[salish]

You really are a geek, a "true" geek, as you put it. Just kidding.... could this be how those hike books rate their hikes (easy, moderate, strenuous, etc.?). You could probably be employed by Gatorade or Powerbar and make millions.....then you could be a rich geek.

[janders]

I would say to be truly accurate, you would need these same statistics broken down on each segment of the hike (i.e. each mile) and evaluate the min and max of the segments. For example, the statistics on the Monitor Ridge route up Mt. St Helens (just did it this weekend so it's fresh in my memory) aren't particular daunting until you account for the fact that the first 3 out of five miles gain very little elevation. On paper, Monitor Ridge looks very Mt. Si-esque. But in reality, the last two miles gain 1500'/mile and will peg much higher on the oh-my-ass-hurts-ometer than Si. But I guess it's all in how much effort you really wanna put into this project.

[Allison]

Or you could just log it like this, for example: "I went to Darrington. It was very, very brushy. I did some stuff. I am tired, scratched and sunburnt. It was fun." Excellent weekend.

[McPilchuck]

I would only add: then I had a cold beer and then another... Or you could just log it like this, for example: "I went to Darrington. It was very, very brushy. I did some stuff. I am tired, scratched and sunburnt. It was fun." Excellent weekend.