Originally Posted by Bekologist

wait a second, something isn't adding up...... you rode the east side, and it was "interesting" but you rode the west side and found it "boring" with limited viewing or "facilities" -

really?

how many of the national park lodges did you visit? you think a couple of less gas stations makes any difference? it's a remote part of america, yes. And yet it's not nearly as remote as riding in North Dakota. The facilities are pretty modestly spaced.

I guess I'd agree though, you can see more rolling thru miles of clearcut instead of the view riding miles and miles of road underneath 600 year old cedar and spruce trees, so you're right, in a way, about the 'view' stuff.

....another case of not seeing the forest for the trees.



it's a rain forest, for gosh sakes, people.



You go and marvel at how springy the moss is underneath the 200 foot tall cedar trees.

Recommending to avoid the westside of the Olympic Peninsula because it has a couple less tiny towns and convenience stores, or the rain -the cause that really makes this patch of the country unique, is a massive FAIL on the part of some of you hard man cyclotourists.

Shelton, or Aberdeen, are some kind of cultural highlight, compared to the history found inside three WPA era national park lodges and along the roads in a national park? Seriously? Shelton is a logger's armpit. Aberdeen, a shell of past glory.



The West side of the olympics is fundamentally a National Park ride, like riding Yellowstone or some of the other large national parks, but without the RVs. The east side effectively misses the national park completely, traversing massive swaths of commercial logging, casino country and farmland.


A rider has to get off the bike to enjoy a national park. Kind of like the motorists having to get out of their cars.