[Bernardo]

[puzzlr]

It's very possible I may be one of the people that "over research" a trip, but I have no problem with that. It's not that I'm afraid to fail -- I fail a lot. But I like to increase my chances of success when putting in a whole day (or days) into attempting a peak. Having route information doesn't eliminate the challenge of climbing a peak, crossing a ridge, or getting to a lake. At the same time, many of my favorite outings are to places where there is no good information about the route, and that's fun too. There are so many places like this to explore that anyone who doesn't like having a lot of beta is just not trying hard enough to find less well known destinations. And nothing is forcing them to do pre-trip research anyway. Hike your own hike!

[wildernessed]

[cartman]

[joker]

Your opening post reminded me of an email exchange with John Roper some years a go. I was asking an older more Cascade-experienced friend if he had any experience with a certain route, and he pulled John into the email exchange to see if he knew anything useful. John did not, and while I think he'd have shared what he knew if he knew it, he very nicely nudged me to not put too much effort into researching such things - to just go try it. As long as you're not somehow committing to something you can't reverse (more of an issue with rock scrambling or even more so scrambling erosion features in sandstone in the SW than with my typical ventures), then that's not a bad bit of advice. It certainly broadens the range of possible true adventures!

[gb]

There is a very big difference between route finding in near and above treeline areas and those below. I normally go cross country in areas where I have visibility. In these cases it is a joy to follow a route by sight and to ferret out a reasonable route when the terrain gets a little rugged. If I'm contemplating traveling off trail while trip planning I will usually consult a map to have at least a rough idea of a route and alternatives but then will adjust that route by sight. I don't usually plan and execute a trip when there is poor visibility and I avoid steeper areas such as gullies off trail when on foot when snow and ice or wet rock might be encountered. A GPS seems to me to have more value when traveling in forest particularly when the topography has little definition and lacks handrails. In backcountry skiing a good 15' map is adequate for pre-planning but very small scale adjustments are often called for when avalanche hazard is a concern. That said, I would not normally travel in unknown terrain when the hazard exceeds moderate. Last winter I skied in the Canadian Rockies and our group had planned a tour to a destination near Whirlpool Pass that was mostly in forest. On that occasion a friend's GPS was valuable as the forested travel was extensive. Once visibility opened up, however, route finding on the larger scale was by map and the final routes were adjusted considerably by sight often on a very small scale. Above treeline avalanche hazard came into play and with worse light the decision was easily made to turn around. Although most in the group were new people to me, no one in the group was particularly aggressive in making route finding decisions and that was comforting to me. The avalanche hazard in the Rockies above treeline last winter was quite insidious as it was widely known and expected that the snowpack was unpredictable and that most any slides would involve the entire snowpack and could be triggered from up to one quarter mile away. Digging a snow profile to evaluate stability was pointless. Turning around has virtually no effect on me at all as it really doesn't matter if I go where I've planned or whether I do not. Not only difficulty but also a certain amount of unpleasant travel will turn me around.

[cartman]

Agree with many of your points gb. Suppose I should have clarified that using whatever best keeps me on course in winter or in a forest is fine, I'm not interested so much in "exploring" in winter (time, consequences) or in the woods (boring), or if visibility is poor (safety). I'm interested in "cutting the cord" more in summer and as you note above treeline. Emphasizing the journey more and maybe the destination a little less, though I don't know if I'll ever lose my interest in going for summits.

[Kim Brown]