[Matt]

Dear Karen, I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but I have to disagree. Please don’t take it as a flame. Participating in this forum has gotten me to ask myself, “What is a hike?” At one time, I’d have said it was walking on a trail in the mountains. But the more reports I’ve read here, the more I’ve come to a broader definition of hiking. And it’s not just the high-adventure or technical trips, it’s all the huge variety of trips that people have reported. Now I'd define hiking as any kind of travel in the outdoors where the primary emphasis is on experiencing the outdoors by walking through it, rather than some other technical preoccupation or goal. The variety of trips includes trail hikes, off-trail hikes, way trails, unmaintained trails, backcountry rambles, road walks, nature preserves, city parks, beach hikes, road trips, social campouts, snowshoes, skis, scrambling, strolling; trips to lakes, rivers, summits, valleys, forests, maeadows; trips with all kinds of gear and with no special gear; trips with every kind of length, speed, age, and skill level. I’ve come to look forward to the variety of trips, because it makes me notice all kinds of things about the mountains that I hadn’t noticed before, and gets me to appreciate those things on trips that I do. And, please believe me, I often am inspired as much by the “boring” reports as by the epics. But they all have one thing in common – they express a love of the outdoors, and particularly of traveling in the mountains. That’s what sets this site apart from other, more specialized sites. I don’t read reports (or write them) to hear about technical proficiency or statistical accomplishments. I read the reports to hear about people’s experiences of the mountains, both the physical experience of where they went and the personal experience of how it felt to travel there. I’d also hate to start trying to divide up people’s experiences. I don’t want to say some trips are ordinary, and others are “special.” There are many trail hikes that are extraordinary. And there are some off–trail trips that are quite boring. The difference is in how one sees and describes the trip, not in where they went. And I think it would just become confusing if people did try to divide the trips. Honestly, I wouldn’t know which category to put many of my reports, and I wouldn’t know which category other people would use. If the distinction is based on whether there’s a trail, then how much trail is needed? I’m not trying to be difficult, but rather serious about the distinction. Many of my trips are partly off-trail, but mostly on a trail. I wouldn’t want to de-emphasize the importance of either part of the trip in order to fit it into one category of another. And then there are some trips that don’t involve a trail at all, but are hikes I want to hear about, such as trips on roads or beaches, or winter trips on snowshoes. And I certainly wouldn’t want to divide trips based on whether they are “ordinary” or “epic.” I firmly believe that the most ordinary parts of hiking can be extraordinary experiences. Some trips stay entirely on a trail, but are epic in their beauty, difficulities, unexpected occurrences, or human perspective. In some trip reports, even the most seemingly ordinary trips can be a revelation and inspiration to read. There was an interesting example earlier in this thread. Someone referred to one of my trips as epic, but the trip was entirely on trails, in fact on one of the most heavily traveled and well-known trails in the state. I guess it’s a report of a trail trip, but also a special trip, and I wouldn’t want to try to classify it as one or the other. But you make one very good point. I hope no one will feel their trip is un-interesting because it’s a straightforward trail trip. Please go ahead, write it up, and tell me what made it interesting for you. So thanks for raising the question, but it has made me want to keep the reports widely inclusive and welcoming of all kinds of trips in the mountains. I’d really like to hear about all the different kinds of trips that people do.

[Ancient Ambler]

My vote is for keeping thngs whole. Hikers are an already small segment of the overall population, and the percentage of those interested in outdoor activities is decreasing. What we have here is a community of people interested in various degrees of walking outdoors, but like any community we have a range of specific interests and abilities. Some prefer short walks in the park, while others prefer strenuous alpine traverses. I'm pretty sure that people who post their epic journeys don't do so with the intention of belittling anyone else. I personally find practically all of the reports fascinating in part because they show what other people find interesting and because I can always learn from what other people know and share with me and the rest of us here. These trip reports show what people enjoy, and it's important to me to be able to appreciate the broad range of enjoyment people take in walking outdoors. I think it's easier to do that under one heading of Trip Reports than to start segmenting our community into smaller specialty groups. The range of interests, abilities, personalities and presentations you can find any day in Trip Reports is pretty amazing. I think it's great to be able to read about the fun one person had exploring a city park I've never been to before and in the next post to read about a multi-day adventure I can only dream of doing. Variety is a very good thing, IMHO.

[Elvis]

How did I miss 5 pages of this? Wow. I enjoy the variety in the current structure of the Trip Reports section. When I first stumbled onto this site I spent most of my time reading the Trip Reports... every trip report... further and further back. It was a great learning experience and really helped me to see what all there is to offer in the many different environments offered in the NW. Personally, I don't think the volume of trip reports is overwhelming and really appreciate the diversity within it. Periodic out-of-area trip reports are nice and likely generally reflect a passionate member sharing their hiking adventures with their online nwhiker family. I appreciate that... and like all posts or threads, if you aren't interested in it, you don't need to read it. Since this is NWHIKERS I doubt that the amount of out-of-area trip reports will grow in mamoth propotions to become a problem. FWIW, I always post a trip report. I only get out so often, so if it involves my feet off the pavement, a camera and more than 15 minutes in duration... it's a hike. Sure, it won't be an epic and it probably won't be an adventure, but I'm going to share it with my online hiker friends. Regarding links to photos and trip reports on other websites... sometimes I follow them and sometimes I don't. Generally I like to have it all on this website and I occassionally post stuff elsewhere with a link to nwhikers.net for the pics and trip report. Finally, when I saw the first recent 'boring' trip report I smiled. When I saw the next few, I laughed... and assumed they were just playing off each other and the trend would disappear shortly. Ultimately, thank you, everyone, for all your posts in all the forums, all the time. This place is my first stop... every day, and multiple times each day. Now I need to figure out where the heck I'm going to go on Saturday. At least I don't need to figure out which trip report forum it needs to get posted to. ~E

[Bloated Chipmunk]

[Randy]

The only trip reports that I don't like are the ones from sunny weekdays while I'm stuck at work!

[Matt]

[wildernessed]

[Conrad]

I vote for a separate forum for Global Warming threads. Those I could stand to see segregated. Of course, that would leave Stewardship pretty empty.

[goats gone wild]

[cartman]

Epic Hiker Response Alert

[Matt]

!Bump! I have come 180 degrees in my opinion about splitting the Trip Report forum. I now agree with Karen’s original proposal to divide Trip Reports into something like “Hike Reports” and “Off Trail Reports.” What changed my mind is two things: First, the number of trip reports is growing fast. That’s not a bad thing; I like reading about more different places. But it’s simply more members = more reports. Second, the number of offf-trail reports is growing. Tonight I noticed 7 of the top 15 reports were from climbing trips (2 different Shuksan, 2 versions of Bonanza, Klawatti/Austera, Denali, Phantom et al). I'd hate to see those reports resented because they push other reports down the list. I still stand by several of my same beliefs about reports: First, all of the reports are interesting. For me, any mountaineering experience can be fascinating, whether it’s a short walk or an expedition. I think any kind of outdoor travel report has a place here, as long as the emphasis is on the experience of the mountains, rather than technical details that might belong better on a different site. Second, they all have a place, and none should be put down. I see no place for dismissing any trip as “boring” or as “adrenalin-driven.” (I realize that some of these phrases may not have been intended in a perjorative way, but sometimes they come across that way anyhow.) But with so many reports, maybe it would help to have a couple different containers for posting them. Then people could choose to read on-trail or off-trail stories or both, depending on their preference. Of course, there’s still a huge gray area in between, but that could be up to each poster to decide.

[Magellan]

I'm still not sure they need to be separated, but I don't think having two different categories will drop viewership of one type of report. I still think deliniating between two types of report will be tough, especially for new people, whose trip reports accidently end up in the saloon or trailtalk occasionally.

[Tom]

Matt, I suspect you are replying to Scrooge's comments in your last TR. I don't particularly agree with his vision. It would appear he reads your reports so I'm not sure what a split would solve for him. We've intentionally limited the number of forums here to make the place simple to navigate. Splitting the trip reports into arbitrary classifications accomplishes nothing IMO and only creates a needless division that would make reports harder to find.

[whistlingmarmot]

There's one place IMO a line can be drawn. If you used a rope and/or helmet on your adventure then it was a climb, not a hike. In addition to the report here hopefully there's the same report on CC.com. Otherwise keep the epic brush bashes coming! For data on '100 hikes' hikes I find my self going to WTA more often.

[Quark]

I still think they do not need to be separated. I'm not interested in doing Eldorado, but I like to read about others' trips; same as I like to read Hiker Mama's and the Lykkens' kiddie reports, Scrooge's Big 4 reports and the reports from Alaska, Nepal, and Death Valley. Then there's the hassle of someone wishing to report on, for instance, the Li'l Giant Pass trail and the crossing at the Chiwawa and Napeequa Rivers, but also did a lot of off trail work and climbing. Unless that person were to write 2 trip reports for both sections of Trip Reports, then someone wanting to do a dayhike to Li'l Giant Pass would miss a report that was relegated to the Off Trail He-Man forum. I personally am not interested in posting or searching in 2 forums for information, and I think the segregation of trip reports would also segregate the community spirit in general. Separating the trip reports is the Martin Luther of the outdoors community. Then you have high routes. Most aren't really off trail, but portions are. The added confusion of Carne Mtn High Route not being on many maps but some (including the Washington Gazetteer road map ) is a whole nother consideration. Abandoned trails? Epic or difficult approaches to trails in good condition (Big 4 in springtime). Too much criteria confuses everyone. Re Tom's link to Scrooges' comment who said he was embarrassed to report on Noble Knob - that's funny 'cause a few of us went to Noble Knob yesterday and though some in the group have done epic off trail trips and have climbed big mountains, we all feel pretty confident that our trip might be of interest to folks. Even if not, we still enjoyed it and aren't in the least embarrassed. Besides, Scrooge has put up reports on Big 4 since he posted about Noble Knob, and a nice one to Horse Lake in Central Washington that I still remember. Keep it simple, keep the community together.