Is there anything glaringly obvious about this article that prevents it being upgraded to "guide" status? Wikitravel:Travel topic status suggests that a useable article "has at least a good overview of the topic, and some useful material under each outline heading" and a guide article "effectively covers most aspects of the topic with no obvious omissions. If practical, it should contain a listing of relevant destinations. The format should closely match the manual of style." We seem closer to guide than useable here. I don't think there's much of a case for listing destinations, it would just be a huge list of "here's places you can go to get altitude sickness!". It makes much more sense for those articles to link to this, as many are doing. Hypatia 22:22, 15 June 2006 (EDT)
Anyone got a source for this recommendation? It's mostly one of the leftovers from when I imported the original info in from Peru. I'm a little bit wary of recommending people drink such a large amount of water without a source. Over-hydrating is nasty. Hypatia 08:46, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
As the body responds to altitude by concentrating the blood by diuresis, you actually work against the body with excessive fluid intake.
In case anyone feels keen, I think this article could benefit from a map of the world with high altitude regions colour coded for various heights above sea level. It's only a rough guide at that scale, but will help put things in perspective for travellers. Hypatia 08:50, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
The Tibet thing
I shortened this at some point and User:Pashley has restored it in a slightly changed form. It's not an enormously big deal to me, but I'm wondering whether there's a reason for going into this detail here, rather than on the Tibet page:
Hypatia 01:00, 14 August 2006 (EDT)
Vistet 16:35, 22 August 2012 (EDT)Kunming is an unfortunate example , since it is at 1900 meters. Little if any acclimatization below 2000 in the travellers time scale.
It's not a big deal to me either, and it needs to be mentioned on the Tibet page too, but doesn't the detail belong here? Most of the altitude sickness page is heavy on details relevant only to mountain climbers. It seemed sensible to me to have a more purely travel-related example, and Tibet is an obvious one. Pashley 11:58, 14 August 2006 (EDT)
What parts of the article seem "heavy on details relevant only to mountain climbers" (quoth User:Pashley above)? It doesn't really read this way to me: I was thinking of my friends who have hiked to Everest base camp when I wrote most of it. There's plenty of non-climbing activities you can do where you will need to do a slow ascent and descend to sleep etc etc. That said, should we change something? Hypatia 23:00, 14 August 2006 (EDT)
The day one 1500 meter limit appears to be undocumented to me, and goes against known practice. It excludes normal modes of travel to a lot of places (like Golmud , Darjeeling , Manali and Shimla) and even normal cabin pressure. The International Society of Mountain Medicine talks of a first night ("if possible") below 3000. Another example is that the himalayanrescue.org FAQ dont mention the possibility to descend to 2500 after flying in to Lukla , and advises to spend the first night there.
The Death Thing
Deleted the " rare , but not unheard of " comment about death from AMS at 2500 meters : no references for this. It also seems to contradict specialist doctors advice that says get a first night below 3000 - "if possible". See himalayanrescue.org, highaltitudemedicine or International Society for Mountain Medicine.
Adjusted the acclimatisation rates accordingly : 2400 meters/8000 feet max first night, same as cabin pressure. Vistet 11:49, 19 January 2007 (EST)