Re: Expedition 15 - The Alternative

Paul Cummings said:

Dewey? I've not come across that term before.

Michael Dewey. Summits in England and Wales above 500m and lower than
610m with 30m of ascent. Same ascent as Hewitts - essentially a
downward continuation of the Hewitts list. Put the Hewitts and the
Deweys together and you get all summits over 500m with 30m of ascent.

However, while 30m (100ft) is a good drop for summits over 610m
(2000ft), producing a list of 137 summits, it's not a good drop for
summits over 500m IMO. There simply too many of them, approximately 300
in Wales, giving nearly 450 summits when combined with the Welsh
Hewitts.

Quoted message said:

I always use the trig point along with any obvious cairns or higher
ground.

Good.

Quoted message said:

For instance, Garrag Las has a cairn much higher than the
trig point, which is not on the highest point anyway.

That'll be Garreg Lwyd. But is the cairn on the highest point? (It
probably is.) The problem is that the top of the cairn isn't really the
highest point, but the highest point is probably hidden by the cairn.

Quoted message said:

I climbed the
cairn as well as touching the trig point. I don't want to get hung
up on it, but I don't want people arguing that I haven't made the
summit either.

No need to get hung up on it, but I like standing on the highest point
anyway. That's the whole point, isn't it?

Quoted message said:

Let me finish the Marilyns then I can get on with the next lot. Or
maybe I'll move on and start bagging Radnor's Forest's Nuttalls.

There are some good 500m summits around there... Don't miss Whimble at
599m.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How did you enjoy Garreg Las?

It was kind of short. I used the highest car park on the A4069,
which is actually the nearest one too.

Dum de dum de dum... That'd be Lwyd.

Quoted message said:

(strike all that I
just realised I got the names reversed).

Garrag Las seemed to be a long way for not a great benefit.

I think there is a great benefit. It's a lovely rocky ridge and it's
really remote. You rarely ever see a soul there. It's the most remote
major summit on Mynydd Du, there's no short route to it.

Quoted message said:

I guess
I am more of a ridge walker rather than an open grassland walker

But it is a ridge (a flat one Judith!), and it's rocky not grassy. Did
you encounter the amazing rocky gorge on the southern end of the ridge?
(Easy to miss if you don't know where it is.) Impressive burial mounds
at the summit.

Quoted message said:

The ridge up
from the south was okay, but quite rocky and not the easiest to find
a path.

Path? Wot path?

Quoted message said:

I nearly mistakenly opted for the ridge slightly west of the
Garrag Las ridge, but checked my map in time to avoid an extra big
drop down and up. On the whole, with the rain pelting down and
feeling quite sorry for myself all on my own, I regarded it as a tick
in the box rather than a real pleasure

Ah, the rain. Try it again on a nice sunny day.

Quoted message said:

I think Yr Allt had the better views - across to Fan Nedd was good.

Indeed.

Quoted message said:

I'm back to Brecon with my family on the 30th for a long weekend. I
am hoping to get them around the Craig Cerig-gleisiad horseshoe
again. Still one of my favourite short walks. Might even use it as
an excuse to nail a couple of Marilyns too.

Give me a shout, I might be able to pop up there to meet you. Watch out
for the forested Marilyn on Myarth in GOML country, they're pretty keen
to keep walkers out there so Richard says.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

Judith said:

By the way, can I ask a question? What do you mean by "all summits
over 500m with 30m of ascent." ?? Over what distance is the 30m
ascent?

Distance is irrelevant for most lists (not all though).

Quoted message said:

I mean, does there have to be a certain gradient?

No.

Quoted message said:

Does anyone understand my question?

Yes. The ascent is vertical. It's often called drop, re-ascent or
simply ascent. In the case of a 30m drop it means that there is a
minimum drop of 30m on all sides before the land rises up to a higher
summmit. Or to put it another way, you have to ascend at least 30m to
get to the top no matter what direction you approach it from (unless you
drive up to a higher starting point on a road).

So for example, if you are walking along a ridge with lots of ups and
downs, if there's at least 30m of up and down on both sides of a bump,
then it would qualify as a Hewitt (if over 610m) or a Dewey (if over
500m).

To take an actual example, the last peak I visited before we turned back
was a Nuttall. That only needs 15m of ascent. We started the climb up
to that peak from the flat boggy area. The climb was approximately
124m. However, on the other side it was quite flat. Do you remember
where you, Phil and Biggles waited for me? The col (the low point that
connects to a higher summit) was just a bit further north from there.
The Nuttall was measured from that higher col, not the lower boggy col.
So if you'd been walking the ridge the other way you'd only have had to
ascend approximately 22m, so it wasn't a very significant summit.

Marilyns on the other hand have a drop of 150m, so any Marilyn requires
quite a big climb, unless you drive to a higher starting point of
course. There are some that you can drive right to the top of.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Michael Dewey. Summits in England and Wales above 500m and lower than
610m with 30m of ascent. Same ascent as Hewitts - essentially a
downward continuation of the Hewitts list. Put the Hewitts and the
Deweys together and you get all summits over 500m with 30m of ascent.

I'd be interested to see a venn diagram of all these different hill
definitions. Is that the right word, venn diagram? One of them
intersecting circle thingies they used to teach in maths at school, A subset
B and all that.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:31:18 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip Paul's explanation>

Erm, yes, I think I see now.

When we were waiting for you to some back down that Nuttall I was
thinking how small it looked. From the side that we approached on it
looked bigger.

I'd still rather bag cream teas and gear shops, though.

Judith

Judith said:

When we were waiting for you to some back down that Nuttall I was
thinking how small it looked. From the side that we approached on it
looked bigger.

Exactly. Many Nuttalls are silly little bumps. 15m is too small a drop
IMO. 30m is better. I'm using 50m for my new list.

Quoted message said:

I'd still rather bag cream teas and gear shops, though.

Guaranteed to lose you money and make you fat. Bagging summits will
save money and keep you slim! :-)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

In [email hidden]
Paul Saunders mused:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Put the Hewitts and the
Deweys together and you get all summits over 500m with 30m of ascent.

Is there room for (or is there) a Louie 'list'?

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd still rather bag cream teas and gear shops, though.

Guaranteed to lose you money and make you fat. Bagging summits will
save money and keep you slim! :-)

And become a sad bagger to boot :-)
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

Bernie Hughes said:

Here's a diagrammatic explanation of the principle of relative height:

http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/murdos/meaningr.html

Thanks Bernie, that's better.

Just a small point though, technically example A is incorrect, it's just
a convenient simplification that Dawson has used to make compiling his
list easier. In reality the true col may be much further away.
Disregard example A as an explanation of how relative height (drop,
re-ascent, etc.) works.

Reality is sometimes a lot more complex than these examples. Finding
the correct relative col on the map is occasionally quite difficult.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

Bootlaces said:

Quoted message said:

Put the Hewitts and the
Deweys together and you get all summits over 500m with 30m of ascent.

Is there room for (or is there) a Louie 'list'?

Don't you mean the Heweys?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

In [email hidden]
Paul Saunders mused:

Quoted message said:

Bootlaces said:

Quoted message said:

Put the Hewitts and the
Deweys together and you get all summits over 500m with 30m of
ascent.

Is there room for (or is there) a Louie 'list'?

Don't you mean the Heweys?

Paul

Hewey (Hewitts), Dewey (Deweys)

and

..

Judith said:

Quoted message said:

http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/murdos/meaningr.html

Erm, I'm afraid I'm getting confused now.

I'll have another look at that picture next time I am drunk.

It's quite straightforward in theory, but it can get sometimes get quite
complex in reality. The diagrams show different common situations. As
I said, ignore example A, it's not technically correct and it only
serves to confuse you if you aren't familiar with the concept.

To put it simply, the drop/re-ascent is;

The height of the summit above the *highest* col that connects to a
*higher* summit.

You probably need to study a number of examples in order to get used to
the idea.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is there room for (or is there) a Louie 'list'?

Don't you mean the Heweys?

I remember someone calling out for Hewey on the Fishguard /Rosslare
ferry.:-)
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

Ian Dainty said:

So that's 10:00 am tomorrow morning then!

What have people been saying? I only had three cans of beer all
weekend!

Judith

"Judith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

What have people been saying? I only had three cans of beer all
weekend!

Judith

Really?! Is that the normal size can? Do those party size cans still
exist, the ones that used to contain about 2 litres worth? You used to
have to get them open with a tin opener.

I remember 1978 regards,

Ian.

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Judith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Party 7 ? I remember 1978 too, but in those days I was lucky to get
half a glass of very weak shandy and half a bag of Smiths crisps. But
I were grateful. Anyway, I think it was Watney's Pale Ale that we
used to drink, not Party 7.

Judith

Yes!... Party something rings a bell. 1978 eh!? Oh... if I were only
4 again.

Ian.

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In message <[email hidden]>, W. D. Grey
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is there room for (or is there) a Louie 'list'?

Don't you mean the Heweys?

I remember someone calling out for Hewey on the Fishguard /Rosslare
ferry.:-)

After he had fallen in the toilet?

--
Martin Richardson
239/284 Munros - 15% to go 34/34 'Furths' & 439/439 Nuttalls - 0% to go
42/89 Donalds - 53% to go 0/? Himalayans - 100% to go
442/1552 Marilyns - 72% to go

Judith said:

Quoted message said:

The height of the summit above the *highest* col that connects to a
*higher* summit.

I think that bit makes sense.

To keep this simple, imagine a ridge with summits and cols in a line.
Each summit has two cols on each side, each col connects to two summits.

Pick a summit. Look at the heights of the two cols. One will be higher
than the other. Which one is the correct *relative* col?

Start by looking at the higher col. Does is connect to a higher summit?
Even if the adjacent summit isn't higher, is there a higher summit
anywhere along the rigde in that direction? If there is, then that's
the relative col.

If there isn't, then the lower col must be the relative col, assuming
there's a higher summit in the other direction. The only instance in
which this isn't the case is when you are looking at the highest summit
in the ridge.

In practice, the best way to work this out is to start with the highest
summit in the ridge. Then look for the second highest summit in the
ridge. Then look at all the cols between them until you find the lowest
col (it doesn't have to be next to the summit). That's the relative col
of the second highest summit, so the relative height (drop, ascent) is
worked out from that.

Then you look for the third highest summit. Does it connect to the
highest summit, the second highest summit, or both? If it connects to
the highest summit or both then look for the lowest col between it and
the highest summit. If it only connects to the second highest summit,
look for the lowest col between it and the second highest summit.

And so on, working your way down through the summits...

The above situation is quite straightforward. Where it gets more
complex is when you get "hub" summits which connect different ridges
together. While most summits only have two cols, some have three or
even four cols. Sometimes it can be very difficult to figure out where
the relative col is. Sometimes they are a long way from the summit in
question. Peaky areas tend to be easy, it's the undulating plateau
areas that are the hardest to figure out, like a lot of the hills in
Mid-Wales.

You need to really enjoy studying maps to do this sort of thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You probably need to study a number of examples in order to get used
to the idea.

Or just miss out the lumpy bits!

What would be the point of that? Those are the best bits!!!

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

Paul Saunders said:

Pick a summit. Look at the heights of the two cols. One will be
higher than the other. Which one is the correct *relative* col?

Start by looking at the higher col. Does is connect to a higher
summit? Even if the adjacent summit isn't higher, is there a higher
summit anywhere along the rigde in that direction? If there is, then
that's the relative col.

If there isn't, then the lower col must be the relative col, assuming
there's a higher summit in the other direction. The only instance in
which this isn't the case is when you are looking at the highest
summit in the ridge.

Actually, the above isn't quite correct, the relative col may not be
adjacent to the summit, as I explained later in my post. The above is
only correct if there are no other col candidates. I was trying to
simplify the explanation, possibly a bit too much.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

Paul Saunders said:

The above situation is quite straightforward. Where it gets more
complex is when you get "hub" summits which connect different ridges
together. While most summits only have two cols, some have three or
even four cols. Sometimes it can be very difficult to figure out where
the relative col is. Sometimes they are a long way from the summit in
question. Peaky areas tend to be easy, it's the undulating plateau
areas that are the hardest to figure out, like a lot of the hills in
Mid-Wales.

I understand. Honestly, I understand. No more explanations, please!
My brain hurts.

I think I am beginning to see the difference between the male and
female brain:

Man: Let's put all the hills in order of
size/drop/distance-from-the-3rd-col-along-in-a-south-westerly-direction
etc etc.

Woman: That's a nice looking hill. Ooh, and it's got a bigger one next
to it. Shall we go for a walk now?

Judith
PS Thanks for the explanations. I have now learned something (but
will have forgotten it by the morning. No test, please.)