Talk:Hiking

History Section

The history section starts with the false claim that Petrarca was the first person to go on a hike, then proceeds debunking that claim in the following paragraphs. However, if someone stops reading that section after the first paragraph, they will come away believing that Petrarca was indeed the first hiker. Wouldn't it be much better - for other reasons as well - to present the history in chronological order? unsigned by 2003:E3:7F19:A66:F86D:3BEB:8EAB:18AE

The article only suggests that Petrarch was an early hiker not the first.Rwood128 (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Images

Hi Nick Moyes, I have restored the two images that you deleted, presumably because you thought that they were off topic. I understand, but I'm preparing now to start using trail crampons for safety, even though I actually walk within a city's boundaries, and then, when deep snow comes, I will sometimes use snowshoes. But I will still be hiking/walking. I will also see signs of skis on the trails that I use. The two winter images emphasises their similarity with hiking in other seasons. The snowshoe article begins: "A snowshoe is footwear for walking over snow". Rwood128 (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

See: "Winter Hikes in Nova Scotia" Rwood128 (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Rwood128. Thank you for giving your rationale for reverting my removal of two irrelevant images from the 'See also' section of this article. Rather than stomping in and simply reverting you (which only causes upset) I thought it best to explain that I believe you were wrong to reinstate them, and to explain my rationale for their removal (which was mentioned in my edit summary):

• 'See also' sections do not contain images.
• Neither snow shoes nor ski touring are mentioned in the article. They are, of course related activities and so a wikilink within the 'See also' section is quite acceptable.
• If you feel they are relevant to the article, you should include a section of text about them before including an image, though I respectfully suggest you would be better doing so at Backpacking (hiking), where both more specialised techniques are already briefly mentioned, then in this more general article about hiking.
• Images used in articles need to add encyclopaedic content about the subject. Neither this image nor this image add value to the article, and serve only to confuse and misdirect, as they are not referred to anywhere on the page. Indeed, they are wikilinked in 'See also' at 'Related activities' and not even as 'Types of hiking' So this is WP:UNDUE, just as including an image of a llama would be inappropriate on the grounds of it being relevant to Llama hiking.
• And most whacky of all: the image of a girl feeding a bird on her arm whilst happening to be wearing snow shows (that you can't properly see) is, well, plain daft.

So please reinstate my edit and appreciate that we all have experiences when hiking that might be related to the broad subject, but not directly it, but this is an encyclopaedia which should serve to inform and not confuse the reader. Neither your own personal experiences, or mine as an active hiker and alpinist are relevant. I often carry an ice axe and crampons when I'm hiking in winter, or on approach walks in the Alps. None of those images would be directly relevant here, nor are the two that I removed. Please revert your edit which reinstated them. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes. I will await any further comment, and will also think further about this. There is mention of winter hiking, under hazards, but this is peripheral. A section on winter hiking is needed that can includes, for example, reference to the use of crampons and an ice ax. Your choice of words such as "wacky" and "daft" is puzzling, but maybe there is a cultural difference as you don't have a real winter in England.

The disputed images in fact illustrate the "see also" section, especially "related topics". Your comment about the snowshoe image being "plain daft" is over the top. There is a caption and my ancient eyes can see the snow shoes. Rwood128 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, it is quite inappropriate to add any images to the 'See also' section, and I have to respond to you over the image of a girl feeding a bird whilst standing, wearing snow shows to illustrate 'hiking'. It is, indeed, quite daft to include such a wacky image. Can you not see how irrelevant that is to the article? (Maybe it's a cultural thing.) But I am pleased you have now seen sense and removed it. I have moved the images out from the 'See also' section into the section you've sensibly created on 'winter hiking' - I'm very happy to see that section included, and would very much welcome seeing it being expanded, as well as appropriate images added to support the text content. Please just ensure you follow WP:MOS when expanding content. You are quite right about English winters; that's why hikers in England who want to become competent alpine mountaineers often head a few hundred miles north to improve their winter skills by ice climbing in Scotland - a place where many of the world's toughest climbers have come from. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Rwood128 and have restored the photograph of the snowshoer in the See also section. Snowshoeing is a form of hiking, and the picture illustrates snowshoeing, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Further, there is nothing is MOS:SEEALSO that forbids images in the section. If you'd like to come up with a better snowshoeing image, I'm open for substitution, but I think it illustrates a form of winter hiking, and I support keeping the photograph in. If you'd like to discuss further, let's stick to using Wikipedia guidelines, and avoid perjorative terms such as "daft". — hike395 (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks hike395, however, I had changed the snowshoeing image, so that we now have two for snowshoeing, and you deleted the one for Cross-country skiing. I'm presuming that was an error and will restore that image. Rwood128 (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

There's no problem having these images in the article, providing they are relevant to an appropriate section, which they now seem to be - and I appreciate the efforts of all those working to improve the structure and content of this article, which is now showing a marked improvement. But there simply is no justification for any image being placed in a See also section, just as there would not be in 'References' either. Perhaps consider a WP:GALLERY if extra images are ever really necessary, but please consider mobile users who only see one section and their accompanying images at any one time. Meanwhile, I have repositioned the remaining image from 'See also' into the winter hiking section of the article, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, and have expanded that section a little. On a desktop, they still currently appear to project down into the 'See also' sub-section, but they are nevertheless in the right place now.  Nick Moyes (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rwood128: I meant to restore the snowshoer with bird photo, but if you prefer the snowshoers in Bryce Canyon, it's clear that the consensus is not restore the bird photo. — hike395 (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hike395, I was happy with the earlier more homely image but thought that the new image might be more acceptable to Nick Moyes. In the end I think the article has benefitted from the debate. Rwood128 (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it has indeed benefited from the attention (and yes, I like the alternative snowshoeing image a lot better) - thanks both. As an aside, you might also have spotted that I've now uploaded and inserted a citation and image of alpaca trekking to llama hiking because I thought we were unfairly excluding alpacas from the page, and also because the choice of main image there was a bit off-topic (aka daft). Warning: Anyone shoving an alpaca into this article will be instantly blocked. (Only kidding!). Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hiking with children

Schi11, the new Hiking#Hiking with children addition reads too much like a manual. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Please revise (you risk having it deleted). I'll try and help. Rwood128 (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Maybe the cited sources in German can be paraphrased and quoted? Rwood128 (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

And in English , and , etc. Rwood128 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with these comments - we aren't here to give advice about how to do something. I'm going to give it a quick once-over. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, re your recent edit, I don't know whether it is as glaringly obvious to all parent that: "it is possible to engage in hiking with young children", as you think, though the wording might be improved. In my experience successful hiking with a young child requires lots of planning and flexibility. Rwood128 (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Rwood128. I don't think our role is to spell out things that are not glaringly obvious; it is, of course, to cover a topic encyclopaedically, and we need to avoid making statements that might themselves mislead. My edit was purely intended to remove poor wording that to me would sound awkward to, or confuse, a reader. I'm OK with expanding this section a little more in order to explain the very different issues involved with hiking with babies, with toddlers and with older children. I suggest this book might be a suitable source to base any expansion upon, or it could go in 'Further reading'. It certainly covers the key areas and, like you, I also have experience of taking a baby, and then a 4 year old, and then a teenage child up major mountain trails. Yes, I agree: they all involve careful planning. There are two definitions that seem essential to appreciate here in any editing: that of what 'hiking' is, and what a 'child' is. I do feel that some of this article's editors seem determined to expand it into areas that stray well beyond what general hiking is, and into into realms best covered by other articles. (I would, for example, suggest that the inclusion of the photo of Striding Edge is a perfect example of that. If anyone's been on it, they'll know why I say that. It's an easy scrambling route, less a hiking trail, so doesn't really belong here). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I certainly agree about the need not to stray too far into related areas. With regard to the photo of Striding Edge, I believe that I added that, and for me it represents more or less the boundary of what I see as hiking. This also includes hiking in snow, paths protected with chains, etc, in the Alps, and, here in Newfoundland. walking with trail crampons in winter on easy paths locally, Rwood128 (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Rwood128 OK fair enough. On further reflection I might accept that Striding Edge is at the very upper limit of relevance to 'Hiking' - with some limited scrambling involved - and the caption does make that clear. But other classic UK routes like Crib Goch on Snowdon or Aonach Eagach Ridge in Glencoe definitely fall into the scrambling category and so wouldn't be appropriate here. But I still wonder whether an image of another route better known for mainstream hiking, rather than pushing the limits would be better. Perhaps the Miner's Track or the Pyg track on Snowdon might fit the bill more? (Somewhere I've a photo of my 4 year old doing it all by herself, and carrying her own rucksack too; I might upload it if it looks potentially useful!) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The point of the Striding Edge image was to demonstrate a hiking "boundary", rather than a typical hike. The Aonach Eagach ridge was done by a friend of mine, years ago, who was no mountaineer, and I suppose some might see it as representing the "very upper limit" between hiking and rock climbing. I did the Snowdon Horseshoe as a student on a hiking weekend. We stayed mostly below the crest, with little scrambling, and I was guided through the only really exposed scramble (that I remember) by a mountaineering type dangling over an abyss! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hazard

Hike395 why change the image, in view of the discussion on the Talk page, especially as you suggest that this image is of a more obviously hazardous hiking route – which I don't in fact see. Anyhow aren't there too many photos of the North American landscape already? Can you clarify? Rwood128 (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I interpreted Nick Moyes's comment to say that Striding Edge was a marginal hike. I was trying to find a picture of an arete hike that is less hazardous than Striding Edge. Clouds Rest is a perfectly standard hike on an arete, no scrambling or handholds. It actually isn't that hazardous, unless you do something actively unsafe. You can get a sense of that hiking that spot from the video here. There's a 1000m dropoff to the right of the arete, but it's difficult to take a picture that shows both the knife-edge and the 1000m drop-off.

I'm not insisting that the photograph stay in the article, if you think that we need to restore geographical balance. I can try to find a non-North-American version of a safe-ish arete hike. — hike395 (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I found a photo on flickr of a ridge hike in the Ötztal Alps. I've never been to that spot, but the satellite and topo maps show it's an arete. Not sure how dangerous it is, but the hiker shown doesn't seem to be scrambling. — hike395 (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

fyi -- a fun photograph that shows the 1000-m dropoff at Clouds Rest, but not the knife-edge is here. — hike395 (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd just come back by suggesting that exposure is a very obvious hazard, and it might perhaps be more useful (=encyclopaedic) to highlight a less obvious hazard, and on a less extreme hiking route than on a sharp arete. Maybe something like use of a water filter to avoid risks from contaminated water, or perhaps sunstroke avoidance, or dehydration, carrying too much equipment, being insufficiently prepared, benightment, hypothermia, or navigation/map-reading failure, having toddlers in tow (!), accidents/injury, loss of daylight, bear spray?, the so-called 'bad step/mauvais pas' or swollen river crossings which normal hikers can encounter wherein their lack of experience in scrambling/rock techniques mean they can suddenly become wildly out of their depth etc. (suddenly remembering a woman crying in sheer panic at the start of the Crib Goch ridge which I and my daughter skipped across without a problem!) BTW, whilst I'm here, did anyone tell the youths hiking in Israel that they should have carried rainproof gear? Our article's 'Equipment' section currently says they need to. It's important to appreciate that people hiking in arid climates encounter quite different hazards and needs than those of us in cold, temperate climes. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

We could show this photo of Crib Goch. It's a Featured Picture (which I prefer to show in articles), and also shows hikers on the arete. Alternatively, per Nick, we could show the risk due to animals with this photo of a bear trying to steal hikers' gear. I rather like that one. — hike395 (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice picture, but really not OK for this article at all, as that route is not a hiking route - it's an exposed scramble, impossible to get on from the Pen-y-Pass end without a short but challenging scrambling move of c.10m, then a considerable amount of exposed scrambling elsewhere along it. Please don't be tempted to include any pics of that route on this page as it's too off-topic (I'd rather have the bear!). Quite a few people come to grief thinking the Crib Goch ridge is just an exposed walk/hike; I remember soloing a winter route on Snowdon's Trinity face back in Feb 1986, descending via the icy Crib Goch ridge, only to learn that the day previously the president of the Alpine Club (UK) had fallen to his death whilst making the same traverse. But getting back on topic: I've spent the afternoon poring over maps and images to locate the Austrian ridge route added by Hike395 in diff. I've updated the image description on Commons and can confirm it's the Rotkogel (2894m) - see also and, apart from steel cables for protection in one short section, there's no obvious scrambling on that route, so I'm quite OK with it's use here. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Great choice hike395. No cables in UK! It is great to get agreement here. Rwood128 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hanna wietsma.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Health benefits

Would this be a proper place to expand and talk about the health benefits of hiking, or is that more suitable under a "hiking" section of another page related to health benefits? Asking because of potential notability issues and all. I might just be bold and add it if I get no response soon. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

A short paragraph could be added. And the idea of a relationship between creativity and walking is particularly interesting.Rwood128 (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay thanks for responding, I'll add a couple lines under a new section. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done - added a short section on health benefits. Hopefully it's not considered too long in your eyes (I think it's good information). I'll look into the creativity dimension you brought up and see if there's sources on that. I would guess I need to make another section for that? Unless there's an existing section it can be fit into... HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to see "creativity" as an aspect of mental well-being . I have edited the new section, moving the final list to a note.Rwood128 (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks great. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Are spiritual effects connected to health benefits? I see you made it a subsection of health. I have no objections to moving it there but I'm just wondering for the article's purposes. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

See . This was the first source when I googled – then I realized that you may well be a Harvard graduate!! Rwood128 (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Haha, I indeed am. I received my Bachelor's from there. Thanks for the link, I didn't see that one when I googled. I'll add a very short sentence from that source in order to connect spirituality with health, for the article. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. While I see a place for this discssion here, I tend to feel that a fuller discussion should be on the Walking page, Walking#Health benefits. Re walking and creativity see Creativity techniques#Walking, and Creativity and mental health.

I'm not sure who the above editor is, there is no signature and I am unable to find the "Reply" button. I agree that the other sources Rwood linked on walking and creativity can be best added to the Walking article, I will do that shortly. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually, never mind: the Stanford article is relevant to what I said, but the Nietzsche article is actually directly connected to hiking: in the article, it makes specific mention of Nietzsche "walking through the forest" which, per the definition of hiking on this article, is a good detail to add here. Rwood indeed provided a good source of info. That being said, I detailed the Stanford link on the Walking page. I'll add info from the Nietzsche article both here on Hiking and on Walking - it's relevant to both. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Update: Added to both articles. Please take a look, feel free to make any adjustments you like, including changes or additions per the sources. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1352034698 was justified because the promotional, exaggerated description of health benefits is not supportable with WP:BMI reviews. The text needed more neutral language. The American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine is not a good BMI source, and is not MEDLINE-indexed, meaning it is unestablished and not trustworthy as a source implying an effect on health. Zefr (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Like I discussed in the Walking article, if you want to remove some of the medical or scientific information because its contrary to WP:BMI standards, I should still be able to move the "spiritual effects" information into its own section — you seem to have removed that entirely, in addition to the other information. At the very least, you could have moved it into its own section, out of the health benefits section. Spiritual effects and word of philosophers do not need to be judged for their scientific rigor, because this article is not, for its entirely, a strictly scientific or medical article. It simply covers the activity of hiking, a multiplicitly of relevant information or relevant perspectives can be added here. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Based on my explanation here, Zefr, I think I should restore partially what you removed, in particular the philosophy aspects, with other spiritual info. I can move them to their own sections, if you prefer. The spiritual aspect can be taken out of health benefits, again, if that's your preference. My position is more than reasonable — and again, this isn't a science or medicine based article where rigorous standards are required. Given all this, I'd like to explain some of the themes I included and put back the removed content I originally had placed. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Well put! Rwood128 (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it's more than reasonable. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

As long as philosophical/spiritual concepts or benefits aren't presented as based in science, then a revision to include them may be warranted.

What review sources in reputable peer-assessed publications do you propose to cite? All three sources currently in the Spiritual effects section are weak primary research, indicating that the section should not be a subsection to Potential for health effects. Rather, this spiritual section should be deleted because its evidence is thin, and it describes personal interpretations, i.e., non-encyclopedic. Zefr (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rwood128 - I already explained to him why the sources are more than good enough for the article, but he doesn't seem to accept them as worthy or encyclopedic, not even the Stanford one. He rejected them both for this page and on Walking. Since I originally included this information based on this topic that was inspired by you, are there other sources on spirituality, walking and creativity, or any associated sources on such topics you'd like to provide here? We'll run it by Zefr to see if they're encyclopedic. If this isn't an issue you feel too strongly about, then feel free to disregard this message. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The solution would be first to establish that "creativity" and/or spirituality occur across a large majority of hikers when out on the trail, then second to provide one or two WP:SCIRS/WP:BMI review articles or reputable books that say so. Objective reviews are needed.

You've argued above that this particular topic is not science- or medicine-based. So how would you classify it and convince readers of the supposed benefit per WP:V?

"Running it by" me is not the solution - convincing the admins who patrol WP:RSN is the place. Zefr (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Harvardjock for now, it is better to have separate sections for health. spirituality, and creativity. I suggest that you try and improve the topic spirituality, as this was introduced by youyour. I probably should not have suggested that it should be included under health, even though it seems obvious that they are connected. Unfortunately, I do not at the moment have the time or energy to really work on this, despite it being of great interest to me. A discussion of spirituality and walking obviously does not require medical sources! As you stated above: "this isn't a science or medicine based article".

I will look at this again tomorrow. As I commented previously, I think that it would be better to focus on the walking article. Hiking being vigorous walking!Rwood128 (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, I'll begin working on this in the near future. I'll run my sources by Zefr first, even if I do move things around, as that's what he wants. I'll generally discuss things here first before implementing them, or possibly WP:RSN if need be. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

See Religion and health – also, you might check under Exercise#Health effects. Rwood128 (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Question: Walking or Hiking?

I grow up in England in the 1940-1960s and "hiking was not part of my childhood vocabulary. I am now a Canadian and have difficulty distinguishing these terms – even a short walk ''can'' be a "hike", despite what dictionaries may say!

My question is therefore do we need two articles on the same topic?

My personal opinion is that Walking should be the main or umbrella article, while Hiking should focus more on the outdoor recreation/sport aspect of the topic.

I've just added a section on Walking art to this article, which now seems better suited in the walking article. I also think a topic such as spirituality should be moved to Walking.

But perhaps I'm the only one that finds the current situation (duplication) confusing? Rwood128 (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

From my reading, Walking and Hiking mostly reflect what you say --- Walking is the broad topic article and Hiking is about the outdoor sport. I support moving the Walking art summary and the spirituality section over to Walking. I'll be bold and do that edit, although others can revert. — hike395 (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)