I walked for 12 days in trail shoes, they were great until it rained, had a bog or stream to cross, very easy to get wet feet! Also in mountains beware of cracking your ankle bones against rocks, very painful! Although I liked them I've gone back to leather boots because for me they are still the best all rounders. I could see myself using trail shoes again but would like it to be dry underfoot at all times! For me hiking shoes seem to have have thick stiff soles, a deep cut sole grip pattern like boots, are not so bendy as other trainer type shoes and usually have a wide band of rubbery type material (because we tend to kick stones as we walk) around the toes part of the shoe. My trail running shoes for example are running shoes with a deep tread cut, (I still fall over in the mud) a semi to stiff sole (helps when landing on tree stumps, etc) and they do not have a wide band of rubbery stuff (I dont tend to kick stones when I run just tree roots maybe) around the toes area. From experience I take the view now that like so many things in life there is also a load of marketing nonsense out there as to what separates one type of shoe from another. If I was to be a 'pure consumer', they would having me buying a separate pair of shoes for every type of weather, for every temperature range and for every type of terrain. For trail and hiking shoes my policy is to buy cheap but good. My trail shoes (Adidas, £35 and are great) are always thick with mud (why buy bright yellow, blue and orange ones, I only wear muddy ones!) whilst my trail shoes (not keen on all these furry materials either) they tend to be in the cupboard for months on end, so for me whats the point of spending £100 when I can buy a 'good' pair for about £40?