John Muir Trail Record Attempt 22-July

I started at Whitney Portal on 8/1 at about 4:30am, summited Whitney in 4:15, and made it to the Woods Creek Bridge in 19:25 which is how long it took Brett to get to Pinchot Pass, so I was about 7.5 miles behind his pace at that point, with basically no running. After resting there for about 4 hours (slept about 2.5 hrs), I kept going and made it to Mather Pass at about 31 hours (about an hour behind Brett's time of 29:56. I had a mildly sprained ankle from sometime on day 1 that was starting to slow me down, and the weather was not looking good, so by the time I got to the Bishop Pass trail in LeConte Canyon I had decided to bail.

I had enough food and gear for an unsupported 4 day trip and was hoping to finish but bailing was the right call. I camped at around 9700 feet below Dusy Basin, and it began raining at around 4am, and I exited over Bishop Pass in the morning in a full on storm, wearing all the clothes I had and just barely warm enough to be safe. I was definitely glad I had brought a quilt, tarp, rainjacket and light down jacket, gloves, hat and windpants (although rainpants would have been better).

Allen

So, if you had set a record were you planning to report it? What would you use for verification? Was it your intention to go for a record? If so, why didn't you announce that in advance?

Peter, yes my intention was to go for the unsupported FKT, however I thought the odds were quite low that I would actually succeed, and I did not know until a day or two beforehand if I would be able to actually go for it – I got married on July 28 and started a new job a few weeks before that so my life has been a bit hectic lately. I did announce my attempt last September as you may remember, but that one didn't work out either. I figured I'd just go for it and see how it went rather than publicize it in advance this time. I did tell a few people I met on the trail though and took pictures at whitney and each pass.

I tracked it all with a Suunto Ambit2 GPS watch, both for my own use and so I'd have that for verification if I did manage to pull it off…given the Spotty Spot performance on the recent well-publicised K&J attempt I decided to save the weight and not to bring a Spot. Turns out you can recharge the GPS watch with a 3 ounce cellphone charger that is also a flashlight.

Just wondering myself what to use for verification if I try something like JMT yoyo next year. It seems like using a SPOT or handing out cards are the "gold standard", even though SPOT reliability seems questionable. But even if there are gaps in SPOT coverage, so long as it doesn't fail completely, it's pretty good evidence.

As for GPS… I rarely use GPS except occasional position check on my phone, so I'm not too sure what a GPS file looks like. But a GPS clearly isn't broadcasting a signal live, it's a stored data file, right? If it's just a data file in a special format that's not accessible real time, isn't it fairly easy to construct a "fake" GPS file?

Ralph – I'm not sure if it's possible to fake GPS tracks, but I'd have no idea how to do it and no interest in doing so if I did. I barely know how to work my watch as it is, and I feel like I'm doing well if I remember to turn it off before I get in the car afterwards.

I was trying to go as light as possible and keep things as simple as possible. For me it was not worth the weight for something that doesn't work consistently. I have a spot but don't plan to renew the service on it. I think a GPS watch is much more useful as I'd be wearing an Altimeter watch anyway and the extra weight is minimal, and extra data is useful.

"I'm not too sure what a GPS file looks like. But a GPS clearly isn't broadcasting a signal live, it's a stored data file, right? If it's just a data file in a special format that's not accessible real time, isn't it fairly easy to construct a "fake" GPS file?"

Yes, it is possible to create a GPS log file out of thin air. However, there are little bits here and there that would likely make a fake file look fake, but that depends on the model of GPS receiver.

About the only way to really take advantage of that would be to have a shortcut from the real trail, and it is easy to block GPS reception during the shortcut. The problem with this is that there aren't any really good places to take a shortcut, at least not along the JMT. It could be done, but it would be more trouble than it's worth.

–B.G.–

Pretty much any means of verification is falsifiable. With a SPOT, you could get someone else to carry it for a while, or you could shut it off, take some sort of shortcut, then turn it back on and pretend that the signal failed for a while, which often happens. It would be dead easy to make a fake GPS (gpx) file as it is simply a text file. You could download a gpx of the JMT off the web, modify the time stamps, and bingo! With photographic evidence, you certainly could alter the time stamps on the photos. With independent verifiers, you could create all kinds of fake email addresses and then send messages pretending to be the people you claim to have run into out on the trail (Ralph had an email from an NPS employee with an NPS email address, which certainly helps!)

People had trouble believing Brett's JMT record at first (until he crushed Barkley). These people didn't look at the evidence he submitted for verification. Brett had something like 50 short videos that he took along the trail. While I understood that a smart, technically oriented person like Brett could have changed the time stamps, the kicker for me was that he had video & a first-person report of a very intense hail storm that was independently verified by another person (Ian Alloway) who went through the same area shortly after Brett. Neither person could have known what the other experienced, and they reported independently.

Nothing is perfect. But, for my money a gpx file is pretty darn good, a gpx file + photos is better, a SPOT track which has be publicly announced is excellent. The SPOT has other advantages – it provides safety for you & is enjoyable for others to watch as your trip unfolds (and frustrating when the SPOT stops sending!)

It's also good to note that for the most part few people will question a supported effort, since if you want to cheat you would essentially be asking others to lie for you. It's the unsupported trips that will get more questions / scrutiny.

PS: I don't know if people have noticed but Brett is going after the Colorado 14ers record starting about 8/19!

Bob, you said "About the only way to really take advantage of that would be to have a shortcut from the real trail, and it is easy to block GPS reception during the shortcut. The problem with this is that there aren't any really good places to take a shortcut, at least not along the JMT."

Is that true though? If a GPX file is essentially a series of positions with time stamps, then assuming that you do actually hike the route (at some speed) then you have recorded an authentic series of positions that reflect the track of the trail, and you can just go into the file and change all the time stamps. If a GPX file can be faked by one individual spending a few hours on a laptop, it's really not worth anything at all, I think. Allen – this was not a criticism of your intentions or your integrity, of course. But just saying that you personally don't know how to manipulate the file doesn't mean much, if the fact is that it would be easy to manipulate for somebody else.

Of course, as Peter says, almost anything can be faked in some way or other – you could ride a horse! So the FKT thing will always remain somewhat informal and based on trust. But still, it seems to me we should try to provide the best evidence possible. A SPOT broadcasting live is much more difficult to fake — short of riding a horse, it would presumably require the cooperation of a group of people doing a "relay" or something. So – it's similar to a supported run, where a conspiracy of numerous people would have to be involved.

I'm not sure but I would think that the GPS data could be checked or verified in some manner by going back to Suunto or Strava, as the watch downloads the data to the Suunto site first, and then from there it gets exported to Strava. Strava at least keeps track of all sorts of FKT type data so they may have a way to verify accuracy??? I'm pretty new to the GPS stuff though, so i am just speculating. I did send my GPX files to Adam White (of Sierra Mapper) today – he may be able to provide some input on checking them for accuracy/validity.

In addition to the reliability issues with the Spot, I prefer the feeling of being off the grid while in the wilderness, and my wife prefers it as well as she does not feel compelled to track me all day and night while I'm out there.

In the end I think it is worth noting that none of the current JMT FKT's were done with a Spot OR GPS (at least I think that is the case), and all this is a somewhat pointless pursuit anyway. I doubt I'll be able to make another attempt this year, but if I did I would likely just go with the watch and leave the the spot at home.

Little bit of a gpx file – just the first two points of a track:

ACTIVE LOG 006

Transparent

1151.316162
2014-07-02T21:22:29Z

1151.316162
2014-07-02T21:22:40Z

It would be pretty simple to edit the date and time with an editor. Have to do it point by point though. Take a while.

Or you could write some software to do it automatically

" Bob, you said "About the only way to really take advantage of that would be to have a shortcut from the real trail, and it is easy to block GPS reception during the shortcut. The problem with this is that there aren't any really good places to take a shortcut, at least not along the JMT." "

You guys seem to be jumping to the conclusion that a GPX file is the only form of a GPS log file. That's why I specifically stated that it depends on the model of GPS receiver. Some add their own checksums to the file data so that they are nearly impossible to fudge. Some write their files to secure storage.

–B.G.–

Bob – I did not intend to jump to any conclusions – I'm not familiar with this stuff at all.
So it sounds like you do agree that GPX files are just simple data files that are straightforward to edit, right?
So if GPX is not the way to go, can say more about what you think are the more secure forms of GPS data? How do Strava do things?

Edit: forget the Strava example, I just remembered "Digital EPO" – whatever security Strava had, it was hacked

As long as you are stuck with normal consumer-type GPS receivers, you are sort of stuck with the normal file formats that they generate. As soon as you move up in the market, there are some specialized models that do generate secure files. I think that there is one intended for law enforcement use that does this. They don't want some rogue cop hacking up a GPS file to generate false evidence.

–B.G.–

I've done some extensive research on Brett's verification.

There is one picture ( video in Brett's case) between Brett and Ian that show the exact same background scene.
Both were daytime although one was early and the other later in the afternoon.

The pictures showed the same strip of snow in the back ground.
Brett made a previous attempt one month before.

There is no way that strip of snow would look exactly the same the month before.
You could also tell the clouds in the background at least looked like it was the same day, (dark gloomy clouds).

It was Ian who came to me about the possibility of Brett not doing the actual trail.
It was very very obvious when looking through both Brett and Ian's reports, that Brett did the entire JMT.

I was also at Barkley when he got the record.
I asked him if that was the hardest thing he had ever done and the answer was "no, it was the JMT".

I agree with the whole SPOT GPS thing.
They are heavy and glitchy. That and with the extra GPS batteries, it gets out of hand.

I wish I could be a little faster as all my attempts have not worked out.
I find the best verification to be a picture of my watch that has date and time with JMT signs in the back
Then just hand out a few cards and call it go to go.

All the old school records were done with less and are still legit.
Should we just throw all of them out and say they had no proof?

Kind of dumb, but the only real dumb thing would be if someone didn't do something and claimed it.
That may make them a bad person, but I feel that if I only do the watch and card thing, that shouldn't make the honest person a bad one.

I think low tech independent third party verification is best.
cards with contact info of people met on the trail.
photos or video with you AND other people in them together, not just of signs or mountains, or watches, and contact info for those in the photos.
the more humans involved in a verification the more difficult it is to fake.
the only problem with this is it can be time consuming when you're trying to set a record.

Maybe its time for Peter to supplement his FKT site with a verification service. for an exorbitant fee marshals could be placed at check points along the route.

That's weird, website software totally transformed my copy/pasted gpx file

anyway, for each track point there's a date stamp, e.g. "2014-07-02T21:22:29Z"

you could just edit that

but, the encoded gdb format file would be a little more difficult

for some people, it's more important that they know they did it. It's not like anyone get's a huge prize for breaking the record.

taking picture of people and weather you see on the trail would be good evidence. Pictures of people is good because after you claim the record, someone could say "taht's me and I wasn't there then"

I'm not sure that I really buy these points that have been made.

"I prefer the feeling of being off the grid while in the wilderness"

"for some people, it's more important that they know they did it"

"All the old school records were done with less and are still legit.
Should we just throw all of them out and say they had no proof?"

Of course, anyone is free to do what they want in the wilderness. But if all that's important is to do it "for yourself", or to be off the grid, then why post anything on a website at all? If you're posting what you did on here or on the FKT website, then it seems to me that by definition you DO want people to know what you did, you DO want people to believe you, because you're proud of it. And rightly so. But then why make life difficult for yourself, and for everybody else who's trying to assess what you did, when to many you're just an anonymous person on the internet, by perversely downgrading the amount of evidence that you're prepared to provide? Sure, standards of evidence were lower (or non existent) in the past, but why does that mean we shouldn't try to do better now to add credibility to our efforts? There are some eminently sensible protocols on the FKT website, including both high tech and low tech approaches. It seems to me that it's sensible to follow them, and I'm not sure that there's much sense in rejecting the high tech approaches when there's now cheap and light-to-carry technology that's freely available.

Edit to add: credibility is a function of the prevailing norms. Of course historic efforts shouldn't be rejected retrospectively just because higher standards of evidence are now normal in today's community. But you can't expect that you can do an FKT today adhering to the standards (and available technology) of 1990 and not have people be suspicious and ask – "why?"

Some great comments here. Thanks!

I've personally never understood the "take a picture of your watch" thing. It adds exactly zero information to a picture of anything else, since the photo itself is time stamped, and of course almost anyone can figure out how to change the time on a watch, which takes a few seconds. Some people can't figure out how to set the time on their camera though. I recall Brett's time stamps were all off by I think it was 12 hours.

I thought about getting a SPOT unit that could be "rented" out to FKT aspirants for a nominal fee of say $1/day + shipping. If you didn't return it I could track you down! In my view, SPOT / DeLorme is probably the best system for longer efforts (days).

Note that it has become fairly standard to verify shorter FKTs (hours) with GPS tracks, for better or worse. During a 2-hour run you're probably not going to take the time to stop and talk to people for verification.

I asked Brett why he didn't talk to people along the JMT in order to improve verification, and he said "I didn't want to take the time."

In the few cases where questions have been raised about what people have claimed, the response of the claimant always seems to be a combination of surprise and indignation. I think it just doesn't occur to most people that they might be questioned. We all think of ourselves as honest and straight-forward, but we might forget not everyone knows that about us or knows us from Adam. So, it's just better to assume you have to "prove" what you claim, to the best of your abilities. To say that you don't care if anyone believes you is nice, but doesn't seem to be borne out in those cases where questions have been raised.

These comments are made from a place of my own self-interest, since I have occasionally been called on to determine the veracity of a claim. This is an uncomfortable position to be in! So, it's better for ME if people take verification seriously.

"I asked Brett why he didn't talk to people along the JMT in order to improve verification, and he said "I didn't want to take the time.""

I think that I sympathize with this. I hate to break my rhythm when I'm moving fast. I think I might have found it much easier to take Brett's approach and shoot a little bit of video at natural breaks like tops of passes. It's also the reason that I'm not enthusiastic about the "handing out cards" thing as the ONLY means of verification, because you'd have to do it frequently – and it's kind of rude to thrust a card into somebody's hand without taking at least a minute or two to explain. I think having to stop and have that little conversation over and over again with people who obviously aren't going to grasp immediately why you can't stop and chat… is just going to get annoying – and far more detrimental to the "off-the-grid wilderness experience" than just carrying a SPOT.

I think if I try something next year I'm leaning towards SPOT (I just bought one, and will be testing its reliability) supplemented with a few cards handed out at significant points.

yes low tech methods can be time consuming, but at this stage in development are more fool proof I think. as high tech becomes more reliable and more foolproof (embedded GPS chips under our skin, its coming I assure you) they will be the gold standard.

I personally look at claims from 3 perspectives :

1. the credentials of the claimant – meaning a public history of their accomplishments

2. the size of the change in the FKT record (assuming the route has some FKT history)
most records, unless very soft, are brought down incrementally.

3. the amount of verification offered.

The cards is an interesting idea.

What do the cards have on them? Obviously an email address/phone number to contact to do the verification with an independent person(s); email could be set up so that a whole bunch of people can get it at the same time, straight away. Does the person who came across you on the trail have to provide a picture or anything? Or specify the location accurately? Do you write down a grid ref for them to make sure?

I'm guessing the JMT is so rediculously crowded that the entire trip in summer you pass people constantly. But on more remote trails, what if you hardly see anyone for big stretches? In Australia this is quite a possibility.

If it was me doing a trip, and I provided a GPS file, then I can understand if people don't trust my GPS file. Making a fake GPX file for me is trivial (I'm a spatial scientist), just time consuming to make the times for each point believable. But I could do it over a couple of days in the office. Finding a small secure GPS is harder. Spot tracker is probably a much better idea as even though its patchy, points are uploaded in real time. The question then becomes did they get someone else to do it.

For full time employed people, could a statement from their employer that they were officially on leave be handy?

People's motivations are complex and varied. Pro runners are going to promote themselves a la Hal and Mike or Krissy and Jen…I am not getting paid for this stuff and see no need to emulate their self-promotion. However I do like being able to say "I did that" when I actually do something hard or perhaps noteworthy in some way. when I did the JMT in a week a couple years ago, I wrote up a little story about it and enjoyed that process quite a bit, as well as some of the comments/feedback that I got from others who read it.

Personally, I find the idea of handing out cards to people in the wilderness kind of ridiculous – it feels too much like advertising/self promotion to me. I don't like it when people try to hand me a card or flyer in the city, much less on a trail in the wilderness. Yes, posting on a website is also self promotion, just in a different form that I'm more comfortable with. To each his/her own right?

Of course we all care to some extent that people believe we did what we say we did. I care too, just not enough to carry a Spot when I'm already carrying a GPS watch and trying to go as light as possible and keep things simple. Honestly, the SPOT seems like an very primitive technology (bulky, heavy, unreliable, needs to be on outside of pack, you have no idea if it is working or not, etc). To me it is just another extra thing to carry and deal with that is entirely unnecessary and redundant. If it weighed less than an ounce and was reliable and I could bury it in my pack and forget about it, I'd probably carry one. Until then I think the watch does a better job at tracking, plus it gives me altitude, time, a compass, alarm, etc – so overall it is much more useful, lighter, and multifunction.

I still (perhaps naively) believe that there is a way to verify these trips with GPS data from a watch. Perhaps it would be as simple as giving Peter (or someone else) access to the Suunto (or Garmin or Strava as the case may be) account so they could look at the GPS data in its original form rather than just sending a GPX file. Most of of my training hikes and runs going back to january or february were recorded on my watch and then downloaded and stored on the Suunto movescount.com site with no alterations of any kind. I would think it is possible to verify that these files are real and unaltered data and taken as a whole would give a much more complete picture. Many of them are also posted on my facebook page as well – feel free to friend me and go back and look at them if you are interested. :)

I prefer to do things first and talk about them later. Climbers call this spray…I'd rather spray about what I've actually done than what I plan to do. It's still spray but it seems less obnoxious to me that way. Again, this is just me personally and I am not being critical of others who prefer to announce their intentions in advance. Both approaches are valid I think, it is just a personal preference.

the idea of announcing (talking about) your intended attempt before hand is to give interested parties a chance to monitor you if they want. this can help in verification so a good idea, though shouldn't be a requirement.

as for GPS watches, no I don't have one, don't the batteries run down in 10 or 12 hours ? how could this be used for multi day effort ?

when going for an FKT, the best photo verification is photos taken by strangers of you.
that is where cards come in. they provide contact info and state why you are asking for their help, and how they can best provide it.

"Honestly, the SPOT seems like an very primitive technology (bulky, heavy, unreliable, needs to be on outside of pack, you have no idea if it is working or not, etc)."

Most of these devices do not need to be on the outside of your pack. High frequencies go right through ordinary nylon.

–B.G.–

Art – my watch has a max life of about 50 hours on "trekking" mode – which logs gps location every minute. I can recharge it at night with a $20 rechargeable cell phone charger that weighs about 3 ounces and is also a flashlight and will also charge my phone if needed. So with that system the watch should be good for at least 4 days, maybe a week or so but I haven't tested it beyond 3 days.

This is the gizmo: http://www.amazon.com/RAVPower-Lipstick-Sized-Flashlight-Lightning-Thunderbolt/dp/B0084Y47SK?SubscriptionId=AKIAI5RQCZHOENZ4DIIA&tag=outdoocom-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B0084Y47SK

Bob – Spot says to keep the unit outside the pack oriented toward the sky for best results. Clearly GPS signals can go through nylon but I am not sure it would work buried in the bottom of my pack…and I don't want it taking up valuable real estate in the hip pockets. maybe it would work just shoved into one of the mesh pockets on the outside of the pack – the problem is you can't tell if it is working or not till you get home.