Talk:Pacific Crest Trail/Archive 1

Archive 1

1970s ride by horse

In 1969 or perhaps in the early 1970s I recall a Los Angeles Times article about 2 high school girls who rode the Pacific Crest Trail on their horses from San Diego to Canada, unaccompanied. They simply stayed over at people's houses along the way. I take this fact as a measure of the peace and stability of the U.S. at that time. Perhaps they could still have done this, even today. Ancheta Wis 10:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

A)Teenage girls do it solo nowadays. B) There are very, very few houses along the way. C) Taking a 2,600 mile trip on a horse is major logistics effort. The long rides that I've heard about have involved considerable support from folks driving to each roadhead with supplies. There's a d) and an e) too, but without belaboring it I think it is very likely that this user mis-remembers the article he read. -Willmcw June 30, 2005 07:46 (UTC)

Trail map

I've contacted the PCTA to see if we can get their trail map under an acceptable license. The image I'd like to use is at http://www.pcta.org/images/map_large.jpg. If I can get rights to use that image (or find another decent map of the full trail that is freely available), I'd like to put it as a "skyscraper" image on the right side of the Locations of interest section where there are currently selected images. Mike Dillon 17:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Images in Locations of Interest section

Hi there. I noticed that there was a little back-and-forth editing that ended up removing the pictures from the "Locations of interest" section. My original idea is that the pictures would look good filling up the empty space on the right side of the section, so that's why they were all floated right instead of in a gallery. I agree with User:Hike395 that the change to a gallery looked worse that what I did originally (the two galleries look weird). The funny thing is, I added the pictures to Locations of interest before I added the gallery... Anyways, I don't disagree with removing the redundant pictures (especially in gallery form), but if we can get a tall, skinny trail map as I said in my previous comment, I think that image would be perfect for the right side of that section. Mike Dillon 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually liked the photos on the side, too. Maybe we could make a 2-column table, the left one with places of interest, the right one with images? -- hike395 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to mess things up; they were displayed side by side in my browser, so I though they might was well be in a gallery. I tried something similar to Hike395's suggestion. It looks fine to me but please check it and make adjustments. I like the tall skinny trail map suggestion, Mike. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me... How about convert the entire gallery into a right-hand-side strip? I'll give it a try. -- hike395 11:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It works on my 12" laptop with my browser (Safari). That probably means it will look OK on most small screens. I think the parallel display of the images with the locations list succeeds, at least until we have Mike Dillon's suggested map. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if any of the editors who remove my postings have ever visited the Golden Trout. I would guess that I have spent more than 200 nights there starting in the early 70's. FWIW -- All my time has been spent east of the main Kern River. Nudity is very common. It is a rare to make an extended trip without seeing someone skinnydipping or sunbathing. During my very first trip we entered from Blackrock Saddle and found a group of older women (they were a lot younger than I am now!) bathing in Nine Mile Creek at Casa Vieja. A few days later we came into Templeton Meadows and saw an airplane (this was before it was "wilderness" and air access was common in those days). As we walked near the plane I noticed two young women laying on chaise lounges, one was topless and the other completely nude. They told us that they had flown in with two men who were fishing in the South Fork of the Kern (or South Cork of the Fern as we often called it).

As for this picture, which I have censored so as not to upset delicate sensibilities:

Olancha Peak is on the eastern edge of the Kern Plateau

We were hiking along near Monache Meadows and heard voices ahead. Soon we saw three young women skinnydipping in a nice pool in the creek. They were completely unembarrassed (there were several women in our party). They told us they were Forest Service trail crew workers, visiting the Rangers at the Monache Guard Station on their day off. I had my camera around my neck and, impulsively, I asked, "Can I take your picture?"

Two of them immediately blushed and said no, but the other (who was by far the most attractive) said yes and allowed me to take several photos. It was her idea to climb up from the creek so that Olancha Peak was in the background.

Anyhow, the point of my diatribe is, this picture is in no way obscene and is a pretty good example of what you might expect to see if you travel in the Golden Trout!

I know some editors doen't approve, but are there any other editors who would like to comment on the suitability of this? Fordpinto77 (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind nudity, and it's specifically not against Wikipedia policy. But this photo has technical issues with color and focus. It's also not particularly good for seeing what's in the background. A hiker might or might not see nudity—and surely won't be seeing this gal—so this photo isn't particularly useful in this article. —EncMstr (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure you'd want to see her now -- she's be about 60. Fordpinto77 (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the photo with a better photo that I found on flickr (licensed cc). Two reasons:

1. As EncMstr points out, it isn't a great photo of the Golden Trout Wilderness itself
2. More importantly, Wikipedia's image use policy says that we should not "unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life". Given that there are better photos of the Golden Trout Wilderness, I think we should not post a 35-year-old photo of this woman, who may be extremely surprised to find herself nude on this article.

—hike395 (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to archive this section as soon as we know Fordpinto77 has seen Hike395's latest comment. The irrelevant commentary about the relative attractiveness/age of the woman in question don't have anything to do with improving the article, and it grates on my nerves. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the attractiveness, etc., of the woman is irrelevant. The explanation of the photograph (above) is not appropriate for this article, but without that context, the reader may be puzzled by its inclusion. Such a photo may be appropriate in a discussion of the history of trail construction and maintenance or wilderness hygiene, but an image of people bathing would serve this purpose better than this posed picture, in my opinion. It is fine with me to archive this discussion after Fordpinto77 has seen it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The main reason to not use this picture is unrelated to the naked woman. It's that this is a lousy picture of the subject. It's mostly sky, and the mountains only take up a small portion. It's also over exposed. (The censored version on this page seems almost more obscene with the black patches drawing attention to the naughty bits.)   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the new picture better too. I think pictures make the articles better and more informative and wanted something there. I agree that mine wasn't particularly good, but it was the only thing I could find in my files. And as I've said, when I think of the GTW I think of skinnydipping -- that's my experience there.

Completely off the topic, but I went to Japan in the 70's and remember seeing "Playboy" style photos displayed there with those same kind of black patches over the models' genital area and I agree with Will Beback that it seemed more obscene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordpinto77 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 2009 November 21

ADZPCTKO

Could someone more knowledgeable than I add something about this event? -- Scott e^iπ 17:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Height of Forester Pass

I don't believe the 13,180' elevation number. When I look at the topo map [1], it seems clear to me that the PCT doesn't quite reach the 4000m elevation mark: the 4020m contour is clearly higher than the trail on the map. This makes the high point less than 13,123'.

Elevation is always tricky --- topo maps usually are in an outdated vertical datum (1929, rather than 1983). The USGS lists the elevation of Forester Pass as 13,153' (4009m) at [2], but says the elevation is not very accurate. hike395 06:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Good points. It's pretty nice that the debate is over a difference of 0.43% ((13,180-13,123) / 13,153). Could be the USFS website is in error, or maybe topozone has the route in the wrong place: here it says it was current as of 1994. Yet here it says it was made from a photo taken in 1998 and created 2001. (I don't get it.) Nevertheless, our best work is to cite, so I've boldly taken a stab at reconciling them. — EncMstr 08:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The footnote is fine with me. You may be misreading the topozone dates --- they have separate topo maps and aerial photos: the topo map dates from 1994, while the aerial photos are later.

I would go with the median elevation (13153) out of the elevations that we have to choose from, I'll also be bold and change it to the median. hike395 18:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

the sign onthe top in 2007 says 13200'. I have a photo, but am new to this so haven't signed up to upload it to Wikipedia Commons yet Michael2411 (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Length of lead

The lead on this article is getting a little heavy. It might be nice to break out most of the lead into a new first section immediately before "Thru-hiking". Something like "Overview" or maybe "History". I would probably split the paragraph before the sentence that gives the length, making the tail of the paragraph into a single-paragraph "Overview" section. Mike Dillon 18:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Elevation change

91km seems a little much for an elevation change during the trail! Obviously it's a error (seems deliberate considering the ft value is 300,000ft!) but I don't know what to change it to. AlphaNumeric 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not absurd - that's the same as climbing 10,000 ft 30 times, or 5,000 ft 60 times. Even so, the linked citation doesn't mention the total gain and we should track down the source for it. -Will Beback · † · 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Start class

If there was a nice history section (cited of course) that better covered that topic as well as construction of the trail, that would make this a B class article. Aboutmovies 18:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lowest point

For several years, the article wrote that Bridge of the Gods is the lowest point on the PCT. Someone just changed it to the elevation of Cascade Locks, Oregon. The trail doesn't go through town, but crosses under I-84 and goes directly down to the bridge. See this topographic map. So I think the bridge is the lowest point, at least in Oregon. On the other side of the bridge, I seem to recall the road goes downhill a bit before joining with SR 14: the PCT is on the road until crossing SR 14. Looking at the contour lines on the Washington side, it looks like this point is below 100 feet elevation, even lower than the bridge. —EncMstr (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

irrelevant material?

Some material from the main page that struck me as not very relevant/encyclopedic. But, I thought I'd leave it here, in case other editors wish to discuss. hike395 (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Deaths on the Trail

On Friday, October 3, 2008 a group of four hikers were hiking the PCT around Highway 89 in California, when a storm arose. One of the four hikers, Phyllis Hall, 62, of Clackamas, Ore., got separated from the group and managed to setup shelter. The lone hiker call the others one her cell phone and told them that she was "OK." The following morning the group of three called Hall who did not answer. The group then decided to call 911, who found her five hours after the call "near Tinker's Knob, about a mile southwest of Highway 89 between Truckee and Squaw Valley." Hall was unconscious when rescue crews found her, and was pronounced dead at the hospital.

External links

Is including the Sacramento Valley Hiking Conference in external links inappropriate? A person ( 06:32, 25 August 2009 Hank Magnuski) affliated with the Pacific Crest Trail Association (go to PCTA.org and search his name) deleted the link 1 day after it was made. The SVHC has maps more detailed than the commercially available Wilderness Press maps, and the SVHC maps are free under Creative Commons license. Would you like the link further down the list? What's the problem? My concern is that the PCTA wants to monopolize, and suppress what they view as competitionMichael2411 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a good link to me.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Michael, it was probably a result of reflex spam fighting rather than careful consideration. —EncMstr (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I had no issue at all with the link. All I actually did was revert the previous edit that added a picture of a naked woman to the page. The remark about being sexist and about nudity referred to the picture which I found highly objectionable. I'm only an ordinary member of the PCTA and not on the staff in any way. hankm (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia. You "reverted to the previous edit that added a picture of a naked women"? Wouldn't reverting to it make it reappear? Anyway, whatever. I guess my browser didn't show her. Thanks Michael2411 (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Structure

I have added the section headings History, Notable Hikers, and Equestrian Use. I believe this added structure will help build this article. Please share any thoughts on additional section headings you feel would be appropriate, or if you think any of the section headings are not appropriate. William.j.blackman (talk • contribs) 03:36, 30 March 2010

Good job adding the section headings, a good step to adding to the comprehensiveness of the article. Perhaps adding a "Low Impact Hiking" heading and defining it within would also aid in providing the article with more content. User:Ghoststory25 Ghoststory25 (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Jerry Fodness 8:20pm, 31 March 2010

Categories

The article and related map indicate that the trail crosses into Canada in BC, so I added the relevant categories. In my haste I neglected to add an edit summary, so I am adding it here. AlaskaMike (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Gallery

Make more sense to put the images in a gallery? They are arranged already sort of like a gallery. Seems to me it would look better to use the gallery box if they're all going to be arranged together like that. MDuchek (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The images are near the wikilinks that are ordered from south to north: they may be helpful for a reader who wants to visualize the terrain that the trail passes through. —hike395 (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I got it I guess that makes sense. MDuchek (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin Papendick

65.60.116.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added the following content recently.

In 1952, Martin Papendick, may have been the first person to hike a rough estimate of the current trail, from north to south. His account, published in a short article in Appalachia magazine is barely sufficient to convince the reader that he actually did walk all of the way from Canada to Mexico. He never sought any notoriety for this.

I removed it with the edit summary "Removed Papendick content; the source is obscure (no publisher or location, year of publication is questioned)" and cited WP:V and WP:RS. In September 2006, another anon added similar content.[3] It was removed immediately with the edit summary, "revert unsourced and carelessly formatted additions...". A discussion of this content may be found at backcountry.net.[4][5] In the talk page archives, some have suggested that too much weight was given to the through-hiking section. On occasion, claims of priority have been disputed. Wikipedia guidelines and policies require that content be well-sourced and notable. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not inserted information about Martin Papendick, but I think it is fair to state that Papendick's accomplishment has been cited in the official PCTA Guide books.[6] Furthermore, he his also listed on the PCTA website in their thru-hikers by year listing.[7]

As I see it, it is a matter of hiker purism as to whether or not Papendick's hike should be counted as the first hike of the Pacific Crest Trail. Perhaps the official recognition of the Pacific Crest Trail Association should be a satisfactory determination. Perhaps something about Papendick can be entered into the Notable hikers section. Toomuchhiking (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thru hiking?

Does it need to be in this article? The section seems to be more about thru hiking in general than about thru hiking the PCT. Perhaps a separate article about thru hiking is in order, with the present section reduced to discussions about thru hiking on the PCT (length of time involved, etc.). 66.234.204.13 (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above, as well as that the sections on hiking, if present, should be greatly diminished and moved to the bottom of the article. This is an article about the trail itself; hiking this trail specifically may warrant its own entry, but it doesn't belong at the top of the this one. 129.170.241.148 (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

New Information.

Trying to meet policy requirements (I am a noob, forgive my noobiness)

I would like to add, under the 'Future' Headline, a short sentence noting that the current ban of mountain bikes on the PCT is currently under review by the USFS...this was brought on by a group of citizens (PCT Reassessment Initiative). Here is what I tried to add: "A citizen's group named the PCT Reassessment Initiative is seeking to have the 1988 bicycle ban rescinded for all non-wilderness portions of the trail."

I had referenced the original Closure notice, and 2 letters to the USFS. Sources: .

I believe this to be notable in that the PCTA has publicly recognized that the action is taking place on their website on Oct 11 (http://www.pcta.org/general/news/new.asp#mtn-bikes)

It also a prevalent topic for interested parties on multiple forums and social networking sites (I can provide links if needed)

Am i too premature in attempting to convey this? Is it worded incorrectly?

Any and all advice is appreciated Nick Thelen (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable third-party sources. Websites by the "citizen's group" don't meet the criteria. 2001:558:6045:A0:391F:B005:179D:8DD9 (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Coverage by peer-reviewed media would go a long way to demonstrate general notability. Also, items appearing in the Federal Register or published on websites of the Forest Service, BLM, NPS, etc. tend to be suitable. —EncMstr (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Update - Article by Seattle Backpacker Magazine released January 29, 2013 titled "Mountain Bikes on the PCT". Article in specific reference to the PCT Reassessment Initiative's petition to the USFS for a review of the defective 1988 closure order. There are many mentions of the PCT Reassessment Initiative's website, the letters to and from the USFS and the request for review. Here's the article for your review: http://seattlebackpackersmagazine.com/mountain-bikes-on-the-pct/

Does this qualify as a notable third party for verification? If so, may I (or yourselves) post an update to this page under 'Future' noting that the current ban of mountain bikes on the PCT is currently under review by the USFS with reference links to this article, the letter on the PCTA's site and the PCTRI's site link (www.sharingthepct.com).

Thank you - Nick ThelenNick Thelen (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Thelen (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I skimmed bits of the article. It does seem a thorough description of the situation. However, other than being well-written, comprehensive, and probably balanced, it seems—at best—a weak source due to a lack of fact checking and editorial review. Such articles seem to abound (roughly in order of decreasing comprehensiveness): [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

My opinion is that a sentence or two mentioning closure of the PCT to bicycles in 1988 and organized efforts persuading the forest service to reconsider that decision would be appropriate if cited by the best two or three of these. Others may disagree, so please hold off adding anything for a week or so. —EncMstr (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Notable People

I just heard about the Wild book. I think it deserves a mention since it's all about the trail (and her on it). If there get to be so many books written about PCT journeys. then maybe we can just list them at the bottom. But for now I thought this warranted at least some mention. Kristinwt (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with this. Is Ms. Strayed notable because she walked the trail, or because she wrote a book? Other people have done both of these things and are not listed here. I have completely removed her from the "notable people" section, since if she is notable then we would be inclined to list everyone else who fits these categories. Also, her inclusion seems to be advertising; she is selling this book. --128.227.48.223 (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

She is notable because she wrote a #1 New York Times Best Seller about the trail, with multiple reviews: [15],[16],[17],[18]. I think that fulfills WP:AUTHOR. —hike395 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: If she is the first woman to hike the trail alone that would be a strong argument to include her as a notable in the article; otherwise I'm doubtful that she's notable in this context. A query on Amazon for "pacific crest trail" returns over 1,500 book hits; even heavily discounting that number for variations leaves a large number of books about the PCT; many of those authors will satisfy notability requirements.
SBaker43 (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

How many of those 1500 books made it to the New York Times Best Seller list, let alone to the top? Amazon lists "Wild" as #539 in its Best Sellers rank, even 1 year after release. In contrast the Benedict Go guidebook is listed at #110,469; Brian Johnson's guidebook is at #272,091; and Karen Berger's guidebook is at #325,210. There's just no comparison. —hike395 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I was one of 2 women who hiked 800 miles of the PCT across Oregon & Washington in 1972, arriving in Canada on Sept 3. We never met Richard Watson who would have had to have passed us. We did meet Dean Johnson from Michigan who I believe was the first thru hiker of the PCT. He was followed by Wayne (don't know last name). Both would have arrived before Watson. No one we met that summer believed that Ryback did the entire trail.Cresthiker (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Notable Places

I also want to suggest that the Notable Places section for California get update a bit more since it's lacking the Crystal Lake Recreation Area which is a newly re-opened restocking location. The Recreation Area was closed for 10 years following the Curve Fire and then for about 1.5 years after the site was re-opened the campground facilities lacked infrastructure for through-hikers to restock their supplies. However now hikers can restock food, drinkables, some limited medical supplies, batteries, the usual consumables yet also the Forest Service Visitor Center has begun to get staffed on weekends which has radio and telephone access to rescue, fire, everything else.

Also Little Jimmy Trail Camp located within a mile or two of Mount Baden-Powell has fresh potable water at Little Jimmy Springs which does not need to be filtered or treated in any way (at least almost everyone who utilizes the water do not bother to treat it since it comes straight out of the abutting seam in to a short metal pipe and out in to open air before plunging in to a water drum such that water collected at the pipe is never above-ground which affords bacterial infestation of the water.)

Little Jimmy's drinking water, Windy Gap Saddle, Baden-Powell are all within the footprint of Crystal Lake so I'm proposing adding Crystal Lake Recreation Area only to the Notable Places section for California. The Wiki article for the Recreation Area already offers information for PCT through hikers.

There is no official paper mail postal services offered at the Recreation Area though the caretaker there who assists in fire mitigation and other tasks leaves the mountain once or twice a week and will deposit mail left by hikers in to the Glendora Post Office.

I wanted to discuss the addition of Crystal Lake to the Notable Places section before doing it myself to see if anybody has objections. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a great addition. Can you find some reliable sources to verify it? —EncMstr (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have two reliable sources which can be used as suitable references. What I find is that the official USFS web site pages which mentions Crystal Lake, Windy Gap Saddle, Baden-Powell are not maintained (I emailed the USFS 3 years ago offering to update their pages and was informed "we have someone who does that" -- which was amusing since the USFS obviously does not.) I also find that the "Reserve America" web site still lists Crystal Lake as closed, and emails to that web site has resulted in no responses and no updates to their web site. In fact Caltrans listed California State Route 39 as closed for 2 years before I Emails Caltrans and got them to fix their status web page, all of which shows how rather pathetic the official agencies are at maintaining their web sites. :(

The resource that people go to for information about the Recreation Area is The Crystal Lake Web Site which gets updated properly, and here on Wikiepdia Crystal Lake Recreation Area which gets 63 visits a day. Another WP:RS would be the San Gabriel Mountains Trailbuilders web site at Here which is my responsibility to update.

What I need to do is update the Crystal Lake web site's text covering what the Visitor Center offers, and what the Trading Post offers since I see that both are incomplete. After those pages get updated, I'll add the reference to Crystal Lake Recreation Area to the Notable Places for California and see what happens. Damotclese (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Proper name designation includes year 2000

Examining topo maps and some signs, PCT 2000 is used, and this is not covered by the page.

I took a photo of Monument 78 at the end. I should get around to uploading it. I have included it on my facebook page collection. The US PCT ends at the Border. The Canadian PCT is designate a distinctly different named trail. I want to get a Campo border first. I'm merely section hiking it. 63.64.179.162 (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It was designated PCT 2000 on the trail even in the 1970s. It never occurred to me that might be a year: I always thought it was just a trail number. Presumably there are other trails named X 2001, Y 3000, etc. —EncMstr (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a trail number. See, e.g., [19], where it is listed as #2000. —hike395 (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Through vs, thru

I hope the editor is not annoyed that I reverted the proposed change of the word "thru" to "through." The correct spelling of the word really is "through" and the spelling "thru" is considered "informal" and not, in my opinion, very encyclopedic. The informal spelling is more suitable for blogs and advertising, magazines and such.

If anyone feels strongly about using "thru" instead of "through," please revert my revert since I don't have any strong feelings either way, other than to use what's considered proper spelling where possbile. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

difficulty=Easy to Strenuous

The tag difficulty=Easy to Strenuous probably meant that parts are easy, parts are difficult. Damotclese (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Might be good to discuss karelsabbe.com proposed change

There have been a number of proposed updates concerning the fastest through time during this year, and it's difficult to know with any "official" certainty whether records have been exceeded or not, it seems that blogs and wishful thinking is applied as much as suggested updates using magazines and other sources which suggest someone has exceeded the faster through time.

It would be helpful to discuss proposed changes here first so that editors are not reverting possible legitimate citations and references. It does look like this year there are a number of contenders who might very well have exceeded records, to get those people and their times recognized, discussion here would be helpful

Revision as of 01:07, 23 September 2016 (edit) 2a02:1812:172b:5300:645f:45a8:5e99:e34b (talk) (I added a few references. In the end, the only tracking information available is the athlete's, just as for any previous record. This attempt is extremely well documented. I think the article is balanced by mentioning the debate on the record.)

Latest revision as of 06:01, 23 September 2016 (edit) (undo) (thank) Hike395 (talk | contribs) (→‎Notable hikers: statement that it is "well accepted" not supported by reliable sources, and is contradicted by trailrunner magazine)

As he followed all the official alternates and his total mileage even exceeded the standard karelsabbe.com, his record is now widely accepted as being the current FKT (Fastest Known Time) for the PCT.

The comment about "widely accepted" not being a suitable reference or citation is a good one, log book records along the trail should help to confirm, and until there is a legitimate review of the records with photocopies, perhaps, of the log entries, I think we should hold off a bit -- unless an editor wants to word the proposed change to note that the record breaking is as yet unconfirmed.Damotclese (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)