Great Lakes - where did I go ?

[Mike T]

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.

[Theolneywayisup]

Is 'tits up' a suitable phrase for a fairy?

[Stolly]

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 ) 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!

[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

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.

[fozzy]

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.

[IainR]

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

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..

[Dynamo Dan]

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.

[IanDarkpeak]

[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

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.

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.

[Derby Tup]

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

[Martyn P]

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