Talk:Delicate Arch

Height

How tall is the arch?

46 feet, according to this page. Oogabooga 07:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

65 feet, according to this one. We should put the height in the article. Anyone have a definitive reference? Nationalparks 18:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I found this: Geologic Resource Evaluation Report p. 9. It's an official NPS publication. Qblik talk 01:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.64.178 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Too many photos

Each image should add something to the article... the page seems to be just too damn crowded, no? Bb3cxv 16:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

i agree, there is no need for that many photos. Perhaps two would suffice.

I agree too: However the picture of the rope "gouges" speaks a thousand words and is different from all the other just "basic" postcard pictures of DA. It definitely adds to the article.

Climbing Reference

Professional Climbing Dean Potter recently climbed Delicate Arch -- it was understood to be forbidden, but now has been explicitly banned. See http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3800468?source=rss, http://www.nps.gov/arch/pphtml/newsdetail23210.html, and http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_129175821.html, boyatmic 02:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Geology

How about a section that details how the arch is currently understood to have formed? Even just a minor sentence or two about the type of rock and how it was eroded to form it's unique shape. Dallas 04:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's covered in the natural arch article linked to at the beginning, but I could see adding a bit here. I'll see what I can do. Oogabooga 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Trail History

If there is anyone with an understanding of the trail route to Delicate Arch, I would be interested to know if the route has changed since 1977. I was 11 then and my parents do not remember the ledge with the dropoff in the last yards of the trail. 71.188.241.119 03:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

 My family has visited Delicate Arch three times since Thanksgiving of 2005. The initial climb from the ranch parking lot is unchanged.  The path over the exposed sandstone hill is mostly a wandering path, loosely marked by cairns.  The path across the top of the plateau does wander, according to dry or wet conditions but the last 300 yards seem to be well established.  That portion of the hike brings you directly from the north of the arch and behind the remnant wall on that side.  It effectively blocks the arch from view until you are actually emerging from beind the wall at the northwest lip of the bowl beneath the arch.  Your first view is nearly face-on with the La Salles behind the arch.  You don't get any impression of the erosion bowl at the foot of the arch until you walk directly to the lip.
 
 It is still possible to approach directly from the west side, and view the bowl and side-long view of the arch together for nearly two hundred yards.  But that is obviously not a preferred route as rock cairns could not be found in that area on any of our visits. We have never met others on that walk across the plateau, while as many as a hundred people can be seen on the northerly path to the ledge view.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.208.14 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 

Please help re-editing the section "The Hike to the Arch"

Having taken a look at the website [[1]] the section "The Hike to the Arch" looks suspiciously like a direct copy of this website. I could not at this stage detect whether the website was a mirror of our Wikipedia article. I need a second opinion on this and possibly help in rewriting that section. Have already edited the description of the shape which also was part of the above cited website. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I did some copyediting on this section before, to make it more encyclopedic - see the diffs from 24 April 2007[2]. Those are also reflected in the website you mentioned, so I think that the website copied from Wikipedia. RosinDebow (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks, have reverted what was obviously unwarranted source info. Though their photos are great kapplemedia.com should have given Wikipedia as ref. I had hoped to help out since someone entered a prompt for the lack of source citations. Will do better next time. Dieter Simon (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I like the original wording of the History section describing the shape. For example, in the 2nd sentence, passive voice works better for me because it's talking about the name rather than Frank Beckwith. Now that we know it is not a copyright violation of that website, do you object to reverting to the original? RosinDebow (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, do as you see fit. It is your edit, You did well. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Done - thanks Dieter. RosinDebow (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Elevation Change

Please add somewhere that the elevation gain over the 1.5 mile hike to Delicate Arch is 480 feet.

Utah.com, us-parks.com, and a number of other sites, all attest to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TulsaDavid (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)