Trail Magazine

Richard Newstead said:

My wife has bought me a subscription for 2006. While I quite like the
magazine (which is why I have it as a present!), its rather "gung-ho"
approach grates at times. What's better?

Depends what you're looking for... I'd sooner read TGO myself, though
generally do without them all (I get Scottish Mountaineer but only
because the MC of S post it to me anyway).

I prefer TGO to Trail as it's a more general view of The Outdoors,
rather than specifically walking through very specific bits of it, but
that makes it different rather than better.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Richard Newstead said:

My wife has bought me a subscription for 2006. While I quite like the
magazine (which is why I have it as a present!), its rather "gung-ho"
approach grates at times. What's better?

Honest opinion.....

If you love the Lakes - Lakeland Walker is very good.

TGO is OK but has some issues that are just gear, gear and more gear -
if you like gear - great, however I prefer to read about issues, walks,
etc. Last months TGO (December 2005 edition) was very poor as it had
very little apart from gear, gear, gear.....

Country Walking aims at the less adventurous (maybe older(?)) walker
but is good for people in the south-east as it does what it says on the
tin, country walking not hill-walking exclusively. Also it has an
article by Stuart Maconie every month that's nearly worth the money on
it's own?!?!

Trail is my favourite but agree entirely with your statement above. It
most probably is a little samey for 'experienced' walkers but it always
has some interesting articles and although does review gear it isn't so
gear freakish as TGO.

Finally, as a relative 'newbie' I have bought all of the above every
month (NB Lakeland walker is every two months-ish) for the last sixteen
months. Now have a subscription for Lakeland Walker, may drop TGO BUT
this months (January 2006) is good!

David.

Peter Clinch said:

I prefer TGO to Trail as it's a more general view of The Outdoors,
rather than specifically walking through very specific bits of it, but
that makes it different rather than better.

ditto

email hidden said:

TGO is OK but has some issues that are just gear, gear and more gear -
if you like gear - great, however I prefer to read about issues, walks,
etc. Last months TGO (December 2005 edition) was very poor as it had
very little apart from gear, gear, gear.....

er, in the run up to Christmas I think a lot of people would have been
over the moon with that editorial slant on the edition.

I may be wrong but I think the gear-heavy sections are at key times of
the year. Other than that I prefer TGO because it does have a wider
range of topics in its articles and the geographical areas it
features.

Quoted message said:

Trail is my favourite but agree entirely with your statement above. It
most probably is a little samey for 'experienced' walkers but it always
has some interesting articles and although does review gear it isn't so
gear freakish as TGO.

That's because they don't have someone as good as Mr T contributing!!!
;-)

Quoted message said:

may drop TGO BUT this months (January 2006) is good!

What are they covering in this issue?
(I don't buy every one)

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Richard Newstead said:

My wife has bought me a subscription for 2006. While I quite like the
magazine (which is why I have it as a present!), its rather "gung-ho"
approach grates at times. What's better?

Depends what you're looking for... I'd sooner read TGO myself, though
generally do without them all (I get Scottish Mountaineer but only because
the MC of S post it to me anyway).

I prefer TGO to Trail as it's a more general view of The Outdoors, rather
than specifically walking through very specific bits of it, but that makes
it different rather than better.

And TGO does have Mike Harding 🙂

Ysgrifennodd "Richard Newstead" <[email hidden]> mewn neges
newyddion:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My wife has bought me a subscription for 2006. While I quite like the
magazine (which is why I have it as a present!), its rather "gung-ho"
approach grates at times. What's better?

Regards

Richard Newstead

--
SOTA Beams
http://www.sotabeams.co.uk

Hources for Corses i think..

I read both monthly (still waiting for a decent subs offer from TGO).

I find that Trail can be a little laddish, but is usually more entertaining
for it. Sometimes it grates on me too, especially the tabloid like claims
they make on discovering new mountains in the lakes/snowdonia.

Trail is a little dodgy on gear imho, and i much prefer TGO (and Chris
Townsend) in this respect.
Example. Look at this month's Trail. The section on the new Terra Nova Laser
Competition. They complain that the tent is cramped and small, yet claim the
akto is Massive and some other superlative regarding its size. The
dimensions they quote however, make the Laser larger. So i dont take much
notice of their reviews, not too keen on the maks out of 5 they give which
really are trying to show an accuracy that isn't really there.

TGO reviews are a little "less this is Superb/ Useless" and more
descriptive, balanced and (to me) useful. I especially like the real world
gear sections they have, describing what gear was used under certain
conditions and how well they performed. Not the most gripping reads, but
provide useful information that can improve my knowledge of my chosen
pastime.

Wales has a local publication too, Walking Wales ( I think, my copies are
elsewhere). It's not bad, but it seems to be aimed more at a Country Walker
sort of person.

T Dave R

--

Walk in Eryri
www.walkeryri.org.uk

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:32:07 -0000, Dafydd Ap Arwyn <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

TGO reviews are a little "less this is Superb/ Useless" and more
descriptive, balanced and (to me) useful. I especially like the real
world
gear sections they have, describing what gear was used under certain
conditions and how well they performed. Not the most gripping reads, but
provide useful information that can improve my knowledge of my chosen
pastime.

TGO is getting to be hard to find in the shops these days. I often used to
buy a copy at Euston Station but have not seen it there for a while now.

Slightly bizzare that Trail is laying claim to Skiddaw as a new mountain
in the Lakes. It pre-dates Trail by a fair margin. These mags must be
quite hard to write in a way - they seem to continually be looking for
some odd new angle to add interest "the easiest mountain to ski up on the
Moon etc". Ooops I can see their "best peaks in the Solar System" issue
already taking shape :-(

TTFN

Quoted message said:

Slightly bizzare that Trail is laying claim to Skiddaw as a new mountain
in the Lakes.

Typical "fallofftheben" Trail.... Everyone knows that Skiddaw was
discovered by Ann Bowker.

http://www.keswick.u-net.com/skiddaw.htm

Richard Webb

"Bernard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Richard Newstead said:

My wife has bought me a subscription for 2006. While I quite like the
magazine (which is why I have it as a present!), its rather "gung-ho"
approach grates at times. What's better?

Depends what you're looking for... I'd sooner read TGO myself, though
generally do without them all (I get Scottish Mountaineer but only
because the MC of S post it to me anyway).

I prefer TGO to Trail as it's a more general view of The Outdoors, rather
than specifically walking through very specific bits of it, but that
makes it different rather than better.

And TGO does have Mike Harding 🙂

I gave up on TGO a while ago as I couldn't be bothered with the political
rantings of the editorial and other inside articles. Maybe he(McNeish?) has
calmed down a bit nowadays.

Richard Newstead said:

Ooops I can see their "best
peaks in the Solar System" issue already taking shape :-(

25,000m - Mons Olympus - Mars
10,800m - Maxwell Montes - Venus
8,850m - Everest - Earth

Paul

Paul Saunders said:

25,000m - Mons Olympus - Mars
10,800m - Maxwell Montes - Venus
8,850m - Everest - Earth

Given there's no "mean sea level" on the other planets, I presume the
heights are measured relative to the lowest point in the surrounding
flat bits (but how do you define flat...)?

In which case Mauna Kea in Hawaii or some mountain in the Andes would
probably be taller than Everest by that definition (i.e. ignoring the
water line). Don't talk the home team down - we're not /that/ far
behind Mars!
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
Rudi Winter <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders said:

25,000m - Mons Olympus - Mars
10,800m - Maxwell Montes - Venus
8,850m - Everest - Earth

Given there's no "mean sea level" on the other planets, I presume the
heights are measured relative to the lowest point in the surrounding
flat bits (but how do you define flat...)?

Been a long time, but I think they use the 'WGS84 Spheroid' equivalent
... i.e. assume it was a regular spheroid of the same overall size/mass
and work up/down from there.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

Rudi Winter said:

Given there's no "mean sea level" on the other planets, I presume the
heights are measured relative to the lowest point in the surrounding
flat bits (but how do you define flat...)?

An average of the surrounding plains?

Quoted message said:

In which case Mauna Kea in Hawaii

That's higher than Everest.

Quoted message said:

or some mountain in the Andes

Acongacua IIRC.

Quoted message said:

would
probably be taller than Everest by that definition

That's by far the tallest by the definition of being measured from the
centre of the earth.

Paul

One of the Equador volcanoes, Cotapaxi IIRC gets a big vote as the
highest due to it being furthest from the centre of the earth
(equatorial bulge)

Hawaii big island is our version of Olympus Mons, rising from the
Pacific basin. On Mars, a combination of a non moving crust and lower
gravity means this knd of hill can get a lot bigger.

Richard Webb

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

Been a long time, but I think they use the 'WGS84 Spheroid' equivalent
.. i.e. assume it was a regular spheroid of the same overall size/mass
and work up/down from there.

That would be a good equivalent of mean sea level, but I'd be surprised
if the mass distribution of Mars was known that well.
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

Richard Webb said:

One of the Equador volcanoes, Cotapaxi IIRC gets a big vote as the
highest due to it being furthest from the centre of the earth
(equatorial bulge)

Hawaii big island is our version of Olympus Mons, rising from the
Pacific basin. On Mars, a combination of a non moving crust and lower
gravity means this knd of hill can get a lot bigger.

Lack of water probably helps a bit, too.
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

Rudi Winter said:

That would be a good equivalent of mean sea level, but I'd be
surprised if the mass distribution of Mars was known that well.

Estimates for the height of Olympus Mons range from 25k to 27k.

Paul

"Richard Webb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

One of the Equador volcanoes, Cotapaxi IIRC gets a big vote as the
highest due to it being furthest from the centre of the earth
(equatorial bulge)

Close, but it's actually Chimborazo, at 6,310m or thereabouts. First
climbed by Whymper with the Carrels in 1880, and thought for some years to
be the highest on earth (mainly because the big Asian peaks were so
inaccessible to Westerners).

There are some pics (sort of TR) here
http://www.pardoe.net/climbing/cotopaxi.htm

SteveP

Dafydd Ap Arwyn said:

Example. Look at this month's Trail. The section on the new Terra
Nova Laser Competition. They complain that the tent is cramped and
small, yet claim the akto is Massive and some other superlative
regarding its size. The dimensions they quote however, make the Laser
larger.

I don't think there's much in it. I've sat inside an Akto and I bought a
Laser. Size overall is very similar IIRC, but the Laser has more headroom.
That's what put me off about the Akto, it's a bit too low for my liking, but
more sturdily built and probably better in strong winds.

Paul