[pct-l] What is a Thru-Hike Defined as Nowadays?

[Eric Lee]

Ed wrote:
>
A hike along the complete length of a long trail.
>

Where people often bog down into arguments is over the precise definition of
"complete length".

Personally, I like what some people say that they're walking from Mexico to
Canada, mostly along the PCT, but sometimes not.  Others like to obsess over
every foot of the actual trail, but  . . . meh.  I don't see the point of
that myself.  If you take a side trail into town and take another side trail
out of town to rejoin the PCT farther on, skipping the part of the PCT that
bypassed town, I don't think that detracts from the adventure.

There's also the issue of sections that are just flat out closed with no
reasonable alternate routes.  In past years it has not been at all unusual
for thrus to have to take a shuttle around an active forest fire and most of
them still consider themselves to be thru-hikers, and I support them in
that.

Obviously this is all very subjective and squishy, but ultimately it's up to
each thru-hiker to define their own rules.  I really like the approach that
the ALDHA-West organization takes.  They simply operate on the honor system
and if someone says they've hiked the entire length of all three trails,
then they're a triple crowner.  No rules lawyering necessary.  It's up to
each person to meet their own self-imposed standards.

To echo other people, the commonly-accepted definition usually includes the
idea of "in a single season" and usually doesn't require contiguousness
(i.e. flip-flops are ok).

Eric