UKH

Ok, so I've just returned from Skye after having a very unpleasant experience and unsure what to do about it. Family holiday with the wife and kids. I've done a bit of climbing and mountaineering but my wife doesn't have a head for heights so we decided to stay away from the Cuillin and stick to easy paths. One day we gave my son his choice of walk. He picked Elgol to Camasunary via the coastal path. Looked OK from the map. When we set off, there was a small sign at the start of the path, giving a general warning about mountain environments:

(https://www.google.com/search?q=elgol+dangerous+path&client=firefox-b-m...)

Fair enough. We are heading into towards the Cuillin. On we go. 

Before long we are on a very exposed and dangerous path. Mostly it's just walking a dirt track. A few small scrambles but nothing in any way technical. But the whole path is massively exposed with a very big drop. By exposed, I mean one stumble and its curtains. It's also crumbling in places. In one, you are stepping across free air using bracken roots for holds. 

The weather was good, and I personally was OK  but I was very unhappy about the danger that my family was in. By unhappy, I mean it was stomach churning. I've recently done some airy scrambling and also taken the kids on some reasonably exposed ridges, but this was well beyond. Thankfully none of the family quite saw the same danger than I did so just took it in their stride.

We got to the end of the path and found that other groups, including one with a large number of small children, had also done the route. 

Back home I've just done some googling and found old posts desperately warning people about the danger level, including one from someone who unfortunately fell and suffered serious injury. I also saw one stating that there was a fatality in 2018. 

So. You shouldn't go into the mountains without knowing the dangers and how to minimise risk. I'm not advocating putting warning signposts all over the place. There is danger everywhere and people should take responsibility for their own safety by applying common sense. 

But in this case, it starts as an innocent looking footpath to a beach, marked on the OS maps and obviously used by unsuspecting families. Once you are on it, it's committing. My conscience isn't happy with the thought of other families blindly stumbling into risk. What do I do? 

My mum puts her complete trust in my dad's navigation skills and point blank refuses to make any effort to read a map.

I still remember (aged 7) him taking us up Jacks Rake, whilst constantly reassuring Mum that it was marked as a path on the map. He had been up it before as a student and knew perfectly well that it was a proper scramble, mum on the other hand was less than impressed when we got to the awkward section.

Why not turn back? 

Why your very sensible post had 7 dislikes I've no idea. Someone says glibly why not turn back, but I guess that you got to the point of commitment where the last thing you wanted to do was reverse the scary stuff you'd already done. Always believing it MUST get easier very soon. I remember years ago the dangers of that route (not a path ... in many places no path at all) being vastly underwritten and no warning about it - possibly even on here. It's very steep, serious, perplexing terrain by any standards, with much scope for getting into life-threatening situations. I wonder if even now there's a recognised, minute sheep-track like path that works safely??

I only did it once (when I was doing my Cuillin book), from the Glenbrittle direction, and got hopelessly lost on the last section to the Coruisk hut. It ended up with hard grade 3 scrambling, with even some technical bouldering (with some 4a/4b moves), traversing some outcrops just above the sea.

In England, you'd probably report it to the local PRoW Access Officer.

In Scotland, not sure if there is such a thing, given the right to roam, and therefore no need to manage PRoWs...

The Bad Step, Gordon? The OP was referring to the Elgol - Camasunary path, though.  

I've done the walk a couple of times in the opposite direction, and can't recall the slightest difficulty. 20 -30 years ago, right enough - plenty of time for bits to get washed out, I suppose.

Agree - wandered along from coruisk to elgol on our honeymoon, and after Camasunary only recall a cliff top path and nothing to give us any qualms - and Mrs DR S is no climber or Walker.

perhaps significant erosion has occurred?

Scotland has hundreds of paths like that, there is nothing that you ‘can do about it’.

I for one wouldn’t want anything changed, it’s part of the pleasure that these routes haven’t been widened or sanitised, as they potential would be if closer to conurbations. You are bringing a mindset that is impractical, would cost a fortune and isn’t wanted.

May I suggest you head to the Lakes for your next family vacation.

I was one of the dislikes. 

Being able and willing to turn back is one of the basic skills everyone venturing into the outdoors needs to have. There was even a sign at the start warning of the remoteness so surely by continuing the OP knew any retreat would become increasingly difficult?

I'm not familiar with the path in question but a quick look at the map shows a relatively low hill which could be used as a detour albeit potentially involving a bit of heather bashing. Further to that the map shows a partial path up a glen away from the cliffs plus the main route to the beach from the Elgol road - we've all had to do a long detour at some point. All of these options would seem preferable to putting the group in further danger.

It is a low gradient path/sheep track contouring across a large quaternary land slip slope with a cliff below it, this section can’t be detoured. This slope is intermittently active so would be very hard to install a manicured, pitched path.  In parts (ie a step here, a couple of feet there)  the path due to volume of traffic is beginning to collapse, and was doing so before the recent Skye craze. It was featured on the BBC travel shows, was Which and the Ramblers most scenic path in the UK and a lot of Sunday papers recycled it at one point.

further north there is one section directly above a cliff in a small wood.  which could be avoided by going more on the open hill, This section has had a small barrier and sign erected to prevent people from following a false path over a cliff, and was the scene of one/two fatalities in the past.

Thus if you were to turn around to reverse it is no more difficult.

The problem is people bringing their own expectations of what Skye should be like.  Upgrading the path to ‘tourist’ standard would cost millions for this one path alone, and there are numerous others on Skye with sections like it.

ive done it about 60 times and have taken my aged parents along it, albeit choosing a dry day and keeping them chatting/moving  when passing the drops.

In some ways it encapsulates the problem with mass tourism promotion, with increasing footfall damage is done, the tourists clamour for modifications and the character is changed from what was the attraction in the first place.  Those doing the promotion fail to think what might be the outcome.

I have a friend, a local, who played a significant part in the promo of Skye about a decade ago, in the current boom she wishes she hadn’t!

Stand guard at the beginning of the path and share your story with everyone who turns up with a family?

Perhaps you could wear a grey robe, grow a beard and hold a staff?

The advice to turn back was spot on. A line on a map indicating a path is purely indicative, you should never assume that it means the path is safe, and anyway "safe" is a subjective description. Warning signs like the one you photographed are comparatively rare in mountainous and wild coastal areas, so didn't that set off any alarm bells that what lay ahead was going to be a bit more than a walk in the park?

You asked "what to do"? You are ultimately responsible for the safety of yourself and your family, so if you want to go exploring in wild mountainous coastal areas more in the future maybe go on an advanced hill walking course so that you can learn to judge when to turn back or press on when you meet a situation like this. 

Or hire a Cuillin guide for the day?

So far as protecting other unsuspecting families is concerned, they too can read the warning sign that you saw. They are not your responsibility

If there have been recent landslip, I'm sure notice to that effect could be posted at the start of the path.  Otherwise, nothing can practically be done nor should be done.  People have to remain free to make their own judgement.

Sorry I misread it. I can't remember any problems on the Elgol - Camasunary path. 

Sadly, I've never been to Skye.  I just had a loot at the 25k:1 OS map and thought "Crikey, that looks hairy, going to be slow going". A low footfall path trying to contour mountain slopes above sea cliffs with marked boulder fields suggesting the landscape isn't exactly immobile, and in an area of high rainfall.

Probably not the path for me, very exposed contouring gives me the slow-building heebie-jeebies in a way going up or down steep terrain doesn't.

Pay for a second sign to the right of the first sign, with a big arrow on it and three words:

⇦ Read This Sign

That path has significantly degraded over the last 10/15 years. I used to take groups along it, but I no longer do. I now start/ end at Kilmarie. 

Paths can and do change. Path markings on a map are an indication that there may be a viable way through there, but ultimately you have to use your experience and judgement. 

As someone who lives on Skye I hear this a lot. First it's too quiet. Let's get tourists in. Oh, tourists! It's too busy, people are making money, the horror! 

The path is very clearly signed to warn that you are entering a potentially dangerous mountain area and need to be properly equipped and experienced. That should have served as a warning that your son's choice of route might not be the "easy path" he had thought.  The sign is there precisely because it starts as an innocent looking footpath to a beach, which entices the unwary.  The OS map only indicates that the path exists, it does not show or even imply that it is passable or safe.  However it does show that the path traverses some very steep hillsides above cliffs.

It is some years since I walked that route and it may have changed, but that is the nature of mountain environments and you just have to deal with whatever you find.  If you or your companions don't have the skills and experience to do that then you shouldn't be there. 

The problem is not the path, that is just what it is, it is you.  You should have realised when you saw the sign that the route might not be suitable for your family and overridden your son's choice - you are the experienced walker, and the parent. You can't say you weren't warned, it was your decision to ignore the sign. Having decided to give it a go, you could have exercised caution and turned back as soon as you realised the danger, but instead of backing off you carried on. You must always be ready to change your plans if the unexpected happens.  

You showed poor judgement on this occasion, but fortunately it ended well.  Experience comes from learning from your mistakes (and we've all made them).

How to warn others?  Isn't a sign which warns very clearly that it is "potentially dangerous" sufficient?  Apparently not, since you (and apparently other parties) decided to ignore it, but if that didn't deter you I'm not sure what else could be done. 

Agree. In the mountains knowing when to call it a day is key to safety. It might be weather, terrain or an injury prompting you to make this cll but it is your responsibility to make it and not put yourself or those with you in undue danger. That said, we all have done what Gordon said and push on hoping thins will get better at some time.

I'm not sure the sign is sufficient.  It reads just like the sign in the Eismeer station before you go through the little door to leave the station and down the mines of Moria tunnel to reach the Eismeer for the Mittellegi hut.  But it's obvious from the context what you are doing.

I'm afraid that if you are going to have a sign given the present popularity and over selling of Skye that it might be the right thing to have underlined and above the present text "DANGER: THIS PATH IS HAZARDOUS AND SERIOUS ACCIDENTS HAVE HAPPENED ON IT!"

My thinking is affected by how I've learned that you really have to state the bl....... obvious to some people.

Sadly true.  But if, like the OP, they ignore a sign saying it's dangerous and press on even when they have seen and recognised the dangers, and even when they are concerned for their family's safety, how bl....... obvious do you have to get?  

There's a bridge over a river near me and the local council just erected 8-foot high wire fences along the length of it to discourage the local yoofs from jumping. It gets destroyed every few weeks and replaced. It must have cost £thousands. The yoofs keep jumping and every so often someone breaks an ankle or a leg because the water quite clearly isn't deep enough and they don't test the depth.

This is the same.

We could nanny state the whole country, warning people of 'hazards', or people could take personal responsibility to ensure they stay within their personal limits: research routes in mountain country beforehand - don't just decide on a route on impulse, research whether people jumped off that bridge safely before or, as you say, had accidents on a loose, exposed cliff path. Make sure you can back off if you need to. Take a rope if you need to (if you know how to use one). 

If not, the nationwide bill for signage, fencing and guardrails could be £billions

In that case it would be sensible to ad another sign to the existing post 'Parts of this path have eroded away'. That's not dumbing down the environment but might save a few MR callouts.

Maybe listen to your inner voice next time you're not happy about safety, you can turn back, treat it as a learning opportunity for the youngster(s) so they do see the danger next time they're in a similar position.

That's a pretty clear warning sign, what additional text would have made you turn back early?

jk

If there's a groundswell of opinion that tourist are not wanted on Skye, be clear and loud about it.... then you can have the discussion with local businesses who rely on tourism.

Which areas of Britain to you think tourism should be confined to? Should everyone fly abroad with the CO2 emissions that involves?

Funny that, because my friends livelihood is based on tourism, mainly on Skye.  They are quiet clear that they need tourism to survive, but are less sure that they want ‘mass’ tourism that ensued following the promotion that they played a part in. 

What Skye (and the Highlands) wanted and needed was a longer season, sustaining jobs so they could become viable year round. What they have got is a bigger glut high season when already busy, along with only a bit of an increase early and late seasons.

I walked this path, with variations, six years ago. We had arrived at our B&B early evening, borrowed their local walks book and decided we could just fit in 9 miles before dark - I had done the track into Camasunary to camp there back in my heyday when we attempted the Greater Traverse - so I was happy that we would not get benighted. We found the path boggy/slippery and hard to follow after the initial easy bit. Don't think there was a warning sign, would not have worried if there was. I have been looking at the photos I took and at the Garmin trace - we lost the proper path at Glen Scaladal by chosing to walk on the beach and around the rocky headland (with tide coming in), thus missing out the dangerous bit apparently, rejoining it later as it became possible to move back inland. Then lost it again in the boggy bits before the beach and bothy. All ended well but we had been out for 3:35 and by giving ourselves time pressure were making route-finding errors and there were some exciting moments even on the bit of cliff path we did. Did feel responsible for my son, but he was 24 and generally more timid than me..

I pretty much agree with everybody on this thread, all have valid points except turning back late into the tricky bit would have put us close to dark - no, we did not have torches. Or emergency food/shelter etc because it was only an evening stroll. Lessons were learnt.

You'll find there's a range of opinions from those who rely on tourism, have the debate in the open so all can contribute, or maybe that's going on?

I'd say that's down to the location and when most people can travel. It's a case of make hay while the sun shines. I can't think of how it could be 'engineered' another way.

Contrary to my last post (I am thinking out loud a bit).... but it does strike me that some well maintained footpaths could well extend the season at either end!

The other thing I meant to mention in my rambling reply above - in Tenerife, Los Gigantes, there is an exciting cliff path with plenty of potential for falling a long way. It goes to Masca, eventually, by following water tunnels through the hills. The sign at the start of path says, in 4 languages, "This path is closed" with various symbolic indications of hazard. Job done - we won't stop you but don't expect sympathy if it all goes tits-up...

People are trying to engineer it, just as the NC500 was artificially ‘created’, it’s all small scale and doesn’t help that big advertising by Visit Scotland    Funnels a potential customer to the glut.

Visitors need accommodation, then they support cafes and shops and attractions. But they also need a reason to be their other than a motor tour as the reason provides a diversity of work. Photography, wildlife, walking, language, cultural events all can play a part.

Take a climbers perspective no campsites open beyond mid October. With the boom in vans  FW and Skye, probably elsewhere can sustain a campsite with a longer season tailoring it (drying room, kitchen shelter) to the customer.  In turn on the bad days folks would go to the cafe/pub sustaining them. At presents it’s virtual all or nothing putting off all but the die hard.

Thanks for all the replies. Not much I disagree with really. I think that the right balance would be to have a more strongly worded sign, and leave it at that. 

The main thing is a lesson to myself. I should have turned us back early on and been prepared to disappoint the family for the sake of an appropriate level of safety. "Experience is the sum total of near misses..."

The discussion of tourism on Skye is interesting. I definitely noticed a big difference from the last time I visited, and even from other visits to the highlands and islands in the last few years. From obvious things like the sheer number of camper vans and tents in laybys, to more subtle things like the attitude of people you meet on the hills. I'm used to greeting people I meet, if only with a friendly smile and nod if on busy hill. One of the joys of being in the remote places is the camaraderie of strangers you meet. Very little if that to be found at the moment. Even in the still remote places. Everyone too busy taking selfies of themselves 'wild swimming' in every little puddle.  

Anyways, the kids loved just being in the mountains and not too traumatised by the whole thing, so all good.

+1 for "path closed" but only in tourist-frequented locations.

Walking the levadas in Madeira, "path closed" was an excellent indication that it would be fun to do, although there was of course the slight risk that it really was impassable.

The best path sign I ever saw was in Yosemite up the Mist Trail. It said "A bear has been very active in this area. If he approaches you, shout and throw things at him to make him go away and report the incident to a ranger. Remember it is illegal to abandon food to bears, and you will be cited".

I followed a couple of old ladies at a respectful distance.

The wrong type of tourists?

Skye has one of the longest tourist seasons in the country. Yes its busy in summer but good quality accommodation is full 12 months a year.  Some pubs and restaurants are open year round, but like everyone else in the hospitality industry it makes sense for them to take holidays in the winter when it's quieter. Also Skye in winter can be really really grim.

Was the thought process behind that, is that you might not be able to outrun the bear, but you should be able to outrun the old ladies? 🐻🏃‍♂️👵🥩

And would abandoning the old ladies to their fate qualify as 'abandoning food for bears' I wonder...

Do you pay attention to the sign at the upper glen Nevis car park where the path heading to the Steall Falls states "Danger of death"? I don't, neither do many others. I get my groups to pose for photos with the sign! So, does that strongly worded sign cause people go turn back and not follow the path?? 

I don't think I've been on that path.

If there was a sign saying a footpath was in a dangerous state, it would change my plans depending on who I was with. In many tourists areas there are maintained paths for varied ability groups, those who might struggle do take notice I've seen it.

Yes, I 've been going up to the Highlands more regularly for family reasons. I do sense a lack of consensus of where the tourist industry is going.... hence my comments about an open discussion.

Completely agree, though I would say there are compromises that have to be made to achieve the above. I have to say, your own comments on this thread do come across as uncompromising. If I was considering investing in accommodation on Skye, I'd pull out after reading suggestions from locals that tourists should go to Lakes instead.

The French do this well.  The notices at the end of ice-cream and pram territory (e.g. Montenvers railway) say something like

"Way ahead dangerous.  You may die."

Then it's up to you.

Well I can assure you that pretty much no one turns back! It is constantly mobbed with all ages and abilities. 

https://www.traveling-savage.com/2015/11/04/hiking-steall-falls-nevis-gorge...

It's also described as a 'well maintained path' in the link.

It’s probably the weakness of the internet, I don’t think we are a million miles apart.  My comment about the Lakes was to indicate that there are areas where many footpaths carry virtually no risk and are well maintained. Yes in retrospect it was harsh.

Parts of Skye aren’t one of them, I can think of several walks outwith of the cullin where there is exposure and a trip or stumble wouldn’t end well. 

Multiple lower leg injuries on the Storr, falls into one of the glen brittle gorges, rescues from the Bad Step area, at least one fatality on the Elgol  walk…. falls of coastal paths elsewhere, all attest to that, they are much more serve injuries than most tourists would wish to risk.

 Interesting that Girlmonkey is not taking clients on that path. For an ML it represents a awkward risk assessment; the path is relatively straight forward but has a couple of disintegrating parts, often has a feeling of exposure, and for stretches very poor outcomes from a slip. Also has claimed at least one life. Clients movement skills and head for heights are often unknown. So you can see that professionally the decision to avoid can be reached, but it is a classic walk so some clients will be keen to do, and you can also see that most people are comfortable with it on a personal basis.

Should we bolt and chain the Coruisk bad step (my partner hates it; particularly when iced up in descent! I lost slot of brownie points despite having a rope).  How much improvement can we afford and where, in doing so are we the regulars and locals prepared to accept ‘change’ and by how much?  All conundrums.

The warning sign is a standard scotways one that pops up all over Scotland, and isn’t specific to this stretch of path or a specific risk, traditionally  more being meant to warn folks of in this case the Cullin (this path being one of the approaches), albeit a long one) and elsewhere the fact they are entering relatively remote terrain.

Indeed, but not on the sign! So my point is, signs are useless, people will make their own decisions for their own reasons and most will disregard signs! 

Thankfully, most of my clients are French so the "classic" nature of it is a bit lost on them. They are happy to trust me that Kilmarie is a very nice start or end to Glen Sligachan and there is no pressure on me! But, I wouldn't bow to pressure from British clients either. If I had to defend my actions in a court of law, I couldn't justify taking them on there. The Glen Nevis path though, despite it's sign, I would feel was justifiable as long as I could be sure I had managed it appropriately for the group. I can think of a couple of clients I wouldn't have taken there, but most I would happily. 

I did this path 15-20 years ago going south on mountain bikes (with my 14 year old son).

We decided that scrambling with a bike over your shoulder was not a fun sport. We probably only cycled about a hundred metres (of the 4-5 km) Always optimistic that it will get better soon.

Went climbing the following day. Much safer!

Man the f**k up. 😉

A few years ago after there had been an accident or two on Ben Nevis I saw some (probably not entirely serious) suggestion that a fence be erected along one or possibly both sides of the main path across the plateau. That would surely never happen, but it struck me that even if it did it wouldn't be long before someone contrived to end up on the wrong side of the fence and get into trouble. The capacity some people have to do this kind of thing is remarkable.

Again a few years ago I was on top of Ben Cleuch in the Ochils one misty day and met a late-teenager who had with him one of those step-by-step numbered route descriptions complete with photos. He had no idea where he was - he came over to ask - even though one of the pictures he showed me, labelled "Ben Cleuch summit", was of the trig and view indicator we were standing beside. I was quite impressed that he'd actually managed to get there, but he had no real idea how to get down. I was just starting my lunch (and in retrospect should have stopped eating and walked him off), so gave basic directions about the pretty obvious path leading off the west side of the hill. I stressed more than once that whatever he did in terms of the next 15 or 20 minutes spent getting off the high ground, "Do not cross the fence". To cut a long story short it ended happily as far as I'm aware (although I spent the afternoon worrying about him and later dropped a precautionary email to someone I knew in the local MRT), but guess what? Within five minutes of leaving me he had crossed the fence. He was so clueless - yet still enthusiastic - that I rather warmed to him during our brief conversation, but it was quite worrying.

You were worried about the danger?  Why didn't you turn back?  Mountainous paths are often relatively dangerous.

I felt that the Bear in My Brain could be much bigger than the Bear on the Path, and indeed that was how it turned out. The ladies looked like they knew what they were doing, and if they didn't, your point applies. However if they did know what they were doing, they would have pointed in my direction and said "there's more meat on him".

Also I was quite keen to get cited by the attractive and fearsomely efficient Ranger I had met that morning.

We did the tourist walk to the Old Man of Storr the day after climbing at Neist Point and it felt more dangerous.  The last bit was chossy as hell with a good chance of falling and twisting or breaking something.

I'm likely to ignore a generic warning sign, there's so many warnings about stuff which isn't particularly dangerous,  but if it is specific about the danger then I'd probably pay attention.  

Sure, it's not ideal for these discussion.

Yeah there's a lot to discuss. I know a lot was spent in Wales on costal paths but that was on EU grants which obviously aren't there anymore. I'd say the investment has a net positive financial effect as people who enjoy the 'tourist' paths tend to be bigger spenders (older people and families rather than stingy outdoor types). But then it does mean a stretch of land is sanitised.... probs not right for Skye, even it it was physically feasible.

I'm with Tom, I think generic signs will be ignored but in my experience people will take more notice of specific warnings. But sure, most of my experience isn't in the Highlands and you obviously know your patch!

"One of the joys of being in the remote places is the camaraderie of strangers you meet."
 

There are still plenty of nice people happy to chat or just say hi.

We were on Skye in June and on top of a good number of chats we even had someone offer us a drink as we walked back to the car in the fading light after climbing the Cioch and a nice lady offered me a lift back to our digs up the hill outside Carbost because it was raining.

We walked the route mentioned by the OP, Elgol to Camasunary returning over Am Mam then Kilmarie and around in a loop. I'll admit that there were a few spots where I thought I'd better take care as a fall could be pretty bad news but I never thought the path was so bad as to force a slip, you just had to be careful. I can't remember if we ever saw a sign but we did see the tape across the false path in the wooded area where someone above stated there had previously been an accident.

In my experience some people will see a sign saying "Danger! Keep Out" as an invitation.

The mountains are the last bastion of personal responsibility, and long may they remain so. One needs to develop the skills, judgement and experience to make prudent decisions, and to take responsibility for the decisions they do make.

We don't need manicured paths, or warning signs; we need people to be able to read a map and make their own decision, and be prepared to turn back rather than blindly press on when things become unexpectedly dangerous.

'Unsuspecting families' don't need protecting from themselves, and I'm surprised that anyone who plays the games climbers play would think otherwise.

This should be written in fiery letters on a tablet at the start of every mountain path. However since we have moved on from 6000 years ago, perhaps there is a need for a more nuanced approach?

Managed paths are a part of almost all mountain landscapes. I’m more than happy for folks to queue up on Yr Wyddfa, or Everest, or wherever. I may decide to use such a path, or not.

The debate is about what information to provide.

Excepting the fact that the sea is possibly the last bastion......

A greater joy in remote places is not meeting any strangers in the first place (isn't that kind of the point of being there?).

But yes, I suppose one should grit one's teeth and be civil if one does meet them.

I agree; in remote places I can generally find a way to avoid having to say hello  On a coast path, I assess the situation and if they're not teeth gritters I make some poor joke about insufficient coastal erosion, and often get their walk story of the day.

In the Appenzell recently on a managed path, I met a lady from Utah. "Oh", she said, "everywhere is SO GREEEEN!!" I would want her and her husband to have plenty of signposts (and you certainly get those in Switzerland).

Information was provided.  The OP chose to ignore it (which he was entitled to do).  When he discovered that it was indeed dangerous, just as the sign had warned, he nevertheless carried on.  Again, something he was entitled to do, but shouldn't then complain afterwards that it had done exactly as it said on the tin.

Presumably the others he met that day had done the same and made the same choices. Only they can say whether those were the correct choices for them.  

It seems to be human nature to ignore warning signs or to assume that it can't really be that bad.  I'm as guilty of this as anyone - only this week I went to a quarry which has a large sign on which the very first item is "Don't climb on the quarry walls".  However it's a recognised climbing venue on access land, so we treated it as only applying to civilians and climbed there anyway.

However strongly they are worded, signs can only warn, and people will make their own decisions. These won't always be good ones. Even in today's world where people seem to expect to be led by the hand everywhere, ultimately they have to take responsibility for themselves. And, to be fair, the OP has accepted that his judgement was at fault. 

Symbolism is far better than signs. The start of my first winter route in the Cairgorms was marked with a huge patch of blood in the snow. Certainly made me take a bit more care!

That ship sailed long go, and it's generally a good thing, maintained footpaths prevent the surrounding environment from further erosion. And it's worth remembering some hard work goes into the footpaths we all benefit from.

Yes, visitors should be aware that a green dashed line on an OS does not mean a maintained path. However, if its a wooden sign with 'Coastal Path' and the local emblem ect, then that should have a warning if the path is dangerously damaged. Obviously not the case here and I agree the sign was sufficient.

Not wishing to be too pedantic, however, shouldn't you also refer to the mountain, commonly called 'Everest' by one or more (so as not to offend) of its 'proper' names to be consistent in your post !

That may be more of a reflection of her experiences of walking in Utah. Much of Utah is desert, and she could be an experienced desert walker, where everything is shades of brown. For some people (including my wife, who is from a flat dry part of Australia), the shades of green we experience and take for granted on a daily basis are worthy of comment.  

I wasn't very clear, my apologies. Obviously we do need manicured paths to stop large parts of our hills resembling First World War trenches of erosion. What we don't need, in my humble opinion, are manicured paths solely to protect potential users from their own inability to make sound decisions.

Warning signs — I know how I feel about them in principle, but being more pragmatic they are probably a sensible thing in some cases. But the argument is weakened somewhat when people ignore them, get into trouble and then complain about it. 'Something must be done!' to protect unsuspecting families — well it has, there's a warning at the beginning of the path! Generally when those appear in the UK hills I pay particular attention, because they're very rarely encountered.

I generally think it's best to go into the hills with the assumption that the full spectrum of natural hazards will be trying to do you in and take full ownership of your personal safety.

Yes, I'm always amazed at how variedly green the UK is when arriving home from a desert trip. Even makes the approach to Heathrow quite thriliing. If you live in the desert it must be incredible. 

Yes, a couple of times on return flights from California I've had a random American sat next to me remark on just how green everything is as we fly in to London.  As well as the differences in the countryside our cities are much greener.  

It's hard to imagine going somewhere to hike for the novelty of it being green - just goes to show how much beauty we casually ignore once we get used to it.

Then again I've also met Europeans lost to the north of Beinn Eighe complaining bitterly about the lack of signposts.

An earlier comment on Yosmeite reminded me of my favourite sign from that part of the world - "If a mountain lion attacks, fight back!".  My all time favourite in the US is the sign in the car park for Umpquah Hot Springs which basically says "Nakedness - deal with it or go home". 

Yes, that was exactly what she meant. However the Appenzell region is ludicrously green. Since much of their agriculture is hay-based, and because the animals spend the summer in the high alp, they mow all the fields regularly which makes them look like golf courses (but without the sand traps). A running joke with my local friends, which they are probably more than tired of by now, is that every blade of grass in Switzerland is cut to exactly the correct length. And most every path has several bright yellow signposts, which although informative are also intrusive.

I like the warning sign at the bottom of Hardknott pass - very detailed and lots of information - and the one later that simply says 'You have been warned'!

Years ago I walked with some folks from Virginia ('on the trail of the Lonesome Pine' etc). We were in the Lakes and Dales and they were amazed at how open and tree-less it all was. Back home they would walk all day in trees with the odd viewpoint (looking out over lots more trees). I told them we'd cut all our trees down centuries ago, built lots of ships and founded a few colonies.

Was hiking with my wife and daughter once along some mountain path in the Alps, it was running along a cliff side, we came to a steel gate with  surrounding fence stopping anyone from climbing around it. We were wondering why it was there, anwe walked through it and on closing the gate after us, saw a sign on this side warning people of the path we had just hiked on! There had been no warning from our direction.