Field Guide revamping/update project

[Bosterson]

I propose a very broad revamping (or at least update) of the Portland Hikers Field Guide.

At the very least, all of the hikes listed in it need to given a once-over, with the text edited for clarity and to fix typos and stuff like that. Also, it seems like a lot of the hike stats are incorrect about the mileage and elevation gain. I'm not sure where the original information came from, but it seems like with GPS we can get definitive numbers for all of these hikes. The best part is that I'm pretty sure that almost all of that information has already been collected by Don and other GPS users on the site, and any that we don't have yet will probably be hiked by someone with a GPS this summer.

In terms of revamping, I'm not entirely clear as to why the Field Guide doesn't function as a wiki and why it can only be edited by admins, which limits the scope of information in it and our ability as users to fix errors. If this is a limitation of the site's software, so be it. However, there are specific things I would like to suggest as ways to make the Field Guide better:

*Every hike should have a trail map image on its page. Some of them do now, and perhaps most don't, but there are definitely enough people on here with TOPO software (or whatever) who can generate a map for a given hike. This will be easy to implement if people are already pulling out their GPS tracks.

*We need to go through and create Field Guide entries for hikes that are missing from the database, especially in the Gorge. (For instance, Augspurger Peak.) This is trickier since only admins can create/update Field Guide entries (meaning more work for them), but perhaps we can solicit people to nominate hikes for the Field Guide and do the writeup portions and submit pictures. Other non-Gorge areas really need to be fleshed out as well, at least in general overviews for large areas and descriptions of overall trail systems (for instance, Goat Rocks, stuff around St. Helens, etc.). I feel like we should duplicate a lot of the stuff on NWHiker, since he doesn't give any information about trailhead access or driving directions.

*Rampant interlinking in Field Guide entries is confusing. Many times there is a link to a trail junction that has a very short description and no picture, and the trails are referred to by numbers that don't make any sense without a map to reference. Interlinks should either be fixed/updated/made useful, or else removed.

*Multiple approaches to a similar destination could be condensed into a single page with a "main" route and "alternate" routes (or, say, a main page with subpages for alternates). Eg, Larch Mountain from Multnomah and Larch Mountain from Oneonta don't need to be separate Field Guide entries (especially when the latter is brief and not very helpful). Obviously not every possible route anywhere needs to be in the Field Guide, but common sense should restrict us to the main or most useful ones.

I think that's about it for the moment. Hopefully other people have suggestions for stuff they'd like to see too. But basically, I think the Field Guide is a really great resource, and I think it can be a lot better than it is now - at the very least, we can prevent some of the extensive Trail Q&A that shows up in the forums.

I don't have GPS myself and so am not of much use for updating hike stats, but if admins are delegating some of the other work, I'm happy to do whatever writing/editing/organizing might be needed. If this is something other people think is a good idea, a general call for help could be posted in the forums, like starting with a request for GPS info and map generation from users.

[Grannyhiker]

I've noticed that the mileage on the hikes I've looked up in the Field Guide varies considerably from the standard guidebooks (Sullivan and Gerald). For the most part, Field Guide mileages are understated compared to the books. Who's right? How do the guidebook authors calculate mileage? (One Speed, can you help with this question?) I know hardly anything about GPS, but I have read that they often understate mileage and elevation gain. If this is true, it might account for the differences between the printed guides and our Field Guide.

Perhaps the most critical item is that all the Washington hikes that are on WA DNR or State Park lands should be updated for WA Discover Pass information, preferably before July 1. Of course this won't happen in 5 days but it does need to be done. State parks are pretty obvious, but I have no idea which hikes are on WA DNR lands requiring the new pass. In the meantime, I'll just stay on the Oregon side of the river. I'd hate to see any of our readers get tickets because the info isn't in the Field Guide!

[retired jerry]

For the field guide hikes I've done I use GPS tracks. You can't use the odometer, you have to look at the track afterwords, and delete points like if you walk off the trail to a viewpoint or when you stop for a rest there will be a cloud of points.

But I'm sure there are errors. That's the problem with large data sets. There will always be errors. You just have to work on it over time and make it better.

I appreciate when people point out errors. I'm always happy to fix.

I don't speak for "management", I'm "just a field guide editor", but I know that more people are always appreciated. Speak up and you can become part of it. Since this is a volunteer effort, you have to be persistent.

As far as what permits are required at trailhead, that's difficult because it can vary from year to year. Maybe we should have a link to the relevant agency, but then that changes from year to year also. I don't know...

[Don Nelsen]

Jerry is correct as to GPS mileage "you have to look at the track afterwards..." It's the best way to get the numbers right.

I will be glad to help with what I can. If you need mileages or tracks I likely have it for both sides of the gorge and a lot for Mt. St Helens and Mt. hood area too.

[Stevefromdodge]

The Field Guide is a volunteer effort and we're always looking for people willing to help. I've created most of the entries and my available internet time has been quite limited, as of late.

To maintain consistency in the presentation of the pages, we've had to use quite a few wiki templates and we've held to a strict design pattern for each kind of page. The reason we've kept it locked down to editors, is that if those templates aren't followed closely, the page form degenerates quickly. It's pretty easy stuff to use and figure out, but it does take a small amount of explanation. We're always asking for new blood, so if anyone wants to volunteer their time, let us know and we'll get you set up with an account.

We've talked about maps a lot. There's some question on the legality of using maps from Topo and other proprietary programs, so we haven't used those. The best approach would probably be an overlay of GPS information donated by members on top of an existing, publicly available map source. We've looked into ways to do this, but never pinned down a method that would work.

As to the distances, each editor has used his own information. The pages I've created from my own experiences have been field checked by me. On the pages I've created for other users, I've used their information, or if they didn't have any, data provided by the forest service or other public sources.

[Martell]

If you are want to be an editor and help out by adding hikes, or updating existing ones, check out this page:
http://www.portlandhikersfieldguide.org ... p:Contents

We use the same software as Wikipedia (Mediawiki) but basically require people to fill out a quick form before they can edit.

In the past I've asked people to submit their GPX files. We actually have a way to link those and show them on a map for each hike, but we haven't had a lot of response. Sometimes people will send in one, but I think they get distracted because it's a pretty big project. We could try doing another request, or just let editors continue to add them informally.

Bigger changes, like removing alternate routes and combining them into one page, are discussed amongst the editors. There was some reasoning and thought behind the way it is currently done. There is a separate forum for field guide editor discussion, and once you become an editor you get access to it.

[Grannyhiker]

Despite the inconsistencies re distance and elevation gain (and not answered is the question whether it might be the guidebooks, rather than the Field Guide, that are incorrect!), I find the Field Guide to be an invaluable resource. It's far better than the Washington Trails Association website, IMHO. At least for me, the WTA info is much harder to find and use.

Some of us just don't have the expertise (or patience) to learn yet another piece of software. (For example, I am still bogged down in the instruction book for the camera I got for Christmas four years ago, so use it primarily as a simple point-and-shoot!) I would be happy to do straight writing, though, if someone else will convert the results into the wiki format. Would this help?

There have been a lot of great trip reports on this forum which could fill in many of the gaps in the Field Guide. Would it be possible to put a "placeholder" slot in the Field Guide and then simply link to the trip report in the forum even if there isn't a wiki entry in the FG? That would fill in a lot of gaps, especially in eastern, central, southern Oregon. I would be happy to take the time next winter to review and identify past trip reports for this purpose if you think this would be an option.

Re the various passes, I agree this information changes too much, but it would be most helpful if the appropriate land manager for a hike could be identified (such as WA DNR, OR state parks, etc.). I do consider it urgent that the land managers of those WA hikes that are on state land be identified.

Re maps, please note that the USGS maps that are used in such applications as TOPO! can be downloaded for free from the USGS. I have no idea what can be done with them once downloaded, but I do know that the basic maps are not subject to copyright.

[OkieWaterfaller]

Hey folks, I've just discovered your web site and I think it's great. I spent the day going through your waterfall section and I must say, I'm not surprised you have several posted that I have not yet visited or even knew existed. I've been seeking them out for 30 years and there's always more!

Anyway, I'll definitely be linking readers from my Pacific NW Waterfalls Computer Companion web site, http://www.mymaps.com/nwfalls/toc.htm, to yours so they can learn the directions to visit those waterfalls I've yet to document. Naturally, you have also provided me with a compelling reason to come out to the Portland area next year!

I noticed in your waterfall web pages that you list guidebook references to each waterfall. Unfortunately, my guidebook is missing as a reference to almost every entry of yours. I'd be happy to provide a citation for you; even provide a hyperlink to the specific web page on my Computer Companion pertaining to the waterfall of interest. For example: http://www.portlandhikersfieldguide.org ... rell_Falls could have added within the "Guidebooks that cover this destination", the following html code:

<i>Waterfall Lover's Guide: Pacific Northwest</i>, 4th edition <a href="http://www.mymaps.com/nwfalls/cg/cg1.htm" target=_blank>Computer Companion</a>, by Gregory A. Plumb

If you aren't interested in the hyperlinks, that's ok. I can let you know which waterfalls in your Field Guide list are in the current book and hopefully you could add the hardcopy citation.

Thanks and keep up the great work!