[pct-l] Using Old books

[dhstein31 at yahoo.com (Duane Steiner)]

When I was a green (2nd year section hiker) we used my buddies old book and the book for obvious reasons did not mention THE HAT FIRE, the LACK of H20, and the reroute North of the SUBWAY.  Not dead yet - but pretty close that hot August two years ago.
 
Duane

Marshall Karon <m.karon@comcast.net> wrote:
Regarding using an old PCT book. I tried that - and lost for some sections.
I remember it was fine until Mohave. Then we learned that the trail had been
rerouted. Kind of felt lost without the most current description and map.
But, we found a copy of that section. So, do get a more current version.
The descriptions still might be old (I remember looking for the "short"
trees that had been described - probably 10+ years before.)

Marshall Karon
Portland, OR
m.karon@comcast.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Wright" 
To: "Pacific Crest Trail Mailing List" 

Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Maps vs books


> I like the USGS maps too, but 2600 miles of 7.5 minute maps seems
> overkill. I usually use them for planning and only really bring them if
> I go cross country. I like the Tom Harrison maps for longer distances
> because they give mileage markers and show a larger area. I agree that
> maps would be more useful in snow covered areas and in areas where the
> trail is rerouted due to fire, flood, or whatever. And I will
> definitely be getting some books. Right now I'm borrowing my dad's 1979
> edition California PCT book. I figure I could probably use something a
> little more recent.
>
> Thanks for all the info you guys have provided!
>
>
> Mark
>

_______________________________________________
pct-l mailing list
pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
unsubscribe or change options:
http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam