Rambles on routing...

[wilsonnickp]

To be clear, this is not a harsh criticism or condemnation of trail routing. I love the AT. I love its peaks and gaps, vistas and (some of its) PUDs. This is just a question to get a discussion going. What would you guys think if the trail were routed in a way that wasn't solely focused on getting close to (but not always all the way to) each and every summit? What if the goal instead was diversity and getting the best of each segment? For example, I love the Smokies. It's beautiful there. But what if the trail followed the lake shore for a while before going back up into the mountains? Just for a different perspective and a little change of pace. Obviously, there are other examples of where this could be applied; I just wanted to point out one on my mind and try to spark a little chat.

Happy trails.

Quest

[RED-DOG]

the trail doesn't go across each and every summit a lot of the times it will get almost to the summit then cut across the side of the MT then you have to take a blue blaze to get to the views, the only times it actually goes across all the summits are in the GSMNP, whites and a few other places most of the time you have to take a blue blazed trail to get to the views and in the summer it's nothing but a really long green tunnel. so yeah it does diversify alot of times it follows creeks, ridgelines, and scurts around lakes/ponds. if it went across every single summit that would be so boring that no one woulkd hike it.

[Slo-go'en]

The AT does go over most of the summits. It skirts a few here and there. The AT doesn't go over Washington, Jefferson or Adams in the Whites. "Why go around when you can go over" seems to be the rule of thumb for most of the trail. As much as possible, the trial follows the height of land, but thankfully there are places where they flattened out the trail to more closely follow the contour lines. I remember NC was a bit more bumpy in places then it is now. If you study the topo maps, how the trail is routed makes a lot more sense then it can look from the ground.

[full conditions]

I'm guessing that the OP meant something more along the lines of "why not incorporate more stream-side and valley portions as opposed to one that's mostly ridge lines and mountain tops" instead of a discussion about whether the trail bypasses many actual summits. I'm fairly certain that there are two factors at play here - firstly the dream Benton MacKaye had was a mountaintop path from New England to the South; secondly, as a matter of practicality, most stream and river valleys are developed and lack the necessary public lands for a through trail. Nonetheless, there are a few places where you get at least a small taste of valley and lakeshore walking - Maine, the C&O towpath, central Virginia. There are (were) certainly other opportunities (Eagle Creek and Big Creek in the Smokies come to mind as does Dry River in the Whites) but the goal was always to create a skyline trail so that's what we got. Mostly.

[Another Kevin]

Given the heavy traffic the trail gets, I'd think that the first concern should be sustainability.

It appears that those who are doing reroutes agree with me. Most of the reroutes add miles, and make the trail easier, which seems insulting at first. But moving the trail off the fall line is important for erosion control, particularly with the millions of footfalls that the A-T sees.

http://trailsblog.bcrd.org/2014/09/d...me-a-lollipop/

[rickb]

The AT does go over most of the summits. It skirts a few here and there. The AT doesn't go over Washington, Jefferson or Adams in the Whites.

Good point about the AT skirting some summits in the Presidentials, but I thought the official AT did loop up and over the summit of Mount Washington.

No?

[rocketsocks]

Keep it high, once I earn the top, I wanna stay there...valleys, side sights, and vistas, or goin' to town, that's what blue blazes are for.

[pyroman53]

Given the heavy traffic the trail gets, I'd think that the first concern should be sustainability.
But moving the trail off the fall line is important for erosion control, particularly with the millions of footfalls that the A-T sees.

http://trailsblog.bcrd.org/2014/09/d...me-a-lollipop/

Yes! You get it amigo!

[garlic08]

I don't really have an opinion on your topic, but I do agree with you that the routing is fine the way it is. I never, on my thru, felt upset about MUDs and PUDs the way I heard others get. The fact that the trail existed at all in some of that rough country with unknown (to me) rights-of-way issues was (to me) a miracle. The fact that it was so well-maintained and blazed was another miracle. I fell in love with the AT sometime in my first week and have not forgotten that feeling.

On my CDT hike I felt some of what you're saying, why keep to the crest when the are wonderful valleys and good water below? Or why hike this low wet valley when there's a great ridge walk up there? You just can't please some people....

[wilsonnickp]

I don't really have an opinion on your topic, but I do agree with you that the routing is fine the way it is. I never, on my thru, felt upset about MUDs and PUDs the way I heard others get. The fact that the trail existed at all in some of that rough country with unknown (to me) rights-of-way issues was (to me) a miracle. The fact that it was so well-maintained and blazed was another miracle. I fell in love with the AT sometime in my first week and have not forgotten that feeling.

On my CDT hike I felt some of what you're saying, why keep to the crest when the are wonderful valleys and good water below? Or why hike this low wet valley when there's a great ridge walk up there? You just can't please some people....

Yeah I agree with what you're saying. I love the trail and am pleased with it and thankful for it.