>>493456Short answer, that image of tracking is (strictly said) bullshit.
Longer answer (probably repeating what someone here already said):
If you look for a good amount of time, you can find surprising details about someone.
>broken twigGeneral direction of movement
>depth of tracks in mud/sand/soft groundIf it's deeper than your tracks, that person is heavier than you (or carrying something). This can be seen during robberies, people go in lighter and out heavier. Not much of an indication, but with training you can spot the spot where a rider dismounts/mounts.
>yarnYou'd have to fucking look for that one, not really applicable anywhere other than innawoods. People snag on shit. If they snag, they leave a piece of clothing there. But as I said, you'd have to look for that one.
>3 week agoThis would probably be invisible, unless there are no other people going along that track during that time. Also it can be said from the weather.
>argue about colorNot really that easy to deduce, you'd really have to find a diary. Best you could find is "they use two colours of yarn"
>3 mile per hourThat's something to do with pace length, if their feet are further apart, they are running. Closer, they're walking. One foot prints deeper than the other, they're favouring the other leg.
>carry 2 rifleThat would either have to do with 2 dropped casings of different size or something. Of course that would be EXTREMELY difficult to see 3 weeks after they passed.
>Woman get annoyedWhite woman always get annoyed
Also, what I've found while toying around with animal tracking (animals have almost no feeling for OPSE/k/, they shit where they go) is that you're considerably slower than the animal you're tracking. This is partly because you have to look for individual tracks, bypass shit they just go through, and pay attention because age of tracks is indefinite.
