Talk:Nordkalottleden Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

It is difficult to say what is difficult and what is not when you don't have a common baseline. On this trail you are often days from other people and there might be no mobile phone coverage, so you really are on your own. You need to carry food for a week. You might have to find an alternative route because of heavy rain flooding rivers and mires, so you need to know how to read your map, you cannot trust having a hut for every night, and you might get that snowstorm.

When I was in Lapland in winter for the first time, with my scout troop from Turku, one of the groups got caught in a snowstorm above the treeline. Too heavy winds for them to get their tent up, so they spent their night in a hole in the snow, which they covered with the tent fabric – sixteen–seventeen year old city dwellers from the south of the country. We met them the next night: they were exhausted but they laughed when they told about their adventure. I'd say that was an extreme experience, but no one doubted they'd handle it, otherwise they wouldn't have been let there on their own.

Nordkalottleden is not a winter trail, so if you live where you see snow, you should know how to handle the possible around-freezing temperatures. Hard winds, rain and fog might make for real problems unless you know how to handle them – but any serious wilderness backpacker who has done some mountain hiking should have the know-how. If you don't have that know-how, if you panic, if you take stupid risks, then you might be out of luck. So, yes, it is a serious undertaking. But you don't need any special skills, and if you master those ordinary hiking skills (and don't do stupid things), the trail is quite safe. A Norwegian father did most of it, including some of the worst legs, with his two about 12-year old children. They came too early in the summer to one of the high legs, so they had to adjust the route to avoid the worst snow, but I don't think he took any risk by bringing his children there. And a trail where you can take your 12-year olds isn't extreme in my book. (Those three spent a few summers hiking Norway from south to north.)

I think Ikan Kekek hit close to the mark writing "Although the trail is not extreme for one in the Arctic wilderness, hiking it is a serious undertaking and should be treated with all due caution." I'll reword slightly: "Although the trail is not extreme, it is still one in the Arctic wilderness; hiking it is a serious undertaking and should be treated with all due caution." I also don't think you need somebody familiar with the trail; there are few of them and experience from tundra of Alaska or northern Canada would be more than enough.

–LPfi (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed the route is described differently in OpenStreetMap. The trail does not travel all the way down to Sälka, but instead turns West towards Unna Allakas after Abiskojaure. Has there been a change in the route? Jpolvto (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

There were a few legs were the route differed by source, probably either stemming from changes or from preliminary information; I might have picked a variant that seemed feasible with little regard to whether it was the latest official one. However, Minkarta of the Swedish mapping authority still shows Nordkalottleden as going via Sälka. –LPfi (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Alright! That works. I'm struggling a bit with the distances/formatting at the moment. I wonder if it's easier to work with cumulative distances from the start, rather than distance in between points.

What I'd like to get away from the article in a glance are:

• How long is each stage?
• Where can I get food/resupply?

Jpolvto (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The main reason that I didn't use distances from Kautokeino/Kvikkjokk/Sulitjelma was that I didn't have official numbers, and any uncertainty and measurement errors would accumulate – if better figures are got later, or the route changes, everything needs to be recalculated.

The problem is much less severe for distances on individual legs between intermediate trailheads (which usually have good resupply options). As people may not overnight at the suggested spots, cumulative numbers do make sense, although distances between huts also play a role (and giving them explicitly gives a quicker overview).

I am not sure I see what the issue was with the way distances were given (consistently, I hope) in the beginning of each section and at each hut in the route description. Was it difficult to add up distances for a combined leg such as Abisko–Vaisaluokta?

–LPfi (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I get your point, it makes a lot of sense when you read through the stages. I actually did have some trouble adding up the distances, and I'm still not quite sure it's correct (or, in accordance with how it was before). In some parts, I wondered whether the distance was relative to the previous cabin, or relative to a point of interest, or if something was on a side trail or on the main trail. There is another deviation from the route near Goldahytta from the route displayed at OpenStreetMap. Overall I think it's a great guide! Jpolvto (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

There actually is an issue with places for resupply: sometimes there isn't any obvious resupply point. One of those doing this hike (I don't remember whether they actually were through-hiking), made arrangements with nearby stores to have them bring the resupplies to suitable spots on or near the trail. I don't know whether this is common or whether you need to have some charisma to get such deals without paying an arm and a leg. You might also have success making a deal with tourist businesses that could bring supplies as they come to the vicinity for other reasons. We can suggest this kind of arrangements, but we cannot promise they are available for the next hiker. The alternative for some "resupply points", a 2×35 km taxi ride to the nearest grocery store, isn't too attractive.

You really need to arrange your resupply. In Prepare, we say:

"There are a few villages along the trail, and some huts where you can replenish to some degree, but these services do not cover all the trail. Plan well and be prepared to carry quite a lot of food. The fjällstation serve meals, but they might have to be ordered in advance. You might be able to arrange replenishment to points with no shop, but close to road connections."

Thus, if you define a stage as that between two trailheads with resupply options, a stage may not be well defined. Still, I think the stages as defined by the subsections work quite well. Sälka and Stáddájåhkå are in the middle of nowhere by some definitions, but they are important forks. The other subsections start and end at viable trailheads.

–LPfi (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Even if there are few points where you can resupply, I would still want to know about them beforehand. For me, this is important data to have before I start a hike. Jpolvto (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Of course, and I think your introducing different markers for such places was a good idea. However, some places may or may not have supplies, some have a very limited assortment, and some may have a way to get supplies. I don't know how to handle that. Also, should Ritsem, Storslett and Nikkaluokta, which have supplies, be marked differently from Hellmobotn, which I believe just has a ferry quay? –LPfi (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Although Ritsem and Nikkaluokta seem to be out. Has the Kvikkjokk fork been abolished? –LPfi (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I made an update yesterday. It looks like that to me. I've searched through a couple of newer guides, and this is the route that's reported on. One other confusing thing, is that the route always runs to Unna Allakas after Abiskojaure. I've been at Alesjaure a couple of times (which is after Abiskojaure), and I distinctly remember seeing Nordkalottleden signs there. Jpolvto (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'll do some more research on the route, I might revert the route change later on. At least the distances are accurate now.

So far, it seems all of the sources that show Nordkalottleden coinciding with the E1 route seem to derive from OpenStreetMap. That includes AllTrails, Komoot, and the e1 hiking Europe site. There's one line on Wikipedia that reads: "It (Nordkalottleden) has more recently become a section of the E1 Path." with no source attributed. The guidebook shows the previous route, so does Naturkartan. Jpolvto (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

And the Wikipedia article still says, in many places, that the trail has Sulitjelma and Kvikkjokk as alternative endpoints. –LPfi (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but it also mentions Unna Allakas, rather than the route to Sälka. As well as Goldahytta, instead of Pältsa. I've maintained the recent edits in a document, which I've added as the recent edit. If the previous route was correct, it can simply be reverted. Komoot also has a guide that does not mention the Kvikkjokk path at all.

All in all, I'm a bit confused. It would be nice if a source could be added to that Wikipedia statement. Edit: I've contacted several organisations (DNT, ERA) to give a comment on this, in the meantime, the previous route is still available in the recent history, and can be reverted if necessary.Jpolvto (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The ERA referred me to the DNT, the DNT referred me to a local DNT office. I haven't contacted the local office yet. I personally think the original route is (still) correct. I went into a Facebook group to look into what people are actually hiking. Funnily enough, most people hike the trail as it's now described in the article (as a section of the E1 trail). There is also a lot of confusion about the length of the trail, which makes sense. If the route is not clear, you'll end up with different distances. Jpolvto (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Uniform naming of terrain features, huts/cabins and other things we want to mention isn't too easy. One issue is that along the route, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Kven and at least two Sámi languages are spoken. Sometimes one stumbles on old spellings. What spelling to use may be at least a little sensitive (BLT and Metsähallitus use the local Sámi names on their English pages). The terminology for lodgings have a similar problem. Different parties may settle for different naming and translation schemes. Finnish Metsähallitus talks about huts, while the Swedish and Norwegian talk about cabins for the main lodging options. Untranslated terminology may be more nuanced, with at least hytte, bue and gamme used for different cabins and huts in Norwegian. If that weren't enough, the cabin type may be more or less intimately coupled with the name: often people use a place name without explicitly mentioning that they mean the hut/cabin located there – or there being a hut/cabin may indeed be unimportant.

I wouldn't support the choice of "X Fjällstuga". The name in Swedish is usually "X fjällstuga" (sic!). We could use the translation on the operator's website (which might be an ad hoc translation) or invent an English name, but at least in the latter case, we should use words in English – and for any translation we might lose nuances in the original name. I think we should use names in one of the local languages (with important other languages in the "alt" parameter), and give the English term of our choice in the description: "Paurohytta. Unmanned DNT cabin".

Writing out the untranslated name allows recognising it at maps and using it when talking with locals, who might not recognise or like the translation.

–LPfi (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I'm not sure what to do here either. It feels a bit clumsy to translate things into Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Sami when referring to it. I was thinking of keeping the translations as alternative names in the listings, and I've tried to add them there when I found one.

Mostly I've tried to give everything the same name for now, so they can easily be replaced in the text. I.e. consistently referring to cabins using one of the names.

Jpolvto (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Translating into local languages? Rather that would be keeping the local terms, like talking about sushi. I think people intending to hike this trail should learn words like hytte, fjällstuga and sommarbro (and perhaps those like jaure/jávvre/järvi and johka/jåkka/joki). Locals they meet might not recognise the translations we choose, and ut.no is a good resource that doesn't use English.

Consistency is good, although I think we shouldn't use the cabin name when we refer to the place (such as for Vaisaluokta fjällstuga vs Váisaluokta). Using the local Sámi names shows respect for the native people, and I think we should do that where those names are used also by hut operators (as primary or secondary name).

(The hut/cabin terms have one more quirk: they are talked about as if they were a single building, although in Norway and Sweden, there are usually several cabins there.)

–LPfi (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I had no intention of being disrespectful toward the Sámi people. I agree with you regarding the differences between locations and huts. Writing about a trail that spans three countries and more than four languages in a single language, while keeping it clear and presentable, is quite challenging.

I would prefer to centralise the translations, when they should be included, in a single location. I've tried my best to do that here. I will go over this again in a while. Jpolvto (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is, and thanks again for your work. I agree that we should use a single name or term for any place/facility/whatever, with translations mostly provided just once. As that allows easy change of terminology later, I think I will leave to you to do as you please for now, and take a better look at some point, when I can see what you arrived at doing, and have the time to check and think. I maintain that I'd prefer the Sámi names when that's not too confusing, and local terms for the handful of concepts used repeatedly throughout the article (such as obetjent). However, I'll wait and see, and I might change my mind when taking the more careful look. –LPfi (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Every {{listing}} in this article has a counter=n entry.

Is this "n" a valid value?

The {{listing}} documentation suggests each counter instance should have a different number value.

Is this parameter name a valid parameter?

The {{listing}} documentation suggests the counter value is supposedly passed to the {{marker}} template, but the counter parameter is not even mentioned in the {{marker}} documentation. -- 89.241.66.195 23:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The parameter was added to solve a problem, I don't remember what problem, which it didn't solve. In the current article, having a designated counter allows numbering continuity between accommodations with and without resupply options. It seems it works as it should here. The documentation is inadequate and seems misleading.

Documentation not mentioning all parameters is common, but oddly enough, the code of {{marker}} doesn't use the counter parameter, actually it doesn't seem to pass any parameters on to Module:Marker, to which it delegates most of its functionality. Are arguments passed implicitly in some way, or from {{listing}} directly, bypassing {{marker}}?

–LPfi (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply