Walking and Climbing

I'm using the 1:1 topographical representation of Scotland.

Of course if I want to have a close look at any bit of it I have to go there.

Such a chore

Parky Again wrote (see)

electronic zoom. a wonderful invention. the satmap 10 unit uses actual ordnance survey maps.

I'm impressed---didn't know about the actual ordnance survey maps. 

Dan S.

John Clarke 5 wrote (see)

 i find counting helpfull  plus breaking the routedown into  small sections  ie  the  field you are walking through on the map say 300meters 3min 10sec level ground fairly basic stuff i know

Years ago I had the opportunity to cross-train with some SAS long range surveillance (LRS) teams.  Of the many things our LRS had in common with the British LRS, one was actually counting steps per 100m.  We called it "pace counting".  It's very slow and methodical but it works well.  However, it obviously isn't necessary most of the time in recreational walking/hiking.  And keeping and accurate count over long distances can be problematical at times as well.  

Dan S. 

Simon Dawes 2 wrote (see)

I use memory maps to do a 3-d fly through before I go.  I find this means you recognise where you are without having to refer to maps.  I still taKe an OS explorer with me though (and my compass) just in case!

Yeah, that technique reminds me of navigating by terrain association after examining the map and route beforehand.  Then, when "on the ground" you can scan terrain and associate it with what you studied on the map prior to moving towards the destination.  Combine that with a pace count and you can keep track of where you're at fairly accurately without referencing the map all that frequently.  

Dan S.

Ray Britton wrote (see)

Hi Daniel. Pace counting is a lot more accurate than many people realise. It is odd how some of thee skills stick with us for life too, now matter how little we may use them. A poster above mentioned it would take three minutes and ten seconds to cover a distance. Without even thinking, I knew they walk faster than me, and that it would take me four minutes to cover the same distance. I think pace counting is very good in some situations outside of military use (such as leap frogging, in fog or dense woodland), and even I have a gps I still check every now and then to see if I still do 114 double paces per 100 m. Another plus is that counting does not use any battery power either lol. Although, I use a home made. Tally counter now rather than ranger beads to do my counting with. Another military taught skill is taking account of whether it is cloudy or sunny when estimating distances. For anyone not familiar with doing this, objects/land marks appear further away in cloudy/overcast weather than they do in sunshine. It can be interesting to compare something you pass daily under different weather conditions.

Ray,

Coincidentally, my pace is about 112-114 per 100m depending on the terrain i.e. steep or flat; and yes, cloud cover does make a difference too.  It's an optical illusion thing. 

Ya know, I still carry the ranger beads when out and about, but like I mentioned in a previous thread, sometimes even using those handy little tools I still screwed up the count sometimes; not by much but it happened occasionally.

Dan S. 

112 paces per 100m? I must have really long legs I do around 63 paces per 100m with a day pack I adjust for terrain and load in my head up to about double count for going up hill (which is easy just count every foot fall instead of every other one).  But mostly I do it by timing, I look at the map and guesstimate my timing accordingly.

Steve D

Here is a tip for counting that I use, cut a strip from an old credit card using pinking shears.  Put a thumb nail in one of the grooves and move up one groove for each 100m.

Steve D

63 paces per 100m? - you sure you aren't counting each leg as one pace (or wearing Zebedees boots)

you have got long legs as that's  over 5' per stride (1.58m)

I'm around 96p/100m when striding out and I'm 6' tall

I count every time my left foot hits the ground which works out at just under 1.6m per pace or 800mm per step depending on terrain.  I have 33" inside leg.

Steve D

Steve - I suspect Daniel (like me) was counting paces as each leg.

Your method makes sense-  is practically simpler.  

I'd say you were 126 paces per 100m

For years as a youth I used to do Dartmoor letterboxing (caches with clues).  The clues often entailed pacing on a bearing (sometimes for 100's of metres) from landscape features.  The pacing in those clues always  meant counting each foot. 

Ditto when doing quick and dirty surveying for landscaping.

though 

Metric Kate wrote (see)

A pace, literally, is two steps - it comes from the Latin passus and is the distance from one heel striking the ground to that same heel striking the ground again - 5 Roman feet (which is just under 5 imperial feet).

ta Kate So my (and others by how I was taught)  definition is 'wrong' by the real meaning of the word.

interested to see how others were 'taught' what a pace is

BTW my '96 paces per 100m when striding out'  is what I use for field/garden surveying  - I generally use 120 when navigating in the fog on the moor, but ought to do some actual measuring to find out what it is for real.