[pct-l] Water Report vs Water Plan

[Matt Signore]

Well the water report is on the internet.  Phone = internet = water report.
 So yes it is on smart phones already.


On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Bill Potter <billpotter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Water reports need to move away from printed versions to phone based
> applications.
>
> Hikers should simply report if there was or was not water at a source on a
> specific date.  It would be much more timely and accurate than what we deal
> with now.  It would be easy enough to have a print feature if someone
> refused to carry a smart phone and wants the information.
>
> Bill
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Eric Lee <saintgimp at hotmail.com>
> To: 'postholer' <junk at postholer.com>; pct-l at backcountry.net
> Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 11:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Water Report vs Water Plan
>
>
> Scott wrote:
> >
> This year was a 2nd consecutive extreme dry year which created a very
> unique
> opportunity. It allowed me to collect locations of thousands natural water
> sources that were flowing for northbound thru hikers.
> >
>
> Every year on my section hike it's the same routine: look at my
> map/guide/etc., see how far away the next documented water source is
> (usually farther than I'd like), load up with enough water to make it
> there,
> and then walk past like five undocumented sources with my heavy load
> (grrr).
>
> It would be nice to know exactly the minimum amount of water I could get
> away with at all times, but I actually do appreciate the fact that
> HalfMile's maps (and others) are very conservative about what they list as
> a
> reliable water source.  I'd *much* rather lug water past a few good ones
> that I didn't know were there rather than make plans based on a supposed
> source that turns out to be dry.  It's definitely best to be conservative.
>
> The problems with greatly expanding the documented list of water sources
> are
> these:
> * This year was dry down south but not unusually dry in northern Oregon and
> Washington.  I wouldn't consider this year to be the "worst case scenario".
> * The smaller seasonal streams can vary quite a bit from year to year even
> if the overall meteorological conditions were pretty much the same.  Local
> precipitation variations or even differences in how the snow drifted during
> the winter can change things pretty drastically.  Yeah, they may be there
> many years, but not always.
> * Once the thrus get out of southern California they're spread out over
> several weeks, and of course section hikers use the trail pretty much
> anytime it's hikeable. The smaller sources that were there when you hiked
> past them might not be there for people coming along much later.
>
> I'm curious to see what you come up with, but be prepared for a lot of rage
> directed your way whenever your list leaves someone out of water when they
> didn't plan to be.  Thru-hikers can be a mite touchy about that sort of
> thing.  :-)
>
> Eric
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubscribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
> All content is copyrighted by the respective authors.
> Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubscribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
> All content is copyrighted by the respective authors.
> Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.
>



-- 
Matt Signore
pcthandbook.com