Talk:John Muir Trail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Hiking Trails, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to hiking trails. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


Contents

[edit] Records for hiking the JMT?

Putting aside the question of whether hiking the JMT at a fast clip in order to obtain a "record" is a worthwhile endeavor (I see these "record holders" staring at the top of their boots for 211 miles instead of enjoying the scenery), I would like to know where the "Records" section of this article came from. It says that Reinhold Metzger did it "unresupplied" in 5 days 7 Hours 45 minutes (no seconds!) and Kevin Sawchuck did it "resupplied" 3 days 21 hours 5 minutes (again, no seconds!). This section is unsourced. Who clocked Metzger's and Sawchuck's starting times? Who was there to make sure they didn't cut out of the trail at Tome's Place and hitch-hike to Yosemite? I would like to remove this section until such time as somebody can source the brave exploits of speed-hikers Metzger and Sawchuck. Hashaw 16:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Hashaw's deletion: An inability to grasp the concept of human endeavor throughout mankinds entire history is not sufficient reason for Hashaw to delete the records section for the John Muir trail. However, a failure to provide adequate sourcing "possibly" is. Man is a competitive animal. Its part of his being. Once you've hiked the JMT 7 times (like Metzger before his record) what's wrong with going for speed. [User:asandh] 10:20am, 18 July 2007.

[edit] Section under dispute

Unsupported, without resupply - Michael Popov (4 days, 5 hours, 25 minutes)

Supported, with resupply - Sue Johnson (3 days, 20 hours)

"Unsupported" means that runner has to carry all the needed food, water and supplies from the very beginning to the very end. Having someone help the runner in any physical way, asking, paying, begging for food/water/supplies consitutes fraud and disqualifies the runner from the attempt. The usual pack weight ranges from 17 to 21 lbs. This is done in a fastpacking tradition of travel rather than pure running, although many sections are run through with up to 15 miles of running per day.

"Supported" means that runner has crew support that helps with food, water, shelter, and medical problems. The usual pack weight is 6 to 12 lbs, and the runner travels from point to point where crew can meet him/her along the way, usually at road crossings. The key element is having a pack as light as possible to facilitate fastest travel between crew stops.

In both scenarios the sleep is minimized in favor of covering greater distance, total sleep time can range anywhere from 6 hours to 16 hours for the whole trail.

The traditional unsupported route goes from the top of Mt. Whitney to Yosemite Valley. At Tuolumne Meadows it follows a modern southern route skirting two crossings of a busy highway and avoiding running through parking lots.

The traditional supported route starts at Whitney Portal, climbs to Mt. Whitney and goes to Yosemite Valley from there. It adds another 11 miles to the distance. In addition, at Tuolumne Meadows it follows an older route that crosses Highway 120 twice where it is logistically easier to have a crew and which adds yet another 7/10 miles to the distance.

The means of confirming the time on the trail and at the finish are numerous:

a) a notebook, which hikers would sign verifying that they met the runner at specific locations on the trail at specific times.

b) an audio recorder that records the hikers verifications.

c) a video taken of hikers verifying times and locations.

I agree with Hashaw --- we need to verify this with a reliable source before we can include this in an article. What citation can we provide for this? hike395 14:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Will newspaper articles or a feature in a Backpacker magazine be a reliable source? 69.236.80.90 17:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably yes --- to find out more about what are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia, please click on the words "reliable source", above. hike395 02:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] speed record verification

Here's the article published in Sacramento Bee, paper and online version: http://www.fresnobee.com/371/story/106874.html 69.236.80.90 04:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, we've verified Popov's record, and the definition of unsupported. Given that it is disputed, we still need references for Sue Johnson, the definition of supported, the route taken, and the method to avoid cheating. Can you find other references? We can put these facts back in as they are verified. Thanks! hike395 15:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)\

[edit] Whitney Portal or the Summit for Speed Records

Yes, the JMT officially starts at the Whitney summit. But how many hikers get a helicopter ride to or from the summit. For all practical purposes, the JMT begins at Whitney Portal. There is no "tradition" of starting speed attempts from the summit. While speed hikes have been done for decades, they were obscure and nobody really cared until Metzger began doing his record attempts from the summit in 2003. That's tradition? There is documentation of speed hikes as far back as 1988 from Whitney Portal. Popov's 2007 speed record is amazing. But in light of how the Whitney area portion was done, and especially because of the fragile nature of this over used area, I think Whitney Portal should be declared the southern terminus of the JMT for all record purposes. This would mean a fast pass thru of the area by speed hikers and a minimum of ecological impact. It would also ensure that the true spirit of the Unsupported-Unresupplied concept is adhered to. [User:asandh] 10:48am, 28 Nov 2007.

Sadly, we here at Wikipedia can't declare one or the other place a terminus, because that would be original research. If you can find reliable sources that indicate Whitney Portal is the true terminus, then it is OK to add to the article. Thanks. hike395 (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In your admirable determination to be neutral, I think you missed the point. By declaration the U.S. Govt has made the southern terminus the Whitney summit. I am merely trying to engage speed hikers in a discussion that will hopefully end with another "artificial" declaration of Whitney Portal as the southern terminus for speed purposes in order to reduce environmental impact. Perhaps this is not the best forum for the discussion.[User:asandh] 11:48am, 29 Nov 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asandh (talk • contribs) 19:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] external link removed as spam

This site offers valuable and interesting information on the John Muir Trail. It is delivered in a visual format that is intertaining and informative. I think it would be of benefit to Wikipedia viewers. I tried posting it but it was promptly removed as spam. Please give this site another look. Wikboyboy (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Any one can google image search "John Muir Trail" and see pictures, the site fails the External links policy. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your site(s). Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Wikboyboy and IP 67.117.26.73, consist entirely of adding external links to your sites and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be muirtrail.com related only. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising", and edits such as this where you move your link to the "top" is surely problematic. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote your site right? --Hu12 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


Well done! Your in depth argument has taught this Wikipedia newbie a lot. I apologize for my crass commercialism and admit to a conflict of interest. Your use of hyperlinks is both informative and impressive, although you forgot one, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I agree with you, that the goal is to improve Wikipedia. So, the bottom line is, would this site add value to Wikipedia or not? I will leave that decision to you and others as I am admittedly biased. Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is. I’m not interested in Wikilawyering and will make no further argument. I assume by your continuous and strong argument that you have at least visited the site.? Wikboyboy (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means
  • "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche.
  • "Ignore all rules" is not an answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule.
  • "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia. (see post above)
See also Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not--Hu12 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you visit the site? Would it be of benefit to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikboyboy (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Does not provide a unique resource, any one can google image search "John Muir Trail" and see pictures--Hu12 (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words you have not visited the site. Wikboyboy (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, it's not a benefit to Wikipedia--Hu12 (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for a little soul searching on The Mega-Spamstar of Glorys part. Is there a conflict of interest here? Is your motivation to gain kudos and badges for spam busting or the goal of making Wikipedia a comprehensive and accurate encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.206.159 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site. The goal of all legitamate wikipedians is to build a better encyclopedia and prevent abuse such exploitation as illustrated below. Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion.
Accounts
Wikboyboy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
67.117.26.73 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
67.126.206.159 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
--Hu12 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments although numerous, are weak. You are attempting to raise "guidelines" to the the level of cast-in-stone policy. You claim something is wrong if an editor only edits the topic he/she is knowledgable about. What we are seeing here in Hu12's actions is a good example of Fanatic Editing. I invite others to weigh in on this discussion. Would this site add value to Wikipedia or not? External hyperlinks can add pages of value while only using a single line of space on Wikipedia. Because of that an online encylopedia can be comprehensive and is not limited by its pages alone. I think it is time we heard from others, Hu12 and I have made or points. Wikboyboy (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents worth. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build content, not to link to content elsewhere. If someone has content that they think would be beneficial to encyclopedia writers then the best thing for the project is for them to donate the material. There's a sister project, Wikicommons, specially created to hold free media. Material hosted on other websites is far less useful. In the case of collections of travel or hiking photos, there are many sites. We tend to remove links to all of them because if we allowed one then every site would demand equal treatment. This particular site has many lovely pictures, but they tend toward being scenic rather than informative. I notice that the pictures are being offered for sale, which gives the site the appearance of a commercial venture. So, for several reasons, I think it's best if we don't include this link or others like it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Will Beback", thank you for your comments. I see that you actually visited the site in question! Your comments appear unbiased and are fairly stated. If no other editors step forward in favor of inclusion then I accept your conclusions. Thank you for taking the time to review the discussion and the external link.Wikboyboy (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding ascent and descent miles

The article states the total length of the trail is 211 horizontal + 16 vertical = 227 miles. Doesn't this addition assume that all movement on the trail is either purely horizontal or purely vertical? 206.124.146.40 (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The information should be removed, since the person who made the edit is not familiar with the Pythagorean theorem.--71.240.77.210 (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, the problem of integration elevation change into the path length is more complicated than either simple addition or Pythagorean addition. The true contribution would be something less than 16 miles but likely greater than the figure calculated using the Pythagorean.--Nathan Clement (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)