Talk:Coast to Coast Walk

'Correct Route'?
My recollection is that AW devised this route as antidote to the Pennine Way, to show how any walker competent at map work could devise their own long-distance route, without the need for special designation. Which is why it's in the right spirit that there IS still no designated route and that many alternatives exist. Am I remembering correctly? Bob aka linuxlad

Quite right, have added notes to that effect - Chris Jones

Wainwright's publishers presumably believe that there is a "correct route", and continue to produce new versions to take account of alterations in rights of way (or perhaps just to USE rights of way where Wainwright didn't). I don't know if the authors of all the different guides (about three, aren't there?) always agree on the route (if they do, where do they go for the "official" version?). It is surprising, really, that the Coast to Coast has never become a National Trail (why we had to go US usage for that I'll never know) - it WOULD have an official route then. Of course, many walkers do insist that it is "cheating" to deviate an inch from the "book" route, and thus miss Wainwright's point about finding your own way. I've done the walk twice, and my approach was to stick by his route pretty much except when heading to pubs or hotels off the line (in which case I would not worry unduly about getting back to his route at the same point I left it). What I DO consider cheating (for me) is (a) Getting someone else to carry clothes around for me (b) Getting lifts in cars. I do not mind others doing that, of course ; but I would feel I was doing a connected series of day walks, rather than a three-week (yes, three! I never rush) journey: I'm sure others would think this was very nit-picky of me!. Of course, all walkers on this route have so much more in common compared with anyone who can't understand the pleasures of country walking, that to argue amongst ourselves about protocol should only be in fun, never for real. NorthOnTop 14:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at Dave Dunford's changes. Well done for replacing my hyphens with proper dashes - I approve entirely, I never bother use real dashes (see a few words back!) even though I understand the difference between them and hyphens (I will look for the character code so I can use dashes in my work as well as in Wiki). And I was amused that Dave replaced my "vacation" with "holiday". Being English, I was going to use "holiday" myself, but I thought that to many anglophones, "holiday" just means a national day or two off work for a particular occasion, so I decided to compromise my British English principles and use "vacation" (which is understood here, even if used little) so as not to baffle readers from the * * of * with the concept of a two-week "holiday" !. Well done Dave, right behind you. Hope we can get away with it! NorthOnTop 14:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the author may be confusing Goathland for Egton Bridge on this page. Goathland is a little off-route and Egton Bridge has the stepping stones. James 2006-09-11.

I think James is right ! (Chris Jones) 2007-01-24

Pictures and maps
This page is crying out for some photos and maps if anyone has any--Moonlight Mile 22:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

i have some, which anyone is welcome to use. James

I have put the route of the Coast to Coast into Google Earth along with some useful information and would be happy to add it here if people think that's okay? It can be found at Tomcrocker 15:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Okay, I've added it as an external link Tomcrocker 16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I walked the Coast to Coast with my son in June 2003. Have four sets of beautiful photos which I would be happy to share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.108.243 (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish to release the photos for use here then you can upload the images, see Help for details of how to do this. Would be best to create an account first so that you can keep track of the edits / uploads you make. Keith D (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Journal
Added a link to our C2C journal.

Anybody wishing to use any of the photos either on our journal or photo gallery to spruce up the page is free to do so. Kevanliz 07:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Travel guide
Much of this article reads like a how-to or guide rather than an encyclopedia article (Wikipedia is not a travel guide), with a lot of personal opinions to boot. Some substantial pruning and shortening would make it a much better article I think. --Blisco 11:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is anybody else up for doing this? I'd like to do it, but I don't want to tread on anybody's toes... Jamesfcarter 22:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's some information here which I agree is not suitable for wikipedia, but could well be valuable in a wikitravel article on the Coast to Coast. --David Edgar 12:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes a lot of sense to me. The info is good - just not encyclopedic -- Herby  talk thyme 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it's not possible to copy text to Wikitravel unless you're the copyright holder, due to license incompatibility (WT uses a Creative Commons license rather than GFDL), and the info was added by an anon so it would be difficult to ask them. One solution might be to preserve it on someone's user subpage for the time being -- unless (or until) anyone would like to publish it on their own personal website. --Blisco 19:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wainwright quote
Don't know if it was Chris Jones, Dave Dunford or NorthOnTop who put the Wainwright quote in in the grey box, but it's attributed as coming from "A coast to coast path". Is it a quote from a coast to coast walk or a requote in another book? If it's the latter it needs a reference at the bottom. Cheers Tomcrocker 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is from A Coast to Coast Walk (I've just checked). Now amended. --Blisco 18:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blisco Tomcrocker 21:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

this alleged re-measuring
There is not much difference between these two distances. They could both be correct. See "A divider caliper is also used to measure a distance between two points on a map." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliper#Divider_caliper The distance measured on the map will depend on the distance between the caliper's points. As this is reduced the distance measured will increase. (This is also the case if a GPS is used to record the route. If the GPS records points closer together the distance will increase.) Using a higher scale map will give a length that is greater. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Long_Is_the_Coast_of_Britain%3F_Statistical_Self-Similarity_and_Fractional_Dimension QuentinUK (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Route redefined to keep to public footpaths
"Wainwright’s original route was updated in 1994 to avoid sections where there was no public right of way. In 2010, Chris Jesty completed a major revision of the guidebook [with modifications] This revision has now been accepted as the definitive line and it is this route that will be waymarked." http://www.wainwright.org.uk/articles/2012/waymarking-the-coast-to-coast.html QuentinUK (talk)

book promotions
How about we get rid of the additional sources section completely? Anyone with the nous to do this walk will be able to figure out the likely name of books to try. As it is this just seems a honeypot for authors of redundant books. Greglocock (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about redundant but there is clearly an issue about what content should be there. I feel that AW's original should be there and maybe a couple of better-established other authors (Stedman, M. Wainwright?) but I am not sure how to frame the criteria for this. I don't want to be ridiculously exclusive but nor do I think it should just be a routine assumption that we list everything that's published - we clearly have guidelines against that, but I'm less clear what our procedures are for deciding to list something - is there an RS for Essential Other status? best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First off, I'd like to clarify that I am associated with the Fenton C2C book and just learnt that this constitutes a WP:COI. Consequently, I will refrain from making any related edits in the future. However, I am also an avid reader of Wikipedia articles and as such would like to contribute the following to this discussion: Unless there are clearly and objectively defined criteria for deciding which sources should be listed in an additional sources section, this section should either be open to all sources concerning the subject ("well-established" or not) or be removed completely. Otherwise, any selection of sources made without such criteria may be interpreted as arbitrary or even discriminating, especially if the applied reasoning is not made 100% transparent to the readers of the article. Thank you for opening up this topic for discussion. Best regards, Kmusc (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Additional remark: Have a look at the Wikipedia article about the Pennine Way. There is a section called 'Further reading' which contains quite a comprehensive list of what we are referring to as "additional resources" in this discussion (at least in my opinion). Any insights as to why it would be ok to have such list there but not in the C2C article? Best regards, Kmusc (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry I've been absent from this interesting discussion. I will try to contribute properly asap. DBaK (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A few months have passed and I was wondering if there are any updates on this matter. I still consider the subject unresolved and would like to find a solution in the near term. Best, Kmusc (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, fair enough, sorry - long gap. I don't really have any good answers for you. At the moment I can only tell you my own feeling, which is that it would be wrong to list every publication that wants to be listed. I don't think the article should be trying to list absolutely every connected work, and over the years I have seen what was obvious self-promotion from people who had written things that I felt were simply not worth listing. (Please note that I am NOT commenting here on the Fenton book, which I have, but on the principle.) So no, unfortunately, I do not have objective criteria. I can tell you that I am in no doubt that the Wainwright original should be in, that Stedman and maybe M Wainwright should probably be too and that an ebook published last week, by someone who just did the walk and wants to use Wikipedia as a platform for making sure people read their book, should not be. So there's a sort of continuum of worth in my head and of course the difficult bit is where things can fit onto that and what criteria exist for judging it. I think what I will do is seek some help with this from people who know far more than I. has expertise in these areas and might be able to help, and if I did the curly brackets thing right then I have just pinged him. If he can't help I'm sure there are others around.


 * My closing points - yes I am shutting up in a minute:


 * 1) I'm not up for a fight over this. I feel that I've mostly said my bit and will be happy if a non-violent consensus is reached. Even if it's not what I think is right! :)
 * 2) I've got tons of C2C stuff. I would honestly rather see the whole section deleted or at least cut back to just A Wainwright, than see some of the dross I've got added to a list here. It is as if we would be recommending the unrecommendable. Again this is NOT a comment on Fenton.
 * 3) It's only an encyclopaedia!

Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * May be this should be treated as a "Further reading" section which Further reading relates. Keith D (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I quite like the "Further reading' idea which proposes. I wish I had time to go and figure it out and get it implemented here, but I fear that I do not. What do otthers think, and does anyone fancy trying to implement it? Best wishes DBaK (talk)
 * Ooops trying again to ping . Sorry; incompetent. DBaK (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No, inclusion in a further reading section also requires a criterion, which would have to be established externally. Arbitrary, editor selected, lists of books can be deleted at any time by anyone as they are against policy. They are also a copout, if some new book does not contain anything that materially adds to the article why include it?Greglocock (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I rather thought that the Further reading link that Keith gave does indeed talk about criteria for inclusion. Are you suggesting that it does not? Your bit about "established externally" and "arbitrary" seems to point to your thinking it's all against policy, which I am somehow not seeing. And I don't see trying to include notable works, starting with Wainwright, as the slightly insulting term a "copout". Sorry. DBaK (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was wrong, FR does seem to be acceptable. make sure that the guidelines are followed.Greglocock (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is pretty easy. Either you just include Wainwright's original book, or else you have to include every book. The latter is not sustainable, and is actually against policy. The normal way to handle lists is to use reliable sources to establish notability of list nominees. In this case publishers are not RS, i would think Incidentally DBAK I thought your deleted point was entirely relevant. I'd go so far as getting rid of wainwright's book as well if it kills the argument. Greglocock (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly think it's not that stark or at least not without discussion ... but please see above re "Further reading". Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both, DBaK and Greglocock, for your constructive feedback and contributions to resolving this matter conclusively. This is a very interesting learning experience for me altogether, so I really appreciate the insights provided. However, the discussion and level of technical detail have reached a point, where it's become difficult to follow for a Wikipedia novice, like me. As a result, I am going to try a more intuitive approach here by deleting the Stedman/Henry reference from the section in question. My reasoning for this (rather unconventional) approach is as follows: (1) The Stedman/Henry reference is not used anywhere else in the article and, thus, represents a mere listing; (2) from an objective perspective, the book is in no way superior to any other resources, e.g., the Fenton book; (3) after removing the reference, any person wishing to re-insert the reference will now have to provide proper justification for it, just like everyone else, otherwise this entire discussion gains a whole new perspective. Thanks again for all the input. Best regards, Kmusc (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Distance
Wainwright’s statement of 192 miles distance seems a bit exaggerating (on the other hand, his route has been shortened since by necessary amendments). A GPX track of the current route results in a "flat" measurement of 291 kms distance (180.8 miles), routers considering the elevation profile give 294.7 kms (183.1 miles). |-3.62419,54.498446|-3.637419,54.517071|-3.62154,54.522476|-3.599696,54.519089|-3.572445,54.511105|-3.561244,54.513683|-3.537426,54.51463|-3.533006,54.511055|-3.501774,54.507193|-3.476915,54.500502|-3.450453,54.517946|-3.449643,54.521922|-3.447411,54.525888|-3.446767,54.526941|-3.414028,54.524516|-3.382888,54.51869|-3.238134,54.498571|-3.212643,54.510419|-3.190391,54.51306|-3.174448,54.516374|-3.165629,54.515888|-3.168054,54.513696|-3.164792,54.514605|-3.157089,54.515863|-3.1493,54.520783|-3.14724,54.523996|-3.142948,54.520459|-3.089561,54.482605|-3.032972,54.467023|-2.944336,54.530894|-2.93189,54.533982|-2.909231,54.525141|-2.899618,54.521505|-2.867389,54.502571|-2.855415,54.505735|-2.810225,54.52143|-2.77319,54.537119|-2.761302,54.537094|-2.757053,54.536845|-2.741861,54.538713|-2.724266,54.54058|-2.718644,54.535999|-2.707229,54.533235|-2.698152,54.531741|-2.677875,54.531865|-2.674742,54.526436|-2.658348,54.521355|-2.646761,54.51676|-2.613287,54.499256|-2.574835,54.483291|-2.562904,54.476122|-2.546339,54.468741|-2.512221,54.468616|-2.500978,54.456768|-2.475357,54.45088|-2.473168,54.451778|-2.457118,54.454647|-2.43021,54.452976|-2.432013,54.448285|-2.385321,54.460535|-2.364872,54.46528|-2.349808,54.470175|-2.348435,54.472793|-2.347308,54.472818|-2.340689,54.472831|-2.275543,54.453624|-2.239366,54.433885|-2.224345,54.423075|-2.213316,54.424673|-2.197609,54.410989|-2.182031,54.410064|-2.166624,54.405419|-2.143021,54.403345|-2.099247,54.411138|-2.093925,54.407617|-2.036462,54.399024|-1.981015,54.391553|-1.955223,54.393752|-1.948314,54.389329|-1.895807,54.375621|-1.892395,54.375833|-1.879048,54.379058|-1.877975,54.382232|-1.872997,54.385681|-1.8645,54.390004|-1.858277,54.394052|-1.855316,54.395476|-1.826563,54.406643|-1.79987,54.410514|-1.766911,54.408691|-1.73584,54.400173|-1.722193,54.397131|-1.718245,54.390829|-1.686358,54.391028|-1.664343,54.387855|-1.642756,54.391228|-1.626019,54.390854|-1.604047,54.383182|-1.511135,54.384606|-1.453457,54.382532|-1.436591,54.385906|-1.416121,54.389004|-1.39329,54.391153|-1.343422,54.406243|-1.30909,54.399348|-1.302309,54.380907|-1.293383,54.391453|-1.279049,54.394851|-1.274081,54.396107|-1.261411,54.399623|-1.258922,54.401247|-1.247635,54.395601|-1.240597,54.40427|-1.210814,54.406892|-1.199012,54.416882|-1.179078,54.422089|-1.17352,54.420928|-1.166568,54.421277|-1.157556,54.422875|-1.152706,54.423574|-1.140389,54.424523|-1.128116,54.425622|-1.118546,54.422126|-0.956197,54.405119|-0.92989,54.40377|-0.900664,54.405843|-0.858393,54.427419|-0.824318,54.434209|-0.802259,54.438727|-0.779257,54.431014|-0.761232,54.436406|-0.680079,54.42667|-0.675831,54.427419|-0.662699,54.430864|-0.646434,54.432505|-0.636091,54.424173|-0.632454,54.418967|-0.631564,54.41873|-0.625792,54.410139|-0.613818,54.420178|-0.590601,54.427968|-0.579164,54.451716|-0.564444,54.454816|-0.541849,54.45804|-0.521722,54.446189|-0.532,54.430231&nogos=&profile=trekking&alternativeidx=0&format=geojson BRouter by Arndt Brenschede I think this should at least be mentioned in the article. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Elevation change
I have hidden the elevation change in the article; it has not been removed, it just will not display until we resolve this. You may be completely right, however, we need a Reliable Source (RS) to state what the elevation change actually is. By your own admission, you have calculated the elevation change, which unfortunately is WP:OR. No-one is disputing your calculations or their accuracy, but the previous measurement was there for some time before you changed it. Until we can agree and find an RS, I think it should stay hidden. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Coast to Coast Walk.png