Talk:Pennine Way

Pennine Way & Pennine Bridleway
Why does the PW start at Edale? Alfred Wainwright in his PW guide comments that it would have been a much finer start, and more logical, to be at Dovedale, right at the base of the Pennines. It's interesting to note that the new Pennine Bridleway starts much further down the Peak District. In retrospect it seems to me that the Edale start was influenced by the need, immediately pre and post WW2, to make a strong case for walking access over the Kinder/Bleaklow grouse moors. Linuxlad 08:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Well the Mass Trespass would have been very fresh in Tom Stephenson's mind when he made the original PW proposal pre-war, and worked for it as RA secretary after the war. But when the route was originally proposed (pre WW2) Ashbourne/Dovedale still had a rail service, quite popular with ramblers (it closed early 50s, I dimly recollect), (whereas Edale also nearly lost its service in the mid 60s). So rather confirms my view that Kinder Access (or memories of the Trespass if you like), held sway over other considerations. Linuxlad
 * That may be true; other factors could be the easy access to Edale by rail and the symbolic importance of the area following the Mass Trespass of Kinder Scout. Warofdreams talk 10:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Coming in a little late, should have spotted this before. Some years ago, I was told by a couple of people I walked with, who had been involved in the trespass, that the Edale start was as you say Linuxlad, it was a symbolic starting point and represented the original gathering point. These old timers also held the opinion that the Pennines as such run out at Edale and the bit going south to Dovedale is not in fact the Pennines but Derbyshire Dales... geologically a transition from the Pennine grits to the dales limestones..... High Peak to White Peak..........take your pick on that one. But makes some sort of sense. Geotek (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Performance art
I was interested in the addition about Performance art, though can't find enough external references to justify reverting its deletion. But in case the book actually gets published (can't trace it in Amazon or www.copac.ac.uk as yet), here's the text which was removed:
 * Movement artists, Tamara Ashley and Simone Kenyon, performed the entire length of the trail in August 2006. Their book documents the performance and invites readers to create their own interpretations of the landscapes along the way.

and the book ref provided (tidied up a bit):

And here's one solid external reference: PamD (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually that is a good reference. I've re-added on the info + the above citation. --JD554 (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I was looking for a 2nd ext ref, as it had been deleted the once, but if you're happy with this one then that's fine by me! I've changed the book ref to the above slightly better-formatted version. PamD (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wainwright's Beer
For quite some time you got a pint from AW - I certainly drank two halves ('you're entitled to a second' said the landlord encouragingly) back in '74. Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Map- useful in this format?
Does the map added today actually improve the article? I suggest that a map showing the path, on a whole-of-England outline map, would be more informative. This one also distorts the layout of all the text. PamD (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It gives a feel for the route, but as it stands is of little use as there is no was to get an enlarged view to be able to see any detail, and nothing to locate it in England. Keith D (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Consistency with sources
I noticed that the sources for this article put kilometres first and the article was kilometres first until the display was flipped on 7 September 2011. I think it would be preferable to follow both the history of the article and the sources and return the article to its original usage. Michael Glass (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It turned out that the article was inconsistent in its display of units both before and after the previous change, so I followed the majority of references and flipped the rest. I hope the result is OK. Michael Glass (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An IP editor has unilaterally and without explanation decided to change all the units to display with miles first, but instead of adding the parameter "disp=flip" to the convert they have altered all the figures so that the miles figure, calculated from the km figure, is the one included in the text. This can lead to inaccuracies - the figures in the text should be as in the sources used, with "convert" used to provide an alternative version. That said, "mi" is a horrible abbreviation and not used in UK texts, so we should be displaying as "miles" (see Good Article South West Coast Path for an example).  Pam  D  08:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal on units

 * Until yesterday the units were expressed as:  429 km  - 429 km
 * At present the units are expressed as:  267 mi  - 267 mi
 * I suggest that we use:  429 km  or  267 mi , depending on which figure the source cited gives first, displaying as: 429 km or 267 mi

There are three questions:
 * 1) Which unit should be written into the text? I suggest it should be the one used as the primary unit by the source being used (because of the "flip" parameter, this is independent of our decision on how to display the data).
 * 2) Should miles or km come first? WP:UNIT specifies the use of non-metric units for geographical distances in non-science UK-related articles, but a footnote acknowledges that there can be strong views and advises talk page discussion.
 * 3) "mi" or "miles" in the display? Personally I vote for "miles" and note that it is used in the "Good Article" South West Coast Path.

Any thoughts? Pam D  08:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd support your suggestion. Worth bearing in mind that different sources give various lengths for the PW, so in some ways the rounding oddities don't really matter anyway, but your suggestion makes sense to me. I don't like "mi" either. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * UK-related articles should really use miles for distances IMO. The front page of the Pennine Way website is typical. Displaying miles in full is best way to display them, regardless of if they are the primary or secondary unit..
 * Heights are what make things complicated, as metres are more commonly used than feet (reflecting the metrication of OS). This means using miles and feet doesn't reflect common usage, and neither does km and m. Mixing the two feels wrong but may be best approach, as it best reflects common usage and how articles like Snowdon do it.
 * More seriously, what is the length of the path? The sources used for the length are insistent that the path is 429 km and 268 miles, but those numbers don't match. That is not a rounding error, but the result of using the wrong conversion (1.6 km to the mile). Predictably other sources give different lengths (eg 256 miles by the Pennine Way Association).
 * Given the variety of lengths reported, we should go with the length from Pennine Way website - but we can't do that when we don't know which is correct! I'm going to contact them to try and resolve that.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are various official but optional alternatives (e.g. the Bowes Loop, the optional side trip to The Cheviot, the high-level descent to Kirk Yetholm) - I suspect this is part of the reason for the inconsistent lengths quoted. Agree with you on miles for distance and metres for heights, by the way. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The error within the Pennine Way website appears to be the result of a calculation error, as the figures are being quoted side by side. I'll see what Natural England says about this (5 of the National Trails have the same problem). The different lengths from different sources reflect things like route variations.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * With regards to the length - response from Natural England: "We tend to work in miles, and the latest Pennine Way Guide Book states that the Trail is 268 miles (431 km)." They suggest that we use the mile figure as our source. There's then a comment on how the path lengths are variable in any case - due to multiple route options, loops, and various adjustments. Given all that I recommend we quote the Pennine Way as being 268 miles and 431 km long - regardless of if its km or mile first.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would go with what Pam has suggested using miles first and using miles in full rather than abbreviating to mi. I would also go with heights in feet first as per the usage in South West Coast Path for consistency in display rather than mixing imperial/metric first. Keith D (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, MOSNUM has something for everyone. It favours metric for most things but recommends miles for distances. However, as it says nothing about feet for heights it apparently favours metres over feet for this measure. It also says that if editors can't agree they should refer to the history of the article, which in this case was metric first! As for the sources, they display the same mixture. No wonder it's so hard to be consistent! Michael Glass (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that there appears to be a slow edit war about units going on here. Please. If there is no consensus, and no prospect of one, the best thing to do is to follow this advice from MOSNUM, which I quote in full, with the most applicable part bolded:
 * "Some editors hold strong views for or against metrication in the UK. If there is disagreement about the main units used in a UK-related article, discuss the matter on the article talk-page, at MOSNUM talk, or both. If consensus cannot be reached, refer to historically stable versions of the article and retain the units used in these as the main units. Note the style guides of British publications such as Times Online (under 'Metric')."
 * Michael Glass (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no edit war, slow or otherwise. My reading of this thread seems to indicate: (1) the abbreviation mi should be avoided, (2) miles first is strongly favoured by participants (apparent 4:1 ratio), indicative of consensus if not unanimity, and (3) participants split on how to handle heights.
 * The historical choices made in the article is not irrelevant, but a new consensus can certainly overturn it. That clause is in MOSNUM to provide stability if there is no consensus about what to do, not to block consensus-backed changes. Also note my comments above: The primary source - Natural England - has stated that they work in miles, and consider the mile length authoritative. That's reflected on the homepage of the paths website. Do you favour using km, and if so, why?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would favour putting the kilometre distances first because that is what most of the sources use. Failing that, I recommend that the disp=flip function is used so that the article won't have rounding errors in the figures it gives. Michael Glass (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Map
Added map. Will try to get back to check location name links ASAP. Can't figure out how to stop label wrapping (e.g. Horton-in-Ribblesdale does not display propertly so shortened to Horton). Can't figure out how to reduce the displayed map area to restrict to just the route, rather then the whole of Northern England. Would be good to add other towns and features mentioned in text using distinguishing colours from overnight stops. Diggers2004 (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can stop the wrap by using template nowrap. Keith D (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Or an HTML non-breaking space ( &amp;nbsp; ). I've tweaked the map a little, only for aesthetic reasons. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Collins
There is several short form references to Collins in the article but there is no entry giving the full details of the book. Can anyone supply the details? Thanks. Keith D (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Collins wrote the earlier edition of the Cicerone guide. This diff was when he was edited out.  Ideally, someone needs to replace the cites with equivalents in Dillon, but in the meantime the old edition could be added to the Further reading section.--Mhockey (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Something's got to be wrong: if the article cites info from the earlier ed, then the ref needs to point to it; page numbers etc may well be different in new edition, so the old ed is necessary. Statements cited may even have changed. I'm not that familiar with the short form ref system, but is there a missing list of books to which the refs should refer? It shouldn't surely depend on the books being mentioned in "Further Reading" (of course this latter section should be updated for new eds, but that's not the same as the sourcing of the article). Pam  D  08:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I've read Help:Shortened footnotes and added a "References" section with the three works which are cited using short refs. It would be nice to go through their inline refs and change them to use the full linked system... have done so for the first Poucher ref, just to see how it works. Might come back and do more, no time right now. Pam  D  09:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Decided I had time ... all sfn refs templatised. Now really must go out and catch a train! Pam  D  09:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the trouble to convert to the linked short references and supplying the missing book detail. Keith D (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pennine Way. 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/20060220133545/http://www.ramblers.org.uk/INFO/paths/pennine.html to http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/paths/pennine.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004222225/http://www.nationaltrail.co.uk/pennineway/uploads/Pennine%20Way%20interesting%20facts.pdf to http://www.nationaltrail.co.uk/pennineway/uploads/Pennine%20Way%20interesting%20facts.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927211334/http://travel.independent.co.uk/uk/article295614.ece to http://travel.independent.co.uk/uk/article295614.ece

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) 13:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The Cheviot
The Cheviot is often misrepresented as some kind of side trail or optional part of the path. Just where this idea originated from is puzzling. As far as the national trail goes, or indeed the guide then it clearly isn't intended to be an optional detour. Will post back with a citation - but the Cicerone National Trail Guide clearly states this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.182.123 (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "optional part" means. There's nothing compulsory about any part of the trail.  For example the two alternative routes via Bowes or avoiding Bowes are clearly optional.  As for "side trail", that seems to be factual - the route up the Cheviot leaves a fork in the trail and returns to the same fork.  Isn't that what a side trail means?--Mhockey (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mhockey. While the trip to the top of the Cheviot is part of the official designated route, it's certainly a side trip and it's certainly optional; as a case in point, I didn't bother with it when I walked the Pennine Way in 2005 and nobody punished me or refused me my half in the Border Hotel a few hours later :) I'm also fairly sure that – for example – the Wainwright guide notes that it isn't mandatory and may be omitted (on what is already a long day without accommodation on the official line of the trail), but I don't have it to hand to check. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have Wainwright's Pennine Way Companion, 82nd impression, to hand (rather battered copy: it got wet en route). On page 9 there's a paragraph headed "The detour to the Cheviot", where AW says:

The Cheviot is the highest hill but the least attractive of the Border hills, and it is unfortunate that the official route of the Pennine Way prescribes a detour to its summit, coming as it does at a critical stage of a very long trek. ... Do it for the reccord or to satisfy conscience, if you must, but do not expect to enjoy it. In mist or rain, give it a miss altogether.
 * AW's mileage figures include the detour to the Cheviot, the summit being at mile 260.
 * So I think it's a "detour" in the sense of a detour from the direct line of the path, but it forms part of the Pennine Way and is not optional for anyone wanting to consider themself to have completed the PW. I remember it as muddy but well worthwhile - but we had broken the long stage with an overnight at Uzzwayford, then offering B&B. Quite a few years back. Pam  D  13:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether it is optional or 'compulsory' depends only on the mindset of the individual walker. Stephenson's original guide does not state either. This mess could be avoided by a change of language in the article (just describe it as 'a spur') and with people stop trying to make the article reflect their own opinions. &mdash; BillC talk 12:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Length
OK, how long is it? Lead and infobox disagree.


 * Wainwright in his companion has 270 miles.


 * National Trails website says 268 miles, and on another page (here, click on "About" and "What is") it says "268 mile (429 Km) ". Wikipedia's "convert" disagrees with that conversion: 268 miles comes up as 268 miles. In reverse, 429 km


 * Ramblers gives it as "268 miles (429km)"


 * LDWA say "404 km / 251 miles "! What short cut did they take?


 * Pennine Way Association say "The Pennine Way according to the official guide book is 256 miles (412kms) long.

Interesting. We need to decide on one figure for lead and infobox, but perhaps also add a section on the various distances offered. Has it been extended by any route changes over the years? What figure does the National Trails guidebook give, I wonder? Pam D  13:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The front cover of the current one says 268 miles. Pam  D  13:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Another length: 267 miles/467km (oops) Pam D  13:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And The Guardian goes for 267 miles. Pam  D  13:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)