[Tagging] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?
kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Sat Jan 11 16:08:39 UTC 2020
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Joseph Eisenberg
<joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> To clarify, I don't see any problem with the existence of multiple
> tags with similar meanings.
> But I plan to edit the wiki page to describe how they are actually
> used, mentioning that there is a wide amoun of overlap in meaning.
No problem there! In a 'folksonomy', that's going to happen, and as
someone observed, 'status quo wins.'
I can recall an encounter that my daughter had on Windham High Peak,
arguably the easiest of the Catskill 3500 listed summits (and please
don't start arguing that Bearpen, Slide, or Hunter is easier, that's
not the point!) with a father and son who were visiting from a part of
New Jersey that's both flat and urban.
Them: "Wow, the guidebook is horrible! It said this is an easy
three-mile hike from Route 23!"
Her: "Well, yeah, (looks at phone), GPS says 3.1."
Them: "That's _easy?_"
Her: (thinking for a moment): "No scrambling, no broken rock to cross,
no streams you can't just step over, no dense brush, no deep mud, no
beaver activitty... what's the problem?"
Them: (groaning), "I don't want to see a _hard_ trail around here!
That was straight up hill all the way!"
Her: "Uhm, well, it _is_ a mountain."
With subjective assessments that disparate, there are always going to
be variability and outliers in the tagging.
The whole discussion of boots is pretty odd. I'm thoroughly a
Westerner, and I do multi-day backpacking trips in terrain like
wearing trail-running shoes. The boots come out only when the snow
The 'vigour' key is probably a bad one, because it's purely
subjective. SAC and YDS scale, among others, are also pretty bad
because almost all 'hiking' routes are at the lowest grade on them,
and because you really have to be a specialist to grade a route.
More information about the Tagging