“I measured it on my GPS and it was 2.1 km further than you said when you described the walk beforehand.”
Yes, I’m afraid some of the measurements are not as accurate as they could be. The measurements were probably done in the old fashioned way, by tracing out the route with a bit of cotton on the map and them scaling up. The amount of ascent and descent was probably calculated by counting the number of contour lines crossed.
I’m inclined to agree that in this day and age we really should be able to provide data that arises from using satellite technology but in the meantime, does it really matter?
The main thing is to be able to compare one walk with another. If you managed to do a walk that I described as 10 km long yesterday, then you’ll probably be OK with one that I’m describing as 9 km long. Even though yesterday’s was really 12.1 km and tomorrow’s will therefore probably really be about 10.9 km.
Our experience of the environment is based on our relationship with it [Steady on Pete – isn’t that dialectical materialism? – Ed]. The statistics showing distance walked and amount of ascent and descent are only one factor. What about the terrain? It’s a lot tougher negotiating a boulder field than it is crossing a freshly mown field for example. How much are you planning to drink tonight? What about that knee that occasionally plays up? Will it play ball tomorrow?
What will your specific relationship with the environment be like tomorrow? Some people like to run ultra-marathons. Others might be botanists, who will be too busy looking at plants to walk more than a short distance. Most of us are somewhere between the two. We are on a walk partly for the exercise and challenge, partly to enjoy nature and partly to enjoy each other’s company.
The fact is, that how hard or easy a walk is, is not an exact science. Yes, the stats could be more accurate but does having precise figures make you think that they will define the difficulty? Maybe the ball park figure is better from a psychological perspective because it encourages you to think about all the other factors.
Oh, and while you are on the walk, don’t forget to look at the trees, rocks, plants etc. You’ll get a lot more out of it and if you are enjoying the walk it might not seem so difficult.
-----oooOooo-----
The above thoughts were inspired by a conversation at La Palma, where I was leading last week for HF Holidays. It’s a beautiful island in the Canaries, lying about 450km off the coast of Africa. Whereas Fuertoventura is only about 100 km away from Morocco. The island ‘popped’ up out of the sea about 2 million years ago and consequently all life has found its way there somehow. There are still volcanic eruptions every so often.
Walking on the island is incredibly varied. Ranging from lush laurel forests to sparse volcanic landscapes. Because the wind tends the blow from the North East, that side of the island can be quite wet. The weather is usually warmer and dryer in the South East.
We didn’t get to the highest point on the island, Roque de los Muchachos which is nearly 8,000 ft above sea level! It was too cold and the roads were closed. We were a bit unlucky with the weather. We did get a few showers but we also had a lot of sunshine and it was a lot warmer and sunnier than Yorkshire is in January.
Here are some photos to give you an idea of what it was like:
 |
| Black sand at Santa Cruz |
 |
| Descending into a Barranco (Ravine) |
 |
| Looking down a Barranco |
 |
| The lush Laurel Forest |
 |
| Crossing a lava field |
 |
| Pine forest growing out of Volcanic rock. |
