What is the opposite of the trailhead on a hiking trail?

[Ger Robertson]

The trailhead is where the trail starts.
If a trail simply dead ends, what is that dead end called?
Does it have a specific name (like a trail-de-sac or something)?

[Peter T. Daniels]

What would be the point of a trail that didn't go anywhere? Why
would you name something a (say) trailtail?

[Jack Campin]

> The trailhead is where the trail starts.
> If a trail simply dead ends, what is that dead end called?
> Does it have a specific name (like a trail-de-sac or something)?

Most trails don't really dead-end, they just fan out into directions
where it gets variably difficult to continue (knee-deep in swamp,
rock scrambles, ice climbing with advanced equipment, sprinting
through private property defended by dogs and armed guards). One
person's end is another's "this is where it starts to get fun".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

[Ger Robertson]

Peter T. Daniels wrote, on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:29:00 -0700:

> What would be the point of a trail that didn't go anywhere? Why would
> you name something a (say) trailtail?

I apologize for not being clear.
I didn't make my point known properly.

Here is a picture of the trail-de-sac I'm trying to describe:
http://i62.tinypic.com/2l8vndk.jpg

You'll notice there is no entry point where the end of the trail is
circled. The other end is how you get to it, and then you turn around and
go back the way you came. You don't branch off because you end up falling
off the chaparral (it's steep and impenetrable).

Q: What do you call this "trail-de-sac" that I have circled here:
http://i62.tinypic.com/2l8vndk.jpg

[Ger Robertson]

Jack Campin wrote, on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:38:22 +0100:

> Most trails don't really dead-end, they just fan out into directions
> where it gets variably difficult to continue (knee-deep in swamp, rock
> scrambles, ice climbing with advanced equipment, sprinting through
> private property defended by dogs and armed guards). One person's end
> is another's "this is where it starts to get fun".

This is a trail that ends as you mentioned.
http://i62.tinypic.com/2l8vndk.jpg

Sure, with a chainsaw and rope you can go further, but that's not the
point of the question.

The point of the question is what to call the name of the end.

I'm organizing a hike to that point, and I need a name for the trail-de-
end.

Does such a terminus name exist similar to trail head?

[Tony Cooper]

Why not "trail end" or "trail's end"? Need there be a more complex
term?



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Ger Robertson]

Peter T. Daniels wrote, on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:29:00 -0700:

> What would be the point of a trail that didn't go anywhere? Why
> would you name something a (say) trailtail?

To explain further, this is the trail-de-sac we're heading toward:
http://i62.tinypic.com/2l8vndk.jpg

If everyone were to meet from the open end, I'd just say something like
"meet me at the cul-de-sac at the end of the trail", but half the party
is going to head down from the trailhead (because they live on that side
of the mountain), while the other half has the less enviable job of
meeting them at the trail-de-sac.

The problem is merely one of how to describe the beginning of a trail,
which is, in actuality, the end of the trail, but, not the end of the
trail that this second group will be hiking.

So, it's the terminus that we will meet at.
What's the word for that?

[Robert Bannister]

The site where the body was found?

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Jerry Friedman]

I don't know a specific word. "We'll meet where the X trail ends" or
"at the dead end of the X trail". The picture you linked to might help.

--
Jerry Friedman

[quia...@yahoo.com]

What you're calling the trailhead is the north trailhead. What you
have in the picture is the south trailhead.

--
John

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 22 (afternoon or early evening), Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:30:00 +0000 (UTC), Ger Robertson

> >I'm organizing a hike to that point, and I need a name for the trail-de-
> >end.
> >
> >Does such a terminus name exist similar to trail head?
>
> Why not "trail end" or "trail's end"? Need there be a more complex
> term?
>

This is a post with which I agree.

In agreement here am I.

/dps "I can be an agreeable fellow"

[Peter T. Daniels]

+1

[Ger Robertson]

Tony Cooper wrote, on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:20:57 -0400:


> Why not "trail end" or "trail's end"? Need there be a more complex
> term?

It's awkward to say meet at the "trail's end", especially for the folks
coming from the other direction, where they never were at the end.

It's actually the start of the trail, in the other direction, I guess.

[Katy Jennison]

The northern (or whichever) end?

--
Katy Jennison

[Don Phillipson]

"Ger Robertson" <some...@something.invalid> wrote in message
news:lvqavb$ehf$8...@news.albasani.net...

> The problem is merely one of how to describe the beginning of a trail,
> which is, in actuality, the end of the trail, but, not the end of the
> trail that this second group will be hiking.

The OP may have started on the wrong foot by asking the name
for one end of a trail. His real need appears to be for two different
names, for both ends of the trail.

Even if a trail ends nowhere in particular, its ends can usually
be unambiguously named, e.g. as:
the eastern and western ends (or north and south ends;)
the uphill and downhill ends,
the highway and forest (or pavement and wilderness) ends,
and so on.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Tony Cooper]

Ah, well, if you're instructing a group who can't figure out that the
"trail end" is at the opposite end of the trail's beginning (which
they know as the trailhead), then you might have to rely on other
means to communicate location of the meeting point.

A pictogram, perhaps? A map with a large red X on it?

As I understand it, without pulling up your original post, that you
want to designate a meeting point on a trail that runs from a
trailhead that is presumably accessible from a road to a end point
that is in the middle of nowhere in a thicket of woodsy stuff, but
fear that if you don't use an understandable term that some people
will hack through a great distance of un-trail-like woodsy stuff to
get to the wrong end of the trail.

You sure you want to encourage these people to go out unsupervised by
a Forest Ranger?

[Wayne Brown]

I've always seen and heard "trail's end" as the common term. There's a
road in Trussville, Alabama called Trails End Lane:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Trails+End+Ln,+Trussville,+AL+35173/

The map shows this as a dead-end road, but the satellite view shows that
it actually continues along the edge of a church parking lot and turns
into Glenn Road before intersecting with another road. I suppose the
portion of it next to the parking lot is considered a private driveway.
There is a "No Outlet" sign at each end although you can drive all the
way through. The whole thing probably was a real trail not long ago,
since the paving is very rudimentary; gravel with barely enough asphalt
on top to keep the rocks from sliding around. The surface is very rough,
worse than cobblestones. I know from experience that riding a bicycle
on it is a tooth-jarring adventure.

--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>

Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)

[Charles Bishop]

In article <lvq4co$ehf$2...@news.albasani.net>,

Assuming you get a name for the end of the trail that you like, you will
need to make sure the people meeting there are aware of the meaning of
the name you use, otherwise, they would know the definition of the word
you use. If you need to do that, why not just use the description to
tell them where to meet?

>
> Does such a terminus name exist similar to trail head?

Podnuh, we've reached the end of the trail.

--
charles

[Ger Robertson]

Don Phillipson wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 10:42:03 -0400:

> His real need appears to be for two different names, for both ends of
> the trail.

Good catch of my intention.
Yes.

Basically, the logic is that, if the end that people can easily get to is
the "trailhead", what is the end that is very difficult to get to called,
especially when you get to it by cross country bivouacking where that
other end is your actual destination.

[Ger Robertson]

Katy Jennison wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:22:02 +0100:

> The northern (or whichever) end?

I was looking for a more generic name, such as the tongue-in-cheek 'trail-
de-sac', but, it appears there is no relevant name, in general, for the
opposite of the trailhead, so, I will go with directional names.

It's actually the "end" of the trail, but for our purpose of meeting
there, it's the "beginning of the end".

If only I had Churchill's way with words.

[Ger Robertson]

Lewis wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:21:08 +0000:

> If a trail goes
> somewhere and dead-ends, that is a trail end or trail's end. You cannot
> start there.

But, as you can see from the photo I supplied, we *must* start at the end
that goes nowhere.

That's the entire point of the hike, which is to *find* that end.

[Ger Robertson]

Lewis wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:21:08 +0000:

> There's a trail in Glennwood canyon that takes you to the upper lip of
> the canyon, where the trail dead-ends. The only way back is the way you
> came in.

I should have been clear that half the people (which are all that I'm
concerned with since they comprise "my" group), are starting at that end,
but that end, itself, is the destination.

We have to hike, off trail, just to *find* the specific point which is
the end of the trail in which to start the hike.

[Ger Robertson]

Tony Cooper wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:20:11 -0400:

> A pictogram, perhaps? A map with a large red X on it?

I've already done that, which is the photo I already posted.
(Actually I gave them GPS coordinates, in addition, which is really the
definitive starting point.)

Anyway, I had just wanted a better word, and, well, I had *thought* it
exists, but, apparently it doesn't.

So that's fine to call simply call it the "end" of the trail, even
though, for us, it's the beginning (but it's clearly *not* the trailhead
since nobody but us has ever *started* from that end).

[Ger Robertson]

Tony Cooper wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:20:11 -0400:

> You sure you want to encourage these people to go out unsupervised by a
> Forest Ranger?

Actually, the forest rangers would kill us if they knew we were hiking
off trail ... :)

[Ger Robertson]

Charles Bishop wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 10:52:05 -0700:

> If you need to do that, why not just use the description to tell them
> where to meet?

I was simply hoping for a better generic term than to tell them to meet
at the "end" of the trail (without them actually ever having been "on"
the trail that they are meeting at the end of).

[Don Phillipson]

"Ger Robertson" <some...@something.invalid> wrote in message

news:lvsch8$lrn$1...@news.albasani.net...

> Basically, the logic is that, if the end that people can easily get to is
> the "trailhead", what is the end that is very difficult to get to called,
> especially when you get to it by cross country bivouacking where that
> other end is your actual destination.

It seems "trailhead" is used by experienced bush hikers and
by almost no one else -- which simplifies the case.
1. If the OP's client community is experienced bush hikers
they already know trailhead = starting point, so any different
name identifies the other end, e.g. destination, rally point,
turnaround point etc.
2. If the OP's clients are not experienced, they will need
intuitively recognizable and sufficiently different names
(of which quite a range has already been suggested.)

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:59:50 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
<e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:

>"Ger Robertson" <some...@something.invalid> wrote in message
>news:lvsch8$lrn$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Basically, the logic is that, if the end that people can easily get to is
>> the "trailhead", what is the end that is very difficult to get to called,
>> especially when you get to it by cross country bivouacking where that
>> other end is your actual destination.
>
>It seems "trailhead" is used by experienced bush hikers and
>by almost no one else -- which simplifies the case.

Well, that's not the case. There are many trails in this area for
walkers and bicyclers. Many are on former railroad right aways.

Check out this Seminole County (Florida) website where it lists five
"Trailheads" and the facilities at each. These are paved trails where
the hiker or bicyclist can go for miles without entering "the bush".
While mosquito repellent might be required to enjoy the trail,
machetes are not.

The "Trailhead" parking lots are full on weekends, so "almost no one
else" is ruled out right there. Some of these trailheads are adjacent
to busy roadways, so even non-users of them will see the signs
indicating that there's a trailhead.

http://www.seminolecountyfl.gov/parksrec/trails_streetscapes/trails_crosssem.aspx


In addition to these trails, there are dozens of rougher trails for
hikers and bicyclists. They are not paved, but they are marked and
cut out from the bush.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:33:43 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> Well, that's not the case. There are many trails in this area for
> walkers and bicyclers. Many are on former railroad right aways.

Eggcorn. Yuck.

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:59:50 PM UTC-7, Don Phillipson wrote:

> It seems "trailhead" is used by experienced bush hikers and
> by almost no one else -- which simplifies the case.
>

I'm familiar with it from seeing it on signs, mostly but not exclusively while
driving on a highway through a (US) National Forest. Where those signs are,
there is usually a small parking area semi-improved. and sometimes a rustic
gate to mark the actual trail.

(That's hard for me to type, because I've been typing "trial" a lot lately, and
having to fix the 'a' sneaking in front of the 'i'.)

So, anyway, that's not an obscure term to me.

/dps

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 23, probably in UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> > Well, that's not the case. There are many trails in this area for
> > walkers and bicyclers. Many are on former railroad right aways.
>
> Eggcorn. Yuck.

Fry it, and serve with salt and pepper. Maybe a splash of Tabasco or Cholula
if you like a little kick.

/dps

[Mike L]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:20:57 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:30:00 +0000 (UTC), Ger Robertson

><some...@something.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Jack Campin wrote, on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:38:22 +0100:
>>
>>> Most trails don't really dead-end, they just fan out into directions
>>> where it gets variably difficult to continue (knee-deep in swamp, rock
>>> scrambles, ice climbing with advanced equipment, sprinting through
>>> private property defended by dogs and armed guards). One person's end
>>> is another's "this is where it starts to get fun".
>>
>>This is a trail that ends as you mentioned.
>> http://i62.tinypic.com/2l8vndk.jpg
>>
>>Sure, with a chainsaw and rope you can go further, but that's not the
>>point of the question.
>>
>>The point of the question is what to call the name of the end.
>>
>>I'm organizing a hike to that point, and I need a name for the trail-de-
>>end.
>>

>>Does such a terminus name exist similar to trail head?
>

>Why not "trail end" or "trail's end"? Need there be a more complex
>term?
>

Perhaps our friend finds that a bit ominous. "This is the end of the
trail, pardner."

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

"Jumping-off point"?

--
Mike.

[Ger Robertson]

Don Phillipson wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:59:50 -0400:

> If the OP's client community is experienced bush hikers they already
> know trailhead = starting point, so any different name identifies the
> other end, e.g. destination, rally point, turnaround point etc.

It's a minor point, but, I disagree that trailhead is used mostly by
*experienced* hikers, as, I think everyone out here (California) uses the
term for the beginning of the trail (usually it has a parking lot but
doesn't need to have one).

Certainly though, you would *never* call the end that stops in the middle
of nowhere, a "trailhead". So, I guess I see your point that we could
call that end almost anything *except* trailhead, and it would probably
convey the "other end" meaning.

[Ger Robertson]

Tony Cooper wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:33:43 -0400:

> The "Trailhead" parking lots are full on weekends

I had not seen this when I last posted, but, I agree, that trailhead is a
common enough word in California to not only be associated with
experienced hikers.

Also, I agree that parking lots are often involved, especially those that
hold a handful of vehicles, although I don't think there is a specific
need for a parking lot to be involved in the definition.

In this case, the trailhead is already a few miles from the nearest road,
while the "other end" is nowhere at all near even a trail.

[Ger Robertson]

Mike L wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:23:40 +0100:

> "Jumping-off point"?

Actually, since the trail-de-sac is literally on a cliff, it's the
jumping-on point, more so than jumping off. :)

[Ger Robertson]

Mike L wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:21:18 +0100:

> Perhaps our friend finds that a bit ominous. "This is the end of the
> trail, pardner."

The key problem with the "trail end" is that it's actually the
*beginning* of the trail, from the perspective of the hikers meeting
there.

[Tony Cooper]

Bicyclists (I hesitate to use "bikers" since that is usually reserved
for the motorized two-wheelers) often drive to the trailhead parking
lot with their bikes on racks. They will drive five miles to park and
then ride five miles.

There have been a number of complaints in letters to the newspaper
about rude bicyclists on these trails almost running down families of
hikers. There have also been a number of complaints about rude hikers
walking four abreast on the trails forcing bicyclists to run off the
trail.

One letter-writer, of the hiking type, claims to now carry a set of
"stop sticks" to throw down on the trail.

http://www.stopstick.com/

[Tony Cooper]

Well, the *event* starts at the trail's end, but the trail still ends
there if your description is accurate. In which case, telling them to
meet at the trail's end and the hike will be to the trailhead should
not confuse them.

Drifting a bit from the OP's question...I never cease to be amazed by
the number of people who drop into this group asking for a single word
that means the same thing as a short group of words as if using a
single word makes the message more clear to the reader.

No one, to my knowledge, is writing telegrams where is a charge for
each word or character. If three words express the thought clearly,
then using one word isn't going to improve anything. If the poster
can't think of the right single word, then chances are the reader will
not be better informed if the single word is found.

My solution to Ger's problem is to write: We will meet where the
trail ends as shown on the enclosed map and proceed to the trailhead.
If Ger does find a single word for "where the trail ends", would it
make it any more clear to the reader?

[Helen Lacedaemonian]

You are not looking for a general term for the end of the trail. Even should such a term exist, it would not apply in your case. In your case, Group A is hiking from trailhead A to trailhead B. Group B will join them at trailhead B, whereupon the hike will commence.

Best,
Helen

[Peter Moylan]

On 24/09/14 18:17, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Ger Robertson <some...@something.invalid> was all, like:

>> Katy Jennison wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:22:02 +0100:
>
>>> The northern (or whichever) end?
>
>> I was looking for a more generic name, such as the tongue-in-cheek 'trail-
>> de-sac', but, it appears there is no relevant name, in general, for the
>> opposite of the trailhead, so, I will go with directional names.
>

> You've been given the answer many times in this thread, you've simply
> rejected it.

That "trail-de-sac" looks horrible, by the way. If cul-de-sac means
bottom of the bag, then trail-de-sac means trail of the bag. I think the
work you're looking for is cul-de-trail.

But "end of the trail" will be less cryptic for most people.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org

[Adam Funk]

On 2014-09-23, Don Phillipson wrote:

> "Ger Robertson" <some...@something.invalid> wrote in message
> news:lvsch8$lrn$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Basically, the logic is that, if the end that people can easily get to is
>> the "trailhead", what is the end that is very difficult to get to called,
>> especially when you get to it by cross country bivouacking where that
>> other end is your actual destination.
>
> It seems "trailhead" is used by experienced bush hikers and
> by almost no one else -- which simplifies the case.

I disagree --- I use the word (not very often, but when applicable).

> 1. If the OP's client community is experienced bush hikers
> they already know trailhead = starting point, so any different
> name identifies the other end, e.g. destination, rally point,
> turnaround point etc.
> 2. If the OP's clients are not experienced, they will need
> intuitively recognizable and sufficiently different names
> (of which quite a range has already been suggested.)

Right.


--
Everybody says sex is obscene. The only true obscenity
is war. --- Henry Miller

[Adam Funk]

On 2014-09-24, Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 24/09/14 18:17, Lewis wrote:
>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Ger Robertson <some...@something.invalid> was all, like:
>>> Katy Jennison wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:22:02 +0100:
>>
>>>> The northern (or whichever) end?
>>
>>> I was looking for a more generic name, such as the tongue-in-cheek 'trail-
>>> de-sac', but, it appears there is no relevant name, in general, for the
>>> opposite of the trailhead, so, I will go with directional names.
>>
>> You've been given the answer many times in this thread, you've simply
>> rejected it.
>
> That "trail-de-sac" looks horrible, by the way. If cul-de-sac means
> bottom of the bag, then trail-de-sac means trail of the bag. I think the
> work you're looking for is cul-de-trail.

"cul-de-piste"?

> But "end of the trail" will be less cryptic for most people.

Indeed.


--
Master Foo once said to a visiting programmer: "There is more
Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten
thousand lines of C." --- Eric Raymond

[Adam Funk]

Just don't get your soupçon & soupcan measures mixed up (thanks to RH
Draney).


--
Whenever communication is primarily aimed at promoting consumption or
manipulating others, we are dealing with a form of violent aggression
like that suffered by the man in the parable, who was beaten by
robbers and left abandoned on the road. --- Pope Francis

[Katy Jennison]

On 24/09/2014 09:16, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Ger Robertson <some...@something.invalid> was all, like:

> It's still the end of the trail or the trail's end.
>

And even if someone produces the word you're looking for, it's very
likely that none of the people you're writing to will know what it
means, given that none of us do, and we have quite a few expert
word-knowers here. So you'll have to spell out the location anyway.

--
Katy Jennison

[Peter Moylan]

On 24/09/14 19:09, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2014-09-24, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> That "trail-de-sac" looks horrible, by the way. If cul-de-sac means
>> bottom of the bag, then trail-de-sac means trail of the bag. I think the
>> work you're looking for is cul-de-trail.
>
> "cul-de-piste"?

That reminds me of the sign "Suivre la piste" that you'll sometimes see
in French parks. It means, of course, "Follow the intoxicated woman".

[semir...@my-deja.com]

And a voice from the woodwork cried
"If you don't know the jargon - USE PLAIN SPEECH"

(Better still, use plain speech anyway - in my opinion
of course)

[FromTheRafters]

Peter Moylan was thinking very hard :

I don't see what is wrong with the term Ger mentioned already.
Terminus.

[Ger Robertson]

Lewis wrote, on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:16:19 +0000:

> It's still the end of the trail or the trail's end.

I think I have the answer, which seems unanimous.
There is no single equivalent to "trailhead" for the "trailtail".
I can *easily* use a combination of words to describe a dead end.
So I will have the folks meet at the dead end from the other side.

Describing it was never a problem; the problem was merely of elegance of
finding an equivalent word to "trailhead", e.g., "trailfoot".

[Ger Robertson]

Katy Jennison wrote, on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:25:30 +0100:

> And even if someone produces the word you're looking for, it's very
> likely that none of the people you're writing to will know what it
> means, given that none of us do, and we have quite a few expert
> word-knowers here. So you'll have to spell out the location anyway.

I am resigned to this answer.
Again, spelling it out was never difficult.
I had been looking for a word that was just too far from the tip of my
tongue.

I now give up on that quest.
Thanks for all advice; if you don't know, nobody knows.

[Ger Robertson]

Lewis wrote, on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:17:35 +0000:

> You've been given the answer many times in this thread, you've simply
> rejected it.

I think I wasn't clear.
I didn't "reject" anything.
There is no answer to the question.
Or, more accurately, the answer is that the word I seek doesn't exist.
How is that realization a "rejection" of anyone's answer?
It's not.

There never was a problem describing the end of the trail; the quest was
simply to find the equivalent word to trailhead.

That this sought after word doesn't exist, is not a 'rejection' of
anything.

It's just a plain fact.

[Ger Robertson]

Peter Moylan wrote, on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:27:59 +1000:

> I think the work you're looking for is cul-de-trail.
>
> But "end of the trail" will be less cryptic for most people.

I like it!
"cul-de-trail".

The good news is that everyone on this upcoming hike will know exactly
what that means, as almost everyone has a graduate degree or has owned a
business, and is retired, so they're all well read.

I'm going to use "cul-de-trail" (tongue in cheek, of course).

Thanks.

[Ger Robertson]

Lewis wrote, on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:17:27 +0000:

> End of the trail, trail's end, or even trail end; all are fine.

Just to be clear, of course I knew those descriptions.
The quest was to find the equivalent to 'trailhead', and the answer
clearly came back that what I sought does not exist.

The closest we can find, tongue in cheek notwithstanding, is cul-de-
trail, which, actually, will work for this erudite group.

[Ger Robertson]

FromTheRafters wrote, on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:05:06 -0400:

> I don't see what is wrong with the term Ger mentioned already.
> Terminus.

The problem with "terminus" is the same with "end", in that it requires a
descriptive set of accompanying adjectives, whereas the tongue-in-cheek
cul-de-trail suggestion fits the requirement perfectly!

[Ger Robertson]

The point is that plain speech requires far too many adjectives.
It's simply an issue of elegance.
I'm going to go with the suggested cul-de-trail.
This actually fits the situation perfectly, because the humor doesn't
even need to be highlighted. I can mention it matter of factly and
everyone will understand the word and its intent to convey the point that
we're meeting at the end nobody normally would even think of meeting at.

So it's perfect for the situation, to convey that it's the wrong point to
meet, as it's the end you normally stop at.

[Ger Robertson]

Lewis wrote, on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:25:19 +0000:

>> The key problem with the "trail end" is that it's actually the
>> *beginning* of the trail, from the perspective of the hikers meeting
>> there.
>

> No it isn't. It's the end. The start is the trailhead.

We are vehemently agreeing, so, you can see instantly why the start and
beginning of the trail are perspectives that take into account
*direction* of travel.

In this situation, the direction of travel is reversed, hence the likely
reason why you clearly yet accidentally mixed up what I had said, which
is *precisely* why the distinction is eminently important.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <42a42ato85v2jogr2...@4ax.com>,

I think his intent was mostly curiosity rather than the need for a
specific word to use. He did say that he thought there was one, just on
the tip of his tongue and he couldn't think of it.

It wasn't that he was going to use /only/ the word to tell others where
to meet.

--
charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <lvui6r$kqu$6...@news.albasani.net>,

Please see the cashier on your way out to pay the invoice.

Thank you for shopping at AUE INC (LLC, LTD)[1]

[1] And probably the German, the Dutch, French, and other equivalents

--
Charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <lvt07j$teh$2...@news.albasani.net>,
Ger Robertson <some...@something.invalid> wrote:

> Tony Cooper wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:33:43 -0400:
>
> > The "Trailhead" parking lots are full on weekends
>
> I had not seen this when I last posted, but, I agree, that trailhead is a
> common enough word in California to not only be associated with
> experienced hikers.
>
> Also, I agree that parking lots are often involved, especially those that
> hold a handful of vehicles, although I don't think there is a specific
> need for a parking lot to be involved in the definition.
>
> In this case, the trailhead is already a few miles from the nearest road,
> while the "other end" is nowhere at all near even a trail.

Well, it's near at least one trail, as you've established.

--
c

[FromTheRafters]

Lewis explained :
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org>
> was all, like:

> In Britain? OK.
>
> In the US, terminus is the end of something in terms of time. Its also
> not used much.

I don't think anybody believes that.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terminus

My friend is a park ranger and she had suggested "top" for the trails
that go to the top of what she refers to as "her mountain". Some trails
lead to other places so they are called "overlook point" or "scenic
ravine" - that sort of thing. When I asked for a more general term the
first thing that she said was "terminus".

[Adam Funk]

On 2014-09-24, Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 24/09/14 19:09, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2014-09-24, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>>> That "trail-de-sac" looks horrible, by the way. If cul-de-sac means
>>> bottom of the bag, then trail-de-sac means trail of the bag. I think the
>>> work you're looking for is cul-de-trail.
>>
>> "cul-de-piste"?
>
> That reminds me of the sign "Suivre la piste" that you'll sometimes see
> in French parks. It means, of course, "Follow the intoxicated woman".

I thought the canonical expression was the more blunt "Pelouse
interdite" (maybe you're referring to the bigger, wilder kind of
park).

Checking a photo from my trip to Paris in January 2012, I see that
the laws in the Square de la Tour St Jacques were having a nap ---
"pelouses au repos hivernal du 15/10 au 15/04" --- so no napping on
the lawns, with a mildly amusing pictogram.

http://www.newsfroup.net/signs1/#pelouses


--
You're 100 percent correct --- it's been scientifically proven that
microwaving changes the molecular structure of food. THIS IS CALLED
COOKING, YOU NITWIT. --- Cecil Adams

[Ger Robertson]

Charles Bishop wrote, on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:47:17 -0700:

> Well, it's near at least one trail, as you've established.

:)

The goal will be for one group to "find" the cul-de-trail, which, as the
photo showed, is on the middle of a steep thickly vegetated chaparral
hogsback.

There is no trail leading to this cul-de-trail coming from the direction
this group will be climbing (for, a climb it will be).

But, yes, you are technically correct; there is the trail leading in the
other direction, which is *attached* to this cul-de-trail.

[Ger Robertson]

Lewis wrote, on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:08:40 +0000:

> The end of the trail you described
> could not possibly be called the trailhead by anyone.

I agree and always have agreed with that statement.
Hence the original question.

> The trail as you've described it has on trailhead, and it is
> the other end of the trail from what you are talking about.

I agree. I never (intentionally) implied or stated otherwise.

> You are confused. It is possible to have a trail with a trailhead at
> each end, but that is not at all what you have described.

I *am* confused because we're both in violent agreement on
all three of your points above.

[Robert Bannister]

On 25/09/2014 3:50 am, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2014-09-24, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> On 24/09/14 19:09, Adam Funk wrote:
>>> On 2014-09-24, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>>>> That "trail-de-sac" looks horrible, by the way. If cul-de-sac means
>>>> bottom of the bag, then trail-de-sac means trail of the bag. I think the
>>>> work you're looking for is cul-de-trail.
>>>
>>> "cul-de-piste"?
>>
>> That reminds me of the sign "Suivre la piste" that you'll sometimes see
>> in French parks. It means, of course, "Follow the intoxicated woman".
>
> I thought the canonical expression was the more blunt "Pelouse
> interdite" (maybe you're referring to the bigger, wilder kind of
> park).

As I recall, most French public signs contain the words "interdit" or
"défendu" - syonymes.com gives me a number of alternatives, although you
don't seem to see "prohibé, illicite, banni, etc" quite so often. I
don't think anything is actually allowed in France however often it is
practised.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[John Varela]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:28:20 UTC, Ger Robertson
<some...@something.invalid> wrote:

> Peter T. Daniels wrote, on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:29:00 -0700:
>
> > What would be the point of a trail that didn't go anywhere? Why would
> > you name something a (say) trailtail?
>
> I apologize for not being clear.
> I didn't make my point known properly.
>
> Here is a picture of the trail-de-sac I'm trying to describe:
> http://i62.tinypic.com/2l8vndk.jpg
>
> You'll notice there is no entry point where the end of the trail is
> circled. The other end is how you get to it, and then you turn around and
> go back the way you came. You don't branch off because you end up falling
> off the chaparral (it's steep and impenetrable).
>
> Q: What do you call this "trail-de-sac" that I have circled here:
> http://i62.tinypic.com/2l8vndk.jpg

Are you sure that's actually a trail and not the mark left by a
landslide? Or some other geological phenomenon.

--
John Varela

[Robert Bannister]

On 25/09/2014 4:08 am, Lewis wrote:

> You are confused. It is possible to have a trail with a trailhead at
> each end, but that is not at all what you have described.

I agree. All the same, I have to wonder why the trail goes there in the
first place. Isn't there a lookout or some other reason for going there?
And if there is, couldn't the OP say "the splendid viewing platform at
lat X, Y"? Or rubbish tip or landslide or whatever is there.

[Robert Bannister]

On 24/09/2014 7:37 am, Ger Robertson wrote:
> Tony Cooper wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:33:43 -0400:
>
>> The "Trailhead" parking lots are full on weekends
>
> I had not seen this when I last posted, but, I agree, that trailhead is a
> common enough word in California to not only be associated with
> experienced hikers.
>
> Also, I agree that parking lots are often involved, especially those that
> hold a handful of vehicles, although I don't think there is a specific
> need for a parking lot to be involved in the definition.
>
> In this case, the trailhead is already a few miles from the nearest road,
> while the "other end" is nowhere at all near even a trail.
>

Is this actually a trail or just an animal track? What is at the other
end and why does it go there or end there?

[Ger Robertson]

Robert Bannister wrote, on Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:17:06 +0800:

> Is this actually a trail or just an animal track? What is at the other
> end and why does it go there or end there?

It's complicated, but, it's a wildly overgrown trail that used to exist,
but no longer exists.

We first found the trail by surveying Google satellite maps and noticing
the markings where we knew no trail to exist.

Then we sent one guy to explore it, and he took two days to go the entire
length, which was only about a mile or less. He had to camp out overnight
on the steep face of the cliff as the chaparral is impassible without
cutting equipment.

He came down via the trailhead, which is roughly a few hundred yards from
an established and well maintained trail (I won't say who the property
owner is, but it's a government agency).

He reported that it looked like it was a single track bulldozed trail
that was, in his estimation, about 50 years to 75 years old (based on the
vegetation clogging the trail).

He made it to the cul-de-trail, and had to climb down into the ravine and
follow the creek back out a few miles to a roadway.

Anyway, the overgrown trail is about 10 feet wide, but you have to crawl
most of the length (lots of poison oak in addition to oaks, madrone,
toyone, chamise, and manzanita).

The important part when starting at the cul-de-trail, is *locating* it,
because there is no way anyone is going to just happen across this trail.

In fact, the guy we sent out said he was probably the first person there
in 50 years, because he didn't see a single beer can, bottle, plastic
bag, etc., All he found were balloons (they float down from the sky) and
bones.

[Ger Robertson]

John Varela wrote, on Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:03:38 +0000:

> Are you sure that's actually a trail and not the mark left by a
> landslide? Or some other geological phenomenon.

Yes. We had sent a guy down that way about a year ago.
http://i62.tinypic.com/2l8vndk.jpg

He *thought* it would be a cake walk; but it turned out to take far
longer than he had thought, so, he had to bivouc overnight with a tree
between his legs so as to not fall off the edge as he slept.

He was prescribed prednisone when he got back, because he slept in poison
oak because he tried to hike out at night, and kept falling off the edge.
So we "rescued" him in the morning, and he explained what a beutiful
trail it could be.

He estimated he was the first person to traverse it in over 50 years
based on the total lack of trash and the density of the overgrowth. He
said it was a single-track bulldozed trail which he said he had to crawl
through most of the time.

What we plan on doing is to "stamp down" a single thin pathway, with a
dozen people, each stepping widely, on purpose, so as to "create" a
pathway through the dense overgrowth (we've done this before and we have
our techniques down rather well). We even go so far as to wear Raichle
boots, so as to have maximum stamping power, and we offset the hikers, if
we can, by a step to the side.

Then we'll have a single-track hiking trail, where one once was.

[Peter Moylan]

On 24/09/14 23:41, Ger Robertson wrote:

> Thanks for all advice; if you don't know, nobody knows.

We're OK on trails, but don't try asking us for the difference between a
bummer and a bammer.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:48:04 PM UTC-4, Ger Robertson wrote:

> What we plan on doing is to "stamp down" a single thin pathway, with a
> dozen people, each stepping widely, on purpose, so as to "create" a
> pathway through the dense overgrowth (we've done this before and we have
> our techniques down rather well). We even go so far as to wear Raichle
> boots, so as to have maximum stamping power, and we offset the hikers, if
> we can, by a step to the side.

Se we have in effect been abetting you in sending out a crowd to despoil
a wilderness.

[Jerry Friedman]

I admit I'd have trouble resisting "trailtail", but whether to use it
depends on your readership.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

Which kind of cheek?

--
Jerry Friedman likes to make the subtle obvious.

[Jerry Friedman]

On 9/23/14 12:07 PM, Ger Robertson wrote:
> Tony Cooper wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:20:11 -0400:
>
>> You sure you want to encourage these people to go out unsupervised by a
>> Forest Ranger?
>
> Actually, the forest rangers would kill us if they knew we were hiking
> off trail ... :)

What kind of bones did your friend find?

--
Jerry Friedman

[Ger Robertson]

Jerry Friedman wrote, on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:58:20 -0600:

> What kind of bones did your friend find?

Heh heh heh ... we asked also. He said bones. Just bones.

He didn't know what kind they were. He said they were scattered about and
he normally sees hoofs and ribcage but this time, it was just bones.

That's all I know.

Maybe it was the end of the trail, in more ways than one.

[Ger Robertson]

Robert Bannister wrote, on Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:07:21 +0800:

> I agree. All the same, I have to wonder why the trail goes there in the
> first place. Isn't there a lookout or some other reason for going there?
> And if there is, couldn't the OP say "the splendid viewing platform at
> lat X, Y"? Or rubbish tip or landslide or whatever is there.

I can't at all explain *why* the trail is there.

The one guy we sent down, from the trailhead, which is much further away
from where we start than the trailtail is, said that it was clearly
bulldozed at some point in time.

He had estimated 50 to 75 years ago, but who knows how good his estimate
is. What is important though, is that he said it was impassible standing
up. He had to crawl, and, he did state he was limited because the uphill
side had a chunk taken out of it, so, that was impassible, just as the
downhill side was thick chaparral, so, that was impassible.

So, he was stuck on the flat part, which was almost impassible, but, it
wasn't chaparral. It was scotch broom, spanish broom, poison oak,
madrone, chamise, toyon, elderberry, etc., which is slightly easier than
100-year old chaparral (or however long it has been since the last fire)
to tunnel through.

It is easy to ascertain that the 50-year-old trail used to connect to the
main trail that is maintained today; but it's much less understandable
why the trail just stopped dead, on the edge of a cliff.

Perhaps it never went further, or, perhaps there was a rope at some point
at the trailtail that went down to the creek in the ravine? We don't know.

But, our plans are simply to form a reliable path *to* the trailtail,
and, to mark that path, and to rope it, if necessary, so that we can find
it again without much ado.

Once we are at the trailtail, it's a simple matter (strategically) to
traverse the trail back to the original trailhead, and thence, in
multiple directions on well-maintained trails.

[Ger Robertson]

Peter T. Daniels wrote, on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:50:36 -0700:

> Se we have in effect been abetting you in sending out a crowd to despoil
> a wilderness.

Heh heh heh ... yeah. As much as providing the word "trailtail" and "cul-
de-trail" would be considered aiding and abetting the despoilation of the
wilderness.

We like to think of it as "access". And, by the way, you should *see* the
well-maintained trail! It's huge! Deep too! Look at the top left of this
picture: http://oi62.tinypic.com/2l8vndk.jpg

That's the maintained trail. Notice that the sides are cut into the
mountain about 15 feet deep! The tiny single-track we're trying to
traverse is only about, oh, 5 feet deep, so, it's puny by way of
comparison.

And, our plans are to single-track it, which is to be able to walk indian-
style, from one end to the other. We will start at the right of that
picture, and cross the ravine where we can. Then we will send the
sprightly ones up the steep face (I call it a cliff but it's really a
steep slope). They will anchor a line, and then the rest of us will climb
up using ascenders.

The hard part will be locating the trailtail once we're in the forest of
trees. We won't have perspective. But that's the challenge. We have
decided *not* to use GPS techniques, so, the challenge will be locating,
and then marking, the trailtail itself.

Only later will we return, along our marked path, to follow the trail
from the trailtail back to the trailhead (which isn't in this picture).

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:31:31 +0000 (UTC), Ger Robertson
<some...@something.invalid> wrote:

>Robert Bannister wrote, on Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:07:21 +0800:
>
>> I agree. All the same, I have to wonder why the trail goes there in the
>> first place. Isn't there a lookout or some other reason for going there?
>> And if there is, couldn't the OP say "the splendid viewing platform at
>> lat X, Y"? Or rubbish tip or landslide or whatever is there.
>
>I can't at all explain *why* the trail is there.
>
>The one guy we sent down, from the trailhead, which is much further away
>from where we start than the trailtail is, said that it was clearly
>bulldozed at some point in time.
>
>He had estimated 50 to 75 years ago, but who knows how good his estimate
>is. What is important though, is that he said it was impassible standing
>up. He had to crawl, and, he did state he was limited because the uphill
>side had a chunk taken out of it, so, that was impassible, just as the
>downhill side was thick chaparral, so, that was impassible.
>
>So, he was stuck on the flat part, which was almost impassible, but, it
>wasn't chaparral. It was scotch broom, spanish broom, poison oak,
>madrone, chamise, toyon, elderberry, etc., which is slightly easier than
>100-year old chaparral (or however long it has been since the last fire)
>to tunnel through.
>
>It is easy to ascertain that the 50-year-old trail used to connect to the
>main trail that is maintained today; but it's much less understandable
>why the trail just stopped dead, on the edge of a cliff.

Seems self-evident to me. If it is as you've described it, with every
danger to humans except poisonous snakes, quicksand, and diving
raptors, the crew that created it in the first place got part-way
through and came to their senses saying "No one in their right mind
would come this way. Let's all go for a beer.".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Ger Robertson]

Tony Cooper wrote, on Thu, 25 Sep 2014 01:24:19 -0400:

> Seems self-evident to me. If it is as you've described it, with every
> danger to humans except poisonous snakes, quicksand, and diving raptors,
> the crew that created it in the first place got part-way through and
> came to their senses saying "No one in their right mind would come this
> way. Let's all go for a beer.".

Oh, trust me on the fact that many a rattlesnake exists in this area.

No quicksand, nor diving raptors though. Just black widow spiders.

[Katy Jennison]

On 25/09/2014 03:02, Ger Robertson wrote:
>
> In fact, the guy we sent out said he was probably the first person there
> in 50 years, because he didn't see a single beer can, bottle, plastic
> bag, etc., All he found were balloons (they float down from the sky) and
> bones.
>

Bones? The bones of the guy who originally created this trail? Could
explain why it just stops.

--
Katy Jennison

[Adam Funk]

"DEFENSE D'URINER"


--
"Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water,
or rain water, and only pure grain alcohol?" [Dr Strangelove]

[Adam Funk]

That was cheeky.


--
Most Americans are too civilized to hang skulls from baskets, having
been headhunters, of course, only as recently as Vietnam.
--- Kinky Friedman

[Ger Robertson]

Katy Jennison wrote, on Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:57:58 +0100:

> The bones of the guy who originally created this trail? Could explain
> why it just stops.

:)

[Charles Bishop]

In article <m005r3$ar0$4...@news.albasani.net>,
Ger Robertson <some...@something.invalid> wrote:

[snip]

>
> So, he was stuck on the flat part, which was almost impassible, but, it
> wasn't chaparral. It was scotch broom, spanish broom, poison oak,
> madrone, chamise, toyon, elderberry, etc., which is slightly easier than
> 100-year old chaparral (or however long it has been since the last fire)
> to tunnel through.

Where is this? I had assumed (don't know why) it was eastern US, but the
flora (not to mention the fires) it seems to be northwest US, possibly
CA but I don't know what grows in Oregon and Washington.

--
charles

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Adam Funk wrote:
>
> "DEFENSE D'URINER"
>
D�FENSE
DE
CRACHER

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~

[Ger Robertson]

Charles Bishop wrote, on Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:36:32 -0700:

> Where is this? I had assumed (don't know why) it was eastern US, but the
> flora (not to mention the fires) it seems to be northwest US, possibly
> CA but I don't know what grows in Oregon and Washington.

Northwest. US.

[Mike L]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:58:12 -0700, Reinhold {Rey} Aman
<am...@sonic.net> wrote:

>Adam Funk wrote:
>>
>> "DEFENSE D'URINER"
>>
> D�FENSE
> DE
> CRACHER

"..je ne pisse pas! Je me buse!" "O, pardon, m'sieu! Vive le sport!"

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:11:43 +1000, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org>
wrote:

>On 24/09/14 23:41, Ger Robertson wrote:
>
>> Thanks for all advice; if you don't know, nobody knows.
>
>We're OK on trails, but don't try asking us for the difference between a
>bummer and a bammer.

Or a bomber and obama.

--
Mike.

[John Varela]

Questions:

Where is this place?

Why are you starting from the circled dead end instead of from the
left where the trail presumably connects to something else? Just to
make it difficult?

What is the brown/gray vegetation? It looks too small to be trees.
Why then is it so difficult to find the dead end of the trail?

Why do you want to open a trail to nowhere?

--
John Varela

[John Varela]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:50:12 UTC, snide...@gmail.com wrote:

> I'm familiar with it from seeing it on signs, mostly but not exclusively while
> driving on a highway through a (US) National Forest. Where those signs are,
> there is usually a small parking area semi-improved. and sometimes a rustic
> gate to mark the actual trail.

Which leads to the question: Why do people park as close to the
trailhead as they can before starting their 12-mile hike?

--
John Varela

[John Varela]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:49:18 UTC, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If Ger does find a single word for "where the trail ends", would it
> make it any more clear to the reader?

Crossthread alert! Why "more clear" instead of "clearer"?

--
John Varela

[John Varela]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 03:56:04 UTC, Helen Lacedaemonian
<helenofs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:39:28 PM UTC-7, Ger Robertson wrote:
> > Mike L wrote, on Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:21:18 +0100:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps our friend finds that a bit ominous. "This is the end of the
> >
> > > trail, pardner."
> >
> >
> >
> > The key problem with the "trail end" is that it's actually the
> >
> > *beginning* of the trail, from the perspective of the hikers meeting
> >
> > there.
>
> You are not looking for a general term for the end of the trail. Even should such a term exist, it would not apply in your case. In your case, Group A is hiking from trailhead A to trailhead B. Group B will join them at trailhead B, whereupon the hike will commence.

Isn't "the end of the trail" the general term?

For example:

http://www.lewisandclarktrail.com/section4/orcities/seaside/endofthe
trail.htm

http://www.sfaol.com/mccord/lafonda.html

--
John Varela

[snide...@gmail.com]

Because then the snowplow will go around them.

(Often the trailhead is the only parking for several miles, at least in USNFs.)

/dps