>>785212
If you're staying on trails, sneakers are probably fine. Try it first and see if you need to spend the 100+ on boots. I wear trail runners.

>>785213
The boots are only £30 which is why I was asking. But if you think it's unnecessary I might leave it for now.

>>785257
Then you get what you pay for. I disagree with >>785213 in that you want more than sneakers for most trails, I've seen people slip and slide on anything with a steep incline. Look at hiking shoes over boots, something like Merrill or Columbia.

>>785261
To add to my post, make sure you look at the individual shoe rating. There are plenty of great manufacturers that make garbage products, and great products that come from okay manufacturers. If a shoe has 3 stars from >100 reviews, and one next to it has 4.8 stars with 678 reviews, I think you know which one to go for.

>>785261
>>785264
Thanks m80. What is the difference between shoes and boots? I assumed you'd usually want boots over shoes for the extra support and water resistance.

>>785266
Columbia for example has waterproof shoes, and extra support is okay, but it means less mobility. Unless you're packing weight or doing more than day hikes, shoes will work best.