Talk:Backpacking (hiking)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Editorial Introduction

The introduction sounds more editorial than informational:

The main disadvantages are that the encumbrance of the backpack itself substantially reduces the hiking pace, so that less ground can be covered in a day, that the backpack is something of a nuisance and a distraction to enjoying the scenery, and that camp chores use up several hours every day.

While I admit there are times when a badly designed or loaded pack can be uncomfortable, the packpack is the tool which allows a serious trip to take place. The pack selection (in some cases manufacture), the fitting process, the loading, and the management of the contents are all part and parcel with the backpacking experience. To say the pack is "something of a nuisance" is akin to complaining about the cold weather associated with snow skiing.

Finally, the statement "camp chores can take up several hours a day" is unsubstantiated. There are degrees of dedication to camp chores among backpackers. As your pack gets lighter and your mileage higher, you learn to leave behind the encumbrances that make camp feel more like home, which is the point for some of us.

(Forgot to log-in on this one! - Fireclaims ;)

I originally wrote that bit, in a form similar to the form it has now, as an objective treatment of the disadvantages of backpacking as compared to day hiking. It shouldn't be misunderstood &em; though if it is unclear, it should be changed. I like backpacking (as a matter of fact, I just got back from a short jaunt this weekend). However, it's important, particularly in an encyclopedia, to recognize that it has distinct disadvantages.

I think it's plainly incorrect to dismiss time spent on camp chores. Some backpackers may avoid the work of having to set up a tent by not bringing one (for my part, I think it can be fun). Others may avoid the work of cooking and washing dishes by subsisting on trail mix and energy bars. However, most people don't do that. Also, if by "degrees of dedication to camp chores" you mean that some backpackers aren't terribly keen on cleaning up trash and burying their dishwater, that's a different case entirely. --Smack (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I had the same reaction as Fireclaims. The backpack is rather a substantial advantage when backpacking, the only alternative being not backpacking. The cost in pace and distance compared to dayhiking is highly variable, depending on the person, the terrain, the gear, etc. And the notions of nuisance, distraction, and enjoyment are pretty subjective. But mostly I can't imagine spending several hours a day on camp chores. I could cook a Thanksgiving dinner in several hours. How deep are you burying your dishwater? Squib 22:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess my calculation is a bit mistaken. I figured that a very quick backpacker can hit the trail an hour after waking up, and take maybe an hour and a half or two hours to set up camp and get things done in the evening. (Last weekend, it took us over two hours to get out of camp.) However, not all of this time expenditure can rightly be classified as "camp chores." As far as encumbrance goes, we can't simply disregard the backpack's disadvantages. I agree that, on the balance, the backpack is beneficial, but the reader should decide for himself. --Smack (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Really, any characterization of the time consumed by camp chores as a disadvantage is misplaced when you consider that a day hike is probably going to require as much time or more just to get to and from the trailhead (which would affect the comparative distance that can be covered in a day as well). If anything, the advantage goes to the backpacker, who can take care of business and still "hit the trail an hour after waking up." After all, if you're counting the time it takes to wake up, pee, eat breakfast, wash up, brush your teeth, get dressed, cook dinner, eat it, wash the dishes, etc., then dayhikers gotta do the same things, unless they’re subsisting on McMuffins and Big Macs (cf. "trail mix and energy bars"). Don't get me wrong. I personally like to take my sweet time, but I've seen plenty of folks who roll in after dark and are gone before first light. The intro doesn't really reflect that approach.Squib 23:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

After dark and before first light, at what latitude and time of year?

You're right that it's not correct to list these time expenditures as disadvantages, but some prominent mention needs to be made. --Smack (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I have never spent more than an hour and a half doing camp chores. Stating it takes several hours to do the chores implies 3+ hours which is simply not accurate. In that time period I could have setup 5 tents, baked a pizza from scratch, and taken a sponge bath. Additionally, camp chores such as cooking can also be enjoyable due to the challenges presented in the backcountry as some people take pride in what they can do with so little. I also agree with Squib that in order for this to be a disadvantage, cooking, eating, etc, it needs to be something additional to the daily routine that wouldn't occur normally. I believe a better way to get your point accross would be to add a LNT section that identifies some of the chores that are unique to backpacking.

'A backpacker packs all of his or her gear into a backpack and hikes to an inspirational location.' Not all backpacking trips are made with an specific location in mind. Thruhikers are an example of this. Quite a few people go backpacking to get away, not necessarily go to some inspirational location.

Since the page Backpacking isn't really disambiguating anything, this article needs to be moved there.--Esprit15d 15:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Support. Current contents of Backpacking should move to Backpacking (disambiguation), contents of Backpacking (wilderness) should move to Backpacking, per Wikipedia disambiguation standard. Rationale: Backpacking (wilderness) is the dominant meaning. -- hike395 16:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This was resolved on Talk:Backpacking (travel); I have removed the tag. -- Scott e^iπ 10:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the W guidelines: "Leave a message on the talk page of the article where you want your link added" :

A perfect external link from this page would be :

• Wilderness-backpacking.com Wilderness backpacking tips and advice

But I guess some from Wikipedia has to approve it ? regards Erik

Canned food

User:Alexx127 insists that backpackers use canned food. I've never seen any for myself; maybe she's thinking about some other decade. Any comments? --Smack (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So what if you've never seen it. Some people do, it depends on the length of the trip and the cost/food quality trade offs people want to make. But in any case verifiability is the key, not your or my opinions. I'll look in some backpacking books to see if I can find something citable. - Taxman ^Talk 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is merely original research, but I usually bring canned fish on short backpack trips. I've even brought food in glass jars. And I've seen others do the same. -Will Beback 20:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too - I've quite often taken glass jars or cans whilst trekking, especially when in a foreign country where there is little time to prepare and vastly reduced choice in food at shops. If the trek is short I'd also have no problem taking a can (of ready soup for instance), since the contents don't require cooking to be edible in an emergency, can't go off, won't spill, and can taste better than some other options. --Ozhiker 23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

US focus

The article seems to be rather focused on the US. First of all, there is the title. In most parts of the world, 'backpacking' refers to travelling with a backpack. 'Wilderness backpacking' is usually called 'hiking'. Next comes the first sentence, which states that backpacking "combines hiking and camping in a single trip". But New Zealand, one of the most famous hiking countries, is full of wilderness huts, so that a tent is not necessary. During an total of about 40 days of tramping in NZ, I have only once seen someone with a tent - some people prefer their privacy, I suppose. :) This may have to do with something I once heard, that the approach to hiking is very differrent in the US and NZ. In NZ, one is supposed to follow the tracks so that the rest of nature will remain undisturbed. As I understand it, in the US one realy goes into the wild or has the choice between a large number of tracks, so that wherever one goes, the impact will be minimal (which makes a lot of sense to me, especially if one looks at how destructive the overused tracks in NZ are, but that's a differrent issue). Another thing is that the typical lengths of hikes that are mentioned are either a weekend or 'weeks or months'. But in my experience, a hike typically lasts 5 days, so maybe this is also a US thing. I fist had this experience in NZ, where the tracks are usually of that length and there is usually no way to start or stop them halfway. But I've had the same experience in Finland, Guatemala and Borneo (whre there are no facilities at all - not even tracks). This lenght of 5 days has struck me as a standard length wherever you go in the world. And I believe something similargoes for Nepal, but I haven't been there. The use of the word 'trail' in stead of 'track' is also more typically US, but I'm not sure about that. Btw, speaking of Finland, leantos are more common there than huts or campsites.
'Fixing' this bias would require quite a rewrite, so in stead of starting with that straight away, I'd rather wait for some reactions here first. One possibility is to put parts of the present text under a separate header 'Hiking in the US' or something and then to write a separate one for New Zealand (and other parts of the world). Any thoughts? DirkvdM 19:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I too was surprised by the title. I hadn't heard this use of the term 'backpacking' before. Being a New Zealander, I use the term 'tramping' but am aware of other terms such as walking, hiking, trekking.

I was interested in your comment that tramping doesn't have to include camping because one might sleep in a hut rather than a tent, as I have thought of myself as 'camping' even when I have stayed in huts. A quick look at a few dictionary definitions of 'camp' seems to confirm that a hut can be a type of camp, just as a tent can; therefore I suggest the first sentence remain unchanged. (My experience is different to yours: in 25+ years of tramping in New Zealand, I have rarely not seen a tent while tramping. Some tracks do not have huts, and at certain times, popular huts are crowded, making tents an attractive alternative.)

With regard to your comment that the tracks in New Zealand are usually five days, in fact there are numerous shorter and longer tramps around the country. All the tramping I've done in the last decade has been with young children who aren't yet capable of tramping for more than two days. There are many possibilities for two day trips including round trips, trips from one road access to another, and return trips. Maybe the sentence you're referring to could be amended to make it more clear that a trip could be two days, several months, or anything in between. Lisialil 23:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A short note bout the camping; I usually avoid the high season and popular treks. For example, when I went to Abel Tasman (in winter) I did the inland trek. So that probably explains me rarely seeing any tents in NZ. DirkvdM 18:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I now see there is a separate hiking article. I didn't see that because I typed in 'tramping' (the NZ word for 'hiking'), which redirects here. I don't have the time to read that just now because I'm off to an appointment. DirkvdM 19:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I've removed http://www.trekking.in.th/ from the External Links section twice now. (The recent re-add was done by User:Trekking in thailand, which implies self-promotion to me, which is why I removed it before asking for discussion.) It seems more about Thailand than backpacking and hence doesn't really belong here, but clearly at least one other person disagrees. What's the consensus? --R27182818 17:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A few friends who have traveled there indicated that Thailand has little wilderness. Travelers stay in villages or—most often—resorts. That particular site has decent photography, but several broken or non-functional links within, numerous spelling errors and incomplete information. At least it isn't a commercial website, unless the broken links are where the advertising is. I don't think it belongs here. It would be much more appropriate in the Backpacking (travel) article—and wikitravel. — EncMstr 17:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous editor added http://backpacking-tips.net/ with the edit summary "Not sure on reason link removed, was up for months." This web site is very light on content and has very little which isn't in the article. The biggest article weakness is nutritional information, but the website's contribution can be summarized in a couple sentences (unless snaking means something other than snacking). Another typo which gives pause as to reliability is outer layer should be breatable. So I'm removing it. —EncMstr 05:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Beginner's guide to backpacking

This recently-added link is GFDL. Perhaps its information should be integrated into the article rather than leaving it as a link? --R27182818 04:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yah that was me, sure, have fun. Leif902 00:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject?

I don't know how the wikiprojects work at all, but maybe there should be a Wikiproject Backpacking? There is one for cycaling, and one for trails, so maybe it would be benificial to expand backpacking related articles (equipment, packing, trails, books, etc.)? Just a thought. Leif902 15:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing, which includes many mountain travel topics. Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Hiking Trails and Wikipedia:WikiProject Geocaching (inactive). -Will Beback · † · 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried the hiking trails one... but it seems to have little activity... and it would be nice if all of these packing related things (trails, equipment, books, this article... etc.) could have one group dedicated to managing them. Might clean things up a bit (if you havn't noticed, the backpacking and trail articles on wikipedia are 80% garbage and stubs...) Leif902 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

All the topics, (climbing, backpacking, bicycling) have way too few articles for a wikiproject to be of much benefit. This article suggests that a minimum of about 1000 articles are needed to have sufficient critical mass to overcome the administration of a wikiproject. Have you done anything to remove the garbage? Specific suggestions on the article talk pages would be most welcome. —EncMstr 00:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, yes, I've been activly trying to work on a few trails lately... (note the trying, I'm not very good with wikisyntax, but I have managed to clean up the Bartram Trail article quite alot, and several other smaller trails. Thanks for the info, -Leif902 22:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

If anyone would like, I have designed the following userbox.

User:Leif902/UserBoxes/Backpacking

{{User:Leif902/UserBoxes/Backpacking}}

Leif902 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

categories

Recent edits have gone back and forth including this article in category:hiking and category:camping. It seems to me it belongs directly in both categories, as both are intrinsically associated aspects of backpacking. —EncMstr 07:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to me that backpacking is basically the union of hiking and camping, and so membership in both those categories is appropriate. --R27182818 (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

animals

I've reverted the edits about animals because they are unsourced and probably original research. See those links for more information about the policies for citing and publishing.

Also, the changes in the lead are too narrow. For example, when I backpack in Oregon in mid and late summer, skis are useful for crossing lingering snow on the trail and for fun excursions on nearby slopes. They are required most of the spring and, depending on the snow pack, well into the early summer months. —EncMstr (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Brands

Is there really a reason that a couple brand names need to be repeatedly mentioned in this article? (I'm looking at you, freeze-dried food manufacturers.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.97.223 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)