in general there are no gates etc only a tiny sign marking the border). For the foreign visitor the label "national park" may be somewhat misleading. Visitors may expect something very special in a national park, in Norway that is mostly not the case, NPs are the less developed areas (no roads, no powerstations etc) and most protected. 95 % of Norway is wilderness open to the public according to the right of access rule, but only 5 % of Norway is protected as national parks, so the right to hike applies almost everywhere and there is no need to go to a specific park to hike. And Norway's NPs are the least available areas because there are no roads. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Rondane case there seems not to be much difference, but I think it is good to have consistency across Norway. As people are going to the mountains regardless of national park status (and the status has little importance for the visitor), naming some of those mountain ranges national parks is misleading as them being national parks is not the point. But there is no hurry.
We should perhaps have a Hiking destinations in Norway paralleling the Finnish National Parks article. Also in Finland there are many hiking destinations that are not national parks, but there is a clear distinction about what to expect from a national park and a "wilderness area" (the latter is much like the backcountry of large national parks, with addition of hunting rights). The Norwegian article could be a commented list (noting protection status where relevant), keeping most of the advice here. The Finnish article is a little overkill.
Yes. Listing individual trails is probably unnecessary, with the exception of trails we have articles on (none?) and especially well-known ones. The overview, with links to more information, would be very nice. --LPfi (talk) 08:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article! I think we should get it to at least usable status before this article gets to the main page. I wrote a short paragraph in Sleep, pointing here. What else should be done? --LPfi (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Snaevar added info on Iceland, perhaps Iceland can be included or perhaps that makes the article to complicated. Note that Svalbard is not included because of the particular conditions there. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Iceland could be included, but in that case quite a bit of work is needed. As of now the article covers the situation in Finland, Sweden and Norway very well. To have a consistent article, we need to have (almost) the same detail of Icelandic peculiarities from volcanism to wilderness huts. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, like LPfi said erlier under #Other Nordic countries, this article is not only for the scandinavian countries. There are a lot of similarities between Iceland and the scandinavian countries on this subject, even more than there are differences between them. It does take more than one edit to include all of those differences ;). The article already has information on wilderness huts under the sleep listing, but of course it does need information on how icelandic wilderness huts are different from scandinavian ones. Volcanism is something that would need to be added from scratch, yes. There are then also things that don't apply to Iceland, like hazardous animals, as Iceland does not have any... native ones. Icebears do drift by icebergs from Greenland sporadically (on average one icebear per 1.5 years over the last century), making them the only hazardous animal.--Snaevar (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep Iceland out, instead create a separate article or add material under main article on Iceland. Norway, Sweden and Finland are contiguous countries so many wilderness areas cross the borders. Some key mountain areas are in fact shared between Norway and Sweden. Climate and other conditions are also similar. Svalbard (which is part of Norway) is kept out for similar reasons. The article will get more complicated if additional differences must be described. Finally, from the traveler's perspective it is not natural to consider hiking in Iceland along with hiking in Scandinavia. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think whether to include Iceland depends mainly on the amount of similarities and differences. It is a geographically different destination, so on one hand not having it included is no problem. On the other hand the Nordic countries share a culture, and I think it would be nice to show that by including Iceland. Including Iceland in a tour of Nordic countries takes some additional time and costs (at least for those not flying from North America), but leaving it out would make the tour much less complete. If the tour includes hiking, then having the information here would be logical. We do cover all the countries in Scandinavia.
Do you, Snaevar, think the spirit, the descriptions and the advice now given are suitable for Iceland, mostly? If you think so, and know enough to add the needed info (and have the time to do the essential changes quite quickly, so that the article is not left inconsistent), then I think Iceland could be included. If, on the other hand, we need a "but in Iceland ..." nearly everywhere, then copying the article to Hiking in Iceland, editing out everything irrelevant or misleading and adding Icelandic stuff instead, thus creating a sister article, is a better path.
One consideration is that having one article implies that things not (yet) mentioned at all are quite similar across the countries. This might include e.g. local attitudes among/towards hikers and skills needed. Things not relevant are a minor concern. Few hikers will see bears here either, and none will visit glaciers in Finland.
As of now, I am a bit uneasy. I do not know much about hiking in Iceland, and I think the first things to be changed to accommodate Iceland would be those that are less obvious (and thus likely to otherwise be misleading). The terrain is obviously different and already a few additional paragraphs would go a long way. The climate is probably close to that of some parts of Norway. But I have been told the right to access, which is essential for hiking here, differs much. What about gear, food, water and accommodation?
I don't think Iceland is any more different from the Scandinavian countries than the Scandinavian countries are different among themselves. A lot of the information in the article does apply to Iceland as well. I do know where to look for the needed info and I do have some personal experience of hiking myself. I don't share those concerns you have.
On a quality scale, I would say that the Icelandic information is most of the way there already, compared to the information that the Scandinavian countries do have.
True, right of access is more restrictive in Iceland than in Scandinavia. The main difference is the right farmers in cultivated lands have. But, even though gathering food and camping in Iceland does have the restriction of asking permission in cultivated lands, it really isn't very restrictive. Only 1.2% of the total area of Iceland are cultivated lands (as of 2008).
In terms of food an hiker in Iceland can somewhat replenish his/her food by picking berries, mushrooms and some other edible plants. I would never though fully rely on that. It is perfectly fine to get water from streams in Iceland, although I would avoid muddy glacial rivers for that purpose.
Some things in Iceland are similar to Scandinavia, for instance climate is similar to West Norway. The key difference I think from the travelers perspective it is not natural to consider Iceland along with Sweden and Norway as a hiking destination. Norway and Sweden has a long border, and many hiking areas are along the border where trails cross the open border. Partly same for Finland. Visits to Norway and Sweden is often considered in conjunction (particularly by land transport), whereas going to Iceland is something special. --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I think having it all here – as it seems most info would be identical – is a way of educating travellers, which, although not our prime goal, is very nice. Iceland is indeed a part of the Nordic countries, in fact Icelanders are overrepresented at most Nordic gatherings. For Scandinavians (for whom English Wikivoyage is a good resource), including Iceland lowers the bar for going there. For "outsiders" realizing how similar the countries are, never mind the obvious differences, is also valuable.
For those who are not going to visit Iceland, skipping a section about volcanism here and two sentences about weather on Iceland there is no real inconvenience. If we need long explanations about Icelandic road conditions in Get in, then readers could be referred to Iceland for that, but it seems there are not too many such issues.
(Back to margin) Yes, that can work. I think the text must be very clear about things that are specific to Iceland, such as volcanism and road conditions, if not the reader may have to work hard to sort the issues. I often talk to foreigners that confuse road conditions in Iceland and Norway, for instance assuming that a Land Rover is necessary on roads in Norway. Vegetation I guess is another issue (Norway and Iceland partly similar). --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As before, I’m neutral on whether we should keep Iceland in this article. If we do, the article definitely needs some appropriate Icelandic pictures! It’s of course very good if Snaevar who knows the country better than the rest of us, thinks that everything is here, also for hikers who are visting just Iceland. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is the consensus? Now the article is incomplete/inconsistent, so I vote to remove Iceland until there is a consensus to include Iceland. Other perspectives? --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should hear Snaevar. None of us others is capable of writing the Iceland part, so if the user does not want to do the job, we have to revert. On the other hand I am very sorry if we loose an Icelandic contributor. Perhaps we should revert for now (the user has not been active for a week), but make clear we are happy to describe also Iceland (here or in a specific article), when Snaevar has the time. --LPfi (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed Snaevar reappeared with more information on Iceland. I myself tried to check, to the best of my abilities, that the article now includes enough – and correct – information on Iceland (there are not "still photos of Iceland"; I did my best to find suitable ones).
I believe the coverage of Iceland is adequate, although some feedback from Icelanders (and from people well acquainted with Sweden) would be seriously appreciated. As only some additions and tweaks seem to have been needed, I think it is indeed right to cover also that country.
I am not familiar with the concept of "summer" hiking, but if this means hiking with moderate cloths/gear I can agree that that season is roughly May to early/mid September. In Norway there is the "between" season in late autumn when the first snow and cold is there but not enough snow for skiing. Also in spring there is between season when the snow is melting and skiing is difficult because of snow quality and/or too much water, at this time hiking is not really possible. Perhaps we should specify what "summer" hiking means. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if "summer hiking" (or the Swedish equivalent) is an established term, but you did understand it in the intended way. Yes, I agree it should probably be explained for those not having similar seasons. If we have a "Seasons" section, not telling about the summer would be weird (which is one reason I have reverted such changes twice) – and I suppose we use the phrase "in the summer" here and in destination guides, which means it should be explained if otherwise unclear.
Your description of other seasons apply more or less also in Finland (the way I would describe them is in the article). The spring season is not that problematic in southern and middle Finland: there is not enough snow and water to hinder you, but in many places enough to affect routes, gear or timetables.
In many parts of Norway, particularly those parts that "face" the Atlantic (like Nordland, Troms and Western Norway), there can be several meters of snow in the most attractive hiking areas. Even now, in April, when snow melts rapidly at in the lowlands, snow continues to accumulate in the some high areas, and in Troms even at lower levels. When this snow melts in May-June-July, rivers are flooding and snow is often "rotten" (even skiing may be impossible). Even if the melting process is rapid, several meters of snow does not disappear in a few days. Visitors from drier and more southern countries often do not know or understand this. In Norway, snow is the key issue, more than calendar and temperature. So "summer hiking" in Norway depends on location and snow conditions, instead of "summer hiking", Norwegians often say "bare ground" hiking or "foot" hiking (as opposed to skiing). --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is little information on wildlife (birds, animals etc), except under "hunting" and as a risk factor under "stay safe". Should we add a separate section describing what kind of birds and wild animals the hiker should expect to see? For most hikers spot birds and animals is much more relevant than hunting. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly. I think we could have a few subsections under See or even Do. This might render the article a bit unbalanced and rough while the sections are being developed, so we should probably be cautious while the article is featured,
Things that could have their own subsections (or at least a paragraph) include:
Large carnivores. There are bear watching tours and similar in Finland, but I have not heard of any that would be related to proper hiking. We should hint about areas where probability is best (eastern Finland for bears and wolves, lynx anywhere, for wolverine you need very much luck anywhere and getting people to search for them is perhaps not very good), ways to maximize probability to see them and warnings about how this increases also the risk to get too near.
Reindeer. Half-wild easy to spot anywhere in the reindeer husbandry area, wild fell reindeer at certain areas in Norway, forest reindeer live in certain areas in Finland but are harder to spot. Avoid scaring reindeer away in winter and in the calving season.
Elk, deer and boars. Elk (Am: moose) anywhere below the tree line, deer anywhere in the southern forests (but more easy to spot in the fields), areas varying by species, boars in significant numbers at least in Sweden. You need a little luck for sure, any tricks to get that?
Any other big land mammals of interest?
Beaver, otter.
Lemmings.
Other small mammals.
Whales: arranged whale-watching tours are probably out of scope, but canoeing by the Norwegian coast you can probably have luck (and the tours can be mentioned in passing). Any certain areas? Tricks?
Seals, including Saimaa ringed seal: like whales.
The Arktica: Arctic birds migrating through the rest of the countries.
Arctic birds in their nesting areas, probably separate sections for different habitats.
Other especially interesting birds? Could e.g. cranes be regarded exotic? Capercaillies?
Bird cliffs.
Birdwatching in general.
Other?
We could also have sections on the vegetation. I wrote above: "perhaps different types of environment (the high fells, the lower fells, the lakeland, bird areas, what have you) should be presented in their own sections under See, a little like another Destinations. This would be make for a very large See section." I would love to have some images of Arctic flowers, the fell heath at ruska etc., which could accompany those sections. Sadly I have not found any good ones from Lapland (or Finnmark) on Commons. I should probably take some when going next time, but that will not be anytime soon.
Thanks, good ideas there. Whales I guess are not specific to hiking, so perhaps not a priority. Priority of topics should perhaps be the wildlife that the hiker should be prepared to encounter. Spotting wildlife adds to experience, on the other there should also be some info on how to behave near animals and birds. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, let's not forget the w:Siberian flying squirrel! :) That aside, may there be any smaller animals (insects and such) that people from elsewhere could find interesting/exotic?
There is already a small paragraph on wildlife under "See", I missed that one. So my suggestion is to expand this into a more substantial subsection, with more specific information. --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new section "wildlife" and shifted existing paragraphs, plus added a few lines about the sea eagle. Hope this is OK as a start, then we can later add points mentioned above. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I now expanded it along what was outlined above. There is very little about the birds now, but I have difficulties seeing how to cover the subject reasonably compactly, and have experience only from some of the habitats. I think a section about habitats would be nice; I remember my first time at Buresoaivi, where I felt entering a different world. First I saw the ravens circling above it and gradually all the other life on its majestic head, including the ubiquitous wader (whatever its name), long-tailed jaeger and a merlin. --LPfi (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I am still interested in your opinion, what photo do you think works best, particularly in the small THUMB format used here? All photos are from the same area and all give an impression of how it is like (except for the weather I guess). --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been to any of the Nordic countries, and all the photos are beautiful. If you want me to talk off the top of my head, I'm feeling the picture 2nd from the right more than any other one, for whatever that's worth. Maybe later, I'd pick another one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not responding promptly. I like the Jotunheimen image very much, and hope we can have it somewhere (currently there are only a few places where images would fit with a wide browser window, and those should mostly have themes not yet found on Commons). The proposed images are very nice, but they have about the same colours as the pagebanner, and I think they are not as representative as I would like the first image to be (they illustrate one kind of hike, and not the most typical in my experience). I would prefer an image with high mountains clearly visible, but with some forest (and ideally some other typical features) in the foreground, if we find one impressive enough. --LPfi (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current image from Jotunheimen (on top) dont work well with such a small format, there are two many things in one frame. So I was looking for clearer pictures with people (to show proportions and trails). In Norway and parts of Sweden this is the most typical hike in summer, above the forest line in rugged terrain, Iceland is also treeless. Finland perhaps different. Perhaps images from Rondane with barren mountains and forest in the same frame? --Erik den yngre (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. For Finland and most of Sweden forest is an important element on nearly any hike, so I think it would be very nice to have forest in the image. If you find such an image from Rondane, that would be nice. What I thought was unusual was the narrow strip between a fjord and a lake and the steep climb (it may be typical in parts of Norway, but it is too specific). --LPfi (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes. The narrow strip is typical for the alpine, northern and western regions of Norway. So this place is called Besseggen (Edge of Lake Bess), and part of the reason why it is the 2nd or 3rd most popular route in Norway. --Erik den yngre (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think the image with Atnsjøen is about what I want. There are high mountains, water and forest, and only a tiny settlement visible (one cannot know it is from the road). I now put it in the article. I also put one of the Besseggen images in the vocabulary section (check the description). The others are nice too, but there is "moor" (both barren and what I call "fell heath") already in other images. Innerdalen is different, but I do not know where to put it either (See: "on the cultural side" would fit, but the section is already crowded). --LPfi (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In general, it normally makes sense to put images wherever there's room and they look good, without worrying too much about what section they are in. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Winter in Rondane
I was looking for images that are easy to see in the small format (thumb) and also gives the clear impression of "what it is like" there. I also think there should be a enough images to show the variety of landscapes in the Nordics (without making the article cluttered - what do you thin Ikan Kekek?). The Rondane is the same place as the classical romantic painting by Sohlberg. Erik den yngre (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Edit conflict Certainly so [just use good images] in some cases, and perhaps as placeholders, but I have been trying hard to choose images illustrating points discussed, and at the same time show as many typical features as possible, have some balance between countries (now about 16/16/8/6; Rondane and Pallas-Ylläs are represented by two images each) and to some extent avoid images used in articles about the destinations themselves. I would rather not abandon those goals, to have something more alike a random collection of nice images; the image should have some recognizable justification for where it is put (although possibly by a stretch). The article does not need more images, and there are probably many astonishing images out there, not yet used, so I'd prefer adding images mostly when they can replace less than ideal ones or illustrate something essential not yet covered. --LPfi (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Through "social media" (facebook etc) Norwegian mountains have been "disovered" by the world. Spectacular photos give many the idea "I have to go there", even without mountaineering experience or equipment. Trolltunga and Kjerag in particular, but now also Reinebringen in Lofoten. Fatal accidents and countless rescue operations frustrate local authorities and volunteer rescue services. Can we make the message about safety even stronger? --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In Finland there are saunas at many wilderness huts and cabins, and showers are never seen on the hike (although private and rented cottages may have them). What about the other countries? In Sweden saunas are quite common, but are they common in all the country? Can you use them as in Finland without causing wondering gazes or worse? What about Norway and Iceland? --LPfi (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted a link to here from Faroe Islands#Do, as we don't cover them in the article. In the lead, we say "For Faeroe Islands, Greenland and Svalbard, see their main articles."
In #Other Nordic countries an IP user said that "Iceland and Færoe islands can perhaps be included". We did include Iceland. What about the Faroe Islands? What aspects are similar, what aspects differ? At least, according to the article, they don't have the right to access. The weather is probably easy to cover, as I assume the Icelandic coast and parts of the Norwegian archipelago are similar. What about terrain, transport, lodging and camping and equipment? Any other relevant aspects?
I am not going to include the Faroe Islands on my own, as I haven't been there and heard little about hiking there. I think that we shouldn't include it until we have somebody who knows enough. Do we know somebody from there? Has some of our regulars hiked there?
Jotunheimen, Besseggen ridge with hiker
Bessegen, great colors
Same lake, looking east
Good impression of the landscape above forrest line
Similar
Rondane (actually at main road)
Rondane "moor"
Innerdalen, Trollheimen, popular
.jpg)
