Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dantodman
After inspecting a 1:25000 map in the pub last night it is fairly conclusive what happened to me. I was near the top of Stonesty Gill when I drifted too far right and got lost, I must have contoured around Little Stand and then descended out of the mist and found the ruin. I then took the path back up Little Stand walked around for a bit before deciding to follow the stream/river down to near Wrynose.
One thing I must say the 1:25000 map is so much more detailed than the 1:50000 race map I had.
Dan
I had a good look at this section on the ground yesterday - in good visibility - and can see that if you drift even just a little bit south of Stonesty Col that the terrain is very confusing and you could easily go wrong. The Col needs to be identified with absolute certainty - it is grassy, relatively rock free, has a small irregular boggy tarn at the very top on the south side,and like a true saddle, it goes up in both directions in one plane - north/south - and down in both directions at a right angle to that - east/west. There are three trods on it - one going north/south, and two going east/west. The E/W trods are at either end of the col. That at the southern end goes inches to the south of the tarn and then goes steeply downhill, across the very upper part of Gaitscale Gill and then up in almost a straight line just to the north of the rocky edge of Cold Pike, joining the path from Crinkle crags after crossing a section of boggy terrain. That at the northern end divides shortly after leaving the top of the col; if you go to the left - N/E - it contours on runnable terrain and joins the path from Crinkle Crags somewhat higher up. In good visibility the straight line route is probably best; in mist I would go for the latter.
I also had a look at the top of the Adam-a-Cove section: do people go up to just below the bad step - in other words just below and west of the gap between the first and second Crinkles, or do they follow the southern tributary of Swinside Gill up to the south side of the first Crinkle? The former seems to be longer and to involve more climbing, but I suspect the terrain will be more recognizable to many - the southern route was a bit vague at one stage.
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Is 'tits up' a suitable phrase for a fairy?
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
This thread is fantastic, both bringing out the best and the holier than thou worst in the forum :). I too went wrong, probably in exactly the same place on Saturday. I was in a group of maybe a dozen runners who, having got to the top of Stonesty Pike, thought we were too far to the right/south, not helped by no other runners materialising after us. Too far south meant Little Stand or quite possibly off the race map. (As it turns out, having looked at a proper map since, we could well have been close to bang on the race line. Doh!)
The trouble is up there in 50 meter viz, there were no landmarks and, although we headed off (initially) slightly north of east which should have meant we'd disect a marked path and also been a goodish line to Blisco, we never found that path (although we must have crossed it) and this increased our indecision. And if you think you're off the map in those conditions you almost might as well be. Anyway one of our group then thought we might be on Cold Pike (ludicrous with a proper map in front of you) and our navigation decisions were sort of based on that, making going down hill not necessarily wrong. The trouble is we soon hit a gill in raging torrent that was going across our path; it was pretty much uncrossable unless we went up into the mist, and allthough some of our group took off that way, five of us stuck together and before we knew it found ourselves in Wrynose Pass. Gaitscale Gill was the thing that blocked us and pushed us south but a full on white water version where it might normally be a trickle.
Its this kind of add on adventure that I love in fell running though and our being faced with difficulties, not easily being able to get back in the race but eventually find our way out, was great fun. Unfortunately in my case touched with a fair degree of disappointment, given that from the splits, I was in second place (Male Vet 55 :D ) at the Slight Side checkpoint previously and I'd overtaken a good few runners in Great Moss with my super duper river crossing 'techniques' since then.
Never mind, it was a great day out and my 17 mile version of a 13 mile race turned into a bloody good blow out!
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Cor, this is the best thread I've read for ages! I have to concur with earlier comments though, it's not big or clever to openly condemn anyone's navigational skills (or lack thereof), especially when they're asking an open forum for a bit of advice on where they went wrong. A bit of humility and mutual support is what's needed :D
Hank's comment pertains: 1:50,000 racing maps are all very well if you know the lines, but if you don't .... well, you need a larger scale to give yourself the best chance of determining your position.
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Ok, I've had a bit of think, and I probably was too harsh and my comments probably came across badly. I was in a really bad mood and stressed on Mon & Tues, and this came across in my posts. So, I do apologise to the OP.
I do, however, believe that this thread demonstrates that a lot of fellrunners need to learn how to use a compass properly and to improve their navigation skills (myself definitely included), and I stand by my belief that you should know the limit of your own abilities (and not overestimate them) and be prepared not to race if the conditions are poor.
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Martyn P
Cor, this is the best thread I've read for ages! I have to concur with earlier comments though, it's not big or clever to openly condemn anyone's navigational skills (or lack thereof), especially when they're asking an open forum for a bit of advice on where they went wrong. A bit of humility and mutual support is what's needed :D
Hank's comment pertains: 1:50,000 racing maps are all very well if you know the lines, but if you don't .... well, you need a larger scale to give yourself the best chance of determining your position.
1:25 v 1:50 V 1:40 (harveys) it also depends on how you see the map. Some people prefer the easily defined shapes of a 1:50, less junk information. Some prefer the harvey's but you have bigger contour intervals which brings its own issues. Try to use all 3 and be prepared to use all 3, but don't suddenly try to race with one, when you've only used the other.
They all have advantages and disadvantages.. good points re going off race maps.. on a race like the GL that's pretty easy to stray a long way out of the way..
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IainR
1:25 v 1:50 V 1:40 (harveys) it also depends on how you see the map. Some people prefer the easily defined shapes of a 1:50, less junk information. Some prefer the harvey's but you have bigger contour intervals which brings its own issues. Try to use all 3 and be prepared to use all 3, but don't suddenly try to race with one, when you've only used the other.
They all have advantages and disadvantages.. good points re going off race maps.. on a race like the GL that's pretty easy to stray a long way out of the way..
I find the Harvey's BMC 1:40 maps to be an excellent compromise between detail and size. The Great Lakes is in such a compact area my 1:40 map was pretty small.
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
[QUOTE=fozzy;489955]
I do, however, believe that this thread demonstrates that a lot of fellrunners need to learn how to use a compass properly and to improve their navigation skills (myself definitely included)[QUOTE]
Courses are available :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IainR
1:25 v 1:50 V 1:40 (harveys) it also depends on how you see the map. Some people prefer the easily defined shapes of a 1:50, less junk information. Some prefer the harvey's but you have bigger contour intervals which brings its own issues. Try to use all 3 and be prepared to use all 3, but don't suddenly try to race with one, when you've only used the other.
They all have advantages and disadvantages.. good points re going off race maps.. on a race like the GL that's pretty easy to stray a long way out of the way..
Good comment Iain, I like 50 for crossing big terrain but like the detail of 25 for racing or new terrain. Interestingly last week on my 10 hour trip in Scotland I DOH! forgot my 25,000 map I'd marked up with my planned route, so had to take the 50 instead, thick clag for more than half the trip and got round ok, only issue was at one point heading for my last munro a 100 rock band appear beneath me across my route. a short detour got me round but it wasn't marked on the map and it clearly is on the 25.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dynamo Dan
I find the Harvey's BMC 1:40 maps to be an excellent compromise between detail and size. The Great Lakes is in such a compact area my 1:40 map was pretty small.
I have a harvey 40 for the peak but I find it cluttered and difficult to read. I think the map you learn with is what you prefer.
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IanDarkpeak
I have a harvey 40 for the peak but I find it cluttered and difficult to read. I think the map you learn with is what you prefer.
Agreed. Harvey's maps are like learning a second language for me
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IainR
1:25 v 1:50 V 1:40 (harveys) it also depends on how you see the map. Some people prefer the easily defined shapes of a 1:50, less junk information. Some prefer the harvey's but you have bigger contour intervals which brings its own issues. Try to use all 3 and be prepared to use all 3, but don't suddenly try to race with one, when you've only used the other.
They all have advantages and disadvantages.. good points re going off race maps.. on a race like the GL that's pretty easy to stray a long way out of the way..
Yes, forgot that Harveys maps are 1:40. The scale doesn't trouble me, probably because I've spent years working with nautical navigation charts with varying degrees of scale and I just do it in my head. Contour intervals showing altitude *tend* not to be much of an issue at sea. Even for really big waves :D
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Derby Tup
Agreed. Harvey's maps are like learning a second language for me
I agree with your agreement :)
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Harveys do 1:25k too. I used to be an O/S man and hated using Harveys for mountain marathons, but now I've got used to Harveys I much prefer them. I think having used the large scale 1:40 Lakes map a lot over winter helped. I find the detail much easier to take in on the run. Very much personal taste though I guess.
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hank
Harveys do 1:25k too. I used to be an O/S man and hated using Harveys for mountain marathons, but now I've got used to Harveys I much prefer them. I think having used the large scale 1:40 Lakes map a lot over winter helped. I find the detail much easier to take in on the run. Very much personal taste though I guess.
It's not the scale for me it's all the colouring in they have :closed:
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Derby Tup
It's not the scale for me it's all the colouring in they have :closed:
Yeah, it is a bit odd. It's not on the Lakes 1:25k maps, but is on the 1:40k.
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IanDarkpeak
Courses are available :).
Yes, I know. Orienteering is proving very, very useful for learning though.
Re:1:25, 1:50, 1:40 etc - yes they do show different amounts of details - I have to say I prefer more detail than less, so am always use 1:25 OS given a choice (filter out what you don't need in your head), however Orienteering has also taught me that you need to get used to lots of differing scales - in my first few events, I got a crash course with different scale maps ranging from 1:4000 up to 1:15k. The trick is to learn how fast you are running across that map - i.e. how much of the map do you cover in a set period of time - if it's a new scale or one you've not used for a while, using nav to the first control often helps with this - the same would apply to fell running - how long does it take to cover that field, or to that stile or to the summit of that hill etc.
Harveys maps can be useful, although I've not used them much - the different colours can be useful for route planning (i.e. going around a hill instead of over it) - orienteering maps are similar to this (diff colours for diff terrain), so I'm coming to appreciate them more.
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Derby Tup
It's not the scale for me it's all the colouring in they have :closed:
Personally I think the shading is great - gives an immediate view of the shape of the land, and unlike the OS maps there's never any chance of mistaking a valley for a ridge :)
Other plus points : different colour contour lines to show rocky terrain; form lines to show the shape of the land between contours; clear distinction between footpaths and rights of way; no parish/county,national trust boundaries to confuse matters; plentiful contour heights marked - no need to work them out by counting or following contours from a couple of valleys away.
The only complaint I have with the Harvey maps is that they don't show walls and fences on farmland - they can be very useful for knowing where you've got to on a traverse.
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toreador
Personally I think the shading is great - gives an immediate view of the shape of the land, and unlike the OS maps there's never any chance of mistaking a valley for a ridge :)
Other plus points : different colour contour lines to show rocky terrain; form lines to show the shape of the land between contours; clear distinction between footpaths and rights of way; no parish/county,national trust boundaries to confuse matters; plentiful contour heights marked - no need to work them out by counting or following contours from a couple of valleys away.
The only complaint I have with the Harvey maps is that they don't show walls and fences on farmland - they can be very useful for knowing where you've got to on a traverse.
I agree with this, combining a 1:25 when planning a route and using the Harvey's 1:40 during the run is the perfect combo for me.
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IainR
Some people prefer the easily defined shapes of a 1:50, less junk information.
Can you give me an example of what you think is junk information, Iain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stolly
I agree with your agreement :)
I concur with your feeling of agreement toward the agreement.
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
like many others I grew up with OS and was belatedly converted to Harvey by doing KIMMs. I can't imagine using OS in the hills out of choice now although needs must in many areas. The 1:40 Harvey/BMC Lakes map is, to me, pretty much perfect for fell running either map in hand or taking little room in the bumbag to store and avoids the need for a map case or one of those dreadful laminated monsters whatever the weather. They're also easily folded in any direction to area of interest and have a reasonable life expectancy. And there's Great Calva on the back - what's not to like? As to scale and detail, if you can do a MM off 1:40 then it's good enough for general walking and running use - I think the contour detail often works better on Harvey but agree lack of fence/wall info can be a frustration - I've been mighty glad of the 1:25s for winter mountaineering though. We are spoiled even to be having this conversation when you look at what's on offer in many countries
P
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mr brightside
Can you give me an example of what you think is junk information, Iain?
.
Boundaries, political parish boundaries, tourist information, historical information, excessive walls/fences, many of which are unreliable.
Look at a 1:50k and the major topography just stands out. The harvey is a nice compromise. Ideally a runner should have experience of all 3.
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulo
We are spoiled even to be having this conversation when you look at what's on offer in many countries
P
Very true. NZ mapping was OK but you could easily get bluffed out by fairly large crags which weren't mapped..
I always tell the Americans about our maps.. Beer, Queueing, Pies and maps.. that's what we've given to the world..
Re: Great Lakes - where did I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IainR
Beer, Pies and maps.. that's what we've given to the world..
and what else do you need?
