So. It has come to my attention that most Appalachian Trail hikers nowadays don’t carry maps.
That’s right, folks. No maps, just the guidebook.
Are they crazy??
I get it. Maps are expensive: it costs over a hundred dollars to buy all the maps for the entire trail. Maps add a few extra ounces to your pack weight. And, of course, the trail is extremely well-marked. Theoretically you can have an excellent thru-hike with no maps, just following the white blazes and the AT hiker’s companion guide.
Theoretically.
The guidebook is excellent if you are doing a classic hike — it tells you distances between shelters, towns, and a few nearby water sources. Sounds perfect, right? Tells you just about everything you need to know…if you want to hike by numbers just like the rest of the pack.
A map will save your ass.
If you hike the trail and nothing ever goes wrong during your hike, then yes, you can absolutely hike by the numbers as long as you stay on the trail and only get off it where the guidebooks show you places to get off.
But I wouldn’t risk it. 2009 is, by all accounts, probably going to be a drought year. Many of the guidebook-listed water sources will be dried up. You can hike to the next listed water source, often miles away, you can hike backwards to the last one (and trust me, you’ll never meet a hiker who wants to do that), or you can check out your map to see if there is something else nearby — usually only a few tenths of a mile out of your way. Flash floods are another example — if you can’t ford a river that’s on the trail, you have no choice but to wait for it to pass if you don’t have a map. There are plenty of examples like this. Having a map will save you plenty of unnecessary hiking and waiting.
Not convinced? A map’s not just for emergencies.
This is a once in a lifetime experience. Oftentimes, the nicest views and the most beautiful places are off the beaten path, and a map is invaluable if you want to follow those blue-blazed paths. With the standard guidebooks there will be plenty of things out there that are not listed, that you will walk past and later be disappointed that you missed. They are not listed because you don’t need them to hike from A to B. But sometimes it is nice to know what is on those side roads or trails that could be helpful, interesting, or fun.
Guidebook hikers can’t go anywhere off-trail for fear of losing it. Why limit yourself this way?
Do yourself a favor, folks. Buy a set of maps. The weight penalty is minimal, and it’ll probably save you plenty of headaches along the way.
The publisher thanks you for laying out the reasons so well.
Andrea, you make me think about GPS. You say hikers do not use maps, or at least more and more of them are not. Is this because of, like you say, cost or weight issues? I can see cost. Weight is circumspect. Which leads me to wonder: Could they be using GPS in place of maps and, if so, how might that work. A possible future post?