Discussion: Results, 2016 Petrified Forest
in: 2016 Petrified Forest Rogaines (Oct 15–16, 2016 - Petrified Forest National Park, Holbrook, AZ, USA)
Oct 18, 2016 2:50 AM
#
Preliminary results linked from here:
http://gphxo.org/Results/results.htm
and presumably final results will be found there once released.
It was a uniquely awesome event, my thanks to Ron Birks and the rest of the folks who made it happen.
http://gphxo.org/Results/results.htm
and presumably final results will be found there once released.
It was a uniquely awesome event, my thanks to Ron Birks and the rest of the folks who made it happen.
Oct 19, 2016 7:23 PM
#
Oct 20, 2016 1:51 AM
#
rm:
Sorry for the thread hijack, but not having an email for Ludwig:
You were present, I think, during a discussion after the event that touched on getting maps in New Mexico.
FYI, I found free high density LIDAR data for the Jemez mountains (north of Albuquerque, west of Los Alamos), including for an area of wonderful terrain that I scouted a couple of months ago. With a bit of GPSing of trails and the power line, and a few other tweaks, that LIDAR could likely be turned into a usable orienteering map of nice terrain. Just in case you had any interest.
You were present, I think, during a discussion after the event that touched on getting maps in New Mexico.
FYI, I found free high density LIDAR data for the Jemez mountains (north of Albuquerque, west of Los Alamos), including for an area of wonderful terrain that I scouted a couple of months ago. With a bit of GPSing of trails and the power line, and a few other tweaks, that LIDAR could likely be turned into a usable orienteering map of nice terrain. Just in case you had any interest.
Oct 20, 2016 1:23 PM
#
@JimBaker: I've just now updated my profile so you can see my email address when logged on here. Also anyone may contact me at the Tucson O Club website .
Oct 20, 2016 2:55 PM
#
GuyO:
The maps are mostly white, but satellite images seem to indicate the terrain is open desert. Kind of like Greenland maps...
Oct 20, 2016 5:29 PM
#
Lots of maps in AZ are like that -- either because the terrain is actually fast cactus forest or because it would be a waste of ink to map everything as open.
Oct 20, 2016 6:54 PM
#
I sent a few comments on the map and terrain directly to Cristina in response to her query. Now that the maps have been posted (thanks, Ludwig), I'll share those comments:
White is not forest. There is no forest!--other than 210 million year old petrified logs laying on the ground here and there (in places so dense as to make an obstacle course). The handful (and I mean that literally) of small scraggly trees that do exist are all individually mapped with green dots.
Ron used white for sparse low grass or no vegetation at all, i.e. good running, and yellow for denser clumps of grass and very occasional sagebrush, i.e. slower running. (Hmmm, just noticed that the yellow didn't make it onto these posted copies of the map; it covered most of the higher plateaus, not just the few small orange spots you see on the posted maps.) Except for the very few trees, there was no vegetation higher than mid-shin.
The blue represents watercourses, all bone dry except a little dampness in the biggest, lowest ones. The ones in the flatter areas were the best running to be had: flat, fairly firm sand. The watercourses on the sides of hills were generally V-shaped gullies, often pretty steep and deep even though the contours don't reflect it. Where the clues refer to reentrants, the reference was often to blue lines rather than kinked contours, e.g. reentrant junction often meant to look for two blue lines converging in the center of the circle.
The little black marks (e.g. around #3 on the Rainbow Forest map) are petrified logs. These were not consistently mapped, e.g., the reentrant (more like canyon) at #6 was chock full of petrified logs.
One of the most significant features of the terrain was the nature of the slopes. The closest-together contours, touching or nearly so, were, if not actually vertical, close enough to it to be totally impassable and dangerous. The cliff symbol seems to have only been used where it was specifically relevant to control locations and routes (e.g. dry "waterfalls" in the otherwise runnable streams).
Where the contours were just a little further spaced apart (e.g. by #28 and #3 on the Puerco Ridge map), it would look, as you approached, as if it were a fairly steep but eminently climbable slope. But when you got there, you would generally find that the ground was covered by innumerable pebbles, such that, as Ron put it, it was like trying to run up a hill covered with ball bearings. I understand that a couple of the younger participants somehow got marooned on a ridge near #3, surrounded by ball-bearing-covered dropoffs, and waited an hour or two for an adult to help them find a way down.
Totally unlike anyplace I've ever orienteered!
White is not forest. There is no forest!--other than 210 million year old petrified logs laying on the ground here and there (in places so dense as to make an obstacle course). The handful (and I mean that literally) of small scraggly trees that do exist are all individually mapped with green dots.
Ron used white for sparse low grass or no vegetation at all, i.e. good running, and yellow for denser clumps of grass and very occasional sagebrush, i.e. slower running. (Hmmm, just noticed that the yellow didn't make it onto these posted copies of the map; it covered most of the higher plateaus, not just the few small orange spots you see on the posted maps.) Except for the very few trees, there was no vegetation higher than mid-shin.
The blue represents watercourses, all bone dry except a little dampness in the biggest, lowest ones. The ones in the flatter areas were the best running to be had: flat, fairly firm sand. The watercourses on the sides of hills were generally V-shaped gullies, often pretty steep and deep even though the contours don't reflect it. Where the clues refer to reentrants, the reference was often to blue lines rather than kinked contours, e.g. reentrant junction often meant to look for two blue lines converging in the center of the circle.
The little black marks (e.g. around #3 on the Rainbow Forest map) are petrified logs. These were not consistently mapped, e.g., the reentrant (more like canyon) at #6 was chock full of petrified logs.
One of the most significant features of the terrain was the nature of the slopes. The closest-together contours, touching or nearly so, were, if not actually vertical, close enough to it to be totally impassable and dangerous. The cliff symbol seems to have only been used where it was specifically relevant to control locations and routes (e.g. dry "waterfalls" in the otherwise runnable streams).
Where the contours were just a little further spaced apart (e.g. by #28 and #3 on the Puerco Ridge map), it would look, as you approached, as if it were a fairly steep but eminently climbable slope. But when you got there, you would generally find that the ground was covered by innumerable pebbles, such that, as Ron put it, it was like trying to run up a hill covered with ball bearings. I understand that a couple of the younger participants somehow got marooned on a ridge near #3, surrounded by ball-bearing-covered dropoffs, and waited an hour or two for an adult to help them find a way down.
Totally unlike anyplace I've ever orienteered!
Oct 20, 2016 6:56 PM
#
Contour interval is 10 feet. As I understand it, the base map / source material has a 20 foot interval, and Ron interpolated to get the 10 foot interval.
Oct 20, 2016 8:31 PM
#
JimBaker may have spotted the same terrain I have been drooling (?)
http://routegadget.net/kartta/?mapurl=http://route...
http://routegadget.net/kartta/?mapurl=http://route...
Oct 21, 2016 12:18 AM
#
rm:
Yes, that's it. I have a photo of an elk I saw there. It's highly runnable, with many logging roads from thinning operations, though fewer up top . I didn't get all the way east, north or south. There's a parking area and toilet in the southwest for group use. Nice area.
Oct 21, 2016 12:22 AM
#
rm:
If there's interest in orienteering there, I may go GPS some trails there this weekend, to add to Jagge's kartapullautin map. Maybe some rocks and water holes too.
Oct 21, 2016 12:47 AM
#
bl:
To Jagge's above -
So intense that laminated, I might like it as a casual modern art table surface.
Not as hard as it looks? (being generally open terrain). I'd have to try it to see.
So intense that laminated, I might like it as a casual modern art table surface.
Not as hard as it looks? (being generally open terrain). I'd have to try it to see.
Oct 21, 2016 1:37 AM
#
rm:
Indeed, the western part isn't as hard as it looks due to openness and logging roads, both in turn due to thinning. The top had less of this, and I haven't yet gotten to the eastern bit. But still plenty fun to orienteer there from what I saw.
The west actually seems to have oodles of interesting terrain, from scouting I've done, though usually fairly high visibility and runability.
The west actually seems to have oodles of interesting terrain, from scouting I've done, though usually fairly high visibility and runability.
Oct 21, 2016 3:20 AM
#
rm:
Can you spot the elk in the photo taken in the Jemez mountains, on Jagge's map above?
https://flic.kr/p/MXnGfs
https://flic.kr/p/MXnGfs
Oct 21, 2016 4:31 AM
#
C'mon guys, take it to an appropriate thread. This thread is for the Petrified Forest event.
Oct 22, 2016 2:42 AM
#
Petrified Forest was a fantastic event! SO well organized. Top notch. Fun. Lots of variety of navigational and physical challenge. Got me deep into a park I wouldn't otherwise have visited anytime soon. Enjoyed the free camping. Thanks to Ron Birks and all the other helpers.
This discussion thread is closed.