A Guidebook Complaint?

Pete Lake, 6/7/09, 9 miles, 400 elevation

When I read a guidebook, I expect just a few things. Accuracy in mileage and elevation; a detailed description are basically what I want. Over the years I have been able to decipher the author and that they may be leaving out information. If an author glosses over a section of a trail then they either don't want to tell you something or they have never been there. I often wonder about this last. I know that with the older books by Ira Spring, he leaves out details because he didn't find them necessary - other things were important. But a few of the newer authors I'm wondering if they are leaving information out because they are writing the trail description from a map.

Take a recent hike to Pete Lake in Eastern Washington. The author of the guidebook tells you of all the animals you could see while hiking, but never really talks about the trail. The hiker will pass a swampy area (that can be seen on a map) and hike through trees (no duh, since we are in the mountains of Washington then you come out into a mountain bowl with a lake (well since we are in the mountains hiking to a lake I would think so.

What was left out were the 6 major stream crossings without bridges. Were there bridges and they washed away? Just mentioning bridges and stream crossings would tell us. The forest here does have a habit of taking out bridges on some stream crossings so they won't be washed away - if they do that wouldn't it be a good idea to mention that in the guidebook? To me a guidebook is there to give you as much necessary information to stay found and unhurt. leaving information out does the hiking community a dis-service.

Oh, and the hike to Pete Lake? A lovely stretch of the legs through the woods along a river. And you should go if you get the chance.