<div><span style>> I would love to hear how the </span><span class="il" style>PNT</span><span style> compares to the PCT (OR and WA sections)</span><br style><span style>> in comparison to elevation change and trail conditions.</span></div>
<div><br></div>I hiked the PCT in '05 and the PNT in '10 (journal at <a href="http://trailjournals.com">trailjournals.com</a> - no direct link since it's down for the SOPA protest right now) - they are very different. Not sure how the PNT compares to the CDT since I haven't hiked the CDT.<div>
<br></div><div>Suge is right - you're hiking across the grain of the land on the PNT, so the hiking is more strenuous than on the PCT. The PNT is not as well-graded or as well routed as the PCT, but it never seemed crazy-steep. There is just lots of climbing. I had days with 5-7k feet of gain. I also had days with almost no gain because it was hiking in the valleys between the ranges.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Officially, there are only a few miles of bushwacking, but in reality the route is sometimes on trails that get very little use and are either very overgrown or not visible. Several long roadwalks, and not just along dirt roads, but sometimes highways with cars zipping by at 60mph.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Highlights are the Pasayten, Cascades and Olympic NP (esp. the coast) - but there's a lot of walking in between them. By the end, I really liked the trail, enjoyed the treasure hunt aspect of trying to find the trail or invent a route, and forgave it its problems. However, if I had quit before getting to the Pasayten, I would have said it was terrible - just not enough reward for the effort.</div>
<div><br></div><div> Scott</div>