Talk:Hiking equipment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Medical kit

A separate section specifying the contents of the medical kit might be a good idea, specifically for hiking (as opposed to first aid kit). DirkvdM 12:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

The "Basic equipment" section is a mess. It fails to differentiate:

  • Between equipment that you only need for backpacking (sleeping bag, tinder) and essential day-hiking gear (boots, sunscreen);
  • Between things that you need under almost any conditions (socks, clothes) and those that may or may not be needed (insect repellent, tinder);
  • Between sensible equipment (map, compass) and at least one ridiculous item (what would possess you to bring candles on a hike?).

The "Worth considering" section is even worse. In my own opinion, half of those things aren't remotely worth carrying on one's back. Plus, the whole article reads like a manual and not like an encyclopedia. --Smack (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Since we already have a category that includes most of this equipment, I'm not sure that this article even serves a purpose. -Will Beback 06:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I only wrote this as a starter for a more complete list (the Wiki way, afaik). First some defensive remarks. :) category:hiking equipment contains only a fraction of what is in this list and I don't see why there shouldn't be an article on this. Candles are extremely handy for some types of hiking, such as staying overnight in basic huts. I'd say the list should be expanded even further. Most things will not be needed for most trips, but all items are useful for some trips. I agree that it needs some more ordening, but like I said, it's only a start and it's sort of like a disambiguation page in that the structure appears as the list grows, so I wanted to keep the ordering to a minimum at this stage. I must admit that I wasn't sure about the explanations. On the one hand it might make more sense to put those in the hiking article, but on the other hand some explanation on why certain types of things should be brought (one thick sweater or several thin ones) makes a lot of sense here. Also, there is some confusion about the terms 'hiking' and 'backpacking' due to regional differences. I believe the most widely used catch-all terms is 'hiking' (see the intro to hiking). We should get this straightened out and standardised in all relevant articles. One last note about tinder - that is something one should always carry because it can be a life saver when things go wrong (even on a simple dayhike) and weighs next to nothing. See ten essentials and Mini survival kits. DirkvdM 19:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Today I reread the article and reviewed discussion. The candle thing caught my eye, because I used to carry an extra candle for the one in the miniature lantern in my hiking pack. Currently, I don't use it, but still own it. I think the article has a good purpose, although utilizing other related Wiki articles my be able to trim-down some sections for this page. For example, this page could suggest to carry "portable" essentials of an emergency kit, but link to an article listing those, rather than repeating them all. I don't think you wrote it, but some of the suggested stuff on this page, like a towel, reminded me more of camping equipment. It may be practical to reduce one section, with a sentence that suggests "hikers might consider packing some items used for camping" - and link to a Wiki page for camping. All-in-all though, I think this section is useful. Mdvaden 17:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You make several points, so I'll reply to them separately:
  • It's just a start: Point taken. I hadn't noticed that the article was scarcely a week old. However, I'd say that if you're going to write something half-baked like this, you should do it in temporary space, such as a user subpage.
  • The category is weak: I think we should fix the category before we make a parallel list. Once we're done with the category, we can decide whether or not we actually need the list. (In other words, fix things that are broken before introducing new things.)
  • What to do about the explanations: I don't know, either. This list is very confusing without them (you see, it confused me), but proper explanations would exceed the usual scope of a list.
--Smack (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the article should be tagged as "under construction" and a stub. Would this address your confusion, Smack?
The article exists—I think—because the most relevant articles (Ten essentials and Scout Outdoor Essentials) have been straining with extra useful/important items which don't belong in those articles, strictly speaking.
It's on my todo list to organize this article, perhaps as a table like this:
Item Primary use Other uses
Flashlight night time use looking inside things, signaling, finding things in the pack
etc.
— EncMstr 06:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
An "under construction" tag would address one of my complaints, but not all of them. I'm not convinced that we actually need this article. I don't really like your proposed table, either. 'Hiking' encompasses everything from one-hour strolls to month-long expeditions. In that range, you have many distinct sets of gear requirements. In order to achieve balanced treatment, we would need to discuss each of those different options. There just isn't room to do this in a table, list or anything of the sort. --Smack (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
In fields like this it's hard to avoid advising or instructing when all we are supposed to do is describe. -Will Beback 09:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I indeed started this because ten essentials was going beyond that specific list. But maybe starting this as a list was not the right approach because of the necessary explanations. Maybe it should take on the form of proze (if that is the right word), possibly followed by an overview (which could also be used as a 'checklist'), possibly in the form of a table showing for which types of hikes each item would make sense. What types of hikes are there anyway? (This is also useful for the organisation of all hiking-related articles.) First of all there is the distinction between day-hikes and thru-hikes, although, like I said, one should be prepared for overnighting even on a simple day-hike. Also, how long is a day-hike? More or less than 6 hours makes quite a difference (ie for food). And what to bring on a thru-hike also depends on the facilities (any huts and if so, do they contain stoves or even electricity?). A more important distinction might be between types of environement. Hot or cold (although some environments like mountains and deserts have both), open or bush, trails or roughing it, possibility of river crossings, ... Damn, this is also getting to be to complicated. Maybe that is why I don't recall having seen any such lists. What you usually see is either proze or an overly complete list with the note one should not try to take everything on that list. Which brings me to another point - I'm really doing original research now, although it is at least in part based on reading many books, with the added advantage of extensive experience. Basically, when I pack for a hike I try to be prepared for any circumstances. The only major consideration is whether to take a tent (and mat) and what type of sleeping bag. For the rest I sometimes leave things out because I really won't need them on that trip. Googling "hiking equipment checklist -site:.com" gave me some sites that categorise the equipment, but the only useful categorisations seemed to be between summer and winter (ie temperature), day- or thru-hikes, categories of equipment and more and less essential stuff (what I did). I'll have to look through those sites in more detail for tips for the list. One tip I already got from a few of these was what not to bring: cellphones and deodorant (attracts bugs). Also worth mentioning. DirkvdM 19:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Prose is good, but a thorough discussion of hiking equipment will tend to encroach on the broader topic of hiking itself. I think that a focused discussion of equipment can be written, but it will require some care. Then there's the question of sources. The citation police are starting to crack down on the proliferation of unsourced articles, which is particularly acute in hiking, and I have to admit that they're right. --Smack (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned my sources under 'sources'. And they really are. All the items in the list are from those books (I think - I checked some other books as well, like The SAS survival handbook). But I didn't work from memory or something, if that's what you mean. DirkvdM 12:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Condom

I've removed the suggestion to carry a liter of water in a condom, because it seems ridiculous. However, if you can back it up, feel free to put it back in. --Smack (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I had to laugh too when I first heard about a condom being useful to carry water, but I've heard it more than once. It's very small and light and of course also has the intended purpose, which these days can also be a life saver. DirkvdM 12:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This website claims that condoms can be inflated with air to 25 liters. That's six and a half one-gallon milk jugs. I'm very impressed with their elasticity. However, that leaves two questions.
  • How well can a condom withstand the weight of a liter of water?
  • Will it burst if you try to set it down on twigs, pine needles or the like?
--Smack (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Well there's only one thing for it, isn't there? Do try this at home (aka OR). :) Funny I never tried this before. I just filled a condom (Chess, a cheap brand) with about three liters of water and it held. I didn't dare pick it up solely with the 'end' (what should I cal that?), for fear of breaking it, and it's night now, so I'll do more outdoor experimenting tomorrow. But I could pick it up while supporting the bottom. A bit wobbly, but no problem. Of course condoms have to be of quite good quality, for their orginal purpose, so I'm not surprised. I haven't tried drinking the water yet, though. Shoud be ok though, because the spermicide is on the outside only. And I don't know where I might get condoms without spermicide. I'll be visiting my favourite outdoor store, Demmenie, one of these days, and then I'll ask. Or maybe at the condomerie (the world's first specialised condom shop [1] - it's great to live in Amsterdam :) ). This much handling causes sticky hands, though. And hard to wash off too. Normally I only handle condoms lightly and with my finger tips. But more experimental info tomorrow. DirkvdM 19:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Tomorrow has come and here are the results: I first filled a condom with 3 litres of water (measured it this time) and carried it outside where I set it down on various (not too) rough surfaces, the worst of which a metal floor, on which I set it down on a slightly rusty screwhead. And it held. Mind you, I didn't move it, just set it down carefully. Then I added another 2 litres, for a total of 5. It became rather awkward to handle (very wobbly). When I sat that down on the same screwhead, it burst. But that's way too much water anyway. A few litres will work just fine. Though I'd advise to prepare a smooth spot to set it down.
A problem is the beginning of the filling - the condom has to stretch first. Btw, I had used yesterday's comdom first, and when I started filling that, it tore at the rim, where I placed the mouth of the plastic bottle. Maybe the bottle had a sharp edge. After that, it became even more difficult to start filling it, so I threw away that condom and restarted with a new one.
Damn, I forgot to taste the water and I'm not going to get my hands all sticky again. But of course there is no lubricant or paste or such on the inside, because one doesn't want the condom to slip off in normal use. So that should be ok. Remains the problem of the sticky hands. DirkvdM 11:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops, that was silly. Of course any lubricant on the outside will also be on the inside because of the way condoms are rolled up. DirkvdM 07:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Er, thanks for all that research. I'm not sure I understand the exact use we are envisioning for this condom. Are we positing that the hiker has lost his own water vessels, has access to water, and needs to transport the water somewhere? -Will Beback · † · 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure. I love experimenting with things, so thanks for the suggestion. :) The condom can be seen as an emergency backup. I have indeed once lost a water container, although luckily I had two (as usual). Given the combination of importance of water and the size and weight of a condom, plus the possibility of needing for its intended purpose makes it a useful item. I mentioned those weight and size criteria in the intro and didn't want to repeat them for every item where applicable. DirkvdM 10:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work. I'm thoroughly convinced, and a little surprised. Now it's just too bad that we can't publish original research. --Smack (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If DirkvdM could get his research published then we could use it. -Will Beback · † · 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL. I thought about that before. Publishing is easy these days. All I'd need to do is put on a website. Alas it also has to be a reputable source. :) DirkvdM 18:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
An outdoors magazine might be interested. It's sort of a fun topic. -Will Beback · † · 19:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)