Hiking

I have not been hiking in a very long time, and I do not know if I will ever go for one again. This is not me making a life changing decision that I do not want to be in nature, but rather an issue of rhetoric. To hike is to walk a long distance, it can be for a variety of reasons, and it does not have to be in "nature." If you do not not concur with me on this, you can check it out for yourself on Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hiking), where they define it as walking a "great distance," which I think is farther than my "long distance."

The problem I have is that it seems like walking for recreation on a natural surface has become hiking. It is irrespective of distance, difficulty or actual presence of nature. If your feet are on dirt, and you can see a tree, then it is "hiking," and I am pulling the bullshit card. That activity is walking.

Hiking requires distance. The threshold to determine a hike is tricky. If, you are carrying your gear on your back, and intend to overnight, then you are backpacking. The mode of transport might be hiking, but it is probably still walking. I argue, that a hike is of a distance that someone who commonly engages in the activity would regard it as a great distance. That is, a group of "hikers" would regard the distance as great. Thus, if a person does not commonly walk, they probably cannot hike. If a person commonly hikes, then most of what they do will be walking. Assigning a number to this is challenging, it is certainly a marathon, but might have to be an ultra-marathon. Obviously, terrain does matter, a flat fifty miles would not be as impressive as a marathon that traverses a mountain range. Regardless, if I am going to travel these distances, I will probably run or ride my bike. Because of this, I do not see many hikes in my future.