Rant: The time a guidebook's 'shortcut' turned into a three-hour detour

I was following a highly recommended trail guide for Glacier National Park that promised a quiet alternative to the popular hikes. The book described a 'breathtaking connector' that would shave off two miles from the main loop. After confidently leaving the marked trail, I spent the next three hours navigating a slope that was more scree than path, ending up at a ranger station instead of the intended lake. The ranger on duty barely looked up from his paperwork, just handed me a map and said, 'We get a lot of you.' Turns out the guide author had based that section on a route that was closed for restoration five years ago. I did learn that sometimes the most direct route is the one that actually exists, which is a valuable lesson, I suppose.

3 comments

3 Comments

derek_hayes574d ago

How does a guidebook get away with printing a route that's been closed for five whole years? That's not just a little out of date, that's dangerously wrong. What if you'd run out of water or gotten hurt out there? It makes you wonder if they even check these things before reprinting. I'd be so mad I'd probably write a strongly worded email to the publisher, but I doubt they'd even care.

amy6898d ago

Relish the fact that you made it to a ranger station and not, say, a bear den. My own guidebook misadventure involved a 'scenic overlook' that was just a drainage ditch. I spent an hour convincing myself the author meant for me to appreciate urban infrastructure. Now I cross-reference every tip with recent hiker forums, which is how I learned I'm not alone in my gullibility. Sometimes I wonder if guidebook writers get a kick out of sending us on these wild goose chases.

amyj717d ago

That cross-referencing trick saved me from a 'hidden waterfall' that was just someone's lawn sprinkler.