After dealing with a lot of wet feet issues I have learned some tricks.

Keeping feet dry While hiking, use gaitors that come above your socks and divert water away from the wicking material.

Keep your boots well oiled, using a product like Nikwax, or minkoil.

This keeps the leather from absorbing water as much.

In normal conditions (not marsh hiking) use baking soda or similar powder to absorb the natural sweat from your feet.

There are impermeable "bags" you can put over you foot while wearing a liner sock, then put your foot into a medium weight sock.

The bag keeps out water, but also keeps in sweat.

Note that once the humidity within the bag reaches 100% your foot will stop sweating.

Getting feet dry, after being wet.

Carry extra shoes in any backcountry travel which breath well, and are light.

Keep them totally dry through the day in a bag.

My favorite are crocs, because they are simple, light, and cannot absorb water.

Keep one pair of socks for sleeping, and nothing else.

The best material for these are full synthetic, not wool or cotton, since the polyester cannot absorb water.

Provide enough time for your feet to completely dry out each night.

Don't go tromping around camp in your "dry" socks, they are for the tent and sleeping bag only.

Drying Wet Socks Place them around your neck, or over your chest and they will be dry in the moring.

If you are a heavy sweater wear a silk weight shirt and pants to absorb and wick moisture, or place socks on top of sleeping bag.

Hang socks from "in tent" drying line if the air temperature is high and humidity is low.

If not the socks will not dry at all.

Carry extra socks and a couple of kitchen-sized trash bags.

When you soak a shoe or boot, squeeze out the wet sock and let it start drying on the back of the pack.

Put on a dry sock.

Then put the trash back over the dry sock, and put your foot, sock, and trash bag inside your wet shoe.

After a while your shoe will dry out a little, maybe enough that you no longer need the trash bag to keep your dry sock dry.

However, wearing a trash bag in your shoe is very stylish, so you might want to leave it on.

Wearing trash bags like this also works if you find yourself in wet snow without waterproof shoes.

This is one of the reasons I always hike with at least one extra pair of socks and tend to wear shoes that shed water quickly as opposed to being water proof.

If you're in a consistently wet environment there really isn't much you can do as it won't really help to change your socks every 10 minutes as they keep getting soaked.

Just make sure that when you take breaks or camp, you give your feet plenty of time to dry out.

Do your best to wring out your socks and do what you can to dry them out before putting it all back on again.

know if you will be going through marshy areas.

If you are hiking in the Everglades, pack more socks than if you will be hiking through the Sahara.

If you have to cross a river, try to not cross in your boots.

There is a favorite trail in my area, and it ends with crossing a waist-deep river.

I'll drop pack, change into my trail-sandals, stuff the socks into my boots and tie them onto my pack.

After that crossing, I typically don't change back as the car is less than 1/4 mile away, but otherwise I would change back to boots on the other side of the river.

In wet areas (lots of stream crossings, or squishy trails), every rest stop starts with taking off the boots, removing the insoles and taking off socks.

Everything goes into the sun, while I'm resting in the shady.

If my feet are still wet towards the end of the break, I'll wipe down my feet with a bandana before getting put back together.

In general conditions, I'll 2 pairs of liners, 2 pairs of outer socks, and will alternate between days.

However, if there will be a day 7 of walking, I'll bring an extra pair of liners and outer socks which will then enter the rotation somewhere around day 5.

Hang yesterday/

tomorrow's socks on the outside of your pack to help them dry.

You could easily skip the extra liners since they tend to dry as quickly as you can pull them out of wash-water.

if all else fails, you could take a day with short miles and hike in your "in camp" shoes which should be dry and will help your boots/socks dry.

Overboots are a solution I don't see above.

Some fabric based ones take up less space in the pack than an extra set of boots, and they can be taken off relatively easily when the rain abates or when you have cleared a marshy area.

In warm weather on reasonable trails, Vibram Fivefinger shoes are quite comfortable even when wet, because when sized properly they have no opportunity to slide against your skin.

They are small, light, and pack quite easily or can be clipped to your bag or belt.

Question: Say for instance I'm walking on boggy ground, I find a small muddy hole or some other minor tragedy that leaves one or both of my feet soaking wet and caked in mud. What is the best way to deal with this on a long hike, so as to avoid getting athlete's foot/blisters?

How to deal with wet feet?

Many approaches can be used to prevent wet feet, including alternating between 2 pairs of liners and socks, and carrying extra shoes and socks. Use gaiters to keep water away, oil /treat boots and/or use overboots. Once your feet get wet, change socks and start drying the wet socks on the back of your pack. Baking soda or similar can also be used to absorb sweat from your feet.

Overboots, packing extra socks, liners and shoes can help. Keeping feet dry and boots well-oiled is good, baking soda can absorb sweat from your feet.

Packing extra socks, shoes and liners is helpful.

Keeping feet dry and boots well-oiled helps. Baking soda can be used to absorb sweat from your feet.


Our family are members of the NRA.

If you're interested at all in where to hunt in the US, I would recommend both NRA online articles and their search tool here: National Rifle Association

The list includes locations and regulations for public hunting lands in just about every state.

The best way I have found, assuming you are in the USA, is to go to that state's DNR website.

They will have a map with all public land and what can be harvested from that land.

This

I found to be the most helpful starting point for finding public land.

From there the most helpful person you can find would be a local DNR agent.

They spend their time on the public land and are aware of the signs that a species is in abundance and if it is a good place to hunt.

Most regulars near public land will not be as helpful as you think because you are basically competing against them for the same resources.

They might say oh try "blah blah" but they most likely won't tell you specific places.

You would have better luck being friendly to a DNR field agent.

UPDATE:

If you a specifically looking to pay for the land one of the best places to check is craigslist.

When you do this a good question to ask is if you are going to be the only one hunting the land or if they are rent to multiple people on separate weekends.

It may cost more the get it exclusively but the game you are hunting will be less pressured and you should then have better luck.

Most of the National Forests are open to hunting -- but check first -- whereas most of the National Parks are not.

Ask Google. "public hunting land statename " will get some good references.

Also, most vacant property administered by the Corps of Engineers is open to hunting.

Your best bet is asking enthusiasts, and you can find those simply by visiting your local guns and ammo store.

They generally get all the best insider knowledge as they are (probably) hunters themselves

and they talk with their customers.

Probably the best, but not the cheapest solution is to get a GPS with a hunting map overlay.

These will show all sorts of things like, Hunting area boundaries Public lands Private land open to hunting (Walk-in areas)

Who owns what private land.

This can be useful is you have permission from one landowner, as the map will show what land that landowner owns.

It can also be useful when asking for permission.

See some of the different options here .

Question: Are there any good resources out there for locating publicly available hunting land?  UPDATE: I should have stated that I'm looking for land in the US.  Also, I'm interested in any public land (government owned or otherwise).  Preferably, this land would be free to use, but depending on the circumstances I'd be willing to pay a fee.  I hope this helps clear up a few things.

Resources for finding public hunting land

Available hunting land can be identified using GPS with a hunting map overlay, NRA online articles, state DNR websites, or simply using Google. Asking other enthusiasts is a good way to find information. Most national Forests are open to hunting, as is most vacant property administered by the Corps of Engineers.

You should ask enthusiasts, though most National Forests and vacant Corps of Engineers properties are open to hunting. GPS, Google, NRA and DNR websites may be consulted.

Google searches, GPS, NRA and DNR websites can be helpful.

Most national forests are open to hunting, as are vacant Corps of Engineers properties. You should ask enthusiasts.


There’s no better hiking excercise than hiking :)

Seriously, if you can walk to work, with your dog, to the shop, do it.

Regularly.

If you have some time during the weekend, go out for a few kilometers.

Running is also fun, and depending on the weather where you live, you could easily run through the whole year.

Running will build up some strength in your feet and prepare your whole body to take the load, especially the heart and the lungs.

Swimming works like that, too.

I’d certainly take any “natural” activity rather than stay in the gym (but that’s

just my opinion, of course).

Train by hiking, start small, do it every week.

After my injury, when I could not hike, I started by hiking less than a mile, but I did it every week.

Even only once a week, this will help.

Pick a trail that's a length just a little hard for you.

This is best if you have a nearby park with lots of interlocking trails.

Interlocking is good because you can mix and match the path to increase distance.

Increase distance before you increase weight.

I would not recommend adding weight until you can hike 5 miles comfortably.

Once you get to 5 miles, start carrying an empty pack.

Next add your layer clothes (maybe it's cool enough for a jacket, but not needed when you warm up)

Next add just a water bladder for drinking.

To the extent that you can, I recommend packing things you will actually hike with.

One, the weight is more representative, and two, the weight is going to be dispersed more realistically for actual hiking.

If you train with other things in your pack just for weight you are more likely to train for a pack that's off balance.

Buy and learn how to use hiking poles.

They really do help, even starting out.

If at all possible, exercise doing something you like, or in a place you like.

If training is just misery you go through to learn to hike

, you're less likely to train (and hike).

Pick the day, time, and place that you are least likely to skip every week.

Pick someone to go with you who will encourage you to never miss a hike.

If you seriously overweight, I would suggest first shedding the pounds by taking up swimming.

This will greatly reduce the strain on your knees.

As others have mentioned, the best exercise you can get is simply hiking.

To train for weight, it's recommended to fill the backpack with water or sand that can be thrown out at the top to prevent knee injuries.

If you live in the flatlands like I do, there's not much elevation changes.

The closest in the gym is to use an incline treadmill or a stepmill.

I've even filled up a bag with weights to use on the stepmill.

As for specific weightlifting exercises, hiking requires a lot of lower body strength and endurance.

Various squats and deadlifts can help strengthen your quads, hamstrings, glutes, and back.

General cardio (running, biking, or swimming) is always helpful since it'll build endurance, and if you can shave some pounds off your body, that's less weight

you have to carry.

Alpine Ascents has a training program to prepare for Denali, which, while a little bit overboard for hiking, still shares the same concepts.

Body Results also has provides some mountaineering training DVDs which also share similar concepts.

Like others have said, the best training to hike is hiking.

If you are concerned about being able to climb large vertical distances (mountains?), try climbing stairs.

I don't mean the stair-climber at the gym (although it does help), but put on a pack with weight and find a tall building.

Clear this with any security the building may have (or management/owner), and climb the fire stairs for a half hour.

Once your body starts to acclimate to the challenge, increase the time that you climb the stairs.

It all depends on how far you want to hike!

Its probably good to do stretching before any exercise such as hiking or running!

Lunges and squats may also help as well.

Although you may look a bit silly in the gym, you could carry a backpack on a treadmill and use it on an incline to strengthen your legs.

I would also considering doing short burst of jogging as well to get your endurance levels up.

Question: I've not had much opportunity to go hiking for any decent distance recently and I feel the next time I do my body will probably complain a lot. However, I've access to a gym with a lot of equipment so what exercises and equipment should I be using regularly to ensure my first hike back is lacking in pain?

What exercises are recommended to build strength for hiking?

There’s no better hiking excercise than hiking :). Start small and do it every week

Hiking is the best exercise, you can start small.


I doubt a definitive list exists.

But here is an algorithm to create your own list: What altitude-based things make climbing a peak require gear?

At what altitude do problems in step 1 start occurring?

What non-altitude-based problems might cause a climb to require gear?

What peaks nearest me are this height or less?

Here are my personal answers to those questions:

Snow and Oxygen are the altitude-based problems in mountaineering.

At 20,000 feet (6 km) or taller, most peaks are covered in ice all year round.

At 16,000 feet (4.9 km)

there is so little oxygen you need to take several days to acclimate.

Glaciers, steep trails, and scrambles so steep there are no trails

mean you have to break out crampons and/or rope.

These days I refuse to do anything that includes the word "Crevasse".

Look on Mountain Project .

Sure,

you can hike Kilimanjaro (~20k ft / 6 km) without any gear.

But it takes like a week to get acclimated to the lack of oxygen; how annoying!

So, in my opinion, pick peaks under 16,000 ft (4.9 km) and hike in the Summer.

If you live in the continental US, all peaks outside of Alaska are under 14,500 ft (4.4 km).

If you're in Western Europe

it's the same deal, there are no peaks over 4.9 km (16,000 ft).

So look on Mountain Project for all the mountains near you and see if they have permanent glacier-cover.

That will require crampons.

See if other hikers break out rope because the top is crazy steep with sharp drop-offs.

Nothing to it, just read descriptions of the hike before you head out.

People will say if they think gear was required.

Referring to @theJollySin's answer: In Europe the mountains aren't that high

but you still have to go over glaciers on most routes to the high summits.

So you need to learn some basic safety/rope skills.

And you can find really tough routes on smaller mountains, so you just have to read tour descriptions and check the difficulty level.

You need to search for a F-rated tour without going over ice (risk of crevasses).

Some guide books also mark tours/routes which are solely going over rock, so this would be more the style of tour you have to search for.

This is hiking on high altitudes.

If you go really high (above 4000m or even 5000m), like being said, you need some time/experience to acclimate.

And I guess there aren't lots of summits on these high altitudes which are technically that easy.

Kilimanjaro is a good example of a big but technically easy tour.

Mount

Ararat might be interesting too, also in terms of history and culture.

There's a book published by Cicerone called 'Europe's High Points' which lists the highest peak in each country, and provides a pretty good description on how to climb them.

There are plenty of easier ones to go at, as well as some more technical peaks (e.g. Mont Blanc)

I haven't seen anything like the Scottish guide books we have for Munros - the tallest mountains in Scotland, but as Scottish mountains are relatively small compared to mountains in the Andes, Alps, Rockies, Snowy Mountains, Himalayas etc but still have a lot of dangerous climbs, I wouldn't want to guess at how few large mountains are scramble-able (if we exclude Kilimanjaro, for example)

According to Wikipedia : Aconcagua is arguably the highest non-technical mountain in the world, since the northern route does not absolutely require ropes, axes, and pins.

Of course, non-technical means just that.

It is still difficult and dangerous, as mountains always are.

It's nearly 7 km (6,961 metre) above sea level.

It's an expedition that may take around three weeks not including acclimitisation time.

There will be very little oxygen, even if you acclimatise at 5,000 metre for weeks you'll still suffer from altitude sickness.

Cold weather exposure is common and kills people every year.

Don't underestimate the mountain just because you may not need ropes or axes.

If you consider weather and oxygen conditions on Aconcagua to be to harsh for your list, then there is no definitive list, for the impact of weather and oxygen is gradual.

What mountain does or doesn't need mountaineering experience is relative.

Question: I was wondering if there is a list of the tallest mountains in the world where you can walk or scramble up to the summit? As opposed to using even basic rope skills?

Is there a definitive list of the tallest mountains in the world that require little or no mountaineering experience?

A definitive list may not exist. However, a book published by Cicerone called 'Europe's High Points' which lists the highest peak in each country, and provides a pretty good description on how to climb them.

You are unlikely to find a definitive list, but guide books can be helpful.

There is unlikely to be a definitive list.


CamelBak have a great answer in the help section of their website.

Summarising their recommendations: Keep it clean and dry when not in use.

If mould develops: Use hot water and two tablespoons of baking soda or bleach Leave for about 30 minutes Wash with hot water and mild soap Air dry

I clean it out then leave it to dry for a day or two.

But you can never seem to get all of the water out of the hose, so I keep mine in the freezer.

At -18 the mold can't grow.

Leave the filler cap open to allow any water residue inside to evaporate and so the humidity level of the air inside the bladder matches that of the air in the environment around it

This is why I like the pouches that have a zip-lock bottom as well as a cap on the top - it makes it a lot easier to clean the inside and leave it open to let it fully dry.

My friend also swore by leaving the pouch in the freezer when not in use - this would obviously slow down mould growth considerably in between uses.

I used a blow dryer on low setting to dry the bag and tub, and a paper towel pouch (twist tie close) with rice - I figure if it gets moisture out of a cell phone and salt - it ought to work for a Camelback.

I also save the little silica gel packets that come in vitamin bottles and new shoe boxes and may try those.

I would suggest: leaving the cap open, letting it air dry, then sealing it up and keeping it out of direct sunlight in a dark area (perhaps inside your pack).

When you are ready to use it again,

rinse it

a few times - run some water through the hose as well.

I get food-grade 3% hydrogen peroxide (NOT 35%) from my health-food/ vitamin store and put a cap-ful in any water container then fill it to the brim.

It works really well to kill microbes of all kinds by oxygenating the water, and you can drink it in that low of a concentration (it is used in commercial food preparation, and some people believe that drinking oxygenated water is actually good for you as well).

I just get it mostly dry and then pop it in the freezer until the next use.

This keeps anything from growing and takes 30 seconds and no cost.

I use a reservoir dryer to hang my reservoir open and upside-down, and... Only ever fill with water Empty and dry every night, even if using it the next day After about half an hour of drying pinch the bite valve and shake to remove any extra water, and also shake the reservoir with the opening facing down to remove any water that has collected Pack it all away after about a day, or once things look nice and dry I've been following this approach with the reservoir for the CamelBak

I bought in 2005 is still going strong, with no mould or other nasties inside!

Question: When using a CamelBak (or other hydration bladder system), it is easy for mold to grow if the bladder is left sitting with water in it. What is the best way to avoid mold (or other nasties) growing inside in between trips?

How do you prevent mold in CamelBak hydration bladders?

Clean it, leave the cap open, and leave it to dry. A reservoir dryer can be used to hang the reservoir open and upside down. Some people dry the bag using a hair dryer and bags of rice, or even store the bladder in the freezer to prevent mold growth.

You can air dry, use reservoir dryers, freezers, blow dryers.

Reservoir dryers, freezers and blow dryers can be useful.


The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has topographical maps arranged in the typical 7.5 minute quadrangle format, available for free viewing & download online for all of the US.

Links: USGS

Topo Maps

USGS Map Locator and Downloader

In the UK your best bet is to use the Ordanance Survey website where you can purchase maps: Ordnance Survey .

I've used the getamap feature which is great at creating your own maps!

Which is useful if your hike goes over several map boundaries - often the case in the Lake District!!

You can also use Bing maps which has OS map data down to 25000:1 for the UK!

Google maps is free as in beer but doesn't usually show hiking trails.

Open Street Maps is a free and open source site that works sort of like Wikipedia, and it often has good coverage of hiking trails, but the coverage may be somewhat hit-or-miss.

For example, I've put in some trails for specific areas in California that are near my house or that I've visited.

The problem with both of these is that they don't provide topo maps with contour lines.

Google maps does provide maps with hill shading, although IIRC they make it a hassle to print them, and you can't get features such as a UTM grid.

There are some third parties that provide free topo maps in formats friendly to handheld devices, but I'm not aware of any that give global coverage.

Here are some I know of, with links to a sample area in California so you can compare them.

Stamen : shading but not contours Closed Contour : only covers the Sierra Toposm : US

only If you just want color images of normal paper maps, then usually they can be obtained easily from national governments' web sites.

Examples: US Topo Maps : There are more convenient and better designed third-party portals such as http://libremap.org .

Topo maps with trails are available for some USFS lands from the Forest Service .

UK Ordnance Survey Switzerland Maps : an extremely well designed site Mexico

Topo Maps : theoretically allows you to download maps, but appears to be unusable In my experience, the most practical approach is to get maps on paper, either by buying them or by downloading images and printing them out on a color printer.

This has the advantage that it's cheap or free, and there is coverage of pretty much everywhere that I want to go.

You can get maps with UTM grids on them, or draw in UTM grids.

The UTM grid makes it possible to use them with GPS.

An added advantage of the paper maps is that if your GPS unit isn't working (dead batteries, no satellites visible in the sky because you're in a deep canyon, ...), you can still use them.

Yet another advantage is that they provide much higher resolution than an LCD screen at any given scale.

I use My Topo to order waterproof topo maps to take camping with me.

They also have a good interactive online tool which you can use to find a specific area.

Check this link out: FREE topographic maps and research tools .

It contains this and many more countries: UNITED STATES TOPOZONE.COM

If all sites could be just like topozone.

Topozone has a seamless map of the US at all published USGS scales; 1:24,000, 1:100,000, and 1:250,000, and 1:63,360 for Alaska.

Recent changes to topozone mean that you have to pay ($49.95 per year) for the highest degree of functionality, nonetheless, the free portion of the site is still superior to most of the other topo sites reviewed on this page.

MAPTECH.COM

MapTech shows all USGS quads, all Nautical Charts and Aeronautical Charts for US. and aerial photos TERRASERVER.COM

Terraserver also has the USGS data, and lots of aerial photography.

University of New Hampshire Map Library

HIstoric USGS topos of all of New York and New England 1890-1950.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MAPS

ONLINE

All of the wonderful National Park maps that you get when you enter a park are now available on-line at no charge.

USGS (THEMATIC) MAPS ON DEMAND Thousands of geologic and other thematic maps of the US and territorities available for download.

Bing maps supports topo-maps (in the UK at least and not on the mobile client) via the Ordnance Survey .

I have used the free caltopo.com for my recent trips.

They use 7.5 minute quadrangles and stitch them together seemlessly.

It is possible to create custom maps by creating tracks or import tracks created with Google Earth.

They also have a topographical image overlay for Google Earth , which I have used extensively.

While getting U.S.G.S maps are very good... If you are going to a specific park, check their website and search for trail books with organization that support the park such as the "Friends of [park name]".

These organizations often have special books with limited printing with maps of specific areas in the park.

Examples:

Algonquin Provincial Park has its own set of maps and guidebooks for both hiking and canoeing.

If you go to this park, you must check out those resources.

They are quite extensive.

I think other larger Provincial Parks in Canada also have "Friends" organizations.

Allegheny National Forest has at least two hiking guide books with maps.

The one I used for years was put out with help from the Sierra Club.

The guide books have the U.S.G.S. maps in them with the trails marked.

The maps themselves often don't have the trails marked.

Acadia National Park in Maine has many guidebooks with maps for special areas: the carriage trails, the hiking trails, etc.

So, if you are going to a specific area or park, research like crazy online for sources of maps.

Individuals may have websites with custom maps.

Think outside the box: Birding groups may have their own maps that may show feature not on other maps.

Waterfall groups have their specialty maps.

Geocaching.com has their own maps.

It is better to do some work before you go somewhere

so you are prepared so you can be safe and so you don't miss anything special.

Question: Does anyone know of a good way to find topographical maps for either download or purchase?

Looking for a Topographical map resource?

United States Geological Survey (USGS)  has topographical maps available for  free  viewing & download for all of the US.  Caltopo is also free. Topozone has a seamless map of the US. In the UK, you can buy maps from the Ordnance Survey website. Bing maps also provides OS map data for the UK.

In the USA, USGS and Topo offer maps, whilst OS maps are available for the UK on their website and on Bing.

OS maps are available online for the UK on their website and on Bing.


The options: Smooth oval rocks (from river beds if possible) Snowball Rounded sticks Leaves (as said elsewhere, be careful of which kinds) soft pine cones (relatively rare, but plentiful where they exist!)

handful of grass Carry a piece of cloth specifically designed for this purpose and be sure to do two more things: 1 - Don't use the cloth for anything else, and 2 - Wash it clean as regularly as possible.

Species in the forest will vary by locale.

Here in the Pacific Northwest , Thimbleberry

aka Salmonberry leaves are thick and soft, so they make a good wiping implement.

The subtly-named How to Shit in the Woods is a good primer on this topic.

One option described there is to use urine.

Basically, you hold back the urine until you're done with the bowel movement, then use the pee to wash up.

To clean your hands afterwards, cedar can help.

Take a bite of cedar scales (leaves) straight from a tree.

Chew it up & mix with saliva.

Spit it out on to your hands and rub all over.

In short, leaves.

But as per the comment, make sure it's nothing that's going to cause skin irritations!

Also worth mentioning along the same lines that when doing your business, be sensitive in where you do it - not near

bodies of water people might drink from for instance.

Water is also an option, especially if there are no leaves of desirable properties.

Deeper puddles, streams, etc.

(That you should think twice about consequences for other people goes without saying.)

You can carry an empty water bottle for this purpose, fill it up in some stream when you know you have to go in a while and wash up like in many Asian countries.

I wouldn't recommend doing it in the stream itself for hygienic reasons, plus using a bottle is also a lot easier when you're used to it.

I can refer you to this other stackexchange site: https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/3080/ok-were-all-adults-here-so-really-how-on-earth-should-i-use-a-squat-toilet

outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/5816/Sebastiaan van den Broek

Compressed toilet paper coins.

These are made of plant cellulose and are biodegradable.

Just add about a teaspoon of water or less and they unfold into the most comfortable toilet paper you can imagine.

They are about the size of a stack of five US nickles each and are strong enough for washing off your face or other areas.

Strict places like the AppTrail you can not use these but other places

these are just fine

just treat them like TP and bury it.

You will find many of the smaller palm trees have a soft inner fiber if split open & dug out with a flat stick.

Or coconut fiber removed from green coconuts.

Some like silk.

Leaves

I do not use most have a sharp edge to them

so does grass.

Just split them open remove soft fibers wad them up & use.

Will be slightly damp.

Often better than toiletpaper.

A squat in the river is not bad use left hand to clean.

Question: When in the great outdoors, nature is bound to come calling, so what are some good natural toilet paper substitutes when the real thing isn't available?

What are some toilet paper alternatives you could use in the woods?

Suggestions include smooth rocks, snowballs, stick, soft pine cones and leaves. Compressed toilet paper coins are also available. Carrying an empty water bottle is an option, to fill from streams and wash as in many Asian countries.

Water, rocks, leaves and toilet paper coins can be used.

Rocks, leaves and toilet paper coins may be used.


Sound like a human, so TALK Wear a bright orange vest, and other bright (not white) clothing Try not to hike deer routes in the peak times (6am to 9am and 6pm to9pm)

Similar to the one above, stay on trail.

Generally large game are the seasons of highest concern (deermostly) Your local DNR (Department of Natural Resources) website ( example ) will have the hunting season.

I'd like to say all hunters are safe, but there's a reason I don't hunt public land.

Also the biggest threat is poachers, who are going to ignore all of the above, as well as season, legality, etc.

The most important thing is to know what is being hunted so you can know how the hunters should be approaching their prey.

It's best to talk to several hunters to find out from them where they will be concentrating, but it's hard to control for any random person with their own ideas about how they will be approaching their hunting.

The vast majority of hunters are extremely safety conscious and will go out of their way to educate anyone who is curious about safety and sharing the outdoors.

Turkey season is generally horrible since hunters are so camouflaged and hidden whereas deer season is better with everyone lit up in blaze orange for visibility.

In your case, you probably don't really care if you are scaring off the game so wear vibrant colors, make a lot of noise and avoid heavy brush and areas with limited sight lines.

Wide open areas with a clear view are safest.

Noise is really your best tool since you also should be concerned about ricochet, misfires and target practice as well as intentionally placed shots where you happen to be directly behind the target.

In short - be sensible.

Make yourself easily seen and heard, don't walk near somewhere

you hear gunfire, and where possible stick to open areas on clear, marked paths.

Of course, I'd also question the wisdom of hiking somewhere when hunting is happening; if there's a sensible alternative that seems like the logical option.

In terms of where to look for information, look up the local authority's website and from there you can usually find the various times that you need.

If you can't find it then find an official contact and send an email, they should guide you to the right place or be able to provide the information needed.

Preparation in due course is key here.

On a related note, if you're talking about army training / live fire then stay out of the area entirely when this is going on - it'd be stupid (and most probably illegal) to stray into such an area.

North Dartmoor in the UK for instance is an area where this happens, but the information on times is easily available online, it's clearly marked on maps and there are clear posts on the moors to indicate the boundary markers for these areas too.

It is always the hunters responsibility to correctly identify their targets and handle their weapons safely.

That said, you can always help them out by making it clear your are a human as others have noted.

Bright colours, standing in the open, and human noise are all good.

Trying to hide in a bush and trick the hunter with deer calls is a bad idea .

It's better that we know you are there

and that will likely cause us to move on anyway.

I bow hunt on public land in New Zealand, frequently in the same areas as trampers (hikers) though I don't actually see them all that often.

We do not have any particular seasons on deer here, though you'll obviously find increased activity around the roar.

Usually we are using the same tracks you are to access areas and then hunting out away from them in certain areas.

Most game animals don't like humans so the closer you are to huts, well used tracks and other people the less likely

you are to be around people actively hunting.

Mostly, treat hunters just like other people you see out.

The better we all get along together in the wild the safer we'll all be.

Most of us like to stop and have a chat, though we're often wary of upsetting people as we know some are not comfortable with weapons around.

If you're nervous ask a few polite questions, it's easy for us to show when rifles are unloaded, explain where we are and aren't shooting etc.

My only caution would be to leave weapons alone unless specifically given permissions to go near them, this particularly applies to curious children.

Generally this shouldn't be a problem as hunters will be guarding them closely, but it comes up sometimes when we are sharing huts etc.

Have fun out there :)

Hunting seasons and licenses are an issue handled by the states in the US.

So check the website of the state you want to backpack/hike in to find out about their various seasons.

Honestly, in most areas this isn't a problem because hunting has to be kept to private land.

I live on the East Coast and there are plenty of public land, like the Appalachian Trail,

that does not have hunting on it, even in season.

Your main problem will be people deer hunting, or other large game, with a rifle.

My first bit of advise would be to not even bother going out for the gun season.

The dangers with large game and gun season are that the prey is takin at a much larger distance, and more confusion could take place.

If you "have" to go out hiking during the gun season I would suggest wearing all blaze orange.

Better safe then sorry.

As far as being out during small game or bird seasons.

One article of blaze orange should be more then sufficient.

Most people will be using a bow or shotgun which have a pretty limited range compared to a rifle and should be able to see you.

All the other advice about what to wear and where to stay is also very good advice.

Question: A lot of areas that are good for hiking or backpacking are also popular hunting grounds.  I am an avid backpacker and hiker, but I do not know much about hunting.  How do I find out what is the hunting season in a particular area, and when backpacking during hunting season, how do I avoid getting shot?

Backpacking or hiking in areas open to hunting

Generally large game are the seasons of highest concern (deer mostly)   Your local DNR (Department of Natural Resources) website ( example ) will have the hunting season.  Check the website for the state you want to hike in to find out about the seasons and be aware of what is being hunted. Wide open areas with a clear view are safest. Noise is your best tool. Wear bright colours and keep talking and making noise.

Check hunting seasons on your local DNR website, stay in visible areas and make it clear you're human with noise and by wearing bright colours.

You can check hunting seasons with your local DNR website.

Stay in wide visible areas and make noise.

Be prepared, make it clear you're human and wear bright colours. Make noise.


To be honest I was dubious about getting something that I thought was gimmicky, but my son’s Scout troop was selling custom Buffs to raise group funds

so I ended up buying one.

A Buff is just a tube of lightweight, stretchy material.

I’ve found them useful in three particular situations:

They are thin, so can be worn like a hat under a bicycle helmet for extra warmth in the winter.

Worn round the neck it provides a comfortable scarf that helps seal any gaps around my jacket collar.

In summer, I dip it in a stream or river and wear it round my neck to help keep cool.

I think they are versatile and useful, but certainly not a full replacement for a scarf, hat, or whatever.

I know a few people who say they're useful - and they are certainly very versatile.

There's nothing very complex about them, it's just a section of stretchy material that you can wear however you like.

They can be used wet for cooling, or dry underneath a hat for a bit of extra warmth, or as a scarf.

If you're on a gentle hike or a fun backpacking trip then there's no harm in having one, they're cheap and if nothing else a bit of fun!

I wouldn't say they're an essential piece of serious gear though - kit dedicated to the task it's meant to do

will almost always do a better job (a proper scarf will likely be a lot warmer than a buff as a scarf for instance.)

The primary advantage of the buff (an continuous loop of fabric) is the versatility (and fashion ability) of the item over a standard scarf or hat.

Features

In addition to the wearable methods it can also be used as Eye Mask Facecloth Microtowel Face mask when travelling, snowboarding, desert etc Self-securing

bandage/pressure pad All of which can be achieved without the need of a sling, complex knot or additional tying aid.

Benefits

Less likely to be lost / stolen / dropped since fabric is physically around your body

No need for knots causing discomfort/hot spots One item rather than two (scarf and hat/cap) Lightweight Far thinner material than a standard scarf or hat (particularly for males) Multi-activity use Reversible

I have a couple of buffs - one is made of polartec with a piece of thin fabric attached, and another one is just the same thin fabric.

I've found the first one to be very useful in winter because: it is very easy to put on and off; on a hike you can put it off for while you're moving and take on for a stop; this also comes very handy on climbing routes where I don't like to mess with a traditional scarf - having a thing that could be applied/removed with one hand only is nice; this piece of thin fabric doesn't look serious, but it helps me a lot when my chin and nose become too frozen - I just pull this part of a buff on my face and it gets warm pretty fast; it is not as bulky as a scarf

and if I want to put one more layer of clothing, I still be able to zip a collar;

As for that small thin buff, it is just nice to have it for chilly days.

I use Buffs a lot.

If you are out on the water fishing, a buff worn like a bandit mask combined with a big hat will save you a sunburn.

I wear a one as a headscarf during long hikes.

It keeps the sweat out of my eyes and I soak it in organic bug repellent to keep the gnats away.

For winter hikes, I again use as a bandit mask to keep my face warm and prevent windburn.

The advantage is you can easily pull it up/down.

To be honest, I never travel without it.

Question: What is a "buff", how is it used, and why should I have one?  I've seen them advocated in numerous places, but I'm not sure why a tube of cloth is better around my neck than a scarf, etc.

What is a buff?

A  buff  is just a tube of lightweight, stretchy material.  There's nothing very complex about them, it's just a section of stretchy material that you can wear however you like. The primary advantage of the buff is the versatility of the item over a standard scarf or hat.

A buff is a versatile, lightweight, flexible material tube.

A buff is a lightweight, stretchy material tube.


A trick I've seen recently is to strap your headlamp to a solid water bottle with the light pointed into the base of the bottle.

Lay the bottle on the side and you have a substitute for a lantern.

The plastic and some water act as a poor-man's diffuser.

My own preferred method is to use a UCO candle lantern attached to the loop in the ceiling, it generates light that radiates outward, and also generates enough heat to make the tent enjoyable when you're settling in for the night.

I combine the above with a headlamp for personal reading.

When I was younger, I had a flashlight where the cone part pulled out and it became essentially a lantern.

I would tie it to the top of the tent (most tents I used had a hook there), and that provided good light throughout the tent.

Lacking that, if you have a Maglight (or, I'm sure, many other brands), you can screw the cone off that for essentially the same effect, though you'll have a bright spot and you can/should really only do this with one of the smaller, lighter ones.

Beyond that, your method does sound reasonable.

Some of the Mammut headlamps can be fitted with an optional diffuser for ambient lighting.

Haven't tried it, but it looks like it could be a neat solution.

Mammut TR1

Headlamp

My tent (REI Quarterdome) has mesh pockets on the ceiling – I find stuffing a headlamp up there is a reasonable space lighting solution.

Our smaller tent is a dome, the top has a smaller mesh square that clips inside it.

I put one of those puck style led stickup lights in it for a light.

Our bigger tent is a 2 room tent that we never use the divider in.

I use the clip that's supposed to hold the divider to hold either a head light or one of the smaller battery lanterns.

A clear gallon water jug with either a stickup light or a headlight under it throws a lot of light.

So does a zip lock bag full of water but that can get messy.

Question: Usually when I require light inside the tent I just prop a torch  (flashlight) up somewhere, if it's bright enough then up at the roof of the tent the reflected light gives a nice ambient glow. Has anyone got a preferred / better way of doing this? I'm curious both in terms of utilising existing common equipment, such as torches, and in terms of any new or unusual lights that might be used specifically for this purpose (or others of course.)

Best way to illuminate a tent?

Some of the Mammut headlamps can be fitted with an optional diffuser for ambient lighting. However, a clear water jug with either a stickup light or a headlight under it gives a lot of light. A UCO candle lantern gives off a light that radiates outward, along with some heat. Some flashlights  also have a convertible lantern function.

Water bottles and jugs can be used for lighting purposes. Also, lamp diffusers and ceiling loops can be used to light tents.

Lamps can be strapped to diffusers and ceiling loops.

Water jugs and bottles can be used to project light.


The absolute best is going to be titanium, but it also happens to be the most expensive.

I'm not sure where you heard that it shatters in the cold, but being a space age metal

I would think it can handle cold earth temperatures just fine.

If you can't shell out the cash for titanium it's more or less a toss up between aluminum and stainless steel.

Technically aluminum leeches, but so slowly that for just your backpacking gear it's not a problem.

Stainless steel doesn't leech but also doesn't distribute heat as well, so you need to be sure to stir your food more, but that's not a big downside in my book.

I use stainless steel myself.

One other recommendation I need to make is, no matter what the material, find a pot with a tight-fitting lid.

Getting water to a boil with a tight-fitting lid is MUCH quicker and saves you fuel.

As for cast iron, it gives your food the best flavor but is extremely heavy.

Use it for camping trips but not backpacking.

One advantage teflon brings to the wilderness is how easy it is to clean.

The heat on backpacker stoves can be hard to regulate, it's not uncommon for hot spots that get food stuck to the bottom of the pot or worse, burnt to the bottom ( I'm looking at you pasta + sauce packets! ).

Teflon makes it less likely to get stuck, often needing only to be wiped off and then rinsed, it really shines when water and soap are in limited supply and you want to spend the least amount of time cleaning dishes.

Having said that, if you really want to make dishes (and cooking)

a breeze then go for the "add boiling water to packet" freeze-dried meals and you won't need teflon because all you'll ever do is boil water.

As far as health goes, as long as the teflon surface is not scratched or flaking you don't need to worry about any health risks, so use plastic utensils and don't cut food in the pot.

If you're going to nest teflon pots (like the popular MSR set) put washcloths between each pot to avoid further scratching.

What type of cookware you choose depends on what type of cooking you do.

Titanium is certainly the lightest, and it's great if all you do in your pot is boil water to add to dehydrated foods (Lipton noodles, Mountain House, homemade boil-in-bag meals, etc.) or to make beverages.

I've never seen or heard of a titanium pot shattering at low temperatures.

However, any super-thin, uncoated pan will have trouble distributing heat evenly which leads to hot spots and burned food.

A titanium mug works great for me, but then, I prefer to keep my meals as simple and no-cook as possible when I'm backpacking.

If you enjoy backcountry cooking, you may be disappointed in ti cookware, especially considering the price point.

If you plan on doing anything more involved, such as eggs or pancakes or stirfry, take a look at hard anodized aluminum cookware, such as the MSR Aplinist or GSI Pinnacle series.

Hard anodized aluminum weighs only a little more than titanium, is cheaper, and offers several advantages over other aluminum pots.

It is durable, offers excellent heat distribution, and is easier to clean as it possesses some nonstick properties of its own even without a Teflon coating.

Some hard anodized pans are sold with a Teflon finish, so if that's an issue for you, shop around or examine them in person before buying.

If you do go with nonstick cookware, be sure to use bamboo or Lexan utensils to avoid scratching the finish.

I use hard-anodized aluminum pans from Calphalon for home cooking and I love them.

They heat very evenly and are virtually nonstick.

The material is much less reactive than plain aluminum (e.g. it doesn't turn the sulphur in your cauliflower yellow!), and leeches virtually no aluminum into your food.

For perspective: there are about 50 mg of aluminum in an antacid tablet; if you do all your cooking in uncoated aluminum pans, you'll consume about 3.5 mg of aluminum per day, and with a hard anodized pan that number is even lower.

Bon appetit!

I have had both a titanium and Teflon pot for backpacking and like the titanium for the weight factor but they do cost more money.

Teflon pots are great, they are fairly light, super easy to clean, and come is various sizes.

They are also normally affordable.

I have an Optimus Crux stove and it is AMAZING!!!

It folds up to fit in the bottom of a fuel cylinder and they both fit inside my cooking pot.

Freezer bag cooking eliminates the hassle and environmental impact of washing your pot and dishes.

You simply boil the water in the pot, then pour it into the ziplock freezer bag where the ingredients are.

You eat out of the bag, so you don't need to carry separate dishes that are heavy and have to be washed.

If you're using this technique, then the only criteria for a cooking pot are size, weight, and cost.

You don't have to worry about even heat distribution, cleaning off burned food, or the pot material leaching into your food.

If you have the bucks, titanium is optimal.

If you use an alcohol stove with clean-burning alcohol, you don't get all that black soot on the pot, either.

It may take a little trial and error to find a source of alcohol that burns cleanly.

Alcohol stoves are also really nice because the fuel is lightweight, and if you spill or leak fuel, it's inoffensive and relatively nontoxic, and evaporates completely.

I find that about 6 oz of fuel is enough for me for several days.

The only reason I use any other type of stove anymore is if I'm snow camping and need to melt snow.

Question: What are the relative advantages / dangers of different cooking wear? I'm a one-pot gourmet that has been using the same stainless steel pot for 15 years, but am considering an upgrade.  Some things I have heard but not substantiated: teflon flakes off and you might ingest it. Aluminum can leech into acidic foods. Titanium shatters in cold? Cast iron makes the best flap-jacks...

Selecting backpacking cooking pot – teflon, aluminum, steel, titanium, or cast iron?

Titanium is the best and lightest, but it is also the most expensive. Teflon is easy to clean. Your choice may depend on the cooking that you do. For more adventurous cooking, consider hard anodized aluminum products, such as the MSR Alpinist or GSI Pinnacle series. Alcohol stoves are also good because the fuel is lightweight, inoffensive, relatively non-toxic, and evaporates completely. Freezer bag cooking eliminates the hassle and environmental impact of washing your pot and dishes.

Depending on what you cook, stoves are available and fuel is lightweight. Titanium and teflon are both light but the former is expensive.

Freezer bag cooking makes things easier.

It depends on what you cook, stoves are available and fuel is lightweight.


Outside more room left inside for other stuff.

More likely to rip a hole in your gear when you toss your pack down.

More options for weight placement (which can lead to off-blanced pack.)

More likely to fall off.

Inside Better protection from the elements, rocks, branches.

Weight is closer to your center of gravity (and usually better balanced).

Less room inside your pack.

Will never fall off.

Ultimately, it is a matter of personal preference, but I always encourage people to pack it inside -- and insist they do when borrowing my gear.

PROTIP: When forced to pack something outside (ie, external frame, or carrying too much stuff) always use closed loop tie-downs that are threaded through a closed loop on both your pack and your gear.

That way, if the gear slides off without noticing, it will still be chained to your pack.

If it fits, it's better to put it inside.

That way it stays dry and is protected.

If you put down your pack on rocks or small limbs, it can poke holes in the tent cover or sleeping bag cover if they are strapped to the outside.

(In some conditions, a wet sleeping bag can be a safety issue.)

The more tired I get, the harder my pack seems to hit the ground.

Odd, huh?

Also, it's more comfy if you have the weight of the pack close to your back.

When you strap heavy stuff on the outside, it moves the center of gravity away from you, which pulls harder on the shoulder straps.

One of my tents goes in my rucksack, but I have another one which has two carry bags which strap nicely to the sides of my rucksack, keeping the weight well balanced and close to me.

In dry conditions I'll strap the sleeping bag to the outside to make space, as it is light

it doesn't affect the center of gravity much.

Center of gravity and keeping kit dry should be two important considerations.

I have never had damage to kit from carrying it on the outside, but this should be a consideration if you are travelling in an area where there is a risk of snagging or tearing.

For me, the sleeping back is the most important thing to be kept dry, so it would be the last thing I would decide to strap outside.

It may be not the case if you have very durable waterproof bag for your sleeping bag.

I have the sleeping bag inside (must be kept dry, so there must be room for it).

And the tent under the pack in its stuffsack, (when wet I don't want it inside anyway)

tied to the pack by running a strap through the drawcord and wrapping the tent and stuffsack inside my foam mat (if I bring it) and groundsheet to protect the tent.

Or in the outside net pocket if it needs drying.

Question: When I bought my pack, we were told to always pack the tent and sleeping bag in the pack.  Since then I have seen a lot of articles and hikers doing the outside.  What are the benefits on packing the tent and sleeping bag in vs. strapping the tent and sleeping bag to the outside of the pack?

Tent and sleeping bag: pack inside or strap outside a backpack?

This is a matter of personal preference, although inside gives better protection from the elements, rocks and branches. If it fits, keeping the sleeping bag inside keeps it dry, which is important. If it is outside the pack, there will be more room left inside for other things.

Packing the sleeping bag inside is preferable for keeping it dry, though packing it outside allows more room for other things.

It's better to pack sleeping bags inside to keep them dry.

Putting it outside allows more room inside.


There are two interpretations of 'Mountaineering' depending on the context in which you use the word: Mountaineering is any activity in a mountainous environment.

It includes rock climbing, ice climbing, hiking, orienteering, skiing, and 'mountaineering' in its own right (see below)...

Mountaineering as a specific activity is usually used to include climbing of a whole mountain, encompassing a wider variety of skills than simply rock climbing.

For example, climbing up a cliff face might be rock climbing, but climbing Everest is mountaineering as it requires ascending a complete mountain, and uses skills from rock climbing, ice climbing, survival, navigation, endurance etc.

But there is a grey area in this.

Is climbing El Capitan in Yosemite rock climbing or mountaineering?

What about if you climb an unclimbed face of a mountain in the Himalaya, but without trying to summit the mountain?

At the end of the day, it boils down to the seriousness of the adventure.

The Mountaineering Council of Scotland has a definition of Mountaineering right here: Welcome to Mountaineering Scotland .

The British Mountaineering Council has a great wealth of articles about the topic, which I can only recommend.

Typically "Mountaineering" involves the use of technical equipment in order to navigate through the terrain, like ropes, ice axes or crampons.

As opposed to a leisurely walk on a paved road, or hill walking.

It encompasses most of the more adventurous activities which take place in the mountains.

Rock climbing as such is defined as an athletic activity which comes in different flavours: Bouldering, indoor climbing, Traditional climbing, sport climbing, deep water soloing and so on.

Usually a mountain face, sea cliff or boulder is either climbed up on or traversed.

Although technically it can be done without any equipment, the bare minimum that is necessary are the specifically designed rock climbing shoes.

Personally, I'd consider a hike which requires basic navigating/orienteering skills, and goes into more difficult mountain terrain to be mountaineering.

Everything which involves climbing up a wall with hands and feet, thus using rock climbing techniques and equipment, would be rock climbing.

Via ferrata" routes I would rather classify as mountaineering since it does not involve rock climbing techniques as such and uses specialised equipment.

According to my father (a self-identified mountaineer), the difference is as follows: A rock climber encounters a cliff on a mountainside.

He spends some time studying it, finds the most interesting route, climbs up and back down, and calls it a day.

A mountaineer encounters a cliff on a mountainside.

He pulls out his map, finds a route around it, and continues up the mountain.

Mountaineering refers to ascending a natural feature, although it doesn't necessarily imply summitting, nor must it be rock, as the same can be applied to the ascension of glaciers.

Mountaineering has a subset of various skills which include climbing, skiing, hiking and scrambling.

You can hike, ski, climb and boulder without mountaineering.

Context Mountaineers sooner or later must climb ice and snow and camp for days at a time in high altitude.

Rock climbers climb rock and in winter the rock that forms on climbs that are quite small in relation to that of what a mountaineer will climb.

Rock climbers focus on climbing rocks and ice covered rocks and then going down.

The face they are on may take days but it will not generally be above 18k feet.

Climbers will seek to be on YDC 5.0 and above and need a rope.

Terrain Mountaineers may be in terrain 5.0 and under and above.

They are theones that go to the top of the world.

Rock climbers don't seek the top they seek to climb and their aim isimprove at the context strength game.

The more sheer the face , themore impossible to find a hold yet manage to, that is the rockclimber.

They may even do seemingly impossible holds all day lone 100feet off the ground.

Goals

The Mountaineer wants to go up, up, up and climb mountain tops anduse as much gear as they need to get there.

They typically make basecamps along the way for support and to retreat to for 2nd attempts.

Climbers have rope and chalk or ice axes.

Hope this helps.

A goodclimber may not make a good mountaineer and a great mountaineer maynot make an incredible rock climber.

Mindset

The mind of the mountaineer is that of a survivalist.

The mind of a rock climber is that of a sportsman.

Pain tolerance Both are game to suffering, only the mountaineer is game to sufferthe most.

To loose body parts, team mates, they are game to facemother nature at the hardest.

TL;DR

Many a great Mountaineer has never done super hard free solos takingonly 2 hours.

Many a great rock climber has never been to the top of Everest.

I would consider "Rock Climbing" as something in the Class 5 definition of the YDS grading system.

Wikipedia definition Class 4 and 6 might also be considered "rock climbing" but I've been climbing for nearly 2 decades, and I would say class 5 = rock climbing.

Mountaineering is one of them terms that means different things to different people.

To me mountaineering is spending time ascending mountains , simples.

I would argue that rock climbing is a skill you may or may not use in the process of mountaineering .

For example ascending the north face of the eiger (one of the most classic and famous lines in mountaineering ) requires lot's of rock climbing.

So this to me proves that rock climbing is part of mountaineering as a general activity.

Mountaineering is broader though and also includes activities such as skiing (see ski touring, etc), hiking, scrambling, via ferrata, etc.

etc.

Question: I think the title speaks for itself.  I have done a basic  google search  and I do not find the references to be sufficient.  I'm looking for a short synopsis that would educate a layman such as myself.

What are the key differences between Mountaineering and Rock Climbing?

Some consider that mountaineering suggests survivalist, whereas rock climbing suggests sportsmanship. Typically, mountaineering involves the use of technical equipment to navigate the terrain, although it may simply refer to ascending a natural feature. Rock climbing may describe an athletic activity with a number of different styles - indoor climbing, bouldering etc. - and may be a lot smaller than the features that a mountaineer may climb.

Mountaineering is a survivalist activity that involves spending time ascending natural features. Rock climbing is an athletic activity that involves scaling rocks and ice rocks, using equipment.

Mountaineering is a survivalist activity, rock climbing is an athletic activity.

Mountaineering involves ascending natural feaures over a period of days.

Rock climbing is an athletic activity that involves scaling rocks, using equipment.


I'll give this a stab, but there aren't any authoritative sources that I've managed to find on the subject!

The most I could really find are examples such as this one where people have drank it and felt no ill effects, and I haven't found a documented case of anyone drinking it and it being harmful to them.

From a biological point of view the vine will at least partly purify the ground water, though if it's a known heavily contaminated area I wouldn't take it as a substitute for a proper water filter.

In terms of the effect on the grape vine, most sources I've found seem to show that while it seems alarming it's actually not that bad for the vine, though obviously if you make cuts everywhere and drain all the sap there will come a point where it won't be able to sensibly recover.

In short, if you're really desperate for water and it's the only source available in a survival situation, I'd see no great reason for not giving it a try.

It isn't however a direct substitute for a good, purified water source.

I cut new growth back and stick the dripping ends in a container.

Sap collects quickly and after filtering through a coffee filter it is absolutely clear and tastes refreshing.

Never had any health problems from it and the grapevine doesn't even notice as it's a huge vine.

Stay away from the main shoots and just nip the new growth back.

The vine actually produces better grapes as a result.

If you want to avoid bird droppings etc from getting in your container, place a cloth over the top.

I'm not sure about grape sap

but I can tell you that birch sap is great and has no ill effects.

You can collect it quickly and easily in the break of winter/early spring and it contains heterosides (betuloside and monotropitoside), 17 amino acids including glutamic acid, as well as minerals, enzymes, proteins, betulinic acid and betulin, antioxidants, sugar (xylitol, fructose and glucose) and vitamins (C and B).

I have drank it.

These were the big vines that grew to the top of trees.

Just cut them & let the water flow into a collector below.

Wild grapes here not domestic.

I had no ill effects from this.

This was in a swamp area that was under water 3 to 4 months a year.

So safer than other water avalable at that time.

Not exactly grape sap, but a local merchant to me is selling what he calls Organic Water.

The source is the liquid evaporated off during the Maple Syrup manufacturing process.

Because the source is filtered by the tree, aka a plant source, he was able to get it legally recognized as organic.

Honestly , I have done this before and it feels really good and makes your whole mouth feel refreshed.

We live near a creek , so , it's usually pretty wet and the grape vines are everywhere.

I have noticed that it as a slight plant like taste to it.

But I honestly like it.

I hope this helps.

I've recently discovered the "bleeding" or "crying" grapevine as some call it.

It is a Fox Grapevine and we were cutting out a trail in the woods near our home in Parkersburg, WV.

After cutting it, we noticed it dripping and looked into it and couldn't see anywhere that it was harmful to one's health.

It tastes like water but is better for you from what I'm reading with its minerals and other natural ingredients.

I drank some the other night (about 12oz) before going to bed and had no ill-effects and slept well.

What's interesting as well is that it can be a more pure and safe drinking water supply than other nearby sources when camping.

Question: In spring, the grape vines are so full of watery sap that a cut from my pocket knife causes it to trickle out fairly fast, and it can be collected in a container. Someone told me that it is a good substitute for water on a trip, because it is purified by the plant. Is this true?

Is it a good Idea to drink grape sap if you have no clean water?

This has been reported as having no ill effects and some people say it leaves your mouth feeling refreshed. If you are desperate for water, then there may be no good reason for not trying it.

Respondents who tried this felt no ill effects. It can be done when necessary in survival situations.


My experience is that I can cast farther and with greater precision with a baitcaster.

That being said, you have to practice...

A LOT.

There is a tensioner for the gears.

You have to balance the tension for your personal style to avoid backlash, but still get a good distance.

Backlash is bad, very bad.

It creates the worst tangle you've ever seen.

A bad one

and you just have to cut the line out and respool your entire reel.

Most times you won't be able to just pick up your friends baitcaster and cast it without re-adjusting the tensioner (at which point they'll probably use you for cutbait).

However, it's well worth the practice.

When I regularly fished for bass I could drop a lure into a 2" square underneath a low hanging bush from 40' away.

You just won't get that kind of performance from a spinning reel.

From a technical standpoint, baitcasters generate less drag and friction on the line during the cast.

Baitcasters will add excitement to your otherwise dull fishing excursion.

Tired of just relaxing in your boat and catching fish?

With the wonderful new backlash feature built into you baitcaster, you will have hours of entertainment that rivals a Chinese finger trap.

All jokes aside, baitcaster often have a higher gear ratio that gives your a faster retrieve than a spinning reel.

They are great for stuff like buzzbaits, larger crankbaits etc.

I agree that bait casters are more accurate, although with enough practice with a spinning reel you can be almost as good as a casting with a baitcaster.

Spinning reels will allow you to throw smaller and lighter lures.

Casting and retrieving are best suited for baitcasters though.

Spinning reels work better for dead stick presentations, vertical jigging and live bait, if you ever fish live bait for bass.

I would suggest sticking with a spinning reel with the caveat that if you're fishing for a bigger fish (>10 lbs) use a baitcasting reel.

Benefits of spinning reel: simple to use can easily swap spools/lines if needed doesn't get easily tangled, which a baitcaster will Benefits of baitcast reel: more accurate can handle heavy fish (>10 lbs)

See this link: http://www.foundry35.com/blogs/blog/132873735-baitcast-vs-spincast-vs-spinning-reels-which-is-better-and-which-should-you-be-using

The thing i keep hearing is if you just practice enough you can place the lure wherever you want with a baitcaster.

Its the same with a spinner reel, you just practice.

I would almost bet i can Place it just as good with a spinner as anyone with a baitcaster

, i can Place my lure wherever i wanto

and i can cast anything from >1g - 120g with a spinner

but i will get fubar with a baitcaster on the lakes if i use a baitcaster below 10g and some wind.

I would argue during perfect condictions baitcaster wins, any other condition the spinner Wheel will win.

The baitcasters are more or less a Commercial thing, people need to buy new stuff and it looks cooler on the rod, its like Iphone.

Spinning reels will clearly cast further and easier especially in the wind.

But once you learn to throw the baitcaster the accuracy will outweigh all the other downsides.

We focus on catching big fish and the baitcaster is stronger, while the spinning reel probably provides a better fight.

Read this article on fishing styles to help you.

Hope this helps!

Google says: http://www.bassresource.com/beginner/reel_selection.html

http://setthehook.com/reels/reeldifferences.htm (link now dead: archive ) http://www.fishingtalks.com/when-would-one-use-a-baitcast-over-a-spinning-reel-278353.html#10

Hopefully someone with some knowledge of the subject will distill these into a proper answer.

For now I'm getting some ink in the page.

bait cast can throw further than spinning reel.

The key point is if you keep getting bird nest, add heavier weights or sinkers, this will reduce your bird nest.

2nd point is bait cast does not have tangle knots like spinning reel where some knot form for unknown reason.

After you switch to bait cast and know how to use it, you will not go back to spinning reel.

I'd like to see someone throw a 1/64 oz trout magnet for trout, crappie, bluegill, perch, rock bass etc from a baitcaster accurately over and over.

Trust me, I've tried it while my kids use all my spinning setups.

If you do all sorts of fishing and only have the cash for one type of set-up, get yourself a spinning reel + rod.

If you only fish for muskie/pike or big catfish get a big 5500 series baitcaster(i.e.

Ambassadeur) which are way easier to cast(once

you know how to use it) without backlashes than the smaller ones designed for bass, I have a small AG revo sx that is nice, does cast a little farther and retrieves faster but other than that

I dont see many advantages, you can be just as accurate with a spinner, I often get out on dams on the rocks to hit holes, it's much easier to fish vertically with a spinning set up, I've pulled my largest walleye out of deep holes in rocks close to dams

Question: I have been looking at new rods and several people have suggested a baitcaster. I currently have a spinning reel that I am comfortable with but I would like to try a new rod/reel type.  What am I going to gain and lose from switching to a baitcaster?

What are the benefits of a baitcaster over a spinning reel for bass fishing?

It may be best to stick with a spinning reel unless you are fishing for bigger fish. Casting and retrieving is better with baitcasters and they can be accurate with practice. However, a spinning reel is simple to use and spools and lines can be changed easily. If you do all sorts of fishing and only have the cash for one type of set-up, get yourself a spinning reel + rod.

Baitcasters are more accurate, whilst spinning reels allow you to throw smaller and lighter lures.

A baitcaster is more accurate and has faster retrieve.

Spinning reels cast further and easier, allow you to throw lighter lures.


Sulfur is often suggested for natural mosquito repellents.

I've seen recommendations for taking sulfur pills, making sulfur creams, or applying sulfur powders.

According to the Colorado State University Extension, the sulfur content of cloves is the science behind garlic-based repellents or recommendations to consume garlic.

That said, I would not think eating a match head to be any way to get sulfur into your body.

A safety match head is mostly potassium chlorate fixed to ground glass.

A strike-anywhere match head will have phosphorous in it as well.

Whether it's hogwash or not is besides the point in my opinion - the fact of the matter is match heads aren't designed to be ingested and therefore while consuming them may increase your sulfur levels which may help keep the bugs off, there's also a good chance you'll be consuming random poisonous chemicals.

Weighing it up, I think I'd take my chances with the bugs if that was all I had available!

In general I'd only suggest things like this in an emergency, but since "keeping the bugs off" is never a real requirement of an emergency situation, I'd never recommend it.

If you ask civilians, you'll typically get responses along the lines of... "No way, there are dangerous chemicals!"

"No way, it just doesn't work!"

No way, you'll smell like ass for weeks!"

However, I (and many other military vets) can tell you that it does, in fact, work extremely well.

Military men (and recently maybe women) have been using this trick for decades, with no side-effects besides potentially smelling really awful depending on how much you consume.

Every MRE (Meal, Ready-to-Eat) comes with a book of matches handy, which is why the trick is so convenient.

One match-head per month will typically be sufficient to keep insects off of you, with no noticeable stink either.

If you need more potency, consume more regularly, maybe weekly or even daily - just keep in mind that more match heads = more stink.

Yes, potassium chlorate is a toxic chemical.

However , it is not contained in nearly high-enough quantities to be harmful unless you're slamming an entire pack of matches (and maybe not even then).

Phosphorus, the final chemical ingredient in match heads, is an element essential to your bodily functions, and represents 1% of your body mass.

Final disclaimer: as far as I know, only strike-on-the-box safety matches will always have the antimony (III) sulfide in them that makes the trick work.

Strike-anywhere matches may not contain this element, and so might just do nothing at all.

Being a military vet from Vietnam, I've used this and I still use it.

Every year in the summer in Tennessee, when the mosquitoes come out it works very well for me.

Others may not be able to handle the taste.

Talking to non vets who haven't used it will tell you I'm not chewing on a match.

The first time I tried this was at Fort Chaffee and the chiggers were so bad that people were laid out in sick call with bites all over their bodies.

Me and my buddies were "the communist forces" which meant little amenities...

we slept in the tall grasses for 7 days.

Every day I ate a match head and never once was bit.

This works.

Question: I have heard that eating the tips off a few match heads can help keep the bugs off of you. Supposedly you sweat out the sulfur and it repels the bugs. Has anyone else heard this or is there any truth to it? Is it harmful? Would garlic work better?   Note: I have this on and off for years from random people and always assumed it was hogwash.

Eating Matches to repel insects?

Some military veterans testify that eating one match head per month as a method of repelling insects works. Of course, match heads are not designed to be eaten and may involve eating hazardous chemicals.

While the common view is that martch heads contain dangerous chemicals, veterans find that this works very well.

Veterans find that this workes extremely well.

It's commonly held that match heads contain dangerous chemicals.


I pack it like you do, and rarely ever have trouble.

I think the important steps are what you do when you go to use it and what you use it for.

First when I go to use it I remove the cross wrap completely.

I hold it by the loop at the top or bottom.

Once the cross wrap is undone I pull the mid section apart and lay it on the ground so it is in a complete circle.

I don't touch the other end as much as possible.

This is pretty easy when climbing but much harder during other activities.

If I know I need some of the other end but will not need to touch it after that

(like tying to an anchor or plugging in an extension cord) then I pull the amount I need out that side of the rope and then lay the circle of rope on the ground that side down.

I will try to find a video or pics of this.

Also, when coiling the rope up, if it's more than 100ft

I use the "Backpackers" Coil (also know as a "butterfly" coil).

I did a short Google search and this video came up

that explained it exactly how I do it.

If you are coiling anything by hand, and not using the behind the neck method, twist the rope as you coil it, it will coil and un-coil much easier.

A simple half twist is usually all it needs which once you get in the habit you will find yourself doing with out realizing it as you coil anything.

This Video does a good job of showing what I am talking about from seconds 22 to 32.

I do not have sound

so I have no idea what he is saying but the action is perfect.

What I have found works best (especially with light rope/cord) is to spool the cord in "figure 8s" between two fingers, wrists or arms:

Hold one end in your hand in front of you then sweep under the running end with the other hand and lift up

so the running end drapes over the top of your hand and away from center.

Sweep under with the first hand and lift up so the running end again drapes over the top and away.

The cord will make an X between your hands.

Repeat.

Use the remaining end to wrap tightly around the X and tuck the end in.

This method keeps the coils separate, and does not introduce any twists in the rope.

This has virtually eliminated tangles from my life in everything from climbing rope to dental floss.

A diagram would help

but I'm thumbing this out on a DumbPhone so that will have to wait.

The first two images on this site (pictured below) show how you can pack your rope without producing tangles.

Note that the final knot that fixes everything does not really matter with respect to tangles.

The important part is to not pick up the rope in closed rings as every ring will introduce a twist of the rope into the same direction.

Instead pick it up as loops hanging alternatively right and left from your hand.

This way the twist in the rope from one loop is cancelled out by a twist in the opposite direction from the next loop, meaning that you will end up with (almost) zero twist at the end.

In the "closed ring" approach you would introduce a lot more twist instead as the twists sum up positively at the end.

In my experience nothing beats a "card winder" for ease of use and avoiding tangles in thin cord (such as kite lines).

The card must be sized to the volume of cord stored on it.

The cord it wrapped over the horns in a figure-8 pattern that avoids twists.

(High resolution image)

The cord is fed out simply by pulling the end and allowing the card to rock freely in the hand.

For cord too large to practically use a card winder of any size it can be helpful to form the cord into more than one bundle (coil), and wrap these together.

This way tangles are less likely to form, and if one does it is confined to only a fraction of the total length of cord.

Tangles that do not involve the ends are easier to release.

Figure 8 pattern is good but there is also another pattern which can be useful.

What you can do is roll the cord in medium sized circular loops.

Keeping the size of each loop medium sized will have 2 advantages: The overall space requirement will reduce.

There will be less entanglement.

Also, in the final leg, loop the cord in helical way over the existing bundle so as to cover whole bundle.

This will ensure tight loops and thus you can manage your cords more comfortably and without any hassles.

Question: I generally pack my cordage in little bundles like   Unfortunately for any significant length (100' for instance) it just turns into a wadded mess when I try and use it.  How can I pack this stuff without that happening?

How can rope/cordage be packed to minimize tangles?

The important part is to not pick up the rope in closed rings as every ring will introduce a twist of the rope into the same direction.  Instead pick it up as loops hanging alternatively right and left from your hand. A "card winder" may be easy to use and avoid tangles in thin cord (such as kite lines).  The cord could also be rolled in medium sized circular loops or spooled in a figure 8 pattern.

The figure 8 pattern and forming two loops are both effective.

Making two loops works well.
Making the figure 8 pattern works well.


No, it's not vital to have thermal underwear.

Layering is your friend.

During the winter months, I've been hitting the slopes regularly for the past 8 years or so.

Though I do own thermal underwear, I've rarely had to use them.

What I normally do is simply layer my clothes and then add/remove as needed to be comfortable.

The downside to this approach is that, when it's really cold, wearing all of the clothes could get pretty bulky.

In winter your worse enemy is sweating.

It is really hard to deal with it once you are sweating.

An appropriate thermal underwear will help evacuating sweating instead of retaining it.

This been said, an appropriate winter jacket is also essential to keep you warm and also evacuate the sweating from the the internal layers.

It is not necessary to pay a lot to have a good thermal underwear.

You did not say whether you were going downhill skiing or cross-country .

The difference is significant: When downhill skiing you are being carried uphill each time between runs and so are not generating much of your own heat and so are not going to sweat much.

You are also never very far from warm shelter where, if you feel cold, you can usually (a) consume hot food and drink and (b) blow hot air into your (temporarily empty) gloves and boots.

Thus, so long as you have enough clothing to keep you warm, it needn't be "thermal".

In fact, it is even safe to wear (the dreaded) cotton next to your skin.

I do.

When cross-country skiing -- or snow-shoeing or winter hiking -- you must propel yourself up every hill and doing so can generate much heat and cause sweating or giving off moist air.

Because you are going to be relatively far from shelter, it is critical that you have "thermal" underwear and breathable outer shell that helps keep you warm and dry.

Synthetics or merino wool will do.

If you don't have proper base layers, you may be regretful during that 15-20 slow lift ride while you're sitting in your own sweat.

You do not need to buy base layers made by a ski/snowboard company to get the benefit.

Also, it's not warmth that you get from this layer but a place to wick sweat away.

I use my snow base layers as the coolest t-shirts I own in the summer.

Good luck and have fun!

Good underwear is very important in winter conditions.

When you're active, you're sweating.

The moisture greatly reduces the termal isolation, which increases the chances of hipotermia.

Cotton is very bad for underwear, because it absorbs moisture.

When it is wet, it acts like cool compress, draining the heat from your body.

Some people find cotton fine for them, but those are the people who sweat very little (I've noticed they drink a few, they have the first bottle of water half-full when I'm finishing the second etc.).

But for most people, like for me, cotton is very bad as underwear in both summer and winter.

You don't need the underwear that have the label 'thermal'.

You just need synthetic underwear, because synthetic fibers absorb little moisture and they get dry quickly.

Wool is also said to be great, but I've never tried myself.

It is told to scratch a lot ;)

Question: I am going on a Ski trip with two days in the snow. Given that I am unlikely to go skiing again for a long time, I would like to minimise the amount of gear that I purchase. The minimum temperature appears to be about -2 or -3 degrees Celcius. How important is it to have thermal underwear? Is it something vital, or can I wear something else instead?

How important is thermal underwear for skiing?

Provided that you have enough clothing to keep you warm, it needn't be "thermal". You just need synthetic underwear, because synthetic fibres absorb little moisture and they get dry quickly. Layering is important and some believe that cotton is not a good option. Appropriate underwear will help evacuate sweat rather than retain it.

While any synthetic underwear can be effective, thermal underwear is helpful in winter conditions as it helps evacuate sweat.

Thermal underwear is key for winter conditions and helps evacuate sweat.

Thermal underwear is not essential, any synthetic underwear can work.


You can get some trail gaiters .

(This REI link gives a good overview of different types of gaiters, their components, and materials they can be made from.)

They're basically little sleeve-like things that have a strap to go around the bottom of your hiking boot, and they come up to mid-calf usually.

Because they overlap with both your boot and your pants, they should be pretty good at keeping rocks out of your shoes.

They typically look something like this:

There are, however, variations in types and usage of gaiters.

They can be mid-calf height or knee-high, insulated or uninsulated, waterproof or not.

(Short gaiters that only cover the instep and the ankle are sometimes called spats - they are also sometimes just called "low gaiters".)

For me it's all about gait.

We do river hiking where it's easy to flip up sand into a shoe if not careful.

The trick is to lift your feet and step without either toe or heal dragging, as well as to set them down in a controlled manner.

If you're using mid- to high- length boots, there are a number of models of pants that have a small hook or strap at the very end of the pant leg used to fix the pant leg to the boot lace at the ankle.

These are usually accompanied by a vertical strap so that the pant leg can be fixed snugly around the ankle.

I personally used these while serving in the (Swedish) army.

The M/90 uniform pants have these features and I never got snow/stone/pebbles etc into my boots.

Lundhags "Boot-Loc"-system is an example of this.

Cut a pair of socks in half!

Cut across about two inches above where the toes would be.

Then slide these over the top of your boots.

Works for me! :)

If you are hiking in warm weather and want to keep things more light and airy, trail running gaiters (such as these ) are light and breathable and will protect from sand and pebbles specifically.

Question: So when I hike, usually I get a small pebble or two, or sand in my boots. How can I prevent this? I already wear pretty tight boots, and stopping every so often to take off a boot and get a rock out is annoying.

How do I prevent rocks or sand from getting in my boots?

Using trail gaiters, cutting a pair of socks in half, or pants that hook onto the boot laces are methods to prevent this. The gait can also help, by lifting and placing the feet properly without dragging.

Good gait and ensuring you lift your feet are important. Socks cut in half, trail gaiters and pants with hooks/straps can help.

Trail gaiters, socks cut in half and pants with hooks/straps can help.

Good gait, ensuring you lift your feet without your toes and heels dragging, is key.


I am not sure about the being able to feel more, but the most important reason I don't use socks is to avoid the rock boot sliding on my foot.

If you are on a marginal grip using just the edge of your sole, you don't want the boot to move at all.

This is also one of the reasons that rock boots for more experienced climbers are much more rigid than those for beginners -

so you know that when you touch the rock, the rubber will grip and not bend.

I've been bouldering outdoors for a couple years now and let me ask you this question in return:

Why wear socks in your climbing shoes?

What is the possible benefit to wearing socks?

Try it.

Your shoes will still stink, I guarantee.

Your feet run the risk of slipping around in your climbing shoes.

And if you buy tight, aggressive shoes, the fit will go all weird if you put on a pair of socks.

It's your call, try it.

But I don't see any benefits to wearing socks (while climbing).

Edit : Unless you are using rental shoes.

Then wearing socks helps protect you from getting athlete's foot.

Because you want to increase your chances of contracting nail fungus or athlete's foot from your rental shoes :)

In other words, it's probably better to keep the socks on if you're renting shoes .

I believe it is mostly a matter of taste.

Many people claim that going barefoot inside the climbing shoes allows you to feel a bit more of the surface than with socks.

Granted, you can't feel much through the thick rubber of the shoes to begin with, but I can see how that would be true.

Others counter claim that socks make your shoes less stinky after a good climbing session, but I don't buy into that claim

, it seems that stinky climbing shoes is a fact of life with or without socks.

I personally go barefoot in my climbing shoes, simply because that’s what everyone else did when I started, and that’s just how i've done it since then.

Every layer between your feet and the ground (or hill or whatever you are climbing) adds some distance resulting in:- less balance- less 'feel' with the type of material

you are climbing-

you feel ditches/gaps/small stones better (depends on how thick your shoes are)

Also you might be able to have smaller (less wide) shoes making it easier to place a foot into a more narrow space.

I think this is highly dependent on your feet .

Maybe with more experience, this will change for me - but I have bony, clammy, wide but low volume paddle feet.

So unless I can't get a shoe highly tailored to my foot I need the sock to soak up side-to-side space (even if my toes are very tight after going down a half size).

Question: I've been going climbing (indoor bouldering) for about six months, using shoes I rented at the gym, and wearing socks (and everything was fine). I've recently got a pair of climbing shoes, and want to know why some people wear them without socks. What are the benefits of socks vs. without? Is this purely a matter of taste?

Why go without socks with climbing shoes?

This is mostly a matter of taste. Some claim that going without socks allows you to feel the surface more, or the prevent the rock boot from sliding on your foot. A sock can take up any unwanted side-to-side space in a shoe.

This is a matter of preference and can depend on your feet, though you should wear socks when renting shoes. Going barefoot allows you to feel more and stops the boot from moving.

Going barefoot allows you to feel more, also you don't want the boots moving.

It depends on your feet, if you are renting shoes wear socks.


Omnimap seem to have all 1:50k maps with a delivery time of around two weeks.

However, Omnimap are quite expensive (US$ 16.95 per sheet).

By comparison, MapWorld New Zealand charges NZ$ 7.90 (US$ 6.50) per map.

Land Information New Zealand have a (probably incomplete) list of international resellers .

This list includes Omnimap.

Probably some of the domestic resellers also sell to foreign customers, so they might be your best bet.

I am from New Zealand

and I tend to agree with the topomap service.

Another great resource is the Department of Conservation Website http://www.doc.govt.nz Happy Hiking

I'm a kiwi too (a director of Hiking New Zealand.com)

We do remote guided small group trips around NZ.

Some of us are starting to play around with digital map solutions.

A good one I found is BackCountryNavigator PRO.

It cost a few bucks but is excellent.

You can download maps for when you are out of Internet range and your GPS works on it.

Don't use Google Maps or Apple Maps for wilderness info -- tracks etc are unreliably marked or out-of-date.

excellent otherwise tho

With this tool you can do all your research at home and just buy the odd map as a back-up or for the more full on trips where you really can't afford a smart phone 'incident'.

Good luck and enjoy our wonderful back-country.

If you want take a look at our web site - we have a few hiking tips and ideas there too.

Reece dart is nice, plenty of other options, try and stay away from the crowded great walks huts if you are looking for solitude :-)

Quick tips: Go to http://www.i-needtoknow.com/milford/maps/index.html

They have several links for hikers, including maps.

One

you might check out is the Department of Conservation's online maps at: http://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/tracks-and-walks/

Also, Google says there's another site called www.kiwifootpaths.com that may be useful...

NZ Topo Map - www.topomap.co.nz is a great resource.

You can highlight the area of map you're interested in and print it out in high quality to take with you.

If you have a Windows Phone then you can download the NZ Topo Map app and take sections offline with you.

Or if you have an Android phone, New Zealand Topo Maps Pro by Atlogis is a great app for taking sections of map offline with you also.

You can browse the 1:50,000 Topographic Map of New Zealand here: https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/767-nz-topo50-maps/ You can download it too

but: a) you need to register with a valid email address and create a password b)

the whole thing is about 10GB

and you can only download 2GB at at time

Just set a crop around the area you're interested in and you can download the maps for that area.

Depending on where the boundaries of the crop are you will get some entire sheets and some portions of others (see this index ).

The images are georeferenced and you can chose which projection/datum when you download.

Definitely get paper copies before you hit the trail but it doesn't hurt to study the digital versions beforehand.

As of November 2015, Google Maps now has StreetView for the following tracks : Milford Track Kepler

Track Abel Tasman Coast Track Lake Waikaremoana Heaphy Track Routeburn Track Rakiura Track (Stewart Island)

While the purists may bemoan this, they can be a good resource for identifying challenging parts, highlights or becoming familiar with a route.

As always, StreetView is never as good as actually being there.

These are sort of a secret tip i got and took us on many incredibly awesome hikes: http://www.nzfrenzy.com/

My girlfriend and I travelled through NZ for a couple of months and mainly used these as a foundation for our trips.

We were very glad to have them and recommended them to everyone we met.

I was actually hestitating on sharing these because we enjoyed the fact that many of the places arent well known and not overrun by tourists.

It also features well known highlights though, you wont miss out on any NZ awesomeness.

Question: Me and my girlfriend will go there in January and we plan on hiking for a week or so. Unfortunately there are no maps or books available for NZ hiking in my area. Could you recommend some for me?  Also I started using a GPS recently so the maps can be in any form (digital or paper), but I'd prefer to have a paper version as well.  We're looking at Rees Dart, but we're opened to any recommendations you might give us.

New Zealand recommended hiking maps, books and other resources

Recommendations and tips include: http://www.nzfrenzy.com; http://www.i-needtoknow.com/milford/maps/index.html; BackCountryNavigator PRO; www.kiwifootpaths.com; www.topomap.co.nz; and Omnimap. Google Maps or Apple maps are said to be unreliably marked or out of date. Official websites include the 1:50,000 Topographic Map of New Zealand here:  https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/767-nz-topo50-map; and the Department of Conservation's online maps at:  http://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/tracks-and-walks.

The New Zealand topographic map and DOC site are useful. Topo, Omnimap and BackCountryNavigator Pro are helpful too.

Topo, Omnimap, BackCountryNavigator are useful resources.

The New Zealand Topographic map and DOC website are good resources.


Ideally get a moisturiser that is cream or oil based.

For lips and between the fingers, vaseline is excellent at moisturising, then keeping the moisture in.

A moisturiser is what you need - personally I like diprobase, you can safely apply as much as you want to and it's not that oily, it soaks into the skin nice and quickly without leaving any horrible residue.

I actually use this all year round because I'm prone to getting bad eczema - so if it does the job on my awful skin, it should help with yours!

You should use some kind of moisturizing hand lotion.

There are a lot of brands, and I don't really have a preference.

I like to make sure I get an unscented version, since most moisturizers are market towards women and have floral aromas.

Put it on your skin once or twice a day, and the dry cracking should go away.

I specifically have problems with splits on the finger tips and found the following helped a lot; Grow your fingernails

longer-

I used to cut mine very short, this makes a big difference.

Use skin cream such as Neutrogena "Norwegian Fishermans Formula".

Every time your fingertips feel harder than normal, apply.

This will be something like every hour or two in dry weather (ie; heating season).

Best.

Thing.

Ever.

This emollient is moisturizing without being greasy, has a clean, fresh, smell and lasts for a long time between applications.

The small, thin tin fits easily in a pocket.

Question: So every winter working in the dry cold, my skin, on my hands and feet, cracks. Particularly between my fingers and toes. What can I do to prevent this?

How to prevent skin cracks?

You should use a moisturizer, such as diprobase or Neutrogena "Norwegian Fishermans Formula". Vaseline is a good option for lips and between the fingers. Unscented options are available.

Diprobase, Neutrogena, vaseline and other unscented moisturisers work well.

Moisturisers such as Diprobase, Neutrogena work well.

Vaseline and unscented moisturisers work well.