Talk:Wikitrails

You say that Wikiproject Hiking Trails is failing, but I think that just means that you should concentrate on improving that rather than starting a whole Wikimedia project. The ideas you have here could be incorporated into that with great success, I'm sure. If you want, visit my own Wikimedia project proposal, Wikiscope. Dbmag9 20:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[From MrRedwood:]

I disagree that the Wikipedia Wikiproject on Hiking is an exclusively appropriate forum. I've been looking for a place to add my hiking 'content', and I've looked at quite a few, and an encyclopedia is not an appropriate forum for this topic. Essentially, wikitrails would end up being a travel guide -- which is explicitly prohibited within Wikipedia. An encyclopedia is not appropriate for most local hiking trails.

The Wikiproject on Hiking Trails is, in my opinion, still a very appropriate project with a limited scope, but I'm posting a more extensive critique on its 'talk' page, so I'll keep my comments here to Wikitrails.

My biggest worry with respect to a Wikitrails project is that hiking only occasionally seems to be done on a single, specific 'trail'. Just as an example, my most recent Yosemite hike (well, backpack) started on the Forsyth trail, continued onto the John Muir trail, the Vernal Falls trail and the Misty trail, and had a detour onto the Half Dome Trail. That really isn't a single trail, but a route -- and routes are fluid things. Others on a similar route through Yosemite might have headed up to Cloud's Rest via Clouds Rest trail, while maintaining the same trailhead and destination.

It probably makes sense not to over-think the design and just start documenting trails. It would be nice if a few modern options could be included -- although I'm not sure whether the wiki mechanism can incorporate these. Linking to external websites (e.g., a map website to provide dynamic maps of a route), but keeping the content within the scope

of the GFDL copyright should be important.

• Dynamic maps that allow a user to examine the trail.
• Elevation profiles that illustrate the difficulty better than 'net elevation change' alone.
• A higher density of pictures than wikipedia typically provides.
• Extensive keyword usage allowing searching and linking. E.g., how can I find moderate trails with ferns that are within 20 miles of my zip code?

[End of comments from MrRedwood 07:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)]

[From Patleahy:]

This proposal is being discussed at Wikipeda.

I disagree that WikiProject Hiking Trails is failing. You should not judge Wikipedia as a trail guide. The purpose of that project should be to document trails which are worth of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Articles on notable trails in Wikipedia are improving all the time so it's not failing. There may be a place for a separate project for documenting all trails, not only the ones which should be included in an encyclopaedia.

Will this project be limited to hiking trails? If so I suggest that the title reflect the limited scope. There was confusion at Wikipedia when the template Infobox Hiking trail was called Trails. Wikihike may be better than Wikitrails, although I worry that hike is not a global term for this activity.

You should list local websites generically in the competitor analysis. One benefit and disadvantage they have over a Wikimedia based wiki is that they can express a point of view. Local websites attached to hiking clubs can mix trail information together with environmental advocacy and even trail maintenance requests in a way which may not be possible in a site which must maintain a neutral point of view. Traditional paper guide books are also a competitor.

[End of comments from Patleahy 01:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)]

[From MrRedwood]

So we are in vigorous agreement that the wikipedia hiking trails [infobox] is of limited scope, although there are many 'named' trails left that may qualify for that scope.

Trying to figure out what an on-line trail guide would ideally look like is a surprisingly difficult task. The progress at hikedatabase is good, but immediately strikes me as somewhat awkward due to its extremely hierarchical nature. To find the Steep Ravine-Matt Davis trail, I had to traverse quite a few layers. Perhaps this is a limitation of the current wiki mechanism: a different Content Management Framework would permit a zip code lookup, for example. However, hikedatabase seems to be a great start.

The spread of content in this area is somewhat frustrating; so many websites are popping up, each covering a subset of what would be ideal. Hopefully the licensing divergence can be dealt with, but in the meantime I'll be looking at putting my input into hikedatabase instead of working to create yet another forum here.

Re the 'hike' vs. 'trail' dichotomy -- I prefer 'trail', because it encompasses other uses of the route besides a simple day-hike. But I'd be interested in hearing other options. I learned while traveling that what US folks refer to as backpacking is called tramping in some parts of the world, and what I would call a trail is called a track in other locales. Since a good deal of my 'hiking' is actually 'backpacking' (tramping?), I mildly prefer wikitrails over wikihikes.

Finally, I agree that the encyclopedia paradigm seems too limiting for a trail guide of any form. I hadn't thought of trail maintenance issues, but I was pondering a whether a voting system ranking routes would be interesting (e.g., in the Matt Davis-Steep Ravine trail loop, is it better to go up the Steep Ravine and down Matt Davis, or vice versa?) Neither question has an appropriate place in an encyclopedia.

[End of comments from MrRedwood 11:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)]

License

What license do you propose using? -- Patleahy 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody every responded to this question. Does this mean that there is no longer intrest in this issue? -- Patleahy 07:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hikipedia

Has anyone an opinion on the Hikipedia web site? Is it a good place to put our efforts to document hiking trails? -- Patleahy 07:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)