Yes. As I hiked in the Southern Appalachians through the years, the elevation profiles were daunting. From Blood Mountain to Hump Mountain was just one steep climb after another. When I got the maps for the north part of Tennessee, one section stood out - north of U.S. Hwy 19e, the trail profile was remarkably flat. I couldn't wait to get there. And finally I did. Awakening early in the morning at Mountaineer Shelter, I was ready to experience my first real level hiking on the AT. Only it wasn't. It was an endless series of small ups and downs - too small to appear in the elevation profile but cumulatively very tiring. Add to that, most of the downhills were in humid laurel thickets. The 9.6 miles to Moreland Gap Shelter was very tiring...and the dadgum map showed it a flat-line lark, a real pleasant walk in the woods. After that, I concluded that there will never be any easy hikes on the AT. That nice pasture walk? Open sun will make it a blazing meadow of death. Downhill? Killer on the knees. Backpacking is always arduous, at least at my age.
As several have commented elevation profile can be deceiving. "Micro puds" don't show on the profiles, nor does erosion, loose rocks or exposed roots.
I was talking to a fellow hiker who had just finished the 900. He said that in his opinion that Cold Spring Gap was the most difficult trail in the Smokies. Yet on profile it looks very similar to Low Gap coming out of Cosby or Ramsey Cascades.
I've found the "most difficult" can change based on conditions (such as how muddy it is during a wet spell).
But right now, I consider Gunter Fork to be the most difficult, because not only does it have the change in elevation, several creek crossings that can be difficult rock hoppers, but the worst of all is the trail erosion... places where the trail is literally falling off the side of the mountain and land slides taking out sections of the trail.
The Appalachian Mountain Club had dealt with this problem for years because each chapter had its own difficulty rating systems (pl.) -- each committee within the chapters (backpacking, paddling, cycling...) might have its own unique difficulty rating system. I won't bore you with the details, but they finally settled on a unified rating system last year -- at least, unified for the AMC.
I used to climb some, and while the ratings were fairly consistent, even that is relative.
I've easily knocked out 5.10s whose ratings were based on big power moves, and struggled on 5.9s with slopers at the crux.
Elevation profiles don't tell me that much. Sure a 4k' climb to a pass in the Rockies is 8x more elevation gain than a 500' one out of a gorge, and may even be similarly steep, but it's what the trail looks like at ground level that matters most.
You know what these 3 trail sections have in common?
20200809_002436.jpg
20200623_140523.jpg
VideoCapture_20200313-034357.jpg
They all look exactly the same on a topo.
Last edited by OwenM; 08-09-2020 at 01:41.
Another great post and learning opportunity here! Crafting a good rating system for trail difficulty is challenging, but would be welcome by me, at least. No, it won’t cover all the ground (bad pun intended) and there are too many variables, but why let perfect be the enemy of good? Sure beats having to listen to someone go on and on about there own experiences while doubt about the speaker’s credibility and sanity creeps in. Still, as a contrarian, I’ll do just that and say that I just reached Waynesboro, VA, going NOBO and the climb up Three Ridges was by far the hardest yet. A rating system might need an index for difficultly when not maintained during pandemic. That said, I say ‘thank you, thank you, thank you’ to the trail maintainers I have seen out here, who this year hv bn far more numerous than thru-hikers.
I equate a tough Nut hump with significant pack weight to coincide with a thousand foot gain in one mile. I know of many such nut humps.
Then there are Nut Hauls from 2,000 feet on a creek to 5,000 feet on a mountaintop in 4.5 miles---or the notorious Upper Slickrock hump which gains 2,000 feet in about 3 miles---and some of it vertical on rock and tree roots.
And let's never discount these factors--
** Doing these climbs with significant pack weight like 80 lbs up to 100 lbs---nothing quite like it.
** Doing these climbs in a debilitated state---like with influenza or walking pneumonia etc. I remember once I was going up the BMT on Sycamore Creek in a sick state and it took me 7 hours to go two miles.
** Dealing with hellish blowdowns on any kind of trail---but most esp on one of these Nut Steep hauls. Reminds me of encountering this beast on my way up the Nutbuster Slickrock trail---
So anyway, a trail rating system would have to include
Pack Weight
Physical Condition of your body
Blowdowns.
Imagine using a cleared trail with a 75 lb pack and then do an off-trail bushwhack with the same weight---there's no comparison. (I'm talking about a bushwhack here in the Southeast mts and not out West).
So this trail is rated a 4 with a 20 lb pack or this trail is rated a 9 with a 75lb pack? This trail is rated a 4 if you're in great shape or a 9 if you're fat and out of shape? And blow downs are constantly changing they wouldn't be able to include them. I agree there should be some sort of rating system to let hikers know what's coming because it can be deceptive.
I don't think it makes sense to have one number to rate a trail. It would better rate it on a variety of factors with an objective rubric and let hikers decide for themselves what's hard vs easy
Yup, an objective rubric ways is the best . And let us hikers decide for ourselves what's hard vs easy
I'd say a 1,000 foot gain in one mile is all you need to determine the "difficulty" of a trail.
A perfect example is on the BMT leaving Double Spring Gap to the top of Big Frog Mt.
Of course there's an endless list of things which can influence a trail's difficulty. The 2 MPH + 30min/1000 feet average is a good starting point.
If you have a guide book with actual trail descriptions, that can be helpful. If the description says "1000 foot climb up steep, open ledges with poor footing and loose rock, you know it's going to take some extra time.
Are ATC section guide books with detailed, blow by blow trail descriptions still available? I still have the guides for Maine, MA/CT, NY/NJ and PA, vintage 1982. It seems we no longer care that at mile 6.4 "Pass old open cut strip mine on left, with Rausch creek on right shortly after trail turns towards the left now following an old stage road for the next 6.2 miles".
Follow slogoen on Instagram.
https://tinyurl.com/MyFDresults
A vigorous five-mile walk will do more good for an unhappy but otherwise healthy adult than all the medicine and psychology in the world. ~Paul Dudley White
I don't think a system would have to consider pack weight, other than to say something like "assumes a pack weight between 30-35 lbs" or something similar. Then if I have a lesser or greater pack weight I could adjust my expectations. The idea of a rating system isn't that it's perfect but that it is fairly consistent so regardless of what a trail is rated, once I know my abilities, I can adjust. Trail rated on 1-10 scale for difficulty gets a 7 but I just started hiking and I know it will probably feel like a 9 or 10 for me. Likewise, a seasoned hiker might see a rating of 7 and be able to say "that's a 4 for me."
https://tinyurl.com/MyFDresults
A vigorous five-mile walk will do more good for an unhappy but otherwise healthy adult than all the medicine and psychology in the world. ~Paul Dudley White
https://tinyurl.com/MyFDresults
A vigorous five-mile walk will do more good for an unhappy but otherwise healthy adult than all the medicine and psychology in the world. ~Paul Dudley White
Developing a trail rating system on a national level is would be extremely difficult. Just in this thread alone there are numerous thoughts on how to set them up, Tipi's idea of pack weight along with physical condition is interesting but would require something like the windchill factor chart to figure out. Typically when I am looking at a new trail I will look at a topographical map to understand terrain difficulty, distances, access trails, etc., then will apply that to a trail rating if available. The things I will judge against a particular trail rating typically are:
Time of year (do I need cold weather gear, traction/snowshoes, carry more water due to hot weather, etc)
Weather forecast
# of days on trail (is this a day hike, 1-3 nighter, a week or more)
Pack weight
Miles between campsites (or round trip day hike)
Elevation gain (per day)
Average altitude (rarified or sea level atmosphere)
Average speed estimation
I believe it's the hiker's responsibility to apply their circumstance to the trail rating given the huge differences between trails, terrain, altitude, weather, hiker age/physical condition, gear load, and experience.
As Owen points out, using a topographical map along with a trail rating I can usually pin down the difficulty for me with the gear I plan to carry.
I'd like to echo Traveler's comments here, and mention a rating system that is used in my area and that I've found pretty helpful. Rather than a rating that produces a result in hours (as some here do), this system is just points-based. Said to have been developed by the founder of NOLS, Petzoldt, and later empirically tested, it assigns 1 point per mile walked and 1 point for every 500 feet of elevation gain. Thus, Mt. Leconte via Alum Cave Trail is 11 mile roundtrip + 2763' elevation gain = 16.53. According to the info on this page:
http://www.hikinginthesmokys.com/aboutus.htm
(scroll down)
empirical testing revealed that on average, energy cost measures would indicate that the points per 500 feet of elevation gain (they give it per 1000') should be closer to 0.8, but there was a range that depended on the hiker's sex, weight, and presumably other variables (pack weight, etc). As others have stated here, it does not capture things like shade, roughness of terrain, or hiker fitness.
Anyway, I agree with Traveler that if you find a formula for trail difficulty that seems to reflect your subjective experience, stick with it. For me, this formula feels about right, the data to put in it are easy to find, so I've found it helpful. YMMV.