RU version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
82% Positive
Analyzed from 6437 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#canyon#park#national#grand#parks#hike#more#yosemite#don#beautiful
Discussion (153 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Yeah, you can safely disregard anything this idiot says. This is simply not true. When I did the Zion traverse we went a full day without seeing people at one point, never waited in line. If you want to the Disneyland version, yeah it'll be crowded.
And those crowds just aren't present in the early morning. Nobody gets up early enough to be out at sunrise. I'm not worried about saying this out loud and spoiling it either, because most people just don't like to get up that early.
I've been to gorgeous places all over the US that are absolutely packed by 10am or noon. Those same places are completely empty, and even more beautiful at sunrise. I live near one of the best mountain biking places in the southeast US, and regularly do 20-30 mile rides starting at sunrise, and only occasionally see a runner or another cyclist. There's just nobody out in the early mornings.
All it takes is proper gear.
The number of people decrease as a power of the distance you travel away from popular spots
He also dismissed a few parks that I think are ideal for families with young children. Petrified forest has lots of interesting short hikes that you can do with small children. They also have a really nice ice cream shop with great views. The fact that you can do short hikes to amazing views is part of what makes Arches nice. If you want a longer hike drive next door to Canyonlands which is also fantastic.
The article is safely ignored.
With Bryce Canyon, it's best to go before snowfall, though. Once the ice sets in, they shut down a lot of the trails.
Also went once to Arches in winter. Awesome (except again, a lot of trails too slippery).
It is crowded, which is a bummer, but still a great experience.
Magical.
When I got to that part, I was sure this was rage bait.
Mind you, your President seems keen on deterring foreign visitors of all sorts, so those visitor numbers are sure to decline. So that's a win, I guess.
Zion is amazing. One of my favorites. We found a great dry riverbed trail and saw no one for nearly two hours. My kids loved Arches. Had we known? We would have planned longer. Bryce we thought was meh, unpopular opinion, I’m sure. Canyonlands I can’t even remember.
Smokey Mountains is beautiful as well. Mountains, a ghost town, beautiful forest, an Ectomobile from Ghostbusters II, and motorcycle from Terminator 2. Seems pretty ideal.
The Grand Canyon review is spot on though.
Edit to add: Dry Tortugas is amazing. Take the last sea plane and revel in being lost at sea with 20 other people for serval hours. It’s Unlike anything else.
The review of the Grand Canyon annoyed me the most:
``` Can you hike in the Grand Canyon? Yes, technically. You can walk along the rim, but the view won’t change; same damn canyon on one side, same damn parking lot on the other. There are trails that go down into the canyon, but they’re a trap ```
So you can't even hike there, except of course for the hike that you can do.
"They are featureless steep inclines formed into endless switchbacks, and when they finally end, there’s nothing to do except go back up"
That is what hiking is! Granted, usually you hike up and then back down. And I wouldn't call the hike down into the canyon "featureless". Honestly, it sounds like this person just doesn't really like hiking, which if fine it's not for everyone, but that is just what there is to do in most national parks.
It may be factually accurate, but nevertheless, hiking down to the river and back up again was one of the most amazing hiking experiences of my life, and there have been quite a few of those.
But national parks are very seasonal; go even slightly off-season and everything is empty (but you may miss some things that close for winter, etc).
Edit: Comment I replied to originally said "Why am I being downvoted" and their original post said something like "Calling someone an idiot is against the rules"
if they disagreed with the comment, everyone would flag it for having an insult and you'd be getting upvotes instead.
It's not a place you'd drive across the country to see, but it's beautiful and highly worth a visit. There are some freaky trees -- with knobs of roots that stick out from the ground, like nothing else I've seen. The place is kinda creepy, as if you're about to be attacked by zombies, and I love that.
There is a two mile elevated boardwalk which takes you around some of the most scenic areas of the park, and further hiking trails which branch off of that. There is also a river that goes through the park, and it's quite atmospheric in a canoe.
It doesn’t have the same wow factor as other national parks, but it’s a special place for sure.
See you at the fireflies!
Many National Parks are surrounded by a National Forest. National Forests surrounding National Parks are often similarly beautiful. I mean, they're beautiful in a similar way, due to being in roughly the same location on the map...same climate, same fauna, same flora, same geology, though not necessarily on as grand a scale as what they built a fee gate in front of. They're free to enter, often allow overnight camping, and provide an experience mostly free of other people. Of course, there are plenty of reasons to go to the Park, too. I never miss a National Park if I'm going to be anywhere near one. But, the US also has incredible public lands that haven't been elevated by a "National Park" designation and they get far fewer visitors, and if your biggest complaint is "too many people", your solution may be just outside the Park.
I’ve seen enough. From the Midwest so was looking forward to a takedown of the dunes (or something witty craptowns esq). but dunking on the GC for being a canyon?
The “non superlative” is largest canyon by volume
One time we were there with our family and my aunt/uncle + kids. We hiked down the canyon because my dad was sort of the group leader and he goes on such adventures without necessarily thinking it through.
So we went down with a small amount of water and food. I heard sometime years after that you have to pay to go down the Grand Canyon, but this was in the nineties and it was a quiet part of the Grand Canyon, not much to do. We hiked down, stayed inside the canyon for a bit to eat and drink and then we went up again.
And that's where the differences started. My dad was still undeterred and went up in high speed like it was nothing. We were young, fit teenagers and for us the climb was more than usual, but pretty doable. The rest of the adults... not so much. At least one family member was crying, others were swearing (without swearing, polite people) about the predicament my dad put us in.
I am not sure why I am telling this, I guess... go in prepared?
The Grand Canyon was nice, but I never loved it. I think my expectations were pretty big because it's so well-known, so it was a bit anti-climatic. I really liked Monument Valley, there was virtually no other tourist when we were there and it was stunning, even better than in the Lucky Luke comics [1] that we read as a kid. As I teenager I also loved White Sands. In contrast to the author I did really like Petrified Forest.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Luke
https://fastestknowntime.com/route/grand-canyon-crossings-az
The Grand Canyon is in the rare club of places I've been that surpassed my high expectations.
During the hike and stay at the bottom we encountered about half a dozen other people. It really was grand.
In Yosemite, all you have to do is outhike the "Reebok hikers" as we called them back then. An hour's serious walk gives you relative solitude.
And in Zion, last time we were there, a couple of us did not do Angels Landing. Instead we went to another spot equally high up where it was peaceful and quiet, and took telephoto pictures of the others on Angels Landing (note: I've been up there and it's awesome, but in that terrain a crowd sounds scary).
You actually don't even need to do this if you park somewhere other than Yosemite Valley. For example, Tenaya Lake is nice and not that far in on Tioga Road.
National parks are huge and you can quickly literally get lost forever in them (which is an actual danger, stay on the trails!) if you're willing to walk.
Some of them have very obvious "goals" to see (the geyser, the half-dome) which of course are high traffic, but others are beautiful "all over" and taking the treks is worth it.
* dev team is a ghost town
* literal tons of boilerplate just to bootstrap single, empty container
* hasn't had a proper release[1] in ages.
Unless I'm completely misinterpreting you, I'd say this isn't a good look for the "largest repository by volume"
1: of water
I used to say "I've never been to a national park and wondered why it's a national park - they all have an obvious and immediate majesty to them."
Then I went to Pinnacles, and Acadia. I'd honestly forgotten about Pinnacles until I started writing this comment. It's also one of the newest parks, so even though it was underwhelming, it didn't impede my belief in park majesty.
Acadia, though, just doesn't have the magic. It's an island, which is strange because that means there's a town in the park where people live. Honestly I think I liked the coffee shop I had breakfast in more than the rest of the park. There's a summit you can take photos from and a hike that goes along the rim of the island. That seemed to be it. As a West Coast boy, it didn't have the same specialness as the other parks I've seen. Even my Mainer friends say "we don't know why Acadia is a park - there are so many other places in Maine that are at least as pretty."
If this guy thinks Yosemite, Zion, Arches, and the Grand Canyon are among America's worst parks, he's bonkers or trolling.
I believe that private ownership of land is the biggest answer.
All joking aside, I disagree with the author regarding the Grand Canyon. Havasupai Gardens -- the verdant oasis at the bottom of the canyon, where you can camp and recharge -- is one of my favorite places I've camped. There are areas for wading and swimming, and the sounds of the night creatures is eerily beautiful.
So when people dunk on the GC, I always just tell myself how lucky I was that my experience was so wonderful.
We arrived at the canyon before sunset and the setting sun hit it so beautifully from above. The colors were incredible.
We were gonna just spend the night and drive back first thing in the morning. But then we said to ourselves, we don't like Vegas, the Grand Canyon looked awesome. So we went back the next morning and spend more time there, just driving along the rim and stopping every now and then to let the impressions sink in.
With the sun on the opposite side now than the night before, it looked totally different.
This was all part of a longer road trip, and the Grand Canyon was definitely one of the highlights.
I half agree with the author's take on Yosemite. The valley really is ridiculously overcrowded but the view also is amazing. The situation here is a little bit like the Grand Canyon in that there's lots of amazing stuff but it's more work to get there, mostly in terms of a lot of time on foot. The good news about the Sierras is that except for the amazing big wall stuff in the Yosemite Valley, Sequioa Kings Canyon is basically just as nice and the traffic situation is much better.
When I was 18 my dad thought it would be cool to take me there for a week. I suggested we just stop there briefly, then go skiing in Colorado, which he accepted.
We got to the Grand Canyon and it was so big that it didn’t even look real. I was pretty much done after 30 minutes, so was my dad. He was glad I suggested the Colorado option, as he wasn’t sure what we’d do there all week.
I’m glad I saw it, so I’ll never wonder, but I’m also glad I didn’t try and make it into more than it was, as a non-camper.
Funny enough driving up to the grand canyon there are some arms of it that in essence narrow, deep cracks in the ground. I absolutely loved those!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj0dvrBiuX8
Maybe I'll tell my kids this is the Grand Canyon so I can go to In-n-out ;)
But love the Gatlinburg aside. It's like Myrtle Beach, but worse. The Blue Ridge mountains have amazing natural beauty for miles in every direction. So many great towns too - Blowing Rock, Boone, Asheville, Maggie Valley, (hopefully Chimney Rock will be back on that list someday). Why anyone would pick Gatlinburg to visit is beyond me.
That said, I've been to various theme parks around the world, and Dollywood is probably my overall favorite. We go quite a few times a year; it's great for both kids and adults.
Yeah Gatlinburg is a strange place, that one stuck out to me too. I described it in my comment as like a touristy beach town but small and not in a charming way. That main strip with all the t-shirt and other tourist shops haha, it reminds me so much of Daytona Beach when I lived there as a child.
What do you prefer about Gatlinburg?
Gatlinburg is maybe the ultimate tourist trap. Was hilariously enough also around there for a wedding.
I can't really argue for either as destinations. Both of these places I don't think I would go over other available options.
In college, I took an interim elective course on geology of the national parks. On the first day of class, the professor asked an icebreaker for students to say which national park they lived closest to. I said Ohio - Cuyahoga Valley.
Well some snot nosed boy scout confidently piped up that there were mostly certainly no national parks in Ohio, and the professor agreed. This is a deep personal grudge that I still hold to this day.
I don't know Yellowstone, but the situation with Yosemite is a bit complicated. There are basically two congestion issues:
1. Congestion in the park itself. 2. Traffic.
Yosemite is huge, but the only places that are really built out are Yosemite Valley (where most people go) and Tuolomne Meadows (where a lot of climbers go). Most of Yosemite is backcountry and just accessible by foot. So what happens is that most people go to one of these two places (which, to be clear, really are spectacular) and then stay within a few km radius of the parking lot, hence the crowding. But once you get outside that, it's quite empty. I've done 50-odd mile loops in Yosemite and seen basically nobody [0].
As far as traffic goes, there are very few entrances to the park. If you're coming in from the bay area, you're probably coming in through the Tioga Road/Big Oak Flat entrance. As a result, even if you want to be in some part of the park where there are very few other people, you can end up having to wait in line to enter with the giant mobs of people who want to go to the Valley. The fix here is to enter super early or super late, when there basically is no line.
[0] https://educatedguesswork.org/posts/northern-yosemite/
I totally agree. Canyonlands is in my opinion the single most amazing national park. Parts of it is hard to get to, but even locations readily reachable in a car has amazing views that change. And there are basically no crowds.
Bryce Canyon has good hikes but the fact that NPS runs a bus in the park tells you about the crowding situation. It’s still good if you don’t mind crowds.
Zion is also not bad but the crowds are worse than Bryce Canyon. The mile or so of the Virgin River is like a manmade water park.
Similar story for the one in Arkansas I think. Both would probably have some other designation if they were created today.
[EDIT] Oh LOL I was very wrong, that was just created. What I wrote was basically true of Hot Springs, not Gateway. Yeah that's a WTF.
I don’t understand how this person can have gone to all these places and be so cynical about them. The above quote is the kind of reaction I get from people who don’t get out much when talking about the National Parks.
Here's the original link on the Wayback Machine. Some foodie has taken over the domain, since: https://web.archive.org/web/20060217042905/http://www.sheppe...
> none of the possible drives you might to do get there are especially scenic
that should say "might do to get there" not "might to do get there" (and also "none...is especially" not "none...are" but I would not go out of my way to point that one out)
"The problem with the Grand Canyon is you drive up to it, go 'ooh! ahh!' for maybe a maximum of 15 minutes, and then you’re done"
Are they disabled? I don't know how to interpret it.
Glacier is my favorite. I thought The Grand Tetons were incredible. Yosemite is incredible but def touristy. Yellowstone is probably appropriately rated and a good place for the family.
I thought Joshua Tree was a waste of time but I am more pro mountain and less desert.
(0) and have been for several million years. Why even bother going?
Ironically, Bryce Canyon isn't actually a canyon.
The caves are grand. But just keep in mind: You will not see stalactites/stalagmites there. For that, there's a cave tour right outside of Mammoth Caves (I forgot the name) - it has plenty of them.
Most of the article seems like minor annoyances that you take for granted.
This is exactly what a European friend remarked to me years ago. He thought us Americans were a bit unaware of just how good we had it compared to the rest of the world.
By contrast, many European trails have huts/refugios every 10 or so miles, so you can stop and get a coffee or a meal, or even stay the night. This means that not only do you not need to carry a lot of food you may not even need to carry your own shelter, which lowers the weight considerably. There is some stuff like this in the US, for instance the High Sierra Camps [0], but it's not the norm and it's not cheap (~200 USD/night).
[0] https://www.travelyosemite.com/lodging/high-sierra-camps
Europe and Asia have had tens of thousands of years to make alpine mountains inhabitable, and it shows.
But outside of that, the US has amazing diversity partially because it's basically an entire continent, but also because of an accident of settlement and weather patterns that large swaths of the west were available to preserve.
There was an article recently about how in the UK it's all about restoration because everything is or was inhabited, but in the US it's about preservation because so much was simply never developed at all.
You're unironically very likely to get robbed on your way there, back, and even within the park itself.
St Louis is one of the saddest, most run down, ghetto cities in the USA and it's not even close. I'm pretty sure Detriot and possibly even Baltimore mog it.
was disappointed to see the great sand dunes omitted from the list of the worst. people obsess over those and every time i’ve gone it’s been a unquestionably miserable experience, not to mention a general letdown
Oh well, visiting one park was fun. I’ll go and enjoy the superior Canadian and European parks instead (the ones in countries that welcome visitors, and whose parks don’t generally charge more for tourists), maybe even further afield. But the guide book’s single stamp will be lonely for the foreseeable.