HikeArizona.COM

Several people have commented about the seemingly arbitrary passage divisions on the AZT. There appears to be a hint of official interest in opening this up for consideration. This isn't a NEPA analysis and there sure aren't any guarantees, but if anyone has an opinion on the matter, now is the time to air it. Once the management plan is complete, the matter will likely be closed for good.

So, any thoughts?

(I tried searching for forum comments on this but didn't figure out the necessary search terms.)

Meaning, where each passage officially ends and begins the next passage?

yes

It really wouldn't matter to me. I want to know first and foremost where the trail is. Next comes water sources. Arbitrary divisions are too far down the list for me to worry about.

Probably the biggest benefit of updating the passages would be forcing an update of the trail guide. Other than that, not sure if it matters.

I think the PCT has it right: the PCT is divided into "sections" instead of "passages," but it's the same idea. All of the PCT sections start and end at trailheads or road crossings where thru-hikers typically go to town to resupply. This means that PCT sections are 50-100+ miles long, but this also makes it super-easy for thru-hikers. Each time you go to town, you know you need to leave town with the maps and trail info (water reports, etc.) for the next section. Rinse and repeat up the trail. And this makes planning really easy, too, since it's easy to divide up maps, etc. for mail drops.

On the AZT, you need maps and info for multiple passages each time you leave town. Why not have the AZT passages match up with where hikers are getting on and off the trail? Most day hikers are probably doing less than a passage on a day hike, and most section hikers are probably doing multiple passages on a section hike, so this will not make non-thru-hikers any worse off.

(Yeah, I'm biased towards thru-hikers, but thru hiking is hard enough as it is. Section and day hikers have plenty of time to figure out where they're going. Maintainers and stewards can figure out what piece of trail they're responsible for without having it labeled as a specific "passage.")

There was some discussion http://hikearizona.com... recently.

One benefit I can see is for people that want to hike one section at a time. Beginning and ending at (or at least near) a road accessible spot would make it easier. And maybe evening out the section lengths. They range from 8 to 36 miles.

@Sredfield Yup... not that it will make any difference with the water sources, but my vote would be to move the 16/17 TH to the end of Battleaxe Road, just up the hill from the Gila River.

flagscott wrote:All of the PCT sections start and end at trailheads or road crossings where thru-hikers typically go to town to resupply.

There aren't an awful lot of towns close to the Arizona Trail, and I believe most that are close already are at or near a trailhead.

I'm not sure what the benefits of realigning the passages would be, but I do see a lot of costs involved in changing them. Some costs:

• ATA website would need to be updated.
• ATA maps would need to be reworked.
• HAZ maps would need to be reworked.
• HAZ descriptions would need to be reworked.
• Arizona Trail Application would need to be reworked.
• GPS tracks and waypoints would need to be reworked.
• Guidebook would need to be re-issued.
• Past trail journals, etc., would no longer match the current.
• Databook and water report would need to be reworked.

That was quick and easy to come up with. I'm sure I missed a lot of other costs. Again, what are the benefits?

CannondaleKid wrote:There aren't an awful lot of towns close to the Arizona Trail, and I believe most that are close already are at or near a trailhead.

The point is that the passages on the AZT should coincide with where hikers are getting on and off the trail, whether it's a town, a ranch, a post office, a road, or whatever.

Similar comment to @rcorfman
A huge amount of ATA and other collateral would need to be updated... perhaps not the best way to spend funds versus real trail work such as new gates, clearing downfall, brushing, tread and trail improvements?

Hey Shawn,
When we hiked the AZT we did do each section as a day hike. Twice we did two sections in a day. That just worked better for us and our shuttle set up. While a access point for each trailhead would have worked better for us we could understand that might not be feasible. The Romero Pass is the one I thought we could change. When we hiked to Romero Pass we hiked up to Lemmon to our shuttle anyway. When we hiked from Romero Pass we hiked down from Lemmon to Romero Pass to start our hike. If the Passage started and ended up top you go that way anyway. The passage before Picket Post has changed since I did it so I'm not sure. When we did it we had to park east of the Artisan Well and hike to our trail heads. I here it's still a tough access. The Mazzies were the only section we "had" to camp out. We hiked to the Park stayed the night and did the next section the following day and hiked out Babydoll to our shuttle. We sure don't want a road in there! LOL I think if it's a choice in keeping it wild or making it easy access I'll go for the wild. We managed. I do wish there was a AZT sign at the start/finish of each section. Even if just a little one. Like at Romero pass or the Park. I even vote for Joe Bartels to carry them out there! LOL. As always thanks, Shawn, for all you do!

flagscott wrote:I think the PCT has it right: the PCT is divided into "sections" instead of "passages," but it's the same idea. All of the PCT sections start and end at trailheads or road crossings where thru-hikers typically go to town to resupply.

Yes, but any decent map shows where the towns and trailheads are. I see limited value in inferring their existence from coincidence with reaching the end of a numbered segment, an event most likely verified by looking at a map, which would presumably show towns and trailheads regardless of where segments start and stop. Correlating passages with hiking days for planning purposes has some utility, but it's something I'm cautious about taking too literally, since it can't account for variations between people and complications such as weather and personal whims.

Adjusting the numbering system might make it line up better with the average rate of progress in some places, but will enough people stick to the average rate of progress on every day to make that adjustment worthwhile?

I think his point is that you can take 1 page of map for each section, where that map shows the entire route until your next cache. This probably won't work as well since the AZT doesn't pass through that many towns, I think some of the cache points used a a bit different for different people. Once you get away from the highway crossings, patagonia, and flagstaff, all the other cache spots are generally along whichever forest road you decide to use. Not everyone uses the trailheads as cache spots. (I wouldn't) In the case of US60 the trail doesn't have a trailhead right at the highway either, it is maybe a mile away.

big_load wrote:

flagscott wrote:I think the PCT has it right: the PCT is divided into "sections" instead of "passages," but it's the same idea. All of the PCT sections start and end at trailheads or road crossings where thru-hikers typically go to town to resupply.

Yes, but any decent map shows where the towns and trailheads are. I see limited value in inferring their existence from coincidence with reaching the end of a numbered segment, an event most likely verified by looking at a map, which would presumably show towns and trailheads regardless of where segments start and stop. Correlating passages with hiking days for planning purposes has some utility, but it's something I'm cautious about taking too literally, since it can't account for variations between people and complications such as weather and personal whims.

Adjusting the numbering system might make it line up better with the average rate of progress in some places, but will enough people stick to the average rate of progress on every day to make that adjustment worthwhile?

As a section hiker, I always want to end a hike / backpack with a passage DONE! But, sometimes that doesn't work due to access. I've often wondered why Summerhaven, not Romero Pass, was the ending point for 11, but I'm assuming it's because it aligns with the wilderness boundary. But, doing a passage per outing is my hangup and not REALLY an issue - if you're going to hike the whole trail, arbitrary divisions on a map don't make a difference in the end.

Having said that - I agree with others that resources can be used better. If any modifications are done in the maps / passages / names and labels, etc, I would like to see COMMON LANDMARKS. When looking at topo versus AZT app versus any other resources I can get my hands on, it is often quite time-consuming to align landmarks. Tanks, roads, land features on one resource aren't noted on the other. After a passage when I post a triplog, I try to also post a water report. Most of the time I can't figure out which water source I'm trying to report on because, if there is an alignment, I can't see it. I don't want to report water for the wrong source. This is just one example of why names, labels and landmarks should be consistent among resources.


So, I say leave the passages as is and throw resources at changes that actually make a difference when your toes are on the tread.

I think it is fine just the way it it is.

Romero pass mentioned a couple of times... When I was in the Catalinas last month I overheard a ranger telling some hikers that the AZT no longer goes that route and it now stays out of the wilderness to accommodate bikers and takes a more easterly route on some trails I don't remember the name of.

mazatzal wrote:Romero pass mentioned a couple of times... When I was in the Catalinas last month I overheard a ranger telling some hikers that the AZT no longer goes that route and it now stays out of the wilderness to accommodate bikers and takes a more easterly route on some trails I don't remember the name of.

There is a Pusch Ridge bypass route, but the databook still has the official route going through Romero Pass.

I think that's because the databook predates the bypass? The ranger was telling hikers about the new route!

I think the ranger was misinformed. The ATA website still has the trail through Summerhaven as the official route. The Pusch Ridge bypass is an "official alternate".

As for why Romero Pass is an endpoint and not Summerhaven, if I recall, going through Summerhaven used to be an alternate route. The official route went down Canada del Oro trail then up to Oracle Ridge.