[pct-l] PCT Atlas

[Bill]

Thanks Jim,  You do have too much time!  Let me try to one-up you on the
"too many notes" contest.

Here are a few thoughts that were spurred by previous posts.  First, let me
come to confession and say yes it is true - I am a lowly section hiker and
long time back-packer.  Hence, I hold back much advice on thru-only related
items such as what is the best temp bag rating in Oregon in September or if
resupply by mail or to buy is better, or if VVR is a good place to stop or
too expensive.   There are times even when it is Thru related that I could
have an educated opinion through education.  Even without the experience of
the thru hiker, I could darn near tell you what "most do", what the pro's
and con's stated usually are, etc. just because I been around this community
for some time, I have read most journals, read almost every post, read every
how-to book including Yogi's which is a compellation of ideas from
experienced thru hikers.  As such, I could tell you what the consensus is on
VVR, but I could not tell you where the bathrooms are.   As a physicist told
me once, "while I have never been an atom, I know how they act".  His point
was that education carries some level of credibility.  Of course, the person
who actually HAS been an atom would have a leg up.  I just wanted to toss
that out first as sometimes we section hikers are treated as second class.
Remember, in many ways we section hikers are actually just really slow thru
hikers  :-)   

While there is plenty of logistics that are unique to the "thru experience",
there are plenty of areas that are viable regardless if it is for 400 miles
or 4000.  In my opinion, choice of navigation books fits this category.  Now
it is of course possible that the Washington addition of the Atlas
completely comes off at the wheels and has some huge errors.  I would not -
as a lowly section hiker - be aware of that.  I am assuming that the quality
of what I have hiked is consistent in each volume.

Well!  With that completely off topic tangent - let me get back to the
discussion of PREFERENCE for hiking navigational guides.  First, as I have
said many times, I would suggest people start with each version and then see
which one they find themselves using on the trail.   By the time you hit
Agua Dulce, you will likely know what is working and what is not.  I think
this makes practical sense.

I have hiked with all the traditional book sources.  When I first started
using the Atlas, I carried all three (WP, Data, Atlas).  I found I did not
need the others and have since quit carrying them.  I found the information
that I use to hike is consolidated in the Atlas in a format that suits the
"quick access".

Since I, like others, now hike with ONLY the Atlas - I never need to worry
if the Atlas says 21.2 miles and the data book says 21.7 miles, or if the WP
guide book refers to trail point 495 and the Atlas 497.   I was not a
problem for me when I carried both, but I don't cross reference the two any
more since I only carry one.  The only time I cross reference to another
source is that Atlas to the current water report.   And if the water
location is marked differently on the report by a half mile or so, I have
not found it a problem.  I am usually referring to the water spots in my
head by name.  For example, if I am planning on water from Little Jimmy
Spring - it is in my hiking head as just "Little Jimmy".   And I really
don't worry if it is 18 miles ahead per the Atlas or 17.3 miles per the
water report.  That variation does not alter my plans. The Little Jimmy name
is the same on both report and Atlas.  I just know I am going to Little
Jimmy and need roughly "x" liters to get there.   The variations I have
found too small to be a concern.

Part of the reason that the mile markers have been recalculated with Erik's
book is that he created his information from scratch.  He used his own
calculations.  I am not sure if he did that because he had to, or because he
saw it as an opportunity to get a fresh take.   I do know that at one point
he was threatened with copy right suits if he used any information from
existing publications - unless that information was readily available from a
public domain source.  So I think Erik may have had multiple reasons for
fresh calculations.  Since the trail changes every year, it is possible that
many of the old mile marks are out-dated.  In the end though, I think it is
a wasted conversation from a practical standpoint because regardless the
variations are minor and I am not sure the small variations much matter -
for me at least - did I mention that part?  For me.    

The concern about the price I don't completely get, but I respect.   There
have been many threads about the cost of a thru hike.   Without going back
to review them to check, lets say that those who did not estimate "lost
wages" or bills to be paid at home came in at around $3,000.   Those that
estimated lost wages came in anywhere between $15,000 and $25,000.   If the
cost of a set of Atlas guide books is (guess) $80 more than the collection
of alternatives - and if the $80 price is found to be more efficient, easier
to use, lighter . . . - it seems well worth the cost (at twice that).   But
maybe I have a couple more nickels to rub together than many hikers do and I
don't want to come across as some sort of snoot.  So, I just put the cost
question into the bucket of personal preference.

Well, I am not on the grave yard shift and have written enough! 

Thanks for the opportunity,

Pink Gumby