Victor Hugo trail to Thiraucourt

Hello
Message received and I'll take care of the WPS order.

Machine-translated

Hello,
In response to your comments, I would like to clarify that my WP are placed during reconnaissance of the terrain. They are therefore in the correct order of progression and adapted to the terrain.
You modified them, so it is your responsibility.

The moderators are responsible for deciding which walks are published. I did not have to check your version as it had already been published.

It was when talking about Victor Hugo that I came back to this route, and the change from the first WP alerted me.

Apart from this WP problem, your version contains errors that I should not have detected. However, any criticism will come directly to me; the moderator is never held responsible.

Out of respect for hikers who dare to embark on this route, I have corrected the errors that could lead to misdirection in the field.
All other changes are your responsibility and I will not intervene.

Best regards
Fanfan

Machine-translated

Hello Fanfan

I understand your reaction.

the distribution of the WPs has been completely revised

For my part, I have put all these WPs in chronological order.
For example, WP 8 was added because it is a fork in part of the A/R route.
it had the number 12 on the return leg.
Our way of doing things is to add WPs as we progress along the route.
So WP 12 becomes WP 8, and so on.
Now, by following this order of positioning for the WPS, you can easily modify the description if any errors have been made.

the description has been corrected in several places where strange terms such as "tracer" were used.

Change the verb(s) and term(s).

More seriously, parts of the text are missing, leading hikers astray, or have been incorrectly copied, causing them to look for non-existent paths.

Modify the description as best you can, based on what you have seen.
With my apologies.

Machine-translated

Hello Fanfan

I understand your reaction.

the distribution of the WPs has been completely revised

For my part, I have put all these WPs in chronological order.
For example, WP 8 was added because it is a fork in part of the A/R route.
it had the number 12 on the return leg.
Our way of doing things is to add WPs as we progress along the route.
So WP 12 becomes WP 8, and so on.
Now, by following this order of positioning for the WPS, you can easily modify the description if any errors have been made.

the description has been corrected in several places where strange terms such as "tracer" were used.

Change the verb

More seriously, parts of the text are missing, leading hikers astray, or have been poorly rewritten, causing them to look for non-existent paths.

Modify the description as best you can
With my apologies.

Machine-translated

Hello,
I am "fanfan", the author of this hike.
Following the moderation of this route, I regret the extensive corrections made to our description.

• the distribution of waypoints has been completely revised,
• and the description has been corrected in several places using strange terms such as "tracer".
• More seriously, parts of the text are missing, leading hikers astray, or have been poorly rewritten, causing them to search for non-existent paths.

We take great care in describing our routes, which are ALWAYS PREPARED ON THE GROUND to provide a clear and realistic picture of the environment and any potential difficulties.
We return to the terrain if we encounter the slightest doubt during the description, or if part of the route is too difficult or likely to be lost.
We only describe hikes in our region.
We return to the terrain if a hiker reports a difficulty encountered.

Do moderators do the same before allowing themselves to correct everything?
This calls into question the quality of the routes we use when travelling outside the region.

Fanfan

Machine-translated