camping hiking backpack reviews image
Malutka
I will be travelling to GA soon and would like to do some hiking in the Providence Canyon. Based on the description online I understand there are 2 trails - a 3-mile and a 7-mile one. Which one is more worth taking when it comes to better views of the canyons?
Answer
They see similar sites but on the 7 mile, you see a lot more. If you are doing the 7 mile, I would recommend backpacking and staying the night at one of the sites. Here are two reviews:
Providence offers a 7 mile and a 3+ mile trail. To hike the 7 mile trail they ask that you register before 2pm. I did not get there before 2 so I can only comment on the 3+ miles of cannon trail. This is an interesting trail in that it is hard to believe this canyon has been formed in less than 140 years. You can walk up to the walls of the canyon and see that they [the walls] are formed by sand instead of rock. Easy and very interesting trail for this area. I recommend it. Note that you may get your feet wet walking up stream beds through these canyons.
We did the 7 mile loop starting from the visitor's center over two days. We camped at backcountry site #5, which we thought was the best because it is off of the main trail so you have privacy. The only disappointment was that the backcountry sites do not have views of the canyons. The sites are nice, but it is just a wooded area. The majority of the canyon views from the top are accessible from the visitor's area. What I would recommend is to somehow incorporate the trails in the canyons into your trip. We just stuck to the loop so we never were down in the canyons themselves. Other things to note are that you can't filter water due to the iron ore. So be sure to take in all of the water that you will need. Also, the mile markers are a little screwy. For example, you start from the visitor's center and it is roughly 3 miles to the first backcountry site (#6), but it is right past mile marker 2. There is also a shortcut that cuts off the trail that goes to site #1. You can't really get lost, but the trail markings are strange. And, once you get to the canyon floor, the trail IS the creek bed. That confused us for a little bit until we picked up a red blaze. That part can be wet and muddy so prepare for that. Some materials I read said that the 7 mile loop was "extremely rugged". I wouldn't classify it that way at all. There are probably two ascents from the canyon floor, but the canyon is only 150 ft so they aren't bad at all. Overall, I thought it was great, but I would get into the canyons if you can.
They see similar sites but on the 7 mile, you see a lot more. If you are doing the 7 mile, I would recommend backpacking and staying the night at one of the sites. Here are two reviews:
Providence offers a 7 mile and a 3+ mile trail. To hike the 7 mile trail they ask that you register before 2pm. I did not get there before 2 so I can only comment on the 3+ miles of cannon trail. This is an interesting trail in that it is hard to believe this canyon has been formed in less than 140 years. You can walk up to the walls of the canyon and see that they [the walls] are formed by sand instead of rock. Easy and very interesting trail for this area. I recommend it. Note that you may get your feet wet walking up stream beds through these canyons.
We did the 7 mile loop starting from the visitor's center over two days. We camped at backcountry site #5, which we thought was the best because it is off of the main trail so you have privacy. The only disappointment was that the backcountry sites do not have views of the canyons. The sites are nice, but it is just a wooded area. The majority of the canyon views from the top are accessible from the visitor's area. What I would recommend is to somehow incorporate the trails in the canyons into your trip. We just stuck to the loop so we never were down in the canyons themselves. Other things to note are that you can't filter water due to the iron ore. So be sure to take in all of the water that you will need. Also, the mile markers are a little screwy. For example, you start from the visitor's center and it is roughly 3 miles to the first backcountry site (#6), but it is right past mile marker 2. There is also a shortcut that cuts off the trail that goes to site #1. You can't really get lost, but the trail markings are strange. And, once you get to the canyon floor, the trail IS the creek bed. That confused us for a little bit until we picked up a red blaze. That part can be wet and muddy so prepare for that. Some materials I read said that the 7 mile loop was "extremely rugged". I wouldn't classify it that way at all. There are probably two ascents from the canyon floor, but the canyon is only 150 ft so they aren't bad at all. Overall, I thought it was great, but I would get into the canyons if you can.
What is a good telescope, for celestial viewing, that can be taken on a week long backpacking trip?
Ducky
I understand that weight and viewing quality will contradict each other in most cases here. I would also like to spend less than $300. I will be carrying the scope for 7 days as well so the lighter the scope the better. I am comfortable with lugging around something between 5-10 lbs, but am interested in large enough aperture to view star formations, milky way, etc. I understand that getting exceptional planetary views with these specs will be much less than likely and am alright with that.
Answer
I second Geoff's recommendation. For any backpacking trip, binoculars are going to be substantially more useful, usable, and less likely to be knocked out of alignment during the bumps and knocks inherent with hiking, camping and backpacking.
If you have the spare weight-capacity, you *might* consider getting a pair of ''astronomical binoculars''.
The Celestron Skymasters are a bit heavier (and more cumbersome) than you might care to take on a backpacking trip - but you can look.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/celestron-binoculars-skymaster-71012.html
(Keep in mind - you would also need to bring a tripod as well - - but you could likely get by with an aluminum camera-tripod - perhaps 1-1/2 pounds)
You might also consider a 'spotting telescope'' - - used by some of the big-game hunters - and made for hauling out into the woods.
http://www.celestron.com/sports_outdoors/spotting-scopes.html
or
http://www.optics4birding.com/celestron-c90-mak-39x90-angled-spotting-scopes.html
Or, for a ''real telescope'' - well - you might consider reading the review from the Stargazer's Lounge.
http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/88436-portable-telescope-for-home-and-camping/
In any case - - you want to have a decent star-atlas or a printout for the expected night-sky. (Even a modest planisphere can be a great help.)
I second Geoff's recommendation. For any backpacking trip, binoculars are going to be substantially more useful, usable, and less likely to be knocked out of alignment during the bumps and knocks inherent with hiking, camping and backpacking.
If you have the spare weight-capacity, you *might* consider getting a pair of ''astronomical binoculars''.
The Celestron Skymasters are a bit heavier (and more cumbersome) than you might care to take on a backpacking trip - but you can look.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/celestron-binoculars-skymaster-71012.html
(Keep in mind - you would also need to bring a tripod as well - - but you could likely get by with an aluminum camera-tripod - perhaps 1-1/2 pounds)
You might also consider a 'spotting telescope'' - - used by some of the big-game hunters - and made for hauling out into the woods.
http://www.celestron.com/sports_outdoors/spotting-scopes.html
or
http://www.optics4birding.com/celestron-c90-mak-39x90-angled-spotting-scopes.html
Or, for a ''real telescope'' - well - you might consider reading the review from the Stargazer's Lounge.
http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/88436-portable-telescope-for-home-and-camping/
In any case - - you want to have a decent star-atlas or a printout for the expected night-sky. (Even a modest planisphere can be a great help.)
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: In Providence Canyon State Park which trail is more picteresque?
Rating: 95% based on 981 ratings. 4,6 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 95% based on 981 ratings. 4,6 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment