Talk:Hiking/Archive 1

old
I like this Hiking article, and want to think further abt how to fit a Mountain-hiking hazards article together with it. (It'd have been more efficient if i'd been clever enough to read the Hiking article before writing what i thot of as the text for a Mountain-hiking hazards one, but, well here i am. [blush])

In terms of WP, i see the core issue as the fact that some hikers work up to wanting to tackle mtns without having sought out training, and without having done the shopping for hiking-specific gear that would expose them to the idea that hiking entails (just as in sports where you have to get special gear from day one) special skills and knowledge. IMO, some of them won't look for a Hiking article, but may look at, e.g., Monadnock, which is now linked to this article.

I'm adding here what i had intended as Mountain-hiking hazards, as a tentative Mountain-hiking Hazards section, without being sure whether it belongs on the page. Its purpose is to raise issues that often first come into play only when the hiker takes on mountains with either And i'll probably be continuing to edit even before getting further stimulus from those who Watchlist these pages.
 * sufficient elevation gain to challenge their endurance, or
 * summit climates that at least occasionally markedly differ from base conditions.

Comments will be a welcome help to finding what to do with this in the long run.
 * Most of this material should be moved to a How to Hike article where it can be identified as opinion. Wikipedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive. --Hikers are usually encouraged to keep 20 feet apart in most situations so that they can better see scenery and hazards but often hike much closer. Rmhermen 15:43, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Explicitly instructive content belongs at Wikibooks.  On another note, I'll try to de-2nd-person the new stuff. -Smack 02:35, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I think that there has been a suggestion to more the how-to stuff to Wikibooks (which I support) but I don't beleive it has happened yet. Rmhermen 17:43, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

Here's the text that I have refactored into article format. Do what you will with it. (Discussion continues below.)

Tramping
I have linked this page back to the tramping page. The term tramping or "to tramp" is a commonly used description of a popular activity so it does warrant its own page. Alan Liefting 21:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Move hiking material to wikibooks a good idea?
I think it might not be --- wikibooks is for the writing of complete books (modules), while this was always a stand-alone article about hiking. Another issue is that all of the links over in the wikibook are red. -- hike395 07:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That's true. Were I an experienced Wikibooks contributor, I would have taken the time to integrate it into the appropriate module, fix the links, etc.  However, I decided that it was better to foist it on the Wikibooks people unfinished than to do nothing about the situation. --Smack (talk) 05:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I cannot find any Wikipedia policy (e.g., in What Wikipedia is not) that explicitly forbids how-to material of this sort. The only article I could find that discourages such material is in New pages patrol, which states:


 * How-tos or instructional materials. In some cases, these can be transwikied to Wikibooks (http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page); however, it's often possible to turn these into meaningful articles. Try to improve an article by adding some more material before moving it out of Wikipedia.


 * I believe that this material was a meaningful article and should not have been moved out of Wikipedia. I'll revert. -- hike395 11:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I've made attempts in the past to keep the instructional content on this page in a 3rd-person declarative rather than a 2nd-person didactic voice, and found that in many cases it's simply impossible. --Smack (talk) 18:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mountain-hiking hazards
Remember:
 * Weakness and/or confusion, brought on by low blood sugar and/or partial dehydration, are important factors in many wilderness illnesses and accidents.
 * Dress in layers, and bring too much clothing. (A bad sprain, or any more serious lower-limb injury, can mean lying on the ground for several hours during the assembling of three teams, of six litter bearers each, to alternate in 15-minute shifts carrying you out over rough ground.)
 * It's hard to forget that a 20-foot cliff can kill you. It's easy to forget that falling on any hard surface -  even without your feet moving away from where you were standing - can scramble your brains too thoroughly for you to even be able to decide whether to quibble about the difference.
 * There's no adequate substitute for an early start.
 * If your cell-phone works, don't kid yourself about rescue choppers, but it's good for
 * getting an up-to-date weather forecast,
 * reassuring someone who might otherwise report you missing, or
 * getting first-aid instructions.
 * New Hampshire and some other jurisdictions now hand out bills for multiple thousands of dollars for the cost of rescue services provided to hikers who were negligently prepared.

Secrets of Highly Surviving Climbers

 * The serious mountaineers can tell you the priorities:
 * Reaching the summit is no higher than third priority.
 * Having a good time is second priority.
 * First priority is coming back on your own feet. (Mallory may have preceded Norgay and Hillary to the summit of Everest, but if so, his summit just doesn't count.)
 * Don't die on the mountain.

And if you can carry it in, you can carry it back out.

Please refrain from inserting instructive content. This includes not only overtly 2nd-person statements such as "always bring lots of water," but also "it is important to bring lots of water." It's more encyclopedic and more informative to say "dehydration is an important hazard, potentially causing ..." --Smack 05:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removing the references to food bcz "it's not a matter of life and death" demonstrates an editor who is beyond their depth. The discussion at Hiking is the core here; if taken to heart, it explains the wise comments about both food and water. Carrying water is no matter of life and death either (except in arid deserts) in the sense that was used to justify the deletion. (Even in frozen deserts, the issue is carrying fuel to melt snow or ice for water.) Inadequate insulation leads to death directly from hypothermia in about 3 hours. Lack of water leads to death directly from dehydration in about 3 days. Lack of food leads to death directly from starvation in about 3 weeks. But that's the wrong view of life-and-death issues.

The real life-and-death issues are about the fact that you aren't going to sit around and wait for 3 weeks or 3 days, nor, normally, for 3 hours. The reason to carry water is not to avoid death directly by dehydration. It's because hikers who aren't carrying water won't drink from a polluted stream. Once you're thirsty, your physical and mental performance is going to hell, and you'll soon be a danger to yourself from clumsiness and bad judgement; you should drink from the polluted stream, or stagnant swamp, and face the prolonged treatment for cholera or giardiasis or whatever, rather than get deeper in trouble with a life-threatening concussion, leg fracture, or compound fracture. Hikers have to carry water bcz if they don't, they won't drink, and they're likely to get dead a lot sooner than 3 days.

Inadequate calories are the same. The snacks and the lunch or extra meal are for the weakness and lightheadedness that will also destroy your performance, and kill you indirectly with a life-threatening injury, a long time before starvation kills you directly.

All i've done is restore the relevant removed text (tho i think it needs serious work); i've already been reamed on this page for "preaching" in the article, and it's not efficient for me to try to work around that (IMO highly questionable) expectation. But the bald deletion of those two 'graphs is just terrible, and others than i should figure out how to keep in the article the basic point that those 'graphs make. --Jerzy(t) 05:36, 2004 May 15 (UTC)


 * It seems that people are comfortable with the instructive content of the article, and you may notice that I've been writing some myself. As regards the issue of food, I'm a little surprised that you took the time to write this extensive rebuttal, but not to incorporate this material into the text that you restored into the article. --Smack 18:57, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say i am indifferent to the article, i said that my interest extends to the provision of source information and not to the much more temporally and emotionally demanding task of forcing that information into encyclopedic form and achieving consensus on that form. My assignment editor wants me elsewhere, and i don't intend to be nagged into insubordination. [raised eyebrows]

Don't forget that Talk:-pages are under the GFDL just as much as all other WP pages; the source is at hand, and whoever thinks they can see a good way to use it in the article has authority to proceed. --Jerzy(t) 06:52, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Cleanup
I won't contest your decision to replace the material that I tried to remove. However, I insist that this article has serious problems. The instructional section is a hodgepodge of tips and suggestions that do not stand together as a whole. There's been an attempt to categorize them into sections, but this system has little basis. Much as I would like to take it upon myself to reorganize the article, I would find it very difficult to do without removing large tracts of instructional material, so I've decided to ask others to undertake the task. --Smack (talk) 21:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur that this article needs cleanup and TLC. I wish I had more time to devote to it. -- hike395 22:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've gotten rid of all usage of 2nd person imperative, although the article is still disorganized. -- hike395 14:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I see you've eliminated all occurrences of the word 'you'. That's good work, but it doesn't cover the nastiest cases of 2nd-person style - the implicit imperative mood.  For instance, one may say "Bring lots of water" instead of "It is best to bring lots of water".  Here we see the great pitfall of 2nd-person writing.  It's easy to tell someone to do something a certain way without specifying a reason, but it's much harder to get away with saying "it is best to do it this way" without explaining why.  Thus, the process of de-2nd-personing requires us to fill in the reasons, even when they aren't included in the article text as it stands. --Smack (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right. This will take more editing. I'll gradually do it, unless someone gets to it first. --- hike395 05:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. I had to take notes on the article, trash it, and rewrite it from the notes. I think I have fully explained the issues of hiking (in an NPOV way?) and thus the "rules" follow logically from the issues. If I've missed anything, please feel free to improve.


 * Does this complete the article cleanup? Smack (or others): you decide. -- hike395 02:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. There are still many things to be done, but as far as I can tell, you've taken care of the big problems. Did you cut anything out? I think this article is under control, so I'll remove the cleanup message. --Smack (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I did drop a few ideas:
 * Scout Outdoor Essentials (only explicit mention in "see also")
 * Avoid cell phone (generalized to staying quiet)
 * Misplaced priorities
 * Hiking with children
 * Waterproof clothing (morphed into "appropriate clothing". Gore-Tex is not waterproof)
 * Blisters
 * Center of gravity
 * Specific hiking pace that people use
 * Perhaps we can reintegrate some of these. -- hike395 10:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to bearbells. These kill more people than they safe, by giving a false sense of security. A bearbell makes a small tinkling sound. By the time a bear is close enough to hear it, you're already way to close. Your voice, and loudly is the best way to warn a bear of your approach.

Split safety issues into new article?
All of that material is common to many outdoor activities, such as hiking, backpacking, canoeing, and skiing (particularly cross-country). --Smack (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Some of the material may be relevant to those topics, but the section also contains bits which are hiking specific, such as Naismiths rule and foot blisters. The other material seems to belong in perhaps two different articles - outdoor safety and strenuous activities. Can you make a more specific proposal? -Will Beback 02:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Naismith's rule shouldn't be in a discussion of safety in the first place. I don't really know, but I would be surprised if skiers weren't susceptible to foot blisters.  At any rate, I'm not claiming that everything in this section is relevant to all outdoor activities.  I think it's quite enough if most of the issues are relevant to most activities, and I don't see a need to distinguish between outdoor and strenuous activities.  I don't think we should get into the whole occupational safety and health can of worms, but if you find an article on occupational safety that could accept some of this content, I'd be willing to go along. --Smack (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So what would be the destination article? -Will Beback 04:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, the relevance (perhaps too indirect) of Naismiths rule sis that many accidents occur when people overestimate their ability, and have to strain to complete their hike. -04:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The new article would certainly link to Naismith's Rule, but it need not contain it. You're right; the title of the new article poses some problems.  Off the top of my head, we could call it "Safety hazards in outdoor activities." --Smack (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a fair title, though "safety" may be redundant. I say let's go for it. If it turns into a mess we can always parcel out the information back to the respective articles. -Will Beback 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would propose Hazards of outdoor activities. If you are going to split it off, then I would recommend making links from the articles all of those other activities. -- hike395 06:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. I've also gone ahead and changed most of the references to "hiking" and "hikers" to more general terms. --Smack (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I linked the activities that Smack mentioned, above, to the new article. Upon reflection, I think this split is a good idea. -- hike395 03:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Smack was right: there are many factors in common, and it'd be a waste to repeat them. . Thanks, Smack, for the idea. I may do some re-organization. -Will Beback 04:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. --Smack (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mergefrom Hillwalking
I'm not sure what do do with Hillwalking. It's a synonym, although it seems to have some shades of meaning that 'hiking' does not have, e.g. reaching summits. --Smack (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a transatlantic cultural issue: the article hiking describes US trailwalking: the British equivalent would be long distance walking on ways such as the West Highland Way, and backpacking is more likely to be used as a term than "hiking" which is seen as rather quaint. Hillwalking is more related to mountaineering, and in Scottish tradition has no need to keep to footpaths or trails, though common "routes" may be followed. A merger would be problematic. ..dave souza, talk 05:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dave, British hillwalking (perhaps due to the nature of the British hills) is quite a distinct entity that can include scrambling as much as walking on paths. Ideally the Hillwalking article should be developed further, as a kind of "Hiking and mountaineering in Great Britain" article. There's a lot that could be said about the history and culture of it. -- Blisco 08:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dave: Hiking does not necessarily have to cover long distances. I can try to illustrate the term's breadth with a personal observation.  I separate hikers into two groups based on their respective definitions of the term 'day hike': a hike that takes a full day, or a hike that only takes one day.  Both definitions are valid, albeit in different circles.
 * Blisco: I like that idea. --Smack (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Given general agreement here I've removed the tags and made a start on improvements to Hillwalking. The point about day hikes is accepted, and oddly enough that term is commonly used here in the Scouts, though "hiking" as a verb is less common. Anyway, hope others can help with improvements. .dave souza, talk 17:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

which pictures should be shown in the article?
User:Svetovid and I do not agree on which pictures should be shown in this article.

I object to the current first image Image:Randonneurs Glacier Tour.jpg, because the hikers are very small --- on my computer, you can hardly see them. The previous version of the page had Image:Hikingontrail.jpg, which has substantially larger hikers. Since the article is about hiking, I think having hikers prominently displayed in the article is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines on choosing images. If the layout is awkward, I would be happy to remove Image:Eaglecreek.jpg (because of its aspect ratio), and replace it withImage:Randonneurs Glacier Tour.jpg.

Further, I believe that the image of the cathole Image:Cathole.png is illustrative of and relevant to the paragraph about human waste disposal while hiking. The cathole illustration has been in place since May 2005. It is certainly more relevant to that section than either Image:BlueDiamondHikingLogo.JPG or Image:Trail blaze-symbols.svg. Svetovid, if you want to get rid of Image:BlueDiamondHikingLogo.JPG, that would be OK with me.

hike395 15:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge in solo hiking
I think the proposed merge of solo hiking into this article is a good idea. --Gronky (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Article not very informative
With the removal of the etiquette section, the article is now quite short and pitiful. I'm not arguing for bringing back the deleted section: instead, how can we flesh out this article? I can think of several subjects: Anything else? Shall we collaborate on an article restart? What references should we use? hike395 (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiking locations
 * Hiking equipment
 * Demographics of hiking
 * Impacts and safety

Alpine areas
Alpine areas are ecological systems with typically poor nutrients. Gathering wood would probably not strip an alpine area of valuable nutrients. Bluee Mountain (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiking Equipment

 * backpack
 * water bottle or canteen
 * walking boots or shoes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.51.2 (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Trekking
The article has a heavy North American bias in that it's assumed that beyond day hike range, hikers are self-sufficiently carrying shelter, bedding, food and the means to cook it. However in Europe it's more common to make use of huts where these things are provided. In Nepal (and probably India), "teahouses" provide essentially the same services. LADave (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Section about hazards
I respectfully disagree with the deletion of the hazards paragraph. Before we refactored the article, most of this article was about hazards. I think we need 1-2 paragraphs that talk about hazards at a overview level.

If the other editors find the paragraph fatuous (or content-free), I would encourage them to edit it heavily, but please don't delete it: it's an important topic.

Thanks! hike395 18:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to let the decision rest with other editors, but I feel that as it stands the paragraph says nothing which isn't obvious.


 * Cheers, Martin S Taylor 11:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should have this section, but I'm not sure what it should say. Right now, it's mostly a list of things that can go wrong, which I agree is pretty bad.  However, it's still better than the intro paragraph at Hazards of outdoor activities. --Smack (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I just added the list of things that can go wrong --- it was in response to Martin's criticism that the paragraph was content-free. The new paragraph is just an abstract of Hazards of outdoor activities. If it should say something else, please feel free to throw it out and substitute something better. hike395 05:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Given recent events (US hikers in/near Iran - 2009), and a total lack of international guidance in the article, I added a small snippet on the hazards of hiking near international borders. Anyone have additional input on this topic? Slampaladino (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Because so many people take the Pacific Crest Trail from the U.S. into Canada, that's a common issue though I wouldn't call it a hazard. I suppose it'd be possible to wander into other controlled areas, like miltiary bases or bombing ranges.   Will Beback    talk    18:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of reversion
User:Edward321 reverted all of the edits that I've made in the last day, with the edit summary "rv etiquette section". My edits were much broader than the etiquette section. Given the edit summary, I'm assuming that the grand reversion was an error, and I added everything back in except the etiquette section. I'm happy to discuss all of the edits.

As for the etiquette section, why revert that? I'd like to discuss that in particular. —hike395 (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I never heard why the short etiquette section needed to be excised. Any objection to me restoring it? —hike395 (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom the "Ramblers" are the official organiziation
While it is true that the activity of walking long distances can be called many things in the United Kingdom, including "hiking", it must be recognized that the organization that looks after the interest of the walkers is officially named the Ramblers and the people who do the actual hiking call themselves "ramblers".

While I am also aware that many people can go on long distance walk impromptu as and when they get together, and can call themselves anything they like, you really will have to look up the article on Ramblers, to understand what their responsibilities are. Yes, they really fight for the ramblers right to use public footpaths, trails, and tracks, and to represent them and their interests when it is a question of dealing with the authorities, something that cannot usually be dealt with by individual walkers. Please do read the article. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The BMC might argue that they do that job. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do take your point Rwxrwwxrwx, that the BMC look after the interests of mountaineers, hill walkers, and climbers., but reckon this is really a different thing altogether. While hill walking overlaps in certain respects in what they do and are interested in, the overall interest of the BMC lies elsewhere. The Council is not dealing with how to negotiate traffic, the etiquette of walking on roads, the rights of way problems that are, if not always different, geographically quite diverse especially in much more populated areas than those climbers and mountaineers are familiar with.


 * I don't think the Ramblers claim any authority over the sphere of interest of those of the climbers and mountaineers, etc., and neither does the BMC over the rambling community. I think, therefore that ramblers and mountaineers can live with their responsibilities quite amicably side by side. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Captions on images
I'm puzzled by the reversal made to my recent revisions to image captions. I tried hard to respect the original caption, with the addition of some brief detail. The main exception was the picture of a group of hikers in the Lebanese mountains, where there was no connection between the image and its caption, so that the image was meaningless. Also what is wrong with identifying the view of the Appalachians, when the original information was retained? The changes were, in my opinion, improvements. Is the explanation for the reversal adequate? Rwood128 (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

On further thought I better understand the rationale but I still think that most of what I did improved things overall -- shouldn't, for example, Oregon by properly identified as in the USA? I bet there are Americans who don't know that. Also why name a lake and not tell us where it is? The caption for the hikers in Lebanon needs to be more precise: "hiking in a group like this increases safety ..". And I still think that the country should be identified here!Rwood128 (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone can find the location by clicking on the image. The point of the image is to illustrate the text, hiking in a group, for example. The location is not important as the names of the people are not important or the kind of gear they are carrying. (Oregon is not an obscure place) If this were a list of hiking trails or a gallery of hiking trail images then location would be important. But these are not mainly chosen as images of the most iconic hiking locations, the locations are mostly random with the images chosen to represent terrain types, techniques, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Oregon is not obscure, but the addition of USA didn't require a revert, especially as many young Americans (Canadians, etc,) apparently don't even know where the Pacific Ocean is ( ). I accept the rationale but surely a little more detail wouldn't hurt.

I had planned to do more editing on this article, which needs improving, especially the writing style. The lead badly needs re-writing, and the sentence "People often hike on hiking trails" really makes me groan. Rwood128 (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete Dayhike?
Is there really any need for this article, as one on hiking already exists, as well as on rambling and walking? It is infrequently visited and the potential list of day hikes could be millions. I propose that it should be deleted. Rwood128 (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea of listing day hikes/walks for the 50 states, of the USA is absurd, but this article covers the world. What is the criteria for inclusion? (OK popularity -- but how is it decided?) The entry for Britain is equally ridiculous. Day walks are obviously possible in all the counties of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as in a city like London, not just the few scenic places in England that are listed. I therefore suggest that the list should be deleted.

Furthermore the subject of day hikes/walks could far better be dealt with in the main Hiking article, and in the highly unlikely circumstance it should become excessive lengthy it could then be hived off. Rwood128 (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the form dayhike American usage? My Canadian Mac's spell check rejects it and the computer's dictionary is the Oxford American (not listed in dictionary in fact). Rwood128 (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Dayhike looks like an error in fact. Rwood128 (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I support the merge, and agree with the removal of the list of day hikes. A worldwide list of hikes that can be done in a day would be insanely long, and not appropriate for Wikipedia. —hike395 (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Dayhike page deleted and talk page transferred here. No new content added to hiking. Rwood128 (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No reference to Ramblers in the United Kingdom?
Is there a particular reason why there is absolutely no reference to the activity normally associated with the Ramblers in the United Kingdom? This seems very strange, when one considers that it is precisely what they pursue which is described in this article under "hiking". Surely the Ramblers deserve some kind of recognition internationally? Dieter Simon (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Have now added a link in "See also" section. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? This is an international encyclopedia, and they are only pertinent to one country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.22.28 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, in part, the problem is the existence of other articles, such as: Walking in the United Kingdom, Fellwalking, and Rights of Way in England and Wales. Anyhow there is a simple answer to any perceived bias.

There are also articles called Trail, Backpacking and Footpath. So maybe some merging is also called for? Rwood128 (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, somehow I misunderstood the recent comment, as coming from someone in the UK complaining about the lack of British content. But I'll let my comments stand because there is a tendency for national biases in some articles, and also perhaps some merges are called for. Rwood128 (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hiking and/or Walking
Re the recent edit in the United States section, that changed walking to hiking; the word walking better fits with the references to the titles of works by Thoreau later in this section, as well as linking back to opening of the previous section for England. Actually this has led me to the question, when did people, especially Americans, start regularly using the word hike? And my dictionaries confuse me by stating that a hike is "a long walk", whereas I'd presumed that it was a synonym for any walk (as does the article). Also how long is long? Rwood128 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hike : "a long walk or walking tour: a five-mile hike across rough terrain." Oxford English Dictionary (online).Rwood128 (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Not found in Webster's Dictionary 1828 or 1913 online searches. Can anyone supply any information on usage of hike, hiking, etc?
 * The Boy Scout Handbook from 1913 calls it hiking, not sure why you didn't find it in Webster. It was also well known to John Muir in 1911 .Rmhermen (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the two examples. I was amused by Scotsman Muir's comment: "I don't like either the word or the thing. People ought to saunter in the mountains - not hike!" I'm going to check Thoreau and Emerson. I'm also interested to see that the words walk and walking are used in the USA: Secret Stairs East Bay: A Walking Guide to the Historic Staircases of Berkeley and Oakland; Secret Stairs: A Walking Guide to the Historic Staircases of Los Angeles; Portland Hill Walks and Portland City Walks; Secret Stairs: A Walking Guide to the Historic Staircases of Los Angeles. My examples are for walking urban stairways in hilly American cities. I'm presuming that the words walk and walking are used mainly for walks in an urban setting in the USA. I also see that the USA had a "Walkng Summit" recently! Rwood128 (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The OED online records the first use of hiking in 1901, in the Princeton Alumni Weekly, and hiker first in 1913. Hike is shown as in use earlier. Rwood128 (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The 1954 reprint of the 1908 "Scouting for Boys" uses hike three times (an early British usage). I couldn't find an online actual original edition, though. Rmhermen (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

William Howarth, in Walking with Thoreau: A Literary Guide to the Mountains of New England, argues that the word hiker does not suit Thoreau, and suggests that the the word hike remained British until the 1880s when the development of the railways in America encouraged the growth of hiking. My suspicion is that Thoreau probably didn't even know of the words hiker and hiking. The article Walking in the United Kingdom seems to imply that the word hiking isn't used there, but I don't think that this is entirely true, although clearly walking is the dominant term.
 * I note that walking is the latest US health fad with a slogan "sitting is the new smoking"! Rwood128 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding a section on the Top hiking spots in the world?
Would it be helpful for there to be a Section on the top hiking spots in the world today? J259707 (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * J259707 I'm struggling a little with this idea. Firstly because there are "spots", that is places, say the Alps and then routes, say GR 5, or the Tour du Mont Blanc. Perhaps destinations or just "hikes" might be a better word to use here?


 * Then what is meant by the ambiguous word "top"? The most visited/popular, or the "best", that is most scenic? I would imagine that the Appalachian Trail is probably the most used American trail but is it the "best" American destination? In the UK is the Lake District, or Snowdonia, or the Scottish Highlands "top"? I presume that you are using "top" as a synonym for popular.


 * Maybe the section could be called "Major destinations"?
 * See 1001 Walks You Must Take Before You Die, ed. Barry Stone, and "25 Best Hikes in the World to Put on Your Bucket List". Rwood128 (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * On further thought, your criticism is in part dealt by the section "Long distance paths". Rwood128 (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Google searches in fact emphasize trails rather than places, or "spots". I've made a revision but I cannot find citations to support my brief comments on areas.
 * Re your criticism, maybe what is required is in fact a slight expansion of the section on long distance trails, plus maybe a section on significant shorter trails. Rwood128 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

UK definition of "hiking" inaccurate
I don't know where the writer got the supposed meaning of "hiking" in the UK as "a slightly old-fashioned word, with a flavor more of heartiness and exercise than of enjoying the outdoors" (which I am not even sure makes much sense), but it is used precisely the same sense that is given here for the USA. It is also in thoroughly modern usage and in no sense "old-fashioned". "Hiking" is used more commonly than "hillwalking" which is more the quaint old-fashioned term. 82.43.194.184 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I'm a Brit who's been heavily involved in the Scouts as well as going hiking with other groups, and I see no difference in meaning from what is described here as an "American" term. Hiking is in fact also the most accurate way to describe the activity in British English. Perhaps a section giving other terms for the activity would be appropriate, but I think the reference to hiking being "a slightly old fashioned word" is unfounded. Madeinsane (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some non-UK person had to revert the edit without explanation. Rather petty-minded in my opinion given the lack of justification. Why would someone who doesn't even live in the UK know better on this matter than two people who do live in the UK? I've lived here for nearly 40 years, and even back in the early 80s at school I was part of the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme where most young Brits get introduced to the concept of hiking in schools around the country and they were always called "hikes", never "hillwalking". I have never even heard that term used before except on this page and later only on some obscure hillwalking society web page. No-one uses it in daily general speech. I request an explanation from Rmhermen or else I will re-edit the reversion made on |03:15, 26 July 2009.
 * (People give up on editing Wikipedia because of admins and obsessive editors who don't feel the need to engage with other members of the community or justify their activities. Don't be that person, please. 82.44.93.55 (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I invite anyone to look up the words hike and hillwalking at the Oxford English Dictionary and also the same at the Encyclopaedia Britannica. You'll note no entry at all for the word "hillwalking". I repeat my argument: "hillwalking" is not in common usage in the UK and "hike" is the word in the UK commonly used to describe what this article is referring to. If anything hillwalking is the more quaint and old-fashioned of the two, and if you told anyone in the UK you were going hillwalking they would just assume you were just going for a walk on a hill, which could mean for 5 minutes or 5 days—nothing to do with what this article describes.

Two British editors with experience of hiking in the UK, who are both prepared to make justification for their case, in my opinion, outweigh one admin who has (presumably) no experience of hiking in the UK, and who has not made any justification for his/her case. I am re-adding the edits I made previously. Please don't abuse the admin role by reverting edits without providing justification especially when others clearly provided theirs—it does not become the admin role. If anyone has an issue with this edit please state your case why here before overruling the edit. Thank you. 82.44.93.55 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't an encyclopedia more supposed to describe concepts rather than words ? If you look at the french version, you'll see none of these terminological debates Bohan (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Chile
I was temped to revert the recent edit. It looks very odd to have this and no sub-section on major more areas. And Is the section on Chile really on the topic? As the topic is "hiking" shouldn't the discussion focus on the history of hiking in different parts of the world? The addition of sections on the history of hiking in Japan, and other non-Western cultures would help improve the article. And what about Africa, India and China? The Israeli novelist David Grossman's novel, To the End of the Land, deals with a hike along the Israel National Trail. Hiking is a tourist business in Jordan. A few thoughts. I hope to work on this sometime. Rwood128 (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you're right that having a subsection on hiking in one country, that only consists of one paragraph, is strange. I just deleted the section header entirely. —hike395 (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, hike395. I now realise that I was the one who created the "South America" sub-heading! I'll try to give some attention to improving this article, there is certainly room for sections on the history of hiking in the Alps, Himalayas, South America, Scandinavia, Australasia, and Japan. And I curious about other countries. I remember reading that Greeks don't hike, but have met Greek hikers, including a man who on E.4 stopped in his car and said "I like that too", presumably not knowing the English word for walking or hiking.Rwood128 (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Boots or runners?
I was interested in the latest edit 28/7/20 re the use of trail runners. I still use light weight boots for backpacking holidays (I'm very old!). I also find poles of great value in the Alps. However, I retired my Salomon hiking shoes after I lost faith in their grip on steep rock – but also because of the smell. I use walking shoes made of leather when not backpacking, which breathe (cooler than synthetic material), and have exceptionally good traction and are also more stable than the Salomon hikers. They are actually not specialized walking gear but rugged "city" walking shoes. I waterproof them with mink oil – I found that my Salomon hikers took forever to dry and were porous (no Goretex, which I see as of little potential value). I checked what my local long distance trail has to say: "Trail-rated hiking boots or shoes are a must on the rugged East Coast Trail. Sneakers, running shoes, sandals or flip-flops are not adequate protection for your ankles and soles of your feet". Trail runners appear not to be recommended for this trail.

Walking across Wales, I once tested hiking sandals (my evening wear) on a canal path but gave up after 20 minutes! A leading writer on mountain walking had recommended using them in the Alps, but presumably he had superior muscles to mine. Rwood128 (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * See Jonathan Williams and Lesley Williams "Top tips for European trek packing" Cicerone Press, 4 June 2015

Hazards section edit
Suggested Edits:

Remove: "The crossing of glaciers is potentially hazardous because of the potential for crevasses. These giant cracks in the ice are not always visible as snow can be blown and freeze over the top to make a snowbridge. To cross a glacier the use of a rope, crampons and ice axes are usually required".

Remove: photo with the description "Hikers in Norway's Galdhøpigg are roped together for protection against falls into crevasses".
 * Reason: The activity described above is called "glacier travel", and is within the realm of "mountaineering" or "mountain climbing", NOT "hiking". Hiking and mountaineering are two very different activities. Mountaineering requires highly specialized tools, knowledge, and training which are well beyond the scope of hiking. It also requires a team of individuals with specialized roles within the team, whereas hiking does not. See Mountaineering: Freedom of the Hills


 * Reason: The photo does not depict hiking; it depicts glacier travel.

Move: "Deep, fast-flowing rivers pose another danger" to the end of the previous paragraph and delete "that can be mitigated with ropes".

SparkleTaco (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reason: Navigating rivers is a hazard of hiking; however, hikers do not use ropes to aid in river crossings unless ropes were placed as a permanent installation, similar to a bridge.
 * Numerous established trails cross mountain features including glaciers. You seem to be applying personal analysis to the article content in violation of WP:SYNTH. The image in question shows people hiking in the snow; being connected by ropes does not preclude their being engaged in hiking. The "The crossing of glaciers" paragraph, though is currently unsourced though, and for that reason I don't take any exception to removing that paragraph. VQuakr (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Alpine trails in the Alps (and elsewhere) may cross glaciers. Also some winter hiking involve, ice axes, crampons, and even ropes. Re river crossings: Isn't the carrying of a rope recommended when a potentially dangerous river crossing is on a hiking route? I've also witnessed children being roped-up on a Swiss pass hiking route where ladders were involved. Ropes, ladders, and other aids are found on more difficult (grade 3) trails. Also some hikes may involve scrambling which is, I suppose, easy mountainering. A source for the hiking across a glacier will be easy to find. Rwood128 (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, VQuakr and Rwood128. I do not believe my edits are in violation of WP:SYNTH since I originally cited a reliable, published source that is directly related to the topic of the article, and directly supports my position. See Mountaineering: The Freedom of the Hills as cited above. I apply personal analysis only insomuch as I was a mountaineering guide and instructor for over 15 years and am currently a glaciologist. I also worked for the National Parks Service as a climbing ranger on Mt. Rainier, have summited high mountains on each continent, including Antarctica, have led expeditions all over the world, including Denali, Everest, and trekked to the North Pole from mainland Canada on skis. I am also a life-long hiker and backpacker. There are serious safety concerns associated with glacier travel, and referring to it as hiking, is misleading and dangerous for any hiker who does not understand the difference. My issue isn't necessarily about crossing glaciers, it's about crossing crevassed glaciers. Doing so requires special protection, including ropes, and in-depth knowledge well in advance of walking along an established trail (aka hiking). You state "numerous established trails cross mountain features including glaciers". I agree; however, these are mountaineering routes not hiking trails. The rare hiking trail that actually does cross a glacier, are heavily traveled and do not cross anywhere near crevasses, for instance those on Mount St. Hellens and Mt. Adams. And since glaciers are constantly moving and shifting, routes must be reestablished numerous times each year, making hiking across a crevassed glacier, not just deadly, but also impractical. Could you please reference any hiking trails you believe cross crevassed glaciers? The image does not show hiking; the people in the photo are roped up and traveling on a glacier, which is firmly within the realm of mountaineering, not hiking (see references). It's not just a question of semantics; as stated above, mountaineering requires specialized tools, training, skills, and knowledge beyond the scope of hiking, and includes a team of people who each have different roles within the team--your life literally depends on your teammates and that can't be said of hiking. Roping up is required to safely cross a crevassed glacier and roping up is a defining feature of mountaineering. Can you please provide supporting citations for your comment "being connected by ropes does not preclude their being engaged in hiking"? Please take the time to review the citations above before commenting further, and at minimum, please cite reliable source material in support of you position, otherwise you are guilty of WP:SYNTH yourself. Thank you. SparkleTaco (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Glacier hiking contains multiple sources that use the term "glacier hike" or "glacier hiking", so this isn't a term invented by Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes; which is why Glacier hiking was proposed for deletion until you blocked it. The sources cited therein do not refer to or define "glacier hiking" specifically, so the term "glacier hiking" was invented by Wikipedia. There is, in fact, not one citation in that article validating or supporting the term "glacier hiking". If you follow the citations on that page to their source, you will find no support for the term "glacier hiking". And again, you're missing the point; walking across a glacier isn't by definition mountaineering; traveling across crevasses or roping up in a climbing team is. There is no mention on Glacier hiking of crossing crevasses or roped-travel, so I believe your reference to the page is irrelevant. Can you provide any original source that equates crossing crevasses or roped-travel with hiking? SparkleTaco (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "A sourced article refutes my opinion so it should be deleted" is a strange take. Straw man. WP:SATISFY. VQuakr (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * SparkleTaco I have attempted to address the issues raised by you.
 * With regard to Glacier hiking, perhaps, this can be best addressed by clarifying that it is a highly technical form of hiking with affinities to mountaineering – the term itself is an established one, as a Google search revealed to me. Rwood128 (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Another example of a more extreme type of hiking is via ferrata, where easy and moderate routes can be described as hiking but many routes are a easy type of mountaineering. Perhaps the article needs to have a section on more hazardous forms of hiking? Rwood128 (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)