Describe your ideal guidebook...

[DSettahr]

I'm curious as to what people want to see in hiking guidebooks. What do you look for in selecting a guidebook, and what qualities of guidebooks that you've used have you found to be really beneficial?

Would you rather have a guidebook that was in depth and detailed, and maybe a bit bigger and heavier, or would you rather have a guidebook that was a bit more concise, perhaps sticking only to descriptions of the main routes in order to save on size and weight?

How important is it to have a separate map that goes along with the guidebook? Is it ok if the guidebook just has maps printed on the pages?

Is it important to have lots of pictures in a guidebook, or should the descriptions in the writing be able to stand on their own?

Do you look for guidebooks that have a lot of supplemental material- i.e., suggested itineraries, a how-to section on hiking and camping techniques, etc., or do you just want the bear bones description of the trails?

What about historical context- is it important to you that guidebooks contain information about the history of the areas you hike through? Do you like to see this mixed in with the trail descriptions, or should it be confined to its own section?

Can you name some examples of guidebooks you've used in the past, and why you do or don't like them?

And finally, feel free to mention anything else!

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[brianW]

More important to me is a good map. If it is with a guide it has to be a pull out. A map that has mileage on it, views, outlooks, water falls marked, what type of trail use (hikers, mt bikes, horses etc.) and it water proof. I find guide trail descriptions very widely from one guide to another.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...Inquiring minds want to know!

Are you thinking of writing one? Enquiring minds and all that ...

The best format is the one used by the WMG. A touch of history, but it does not swamp the reader like the High Peaks guide does.

 

[Neil]

My ideal guidebook is a topo map. No verbiage and lots of imagery.

The primary benefits of a guide book are accurate driving instructions to trail heads. I'm not interested in anything else.

 

[StaceyM]

The primary benefits of a guide book are accurate driving instructions to trail heads. I'm not interested in anything else.

Reason #1 why I hate the AMC Catskills guide/map. The parking areas are not accurate and there is very little in the guidebook about them. Also it's written in kind of a negative tone - lots of complaining about trail conditions and features which is odd for a book on hiking.

Anyway, in addition to pull-out maps that are accurate the two things I use the most are mileage numbers between junctions and book times. I like when there are book time breakdowns between trail junctions, as found in the Smoky Mountains guidebook.

 

[TomK]

I have the current WMG as well as '76, '79, and I think '87 (or is it '89?). I like the size of the earlier guides - easy to hold, and even flip through with one hand. The newer guide seems twice as large as the older ones. The '76 is hardcover, I prefer the softcover ones. I do like the time/elevation info in the newer guide, and it seems more complete as to milage/time between trail intersections. The older guides seemed to have a lot of trail descriptions where the only time or distance was start to finish, and frequently just the milage. While I carry only the recent guide on a hike, I usually read the relevant trail descriptions in the older guides before I head north.

I also have the Connecticut Walk Book (Western CT). It is looseleaf, so I can take out just the pages I need, stuff 'em in a plastic page protector, and only carry the pages I need. The maps are also just pages in the book, more like strip maps. Handy to carry, but you miss the surrounding context. Unfortunately I find the descriptions in the book kind of terse and not as helpful as the ones in the WMG.

TomK

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I have:

The AMC WMG Guide, 27th ed.
The AMC Maine Mountain Guide, 9th ed.
The AMC Southern NH Trail Guide, 2nd ed.
The GMC Long Trail Guide
The GMC Day Hiker's Guide to VT

My primary use is to find trail heads (Note: VT/GMC books are not that great for this purpose...) I will read the trail description before hiking if it is an area I am unfamiliar with. Stream crossings and seasonal hazards are of particular note. I like to know what the name of a rock or stream or feature is when I get to it.

I use the GMC Long Trail map and the Map Adventures White Mountain map for all my hiking (I used the included AMC map for Maine when in Rangeley last summer.)

I will say that I rarely read the WMG any more - the exception is if I go somewhere completely new, or a new 4K trail when I have the family along. Not being much of a bushwhacker (sorry, Neil) I find the maps are really only useful for naming distant peaks and I don't need them any more for the Whites.

I rarely take a guide book with me on a trip. I have learned that while I am on the trail, there just isn't anything critical in the guide book. A map with mileage is more than sufficient for making mid-hike decisions or changes (something I very rarely do.)

Tim
p.s. Hi TomK!

 

[Jaytrek57]

Great post:

Thinking outside the North East. I would have to say Falcon Guides are the most "books" I have. (30 plus books) I find them to be pretty complete, accurate "camp" and " points of interest". Easy to read as well.

I complement with gov. topo maps.

Peace.

 

[Chugach001]

SuperTopo guidebooks are the gold standard for climbing guides. The new ADK climbing guide is very similar. SuperTopo also has PDF downloads as an option so you can print the topo and head off without the big book.

Many guidebooks are written by locals and I find them a bit exclusionary. They seem written for folks with local knowledge by folks with local knowledge. We don't all know where the big rock is on coon-holler road. These books are not welcome mats to show others the local bounty. I get it - but, really, what's the purpose? To act superior to the big city people and snicker when they get lost?

When I have time to understand an area better (near home), I can value the mystery and nuance of descriptions. When on vacation, I want something that is very clear and concise. When my objective is a long dark-to-dark day, I don't have time to figure out nuances or be flustered by cute local humor.

 

[billski]

I used guidebooks when I was just starting out. I use guidebooks today to figure out where the crowds are apt to be and avoid them. Then again, I'm an explorer at heart. I agree with Neil. Not dissin' anyone's method. Whatever works for you, and you end your day with a smile on your face. That's all that matters.

 

[peakbagger]

I remember a thread on VFTT regarding the complaints of a new hiker that the AMC guide did not describe the location of all the toilets along the trail and at the trailheads No matter what, everyone will want different features.
I expect from a commercial point of view the folks most likely to buy guides are new hikers and tourists, therefore I expect that is where most guides are focused. Dan Doanes 50 hikes series was always a good book to use for new hikers but experienced hikers didnt have much use for them.

MATC made the step years ago for the AT guide to Maine to make the guide redundant by printing the descriptions on the back of the map. The guide is more a reference book than something that would be brought on the trail. They also switched to maps on synthetic basestock early on which makes infinite sense for maps used in the field.

I tend to want a simple guide listing trails, trailhead location, distances to intersections, list of potential "special" features and potential problem spots. I generally dont need a blow by blow description of the trail route. Generally the AMC guide book committee gets a good balance in my estimation, although the switch in size and the inclusion of double sets of distances for mathematically challenged folks who cant subtract was a downgrade. I must admit I am two editions behind currently.

I must admit, I really hate maps printed in books or on fold out pages. The Old Long trail guides were especially annoying (I havent bought one lately). Some of the maps in the older editions of the WMG were quite useless. There used to be a north country map showing everything north of Rt 2 to the candian border in Black and White with contour lines bound into the guide. Anyone trying to use that map was in seriuous trouble.

While prepping for a trip to Banff (the ill fated VFTT gathering that never was), someone suggested the "Dont waste your time guides to Banff" . It was necessarilly opinionated but did appear to give a good background to the area and why certain trails were better than others and why. Locals probably regarded it as too much but for someone not familiar with the area they appeared to be great.

 

[roadtripper]

The best guidebooks have some or all of these qualities:

~ all chapters are field-checked by the actual author for EACH edition published (this is not always done and leads to major errors)
~ have information on elevation gain (if maps also have terrain lines, that's a huge bonus)
~ clearly let you know what the "premier" or most fantastic chapters/hikes are (many guidebooks fail at this in my opinion)
~ are NOT compiled from multiple authors with different styles (this is very annoying is commonly found with guidebooks that cover vast areas)
~ the author puts his or her personal feelings into each chapter of the book (some guidebooks are too monotone)
~ when guidebooks intentionally leave out a few of the smaller details so that even though you are fully prepared for the hike, there are still a few surprises (i.e. swimming holes, wildflowers, blueberries to pick, etc.)
~ there are rating systems in place (i.e. 10/10 for scenery, 8/10 for difficulty)
~ at least one photo for each chapter (mine fails at this )
~ I love charts in the front or appendixes in the back that organize hikes into various categories
~ I also enjoy guidebooks that suggest "second tier" trips (i.e. hikes that don't get their own chapter but get a special mention)
~ directions need to be as clear as possible. Absolutely no reference to anything that could be removed or no longer exist by the time a user takes the book and heads out on a trip (i.e. take a right at the second white house....ya, well, that house ain't white anymore!)
~ guidebook mentions potential impacts that may affect driving directions or trail information (i.e. area prone to grizzly closures, fire closures; road may be in horrible shape in early spring, etc.)

All trail descriptions should be written in the style format of the WMG in my opinion. Steve Smith has absolutely mastered this. His style of rating the scenic value (i.e. views are "excellent" vs "great" vs "good") and difficulty is spot-on 99.999996% of the time.

 

[dug]

A map. .

 

[JNewell]

Well, good maps, but that doesn't answer the question. I bought my first WGM in 1972...couldn't find a 1969 edition used back then. I have every edition since then and a few older ones I've picked up in recent years. Size...size is everything. The last packable edition was the 1987 version. The 25th was small format but too thick and everything since then has required a wheels kit. What I have seriously considered doing, but haven't yet, is sectioning the WMG with a knife by chapters. I'd pay extra for a WMG that was paper-bound in chapters rather than in a single volume. As it is, I just make photocopies, double-sided, and take the relevant pages with me. Not ideal, but pretty workable for our needs and uses.

 

[Ridgewalker]

I'd prefer something that could be stowed easily in one's pack. That has been rare occurrence, but when my dad, brother, and I hiked together, we took the AMC book, which was helpful for last minute planning.

The local lore is great for spotting historical features on the trails and the nomenclature of the area.

Maps need to be durable, the new AMC ones are nearly in pieces.

 

[Peakbagr]

Mostly my guide books sit on a shelf in my office. For an area I'm completely unfamiliar with or haven't visited in a long time, I'll take a look. A good guide should have excellent maps, trail head directions, effective index, and a summary of mileage and elevation.
If it's a bushwhack, the guide is usually unnecessary as I use a good map and the guide to get to where I'll park.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...Maps need to be durable, the new AMC ones are nearly in pieces.

I doubt that's accidental. My hunch is the marketing strategy is to have you buy the Tyvek version separately. Personally - if were up to me (and it isn't) - I would charge a bit more for the guide, and include the Tyvek version. If a goal of the AMC is to promote safety, then a paper map for use in real-life conditions does not promote that goal.

 

[sierra]

I like guidebooks that have the small maps printed on the pages along with the text for that map, aka. gerry Roaches guide to the 14ers in CO. Although I will also say not that Ive used one in years the WMG has always been well done and in that case Ill make an exception, the pull out maps where very usefull when I started hiking as young flatlander.

 

[Elizabeth]

I generally will read a guide book description ahead of time; but carry only the map on the hike itself. So a separate map is key.

Personally, I am less interested in someone's idea of their 50 or 100 favorites. I'd rather have a comprehensive guide of all of the public trails in a particular geographic area. It is helpful if the authors include their impressions of each route, giving enough description to match the challenges to the abilities of the group, but then leave it up to me to decide on what is "best."

As others have mentioned, also important are good descriptions for how to get to the trailhead (or launch site for a paddling guide).

 

[Puma concolor]

One that includes post-Irene updates.