[pct-l] Data Book Discrepancies

[Bob Bankhead]

Respectfully speaking as a section hiker, I'm am only marginally interested
in knowing that a given point of interest is at some particular cumulative
mileage mark along the whole trail. There are several of those "special"
POIs and landmarks along the PCT that it is fun or significant to recognize
(i.e. the 1000 mile mark; the CA/OR border; the OR/WA border; and of course,
the MONUMENT itself).

Realistically speaking, I am far more interested in knowing how far it is
from my current POI to the next one. That knowledge helps me gauge how much
time I'll need to get there and to decide if I have enough water, energy, or
other resources to make it. Then I can also determine if I have to be
immediately hyper-vigilant least I miss a critical junction, or if I have
time to let my mind and eyes wander for a bit before I must become focused
on watching for said junction. It also helps to maintain my confidence level
that I am, in fact, still on the correct trail. Even through-hikers should
share this interest. 

Adding up those distances gives me my total miles for the day/week/hike.
Those are the numbers I care about. Given all the possible alternate routes
along the PCT, I don't think a master mileage listing is of any real
significance except to the very few "PCT-purists" who want to cover every
inch of "the official route" (however they define that).





-----Original Message-----
From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
On Behalf Of Jalan04
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Data Book Discrepancies


I've always been annoyed that the WP guides always refer to distance between
points rather than overall mileage points but I guess that makes the data
less susceptible to overall changes on the trail length re routes etc