Talk:Grand Canyon Skywalk

Incorrect!
According to the documentary and the official site, the bridge can hold over 71 million pounds and not just 700 tons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.190.253.150 (talk • contribs).


 * Whats the link to your source? J.reed [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|24px]] 07:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On CNN News, they said it could hold around 70 or 80 Jumbo Jets and still not fail. Windscar77 14:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

123

Plagiarism!
The text of this article is copied directly from the official site. Is there any more information that can be added to this article? &mdash; Ba ss B o n e ( my talk  ·  my contributions ) 07:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A bridge?
Considering the fact that the skywalk is just a loop and doesn't connect or cross anything, can it really be called a bridge? Grhs126student 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I second the notion that this can hardly be called a bridge. Maybe a more appropriate tag can be found.Xander 14:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Platform? Ball of pain 23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A Bridge to Nowhere? - AbstractClass 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It connects the beginning to the end. Just because the beginning and end are easily reachable without the bridge does not make it not a bridge, it's just not a very useful bridge. If you spanned the Canyon that would be a bridge, even though the two sides are connected by land. Imagine you bent the Skywalk so it was straight by pulling the wall of the Canyon into a C-shape... |    \   ___)  / ||  |  || |  ||bridge |  ||  \_||      ) /   |
 * ...you'd definitely call that a bridge. That's not to say "platform" isn't a better description. ed g2s &bull; talk 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

article
- 01:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a picture?
They do not allow cameras on the skywalk itself. We were extremely disappointed to learn this just as we were about to get on it and had already paid our outrageous fees. That's what we went there for. I wish I had seen this website first and saved our family $450.

As noted in the heading above. 142.151.160.64 04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't open to the public yet, it will be on the 28th. Even when it is open expect it to take a few months before a pic shows up. You can check out the links for artists renderings. -Ravedave 04:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.foxnews.com/images/268263/0_22_grand_canyon_skywalk_2.jpg - AbstractClass 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some pretty good pictures here, not sure about the copyright though: http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/grand-canyon-skywalk-p1.php Paulfp 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your all wrong if the one thats not finished you cant take pic.s on becuase the other one you can becuase its finished and you can take pic.s on it its not cheep like the other one. thepiestealer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.24.211 (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Odd phrasing
It can withstand magnitude 8 earthquakes up to 50 miles away? Big deal! My house can withstand magnitude 10 earthquakes 1000 miles away. It's the close ones I'd worry about. :) --205.201.141.146 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The phrasing might have been odd. But it's easily possibly your house wouldn't stand a magnitude 8 earthquake 50 miles away. An a magnitude 10 earthquake 1000 miles away may very well be more destructive then a magnitude 8 earthquake 50 miles away. Nil Einne 09:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's nothing! My house can withstand a direct nuclear blast from 2000 miles away. - AbstractClass 16:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In terms of destructive force, a magnitude 10 earthquake is way more powerful then most nuclear blasts. Of course, earthquakes lack the aftereffects of radiation Nil Einne 09:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct numbers
I thought its floor is two inches thick, not four. http://news.com.com/2300-1008_3-6169001-3.html?tag=ne.gall.pg Schmoopie 21:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxUhVyzLRM shows a roughly 4-inch stack of glass being discussed by a contractor for the project. I'm also curious about the actual height above ground of the Skywalk as actually built. The promoter created drawings comparing the height of the thing to various tall buildings, but it's obvious from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvzlZuWrJNw and other videos that the Skywalk is not directly above the bottom of the canyon. In fact, it looks like it's only several hundred feet above a very large ledge. The actual construction also differs from those drawings in terms of the way the walkway is attached to the cliff face, the size of the steel box-beam supports, and in other respects. I think those earlier drawings should now be viewed as misleading, and attention should be drawn to this point in the article. 24.7.127.106 05:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

--Firstly, an "artists rendering" is very different than an architects blueprints. The skywalk is about 2500 feet above the ground directly underneath it, and 4000 feet above the Colorado River which you can clearly see while standing on the bridge. The Coffee shop and gift store is also still in the works for the future, we can probably expect it to be there in about 2009, and frankly it looks like it's going to be great. --209.79.152.8 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Admission Price?
Don´t go to skywalk. I´ve been there. 75 $ is usury.217.224.119.250 09:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC) The atual charges add up to a whopping $79.90 that includes parking on a rocky unpaved stretch,$29.95 for the bus ride(for the life of me I cannot understand why the Hualapi chose to locate the terminal 3 miles away from the bridge) and $29.95 for the walk itself. My advice: skip the hualapi.Instead go to Southern Rim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.124.43 (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone give actual information on the admission price? There seem to be two figures circulating: US$25 and 75... Along with cryptic statements mentioning other entry fees. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.223.89.113 (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The reports I've read, most recently in the Salt Lake Tribune, was that the fee to go on the Skywalk is $25, however you still need to pay to enter the reservation. That would be an additional cost I do not have handy --however I've read on a few places that the $25 is only for going on the bridge, nothing else before that. --Bobak 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This person's blog (which I present only by way of explanation, I don't claim it to be a reliable reference) says $25+$50, totalling $75 per person. His experience wasn't very good, in general. Darryl Revok 17:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Having just visited this weekend I can confirm entry price of $25 for the walk itself (which goes to the developer, not the Hualapai) BUT to get there you must select from a number of multi-stop tours which begin at $49.95 (this tour includes a stop at Guano Point, a Wagon ride and show at a "cowboy ranch" and a lunch.  25% Discounts are available for various folks including local residents, AAA members and military). This tour money goes to the tribe. The operation is for now very inefficient as the blog states, with long lines, unreliable timing and crowded undeveloped facilities, but should improve as the revenue flow is reinvested. A note of warning - the only road access to the Western Rim includes approxinately 18 miles of EXTREMELY uneven, rock strewn, bumpy, dusty, twisting unpaved mountain roads. This is not like a normal graded dirt road and more like a rally track. Beware if you take your own car especially if you have low ground clearance - I saw three hubcaps and two tailpipes on the way! This is not the tribe's fault by the way - their stretch of road is nicely paved - but either the county or the private owners of the right of way leading to tribal lands are holding out. On the whole a very unique and worthwhile experience, but with teething troubles for sure.

I work in Vegas and run tours out to the canyon. The scuttlebutt from drivers of busses and guides who have had occasion to go out there is as follows: A helicopter company who sells tours doesn't want the road fixed, the environmental opposition also refuses as the increase in traffic only brings on the sense of inevitability to the whole project. Daily revenue is at around a half million after taking into account fees, meals and souveniers. No direct source yet, but they are definitely rolling in it. As for the cracked glass rumors, the top layer is meant to be replaced and they tell you that someone dropped their camera so that you won't get to take it out on their and they can hock you a picture for a premium.

Having been there I can attest that the exorbitant admission charges of $79.90 gives a torrist a sense of being robbed blind. My advice to visitors is to skip the skywalk.Instead go to the Southern Rim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.124.43 (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Discussion forum is intended to facilitate discussion on the accuracy of facts in, and the scholastic merits of, the given article. It is not a chat board to complain about or commend a product or service; leave that for eBay or Yahoo. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs) 18:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

__yes it is__ this is very helpful... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.91.124 (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

PRICE!!!!
"The attraction is open to visitors for a fee of $25 (USD) per person to walk out on the Skywalk. In addition, visitors must purchase a tour package of $49.95 (USD) per person. Alternatively, visitors can buy a tour package starting at $74.95 to $199.00 (USD) per person that includes the Skywalk." AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!! 199.00 TO WALK OUT ON A LEDGE AND COME BACK, you can not be serious! --Krakko 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's $75 at minimum, the tour package has other stuff like dinner other tours etc. -Ravedave 04:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't go, it's a rip off!!! My husband & I went w/our 4 kids and thought it was a rip off. You cannot take your cameras out onto the skywalk. A little known fact that they do not let you know until you are actually ready to get on it. We were so disappointed. The facilities are nonexistant. They haven't built anything yet. The picnic area at Guano Point is a pretty view, but very filthy, bird poop everywhere, and they don't wash the tables at all. The bus driver was raving about the dessert we get with our lunch, but when we got our lunch they were out of everything except chicken & beans. To top it off, there is about 15 miles of the roughest dirt road you can drive on to get to it. When you get there, you don't even know you are there because the road ends at an airport, which we finally found out after asking many bewildered tourist that that is where you pay your whopping $75 per person, there aren't any signs telling you anything. I was disappointed in the skywalk itself. It doesn't seem like you are out very far, because the first 1/2 all you see is rock. It even has a crack in it already.


 * Maybe that's why it's called Guano point?

-- I visited on May 8th 2007. I took one of the tours to get there that included everything (to the Skywalk, the lunch @ Guano point, Cowboy town, etc) for $150 and the price we paid to the tour operators was $27/person for the Skywalk itself to "avoid the long hour line at the Skywalk itself". When we arrived there we no lines to buy tickets which I was told was $26.75 including tax (tax?) but there were lines to take your bags from you, especially your cameras and cell phones. The price of the picture which we passed on was over $22, I think it was $23 though.

-- I visited on Memorial Day Weekend, and we had a great time! We opted for the Tranquility Package which is about $150 per person, but ALSO includes an overnight stay in a private cabin, 3 meals, and you sleep at the Hualipai Ranch, with an awesome view of the canyon and a sunrise wake up call so you don't miss it! The real value of Grand Canyon West is the whole package and NOT just the skywalk. The skywalk is about 2500 feet above the nearest ground, and 4000 feet to the Colorado River. The website quite clearly states no cameras or other personal items. The benefit of spending the night was that we were the first 10 people on in the morning, and we had about 45 minutes on the bridge pretty much all to ourselves. It was a perfect romantic getaway. Especially compared to some of the other GC "attractions" that have you pay a LOT more for a LOT less.--209.79.152.8 17:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Discussion forum is intended to facilitate discussion on the accuracy of facts in, and the scholastic merits of, the given article. It is not a chat board to complain about or commend a product or service; leave that for eBay or Yahoo. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs) 18:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As of May 28th, 2009, I was charged 43.06 per person for entry into the park. There is no longer any parking fees, etc. This is the minimum one can pay to access the area, and gets you a ride on a tour bus from the terminal to the skywalk, guano point, and back. Admission to the skywalk is currently $32 per person. Additional packages can be purchased for meals, helicopter, plane, and pontoon boats rides. At the time of my visit, there was one small sign after you turn onto the gravel road indicating that there will be a fee to enter the area, but nothing more specific than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.151.243 (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning the Skywalk
How do they clean the glass? I saw one place that indicated they have to lift out the panels to clean them. Lots of people are curious about this aspect of the project.208.157.230.30 16:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

209.79.152.8 17:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)When we were there, there were two staff members on the bridge constantly cleaning the glass of fingerprints.--209.79.152.8 17:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Height
"The horseshoe-shaped glass walkway, at a 1,200 meter (4,000 ft) height above the floor of the canyon exceeds those of the world's largest skyscrapers.[1] The Skywalk is not directly above the main canyon, Granite Gorge, which contains the Colorado River, but instead extends over a side canyon and affords a view into the main canyon.[2] USGS topographic maps[1] show the elevation at the Skywalk's location as 1454 m (4,770 ft) and the elevation of the Colorado River in the base of the canyon as 354 m (1,161 ft)."

1454 - 354 is only 1100, not 1200 meters. Which of the two is correct? Fram 20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinions
Can people please try to not include their personal opinions if at all possible? This is not a tourist guide, nor is it a review. Ekillian 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded; this is neither the place to criticize nor to compliment the Skywalk. Especially the price (people have to understand the context of their "Discussion" contributions and what purpose they serve -- in 6,000 years Wikipedia readers will look at that price and wonder how foolish we were to complain). It's ok to criticize or compliment the way a Wikipedia article itself is written, but some of the comments on this page about price look like they belong on an eBay forum.--Atikokan (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

suicide
dont they usually take preventitive measures against people commiting suicide by jumping off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

They were in the process of putting up a fence around the Skywalk on May 10, it is set back about 10 feet. This prevents a clear view of the canyon unless you go on the Skywalk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zugarekd (talk • contribs) 13:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Expansion
According to the tour guide (Francisco), they are expanding the airfield to except larger jets. The long term goal is to build a casino/hotel. The landing strip is actively being worked on, but I haven't seen any sign of a hotel site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zugarekd (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Deaths
Can we get a number for how many people fall off of this every year? If not for the skywalk then is there a number for the Grand Canyon itself? 74.249.167.142 (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add how many people died while working on the skywalk, and the names of the people who passed away while working on it (if any did). Ruth E (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You IDIOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.38.81 (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Vertical Drop
Is there a source/citation that definitively and accurately provides the exact height of the Skywalk glass above the terrain that is directly below it? To say that it is 4,000 feet above the bottom of the Grand Canyon is stretching credibility, given that the Colorado River (ie, the bottom of the Canyon) is over a mile away. That's like saying that the Pasadena City Hall is 1,068 feet high (206' above its base, but 1,068' above the Pacific Ocean).

Page 41 of the March-2008 National Geographic shows a photo looking straight down through the glass that certainly makes it look like quite a free-fall drop. However, 4,000 feet? Hardly.

I have Google-mapped the "terrain" data. You will note the scale bar at bottom left. If you interpolate the Skywalk's 60' extension outward from the rim, using that scale bar, you will see that, at the very most, the Skywalk hovers over the 4,200 foot contour line.

Now, given that the Skywalk itself on that same map appears to be sitting at just under 4,800 feet in altitude, this means that the uninterrupted vertical drop from the Skywalk to the terrain directly below it is, at most, 600 feet.

Not 4,000.

And even 600 is stretching it; in actual fact, I think the terrain directly under the Skywalk is a bit higher than the 4,200 foot contour line, and, of course, the Skywalk itself sits at the rim somewhat below the 4,800 foot contour line. This means that the vertical drop is likely a bit less than 600 feet. Or, in deference to the wonderful concept of Newtonian Mechanics, if one were to drop an apple from the bottom of the glass of the Skywalk, it would fall just under 600' (or just under 182.88 metres ) before hitting the Earth. --Atikokan (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

misleading
everyone goes only for the skywalk. difficult travel, not directly over the river, disturbing the environment, crass commercialism. take your pick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.230.215.25 (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section
"The road to the Skywalk is very poorly marked from Las Vegas. After turning off from the main road one must travel 11 miles down a dirt road that will coat one's car in fine dust. Whenever someone passes, one is lost in a cloud of dust for a few seconds. The road is narrow and bumpy." - This sounds extremely POV. Are there citations that can verify this, or is this simply opinion? Zarcadia (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That whole subsection should go, since it is not sourced and is POV. Of course, information on tourist complaints etc. could be included if it is properly sourced and written in a neutral tone. I'll plan to remove the subsection as it stands soon, but now I ask for comments first. -- Spireguy (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2009 (UT

I made the drive from Las Vegas to Grand Canyon West May 28th, 2009. There is no indication of how to get there until you have turned off of highway 93. You travel approx 25 miles off of 93 before turning onto the gravel road. It is in fact 14 miles of gravel road and 7 miles of paved from there. The first sign I remember seeing is after you turn onto the gravel road noting that there is a fee to enter. The road is constantly maintined, but is still very bumpy and narrow, and driving can be very difficult with the larger vehicles (i.e. tour buses, jeeps, etc) on the road kicking up a very large amount of dust.

Sa’ Nyu Wa
"Sa’ Nyu Wa (Home of the Eagle)" - right beneath the Skywalk with a plaza - is not noted in the article. What is it and should it be in the article? --77.4.57.253 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference?
The second paragraph of the “Access and Pricing” section was added on 20 June 2009, with no references. A reference was added at 19:34, 27 August 2009, pointing to this blog entry dated 25 August – however, the relevant text in the blog entry appears to be drawn from the Wikipedia article. Who’s citing whom here? Cactus Wren (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Violation
While I feel the need for the copyright violation concern to be raised, the copyvio box is, well, ugly. I've commented it out but left it in the source until it can be sorted. EugeneKay 00:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyvio boxes may be ugly, but they exist for a reason: not only to obscure the copyright violation, but also to instruct interested contributors how to repair it either by rewriting the content in the linked temporary space or by writing for permission. Please don't obscure these, as doing so may prevent actual copyvio material being repaired. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright investigation: no infringement of the tagged source
While text in the article does duplicate the tagged webpage,, the webpage was authored on August 25, 2009, while the content was added to Wikipedia on June 20. Additionally, the webpage does reference Wikipedia, if not sufficiently to satisfy licensing requirements (which requires a direct link). While it's always important to investigate duplicated text, in this case it seems Wikipedia is in the clear. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic information
I have removed the information on the page that related to the address, phone number, and admissions fees. This information belongs on a tourist information page, so it is not needed here. Wikipedia is also a neutral encyclopedia, so please refrain from adding information here. Since I am unlikely to be watching this page, please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The road to the Skywalk us now paved. Please refer to the following article.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/travel/road-trips/2014/08/13/grand-canyon-skywalk-road-paved/14005873/

Uncle Abby (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

esplanade edit
thanks for at least pinging me today, when deleting my edits not for the first but for the second time.

how about sharing your apparent content expertise (which I admit I lack) and helping to move and not just re-move a carefully sourced and referenced sentence?

But I guess not. I recall reading you dont think the addition is worthy because too speculative, but that you "wouldnt revert it when added to the Grand Canyon page". so i'll do that, unless you can you tell me where you would put it, and removing it for a third time....:-)--Wuerzele (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Canyon Skywalk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607100230/http://www.hualapaitourism.com/questions.php to http://www.hualapaitourism.com/questions.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131026202231/http://www.grandcanyonwest.com/skywalktour.php to http://www.grandcanyonwest.com/skywalktour.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Canyon Skywalk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927200605/http://www.discoverychannel.ca/flipbook/flip.aspx?fid=345 to http://www.discoverychannel.ca/flipbook/flip.aspx?fid=345
 * Added tag to http://broadband.discoverychannel.ca/discovery/?id=1161

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)