although i get they are both “a walk outside” the training aims are completely different.
one is intended to cover a distance, typically in a good time
the other, in the RAFAC eyes at least, typically covers map reading, navigation or some form or orienteering (getting from point A to B)
you could apply the sane differences between a GS sotie and a GIC both are flights in a glider, but have different outcomes. The GIC is an experience without/very little teaching element – the P1 pilot only needs to be signed off to fly with passengers.
The GS is dedicated training and the pilot needs to be signed off as a pilot and instructor.
In RM there is nothing that is “taught”, the skills and talent come from practise of walking rather than from taught elements, learning and then application.
I would also say that RM is a lead activity by the CFAV, the “skills” passed on to the Cadets don’t cover ideal routes, the ins and outs of what makes a good route, route navigation or the risks involved.
Although AT Trekking is CFAV lead, the intention is to share the CFAVs knowledge, experience and skills and pass them on, teaching the student how to map read, find a bearing, design a suitable route, consider the terrain and understand the potential risks, covering basic time and distance calculations (understanding 3km/h = 1 box on the map) and how that changes with conditions.
When considering this:
The teaching/learning is very similar, how to pitch the tent/bivvy and the experience again much the same, sleeping. The learning outcome for both is the same “build your accommodation and sleep in it” yet the disparity between the authorisation to do one over the other is vast.
Yes I get that on the face of it RM and AT trekking are both “going for a walk” but the same is true between GS and GIC/AEF (going for a flight) but basic outcomes are slightly different.
RM = achieving a distance in a target time, on the roads
Trekking = developing navigation skills to allow the student to take part in the activity independently.