If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Martin Thornquist wrote: X-mas card and extra European postcards in the mail Martin. [ Eugene Miya ] What are you looking for? Why, nitpicking, of course! Of course! I should have known. Terje will be out here from Norway next month. We haev to start organizing a dinner for him. We can use you for nitpicking in alt.folklore.computers? Do you have time? Isn't that what Usenet news is all about? Truly. The Devil is in the details. Actually I was interested in Booker's definition of backcountry skiing, but I see now that he makes a distinction I don't really get between "backcountry skiing" and "skiing in the backcountry". Oh well, I guess I'll just continue with a happy mixture of lift-served and self-propelled skiing and not bother about definitions. Remember: just words. It was beginning to sound like Charter wars. -- |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Around here we have vast networks of (different
states of) groomed tracks streching far into the woods and the mountains. with snowmobiles but without set tracks -- not snowmobile routes, we Who pays for the gas? In article , Martin Thornquist wrote: In the mountains, Turistforeningen (the Walker's Association) or its local chapters mostly. In the woods, different organisations, sports clubs and local government (mostly Skiforeningen in Oslo). We are largely too cheap to do that. Here, you either have to pay for your track, or in the case of Natl. Parks like Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon North, they do it to prevent bigger problems with novices be inconsistent skiers. route for skiers. Does it turn from deep backcountry in summer to not backcountry in winter because a groomed track was laid down? How far from a road (infrastructure)? As far as one can get in Southern Norway -- several tens of kilometers. We don't have any really vast areas with no roads at all, most places fertile enough to feed a cow and a few sheep have been populated the last 1000 years. Well further north, your highway infrastructure is more spotty. You have to rely on driving through neighboring states. Or use ferries. You do have a couple of small ice sheets. -- |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
[ Eugene Miya ]
We are largely too cheap to do that. Here, you either have to pay for your track, or in the case of Natl. Parks like Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon North, they do it to prevent bigger problems with novices be inconsistent skiers. As you know "allemannsretten" gives us the right to unmotorized travel in the backcountry and on frozen/snow covered fields, so there is no way you can force anyone to pay to use a track if it's not indoors or in your private garden. Our national parks are not like yours, we don't have park staff/administration, they're just areas with heavy restrictions on development. Turistforeningen runs most of the mountain huts and trail/track networks (both in and outside the national parks) with permission from the government. Well further north, your highway infrastructure is more spotty. You have to rely on driving through neighboring states. Or use ferries. North of Trondheim the population is less dense, but the country is very small -- the large unpopulated areas are on the Swedish side of the border. Finnmark is big with a small population, but lots of herded reindeer. You do have a couple of small ice sheets. Largest in continental Europe -- although that doesn't say all that much. For real do-something-stupid-and-you-die territory one has to go to Svalbard. Martin -- "An ideal world is left as an exercise to the reader." -Paul Graham, On Lisp |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Am Freitag, den 03.03.2006, 09:01 +0100 schrieb Martin Thornquist:
Largest in continental Europe -- although that doesn't say all that much. But, as far is i know (Folgefonna, Svartisen) they are different: less crevasses and seracs, if at all (?) For real do-something-stupid-and-you-die territory one has to go to Svalbard. To be eaten by the bears? :-) Greetings, Ulrich |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
[ Ulrich Hausmann ]
Am Freitag, den 03.03.2006, 09:01 +0100 schrieb Martin Thornquist: Largest in continental Europe -- although that doesn't say all that much. But, as far is i know (Folgefonna, Svartisen) they are different: less crevasses and seracs, if at all (?) Jostedalsbreen is the largest. The large glaciers are plateau glaciers, i.e. large ice sheets that are mostly flat on top and with few crevasses. The icefalls on the sides can be steep and broken, though. And we have lots of smaller glaciers hugging mountainsides or flowing down valleys, like you have in the Alps (I don't think you have any plateau glaciers?). For real do-something-stupid-and-you-die territory one has to go to Svalbard. To be eaten by the bears? :-) That's only one of many exciting ways to go up there! :-) Martin -- "An ideal world is left as an exercise to the reader." -Paul Graham, On Lisp |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Am Freitag, den 03.03.2006, 13:16 +0100 schrieb Martin Thornquist:
Jostedalsbreen is the largest. The large glaciers are plateau glaciers, i.e. large ice sheets that are mostly flat on top and with few crevasses. The icefalls on the sides can be steep and broken, though. And we have lots of smaller glaciers hugging mountainsides or flowing down valleys, like you have in the Alps (I don't think you have any plateau glaciers?).[ Ulrich Hausmann ] Am Freitag, den 03.03.2006, 09:01 +0100 schrieb Martin Thornquist: Largest in continental Europe -- although that doesn't say all that much. But, as far is i know (Folgefonna, Svartisen) they are different: less crevasses and seracs, if at all (?) No, we have, but not so much. One of the plateau glaciers is just in front of me (15 km distant in direct line): Plateau du Trient (just as an example: http://www.christianengl.de/Trient1.jpg ) Greetings, Ulrich |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
The US is a little different. If you ski here, you are going to have to
be aware of those differences. That's even the case if, let's say, a lift company closes the runs for avalange danger etc. People can pass there anyway - but as you say correctly - on their own risk. European lifts tend not to own the land and be subject to liability. In the US some are private land, and some are leased from public agencies. In article , Ulrich Hausmann wrote: Exactly, that's what i wanted to say. At least in Switzerland, it's unthinkable that a lift company owns, let's say a mountain, and therefore can do with it, what they want. Private property is a big deal in the US. It's the relation between citizens and their govt. Various groups can incite flame wars and you Swiss get dragged along as innocent bystanders because all you are in the Swiss army with your Stm 90s at home. Here it's shotguns with rock salt in some cases. For historical reasons, that's different for example for Austria, where the land was owned until the democratic revolution and even further by the aristocracy. You mean going back to the Hapsbergs? Generally, i do not think there is so much difference between backcountry in USA and Canada and the Alps on the other hand (we call it ski randonnee or, in Sweden or Norway fjelltelemarking). But, i think, the Alps have a closer infrastructure of huts, cabane ecc. And an excellent and close emergency support. You have mentioned the big difference: you have a big infrastructure. Delicious. The US as a whole has a lower population density in ski I did not mean the infrastructure as a lift (and lift-served) system, but the system of high alpine huts, igloos ecc. And the organisation of the emergency (in case of avalanches). I include all that stuff. We have far fewer huts because this is a younger less developed nation with land in the West only recently settled just over 100 years ago and an prior indigenous population. Yes, for the lower tree line, but sincerely, most of the alpine ski areas are within anyway. At least, where i'm living (Bas Valais - near Martigny), save Verbier, all the resorts are mostly within the treeline or only the top of the lifts is out of, but not the base and the lower parts. Martigny, been there several times. A French engineer let me drive the Mt. Blanc Express on a prior visit coming back from Chamonix. That was a mid-week treat. Been to St. Maurice. Have to ski to to St. Bernard and maybe stay at the Abbey. Verbier: my Swiss friends tell me I have to go there. They also say avoid Crans-Montana (just golf courses), I am starting to guess Laax and Flims is sort of that way. You guys have heavily cut down your forests. You have to come to the US to see many trees with diameters much greater than a meter. But, on the other hand, many forests in the alps, you can see nowadays, are not "natural" but artificially created by men (as avalanche protection - as one of a lot of examples: http://www.myswitzerland.com/en/navp...ays&id=344 48 ) Oh yes, I know the people who run the web site. The smaller trees ecc. are also the consequence of a rougher climate. I half expect all the tree to be bar coded. The forests in Japan are laid out in Cartesian grids (I think they have stopped doing that). Saw and have seen many Swiss logging operations from trains. As for the mortal accidents in avalanches, i don't think there's so much difference between the Alps and Northamerica - at least not if you put the accidents in comparison to the people doing ski randonnee ... Well, you would have to bring this up with the SLF in Davos. The physics are mostly the same, save younger trees in the Alps. I also think the conformation of the terrain is slightly different. Save some areas in Alaska and British Columbia, the Alps seems to be steeper and with more glaciers and the intrinsecal problems (crevasses, seracs). Moreover, the snow is different: We do not have the champaign powder, but very often light, but at the same time umid snow, which is "ideal" for snow slides (i don't know the correct english term for that kind of avalanches). Yes, the Alps being at a higher latitude have more U-shaped valleys, glaciers and associated geomorphology. Your snow is fairly consistently that which is found on the western sides of continents set in a ways away from the ocean. You mean a loose snow avalanche. Frankly, I don't what constitutes "champaign" powder. And I have relatives in Xxxx, in XXX, where I can ski XXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. But then I don't drink champaign. I do sample Kirsch. Alpine snow isn't bad. Fine snow. I have to convince some one in the Swiss govt. to put a supercomputer in Davos one of these days at say the SLF (a friend worked there many years ago). The best ad was: Eigernordwand? Snickers bar alles peanuts. I thought about asking to bring that advertising home with me. You have more people doing Nordic and randonnee. I saw many more avalanche classes (free, too, bring gear) in the Alps and you have to pay to field work here. That might be a significant difference. If you're a member of one of the national alpine clubs (CAS, CAI, CAF, OeAV, DAV ecc.) you can get a complete randonnee formation at nearly nothing (ok, you'll have to pay for sleeping and eating, but that's it). I just got my package with OeAV stuff. While the Canadian ACC is like classic state alpine clubs, the US has no such national equivalent. We are a little more, individualistic, a little more wildernessy (why you will see fewer huts in the US likely ever), etc. The AAC doesn't run significant number of populus trips. Regional outdoor clubs tend to do social activities like that. The US is trying to save the last of the old growth, trees with diameters greater than 1 meter, predatory animals, etc. so Europeans can visit them when you guys come to Yosemite, the Redwoods, Death Valley, etc. I have to say however, I was impressive with the boxes and boxes of military skis, bindings and skins I saw in Army liquidation. And only 40 SF. My best thought of backcountry last week was taking one tram up (to Fieschalp), and looking round (what there was), quiting early (last runs on the trip), and coming down the tram, and seeing this HUGE crown wall where a slope used to be. And that's why big posted maps have the flashing yellow light in avalanche conditions. That's backcountry. [Side bit to my getting the the Conductor from Dissentis was going along casually informing and reminding every one that this train was going to Andermatt. So he asked me if I was going to Andermatt. And I said Andermatt, Fiesch, all the same direction. And his head flew back, his eyes opened: Fiesch? No one goes to Fiesch.] -- |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Here, you either have to pay for your track, or in the case of Natl.
In article , Martin Thornquist wrote: As you know "allemannsretten" gives us the right to unmotorized travel in the backcountry and on frozen/snow covered fields, so there is no way you can force anyone to pay to use a track if it's not indoors or in your private garden. Our national parks are not like yours, we don't have park staff/administration, they're just areas with heavy restrictions on development. Turistforeningen runs most of the mountain huts and trail/track networks (both in and outside the national parks) with permission from the government. Well, you can be like Italy and have National Parks and Natural Parks. And you can't camp in them. US ski areas have organized ski patrols because of Minnie Dole. There is far less of that in Europe where the police go skiing. Well further north, your highway infrastructure is more spotty. You have to rely on driving through neighboring states. Or use ferries. North of Trondheim the population is less dense, but the country is very small -- the large unpopulated areas are on the Swedish side of the border. Finnmark is big with a small population, but lots of herded reindeer. Sniff sniff... Not related to Florida reindeer? Galen doesn't lurk or post here. You do have a couple of small ice sheets. Largest in continental Europe -- although that doesn't say all that much. For real do-something-stupid-and-you-die territory one has to go to Svalbard. Oh yes, friends have been drilling those ice sheets recently. -- |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ulrich Hausmann wrote: Am Freitag, den 03.03.2006, 09:01 +0100 schrieb Martin Thornquist: Largest in continental Europe -- although that doesn't say all that much. But, as far is i know (Folgefonna, Svartisen) they are different: less crevasses and seracs, if at all (?) You guys have the Alestch. For real do-something-stupid-and-you-die territory one has to go to Svalbard. To be eaten by the bears? :-) Oh, have to get the 12 gauge out. Lock and load. Have to stop the bear before getting recertified.... -- |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Am Freitag, den 03.03.2006, 17:18 -0700 schrieb Eugene Miya:
In article , Ulrich Hausmann wrote: Am Freitag, den 03.03.2006, 09:01 +0100 schrieb Martin Thornquist: Largest in continental Europe -- although that doesn't say all that much. But, as far is i know (Folgefonna, Svartisen) they are different: less crevasses and seracs, if at all (?) You guys have the Alestch. But Martin is right, Aletschgletscher is way way smaller than Jostedalsbreen ... Greetings, Ulrich |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Skid, slip, and carved turn | yunlong | Alpine Skiing | 96 | February 22nd 05 07:27 PM |
History of "Master" category in cross country skiing?? | Tim Kelley | Nordic Skiing | 8 | November 8th 04 04:36 AM |
Head Lamp for Night Cross Country Skiing | Bill Cotton | Alpine Skiing | 0 | February 3rd 04 08:36 PM |
Skiing in Utah | BRL | Nordic Skiing | 5 | November 25th 03 06:43 PM |
Cross Country Skiing - where to go? | Alan | Nordic Skiing | 2 | November 20th 03 07:21 PM |