Yellowstone FSX

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

Quoted message said:

Anybody here been there? If so, any views, comments, opinions?

Lately I've been taking a bit of interest in American national parks and
with all the new photo scenery available for flight sim, I decided to make
Yellowstone my first photo scenery purchase for FSX.
http://www.georender.org/USNPYellowFSX.htm

It's not as good resolution as the latest UK scenery, but it's better than
FS2004. The area covered is 8,000 sq km, nearly half the size of Wales
(21,000 sq km). It's not overly mountainous (much of it is quite flat), but
then that's not what Yellowstone is famous for. Having said that, it's got
it's fair share of decent mountains in the northwest and east (Gallatin and
Absaroka Ranges).

I've been having trouble finding decent maps on the net (plenty of
simplified tourist maps but hardly any proper contour maps). I seem to have
identified the 5 National Geographic maps as the best. Is that right,or are
there better ones?

Here's the official site:
http://www.nps.gov/yell/

Here's the Old Faithful Webcam, it goes off once every 1.5 hours. Next
eruption is only 8 minutes away if you're quick!
http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/oldfaithfulcam.htm

I've been to Yellowstone twice, when I hiked through it on the
Continental Divide Trail many years ago and earlier this year on a ski
tour. It is an impressive place - for the geothermal features and the
sense of wilderness rather than the mountains.

On the ski tour I used the National Geographic Trails Illustrated
1:63,360 (1" to the mile) Old Faithful map, which has fifty foot contour
intervals. It's a good map but for detailed navigation the USGS 1:24,000
maps would be better. I don't think these are available on the net.
--
Chris Townsend

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

Chris Townsend said:

I've been to Yellowstone twice, when I hiked through it on the
Continental Divide Trail many years ago and earlier this year on a ski
tour. It is an impressive place - for the geothermal features and the
sense of wilderness rather than the mountains.

Indeed, although it has got some decent mountains in the east. Do many peak
baggers go there or do people go there just for the thermal features? The
canyon and falls look good too.

Here's a couple of screenshots from the sim:

North-east - Abiathar Peak, Amphitheatre Peak, The Thunderer, Baronnette
Peak, Cutoff Mountain etc.
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/abiathar-peak.jpg

South-east - Eagle Peak, Table Mountain, Turret Mountain, Mount Schurtz,
Colter Peak etc.
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/eagle-peak.jpg

Is there much of a problem with bears, wolves etc, when hiking through the
area?

Quoted message said:

On the ski tour I used the National Geographic Trails Illustrated
1:63,360 (1" to the mile) Old Faithful map, which has fifty foot
contour intervals. It's a good map but for detailed navigation the
USGS 1:24,000 maps would be better. I don't think these are available
on the net.

I was thinking of ordering the NG maps for a better study of the area in the
flight sim. I doubt I'd need the 24k maps for that, would I? Do the NG maps
have a comprehensive listing of summits and other features?
http://tinyurl.com/37e6jg

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

I've been to Yellowstone twice, when I hiked through it on the
Continental Divide Trail many years ago and earlier this year on a ski
tour. It is an impressive place - for the geothermal features and the
sense of wilderness rather than the mountains.

Indeed, although it has got some decent mountains in the east. Do many peak
baggers go there or do people go there just for the thermal features? The
canyon and falls look good too.

Most outdoors people who go to Yellowstone go to hike or ski trails.
Most visitors are summer tourists who go to see roadside thermal
features and gift shops. Few go into the backcountry. Those who do can
make long wilderness trips.

Quoted message said:

Here's a couple of screenshots from the sim:

North-east - Abiathar Peak, Amphitheatre Peak, The Thunderer, Baronnette
Peak, Cutoff Mountain etc.
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/abiathar-peak.jpg

South-east - Eagle Peak, Table Mountain, Turret Mountain, Mount Schurtz,
Colter Peak etc.
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/eagle-peak.jpg

Is there much of a problem with bears, wolves etc, when hiking through the
area?

Wolves are no problem at all, they keep out of the way. Both grizzly and
black bears live in Yellowstone but are very rarely a problem as long as
you follow standard bear country procedures (cook away from where you
sleep, don't store food in your tent, watch out for bear signs on the
trail). The risk is very low - far less than being struck by lightning
or being hit by a falling rock.

The park also has bison. Skiing back to Old Faithful village after the
ski tour in February I did meet two huge bison bulls on the road. They
can be aggressive so I decided to wait until they wandered off.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On the ski tour I used the National Geographic Trails Illustrated
1:63,360 (1" to the mile) Old Faithful map, which has fifty foot
contour intervals. It's a good map but for detailed navigation the
USGS 1:24,000 maps would be better. I don't think these are available
on the net.

I was thinking of ordering the NG maps for a better study of the area in the
flight sim. I doubt I'd need the 24k maps for that, would I? Do the NG maps
have a comprehensive listing of summits and other features?
http://tinyurl.com/37e6jg

The NG maps don't list summits or features - at least my Old Faithful
one doesn't It has text on the Park, Backcountry Permits and
Regulations, Horse Riding and Llama Packing, Wildlife, Hiking, Bears and
more but not features or summits.

Chris

--
Chris Townsend

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

Chris Townsend said:

Most outdoors people who go to Yellowstone go to hike or ski trails.
Most visitors are summer tourists who go to see roadside thermal
features and gift shops. Few go into the backcountry.

That's what I assumed.

Quoted message said:

Those who do can
make long wilderness trips.

Yeah, not many roads in the area.

Quoted message said:

Wolves are no problem at all, they keep out of the way. Both grizzly
and black bears live in Yellowstone but are very rarely a problem as
long as you follow standard bear country procedures (cook away from
where you sleep, don't store food in your tent, watch out for bear
signs on the trail). The risk is very low - far less than being
struck by lightning or being hit by a falling rock.

That's good to hear. Where do the bears tend to be found anyway? In the
valleys? Do they ever go up onto the peaks and ridges?

Quoted message said:

The park also has bison. Skiing back to Old Faithful village after the
ski tour in February I did meet two huge bison bulls on the road. They
can be aggressive so I decided to wait until they wandered off.

Yeah, I've read that too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On the ski tour I used the National Geographic Trails Illustrated
1:63,360 (1" to the mile) Old Faithful map, which has fifty foot
contour intervals. It's a good map but for detailed navigation the
USGS 1:24,000 maps would be better. I don't think these are
available on the net.

I was thinking of ordering the NG maps for a better study of the
area in the flight sim. I doubt I'd need the 24k maps for that,
would I? Do the NG maps have a comprehensive listing of summits and
other features? http://tinyurl.com/37e6jg

The NG maps don't list summits or features - at least my Old Faithful
one doesn't

Well it is in the southwest area, not many summits there.

Quoted message said:

It has text on the Park, Backcountry Permits and
Regulations, Horse Riding and Llama Packing, Wildlife, Hiking, Bears
and more but not features or summits.

So you don't recommend me buying them then?

I found these:
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=12&n=4980643&e=576336&s=50&size=l&datum=nad83
http://www.terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=12&Z=12&X=714&Y=6225&W=3

And this site is useful of course:
http://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=5305

Paper maps would be more convenient though, but I imagine you'd need quite a
lot at 24k scale to cover the park.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

Most outdoors people who go to Yellowstone go to hike or ski trails.
Most visitors are summer tourists who go to see roadside thermal
features and gift shops. Few go into the backcountry.

That's what I assumed.

Much the same as the Lakes or Snowdonia really.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those who do can
make long wilderness trips.

Yeah, not many roads in the area.

Thankfully :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wolves are no problem at all, they keep out of the way. Both grizzly
and black bears live in Yellowstone but are very rarely a problem as
long as you follow standard bear country procedures (cook away from
where you sleep, don't store food in your tent, watch out for bear
signs on the trail). The risk is very low - far less than being
struck by lightning or being hit by a falling rock.

That's good to hear. Where do the bears tend to be found anyway? In the
valleys? Do they ever go up onto the peaks and ridges?

Grizzlies go up high, above timberline. Black bears stay in the forest.
They hibernate in winter. The Park is divided into Bear Management Areas
and a few high density grizzly bear areas are closed in the spring,
usually March/April to early July, so the bears can come out of
hibernation without human/bear conflicts.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The park also has bison. Skiing back to Old Faithful village after the
ski tour in February I did meet two huge bison bulls on the road. They
can be aggressive so I decided to wait until they wandered off.

Yeah, I've read that too.

In fact whilst I was waiting a snowcoach pulled up and offered me a lift
past the bison. In winter the roads are all closed except for
snowcoaches and snowmobiles. We got to Old Faithful by snowcoach, an
experience in itself!

http://www.yellowstoneguides.com/coaches.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On the ski tour I used the National Geographic Trails Illustrated
> 1:63,360 (1" to the mile) Old Faithful map, which has fifty foot
> contour intervals. It's a good map but for detailed navigation the
> USGS 1:24,000 maps would be better. I don't think these are
> available on the net.

I was thinking of ordering the NG maps for a better study of the
area in the flight sim. I doubt I'd need the 24k maps for that,
would I? Do the NG maps have a comprehensive listing of summits and
other features? http://tinyurl.com/37e6jg

The NG maps don't list summits or features - at least my Old Faithful
one doesn't

Well it is in the southwest area, not many summits there.

No, it's an area of big beautiful meadows, rolling wooded hills, deep
canyons and cliff-rimmed plateaux plus many wilderness hot springs. I
think it's a wonderful place.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It has text on the Park, Backcountry Permits and
Regulations, Horse Riding and Llama Packing, Wildlife, Hiking, Bears
and more but not features or summits.

So you don't recommend me buying them then?

I still reckon they're the best topographic paper maps (well, waterproof
plastic actually). All the peaks are marked on them.

Quoted message said:

I found these:
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=12&n=4980643&e=576336&s=50&size=l&datum=nad83

Topozone is good for downloading. I have some of their Arizona maps on
CD - before they offered downloads.

Quoted message said:

http://www.terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=12&Z=12&X=714&Y=6225&W=3

I'm not familiar with terraserver. Looks good. Of course all these
companies have the big advantage that USGS data is free, unlike OS data.

Quoted message said:

And this site is useful of course:
http://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=5305

Yes. And it shows why Yellowstone isn't that popular with peakbaggers.
11,000 foot peaks in the Rockies aren't that high. 14,000 foot ones are
found in Colorado and there are many 12,000 and 13,000 foot peaks.

Quoted message said:

Paper maps would be more convenient though, but I imagine you'd need quite a
lot at 24k scale to cover the park.

Dozens I would think. NG Trails Illustrated map of the whole park is
1:168,500.

The USGS quads often haven't been revised for decades and so are out of
date with regard to trails, roads and even thermal features (which do
move about). The other map makers superimpose these details on the USGS
topo data.

--
Chris Townsend

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Most outdoors people who go to Yellowstone go to hike or ski trails.
Most visitors are summer tourists who go to see roadside thermal
features and gift shops. Few go into the backcountry.

That's what I assumed.

Much the same as the Lakes or Snowdonia really.

Really? Do we have a different definition of "backcountry" or "few"?

Quoted message said:

Grizzlies go up high, above timberline.

Any idea why? Do they like peak bagging? ;-)

Quoted message said:

We got to Old Faithful by snowcoach, an
experience in itself!

http://www.yellowstoneguides.com/coaches.html

Interesting!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And this site is useful of course:
http://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=5305

Yes. And it shows why Yellowstone isn't that popular with peakbaggers.
11,000 foot peaks in the Rockies aren't that high. 14,000 foot ones
are found in Colorado and there are many 12,000 and 13,000 foot peaks.

I see. Absolute height isn't everything of course, which was my point in
another thread, but even so, there are no doubt many other US peaks which
much greater relative height too.

But don't the highest US summits involve serious rock climbing? The
Yellowstone peaks seem much more accessible to me, more comparable to the
higher UK summits (relatively speaking). Would that be a fair assessment?
Theo compared Eagle Peak to the Cuillins for example. The Gallatins look a
lot gentler.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

> Most outdoors people who go to Yellowstone go to hike or ski trails.
> Most visitors are summer tourists who go to see roadside thermal
> features and gift shops. Few go into the backcountry.

That's what I assumed.

Much the same as the Lakes or Snowdonia really.

Really? Do we have a different definition of "backcountry" or "few"?

Despite the numbers seen in the hills most visitors to the Lakes and
Snowdonia stay close to towns and cars. And most walkers are day walkers
and so are never more than half a day from roads. Of course Yellowstone
has a vast backcountry into which you can disappear for weeks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Grizzlies go up high, above timberline.

Any idea why? Do they like peak bagging? ;-)

Food. They dig up roots and tubers. And maybe they like peaks :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We got to Old Faithful by snowcoach, an
experience in itself!

http://www.yellowstoneguides.com/coaches.html

Interesting!

They are! Earplugs are handed out as you get on.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And this site is useful of course:
http://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=5305

Yes. And it shows why Yellowstone isn't that popular with peakbaggers.
11,000 foot peaks in the Rockies aren't that high. 14,000 foot ones
are found in Colorado and there are many 12,000 and 13,000 foot peaks.

I see. Absolute height isn't everything of course, which was my point in
another thread, but even so, there are no doubt many other US peaks which
much greater relative height too.

The highest peak in the Rocky Mountains is 14,433 foot Mount Elbert in
Colorado. It's a big whaleback of a hill and no harder to climb than
Black Mountain, once you are acclimatised to the altitude. Timberline is
around 11,000 feet in Colorado so you don't even feel you're on a
mountain until above that height.

The High Sierra in California have a great relative height, rising
10,000 foot from Owens Valley to the highest summits, a very impressive
sight.

Quoted message said:

But don't the highest US summits involve serious rock climbing?

Some do. As I said above Mount Elbert is an easy hill walk. So is Mount
Massive, the second highest peak. Mount Whitney in the High Sierra,
which is the highest peak in the 48 contiguous States, is a bit more
rocky but still a walk. There are plenty of other peaks that are
walks/easy scrambles.

Quoted message said:

The
Yellowstone peaks seem much more accessible to me, more comparable to the
higher UK summits (relatively speaking). Would that be a fair assessment?

They are more comparable to the higher UK summits but so are many hills
in the Colorado Rockies and the High Sierra. I walked along the crest of
the Colorado Rockies over several summits on the Continental Divide
Trail.

Quoted message said:

Theo compared Eagle Peak to the Cuillins for example. The Gallatins look a
lot gentler.

I haven't been to the Gallatins but they certainly look much gentler
than the Cuillin. But then most mountains do :-)
--
Chris Townsend

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Grizzlies go up high, above timberline.

Any idea why? Do they like peak bagging? ;-)

Food. They dig up roots and tubers. And maybe they like peaks :-)

Just like Scotland's deer. I reckon they go up there to avoid the
files.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Angletarn Pikes via Beda Fell.
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/May07/martin9.htm

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Grizzlies go up high, above timberline.

Any idea why? Do they like peak bagging? ;-)

Food. They dig up roots and tubers. And maybe they like peaks :-)

Just like Scotland's deer. I reckon they go up there to avoid the
files.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Angletarn Pikes via Beda Fell.
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/May07/martin9.htm

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Most outdoors people who go to Yellowstone go to hike or ski
>> trails. Most visitors are summer tourists who go to see roadside
>> thermal features and gift shops. Few go into the backcountry.
>
> That's what I assumed.

Much the same as the Lakes or Snowdonia really.

Really? Do we have a different definition of "backcountry" or "few"?

Despite the numbers seen in the hills most visitors to the Lakes and
Snowdonia stay close to towns and cars. And most walkers are day
walkers and so are never more than half a day from roads. Of course
Yellowstone has a vast backcountry into which you can disappear for
weeks.

Yes, that's a fair point. So when you're talking about going into the
backcountry, you're really talking about backpacking and wild camping? Yep,
Even Snowdon is a pretty empty place at night.

Of course, there are few places in Snowdonia and the Lakes which are more
than half a day away from roads. In fact, are there any? (I guess it depends
partly on how much you're carrying and how fit you are.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Grizzlies go up high, above timberline.

Any idea why? Do they like peak bagging? ;-)

Food. They dig up roots and tubers. And maybe they like peaks :-)

I wouldn't blame them!

Quoted message said:

The highest peak in the Rocky Mountains is 14,433 foot Mount Elbert in
Colorado. It's a big whaleback of a hill and no harder to climb than
Black Mountain, once you are acclimatised to the altitude. Timberline
is around 11,000 feet in Colorado so you don't even feel you're on a
mountain until above that height.

I see. I was thinking more in terms of mountains like the Grand Teton, just
south of Yellowstone.

Quoted message said:

The High Sierra in California have a great relative height, rising
10,000 foot from Owens Valley to the highest summits, a very
impressive sight.

I must check out some photos.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But don't the highest US summits involve serious rock climbing?

Some do. As I said above Mount Elbert is an easy hill walk. So is
Mount Massive, the second highest peak. Mount Whitney in the High
Sierra, which is the highest peak in the 48 contiguous States, is a
bit more rocky but still a walk. There are plenty of other peaks that
are walks/easy scrambles.

Much longer walks though?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Most outdoors people who go to Yellowstone go to hike or ski
>> trails. Most visitors are summer tourists who go to see roadside
>> thermal features and gift shops. Few go into the backcountry.
>
> That's what I assumed.

Much the same as the Lakes or Snowdonia really.

Really? Do we have a different definition of "backcountry" or "few"?

Despite the numbers seen in the hills most visitors to the Lakes and
Snowdonia stay close to towns and cars. And most walkers are day
walkers and so are never more than half a day from roads. Of course
Yellowstone has a vast backcountry into which you can disappear for
weeks.

Yes, that's a fair point. So when you're talking about going into the
backcountry, you're really talking about backpacking and wild camping? Yep,
Even Snowdon is a pretty empty place at night.

Of course, there are few places in Snowdonia and the Lakes which are more
than half a day away from roads. In fact, are there any? (I guess it depends
partly on how much you're carrying and how fit you are.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Grizzlies go up high, above timberline.

Any idea why? Do they like peak bagging? ;-)

Food. They dig up roots and tubers. And maybe they like peaks :-)

I wouldn't blame them!

Quoted message said:

The highest peak in the Rocky Mountains is 14,433 foot Mount Elbert in
Colorado. It's a big whaleback of a hill and no harder to climb than
Black Mountain, once you are acclimatised to the altitude. Timberline
is around 11,000 feet in Colorado so you don't even feel you're on a
mountain until above that height.

I see. I was thinking more in terms of mountains like the Grand Teton, just
south of Yellowstone.

Quoted message said:

The High Sierra in California have a great relative height, rising
10,000 foot from Owens Valley to the highest summits, a very
impressive sight.

I must check out some photos.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But don't the highest US summits involve serious rock climbing?

Some do. As I said above Mount Elbert is an easy hill walk. So is
Mount Massive, the second highest peak. Mount Whitney in the High
Sierra, which is the highest peak in the 48 contiguous States, is a
bit more rocky but still a walk. There are plenty of other peaks that
are walks/easy scrambles.

Much longer walks though?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

>>> Most outdoors people who go to Yellowstone go to hike or ski
>>> trails. Most visitors are summer tourists who go to see roadside
>>> thermal features and gift shops. Few go into the backcountry.
>>
>> That's what I assumed.
>
> Much the same as the Lakes or Snowdonia really.

Really? Do we have a different definition of "backcountry" or "few"?

Despite the numbers seen in the hills most visitors to the Lakes and
Snowdonia stay close to towns and cars. And most walkers are day
walkers and so are never more than half a day from roads. Of course
Yellowstone has a vast backcountry into which you can disappear for
weeks.

Yes, that's a fair point. So when you're talking about going into the
backcountry, you're really talking about backpacking and wild camping? Yep,
Even Snowdon is a pretty empty place at night.

Yes. Yellowstone National Park covers 8,983 km2, most of it roadless.
Snowdonia National Park covers 2,132 km2. And Yellowstone is surrounded
by a much bigger area of mostly wild land, Greater Yellowstone.
Backpacking and wild camping is the only way to see much of Yellowstone.
The park has over 900 miles of trails and one of the ideas I've had is
to do a circular route in the park linking many of these.

Quoted message said:

Of course, there are few places in Snowdonia and the Lakes which are more
than half a day away from roads. In fact, are there any? (I guess it depends
partly on how much you're carrying and how fit you are.)

I doubt there's any. There's few if any in the Highlands.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Grizzlies go up high, above timberline.

Any idea why? Do they like peak bagging? ;-)

Food. They dig up roots and tubers. And maybe they like peaks :-)

I wouldn't blame them!

When I walked the Continental Divide Trail I began in Glacier National
Park in June when the high ground was still snow covered. On one narrow
trail with steep slopes either side I followed grizzly tracks in the
snow for quite a way before the tracks turned off and headed uphill to a
high pass. There was no food this high up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The highest peak in the Rocky Mountains is 14,433 foot Mount Elbert in
Colorado. It's a big whaleback of a hill and no harder to climb than
Black Mountain, once you are acclimatised to the altitude. Timberline
is around 11,000 feet in Colorado so you don't even feel you're on a
mountain until above that height.

I see. I was thinking more in terms of mountains like the Grand Teton, just
south of Yellowstone.

Those do like the Cuillin, only much bigger. I saw them on last winters
trip - we drove past them en route to Yellowstone - and they are very
impressive. They aren't typical of the Rockies however - just as the
Cuillin aren't typical of the Highlands.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The High Sierra in California have a great relative height, rising
10,000 foot from Owens Valley to the highest summits, a very
impressive sight.

I must check out some photos.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But don't the highest US summits involve serious rock climbing?

Some do. As I said above Mount Elbert is an easy hill walk. So is
Mount Massive, the second highest peak. Mount Whitney in the High
Sierra, which is the highest peak in the 48 contiguous States, is a
bit more rocky but still a walk. There are plenty of other peaks that
are walks/easy scrambles.

Much longer walks though?

Elbert is a day walk. It's 3.8 miles and 4,400 feet of ascent from the
nearest trailhead, which is at 10,060 feet, to the summit. That's a
little shorter distance and the same amount of ascent as Ben Nevis.
Mount Massive is 6.4 miles and 4,300 feet to the summit.

The Colorado Rockies are pretty accessible. Colorado has many high level
roads and wilderness areas are small. Yellowstone is much bigger and
more remote.
--
Chris Townsend

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Despite the numbers seen in the hills most visitors to the Lakes and
Snowdonia stay close to towns and cars. And most walkers are day
walkers and so are never more than half a day from roads. Of course
Yellowstone has a vast backcountry into which you can disappear for
weeks.

Yes, that's a fair point. So when you're talking about going into the
backcountry, you're really talking about backpacking and wild
camping? Yep, Even Snowdon is a pretty empty place at night.

Yes. Yellowstone National Park covers 8,983 km2, most of it roadless.
Snowdonia National Park covers 2,132 km2.

Yeah, Yellowstone is nearly half the size of Wales (43% to be precise).

Quoted message said:

And Yellowstone is
surrounded by a much bigger area of mostly wild land, Greater
Yellowstone.

Probably the whole of Wales then?

Quoted message said:

Backpacking and wild camping is the only way to see much
of Yellowstone.

Or you could fly around it in a flight sim! :-) Actually, even in the sim
(now with moving vehicles on the roads which give a better idea of scale)
it's still hard to grasp the size of the place. It doesn't take very long to
fly over it in a plane, even a relatively slow one, but I'm sure it would
take a lot longer on foot.

Quoted message said:

The park has over 900 miles of trails and one of the
ideas I've had is to do a circular route in the park linking many of
these.

Sounds good. I gather there are lots of shorter trails that only take a few
hours, aimed at the tourists?

Quoted message said:

When I walked the Continental Divide Trail I began in Glacier National
Park in June when the high ground was still snow covered. On one
narrow trail with steep slopes either side I followed grizzly tracks
in the snow for quite a way before the tracks turned off and headed
uphill to a high pass. There was no food this high up.

Perhaps the bear was taking a short cut?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see. I was thinking more in terms of mountains like the Grand
Teton, just south of Yellowstone.

Those do like the Cuillin, only much bigger. I saw them on last
winters trip - we drove past them en route to Yellowstone - and they
are very impressive. They aren't typical of the Rockies however -
just as the Cuillin aren't typical of the Highlands.

It's hard to appreciate what's typical out there, having never been there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The High Sierra in California have a great relative height, rising
10,000 foot from Owens Valley to the highest summits, a very
impressive sight.

I must check out some photos.

Yes, impressive indeed! I wonder if there's any flight sim scenery for that
area...

Where are they exactly, this area wouldn't cover them by any chance, would
it?
http://www.megascenery.com/megasceneryxsocal.htm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Much longer walks though?

Elbert is a day walk. It's 3.8 miles and 4,400 feet of ascent from the
nearest trailhead, which is at 10,060 feet, to the summit. That's a
little shorter distance and the same amount of ascent as Ben Nevis.
Mount Massive is 6.4 miles and 4,300 feet to the summit.

Interesting, so similar walks to the UK are possible? I got the impression
that any mountain climb would be a serious undertaking with very long
walk-ins.

Quoted message said:

The Colorado Rockies are pretty accessible. Colorado has many high
level roads and wilderness areas are small. Yellowstone is much
bigger and more remote.

Strange. I don't really have much knowledge of the US wilderness at all,
from a practical point of view. Seen plenty of photos of course, but no idea
of the reality of walking out there.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

> Despite the numbers seen in the hills most visitors to the Lakes and
> Snowdonia stay close to towns and cars. And most walkers are day
> walkers and so are never more than half a day from roads. Of course
> Yellowstone has a vast backcountry into which you can disappear for
> weeks.

Yes, that's a fair point. So when you're talking about going into the
backcountry, you're really talking about backpacking and wild
camping? Yep, Even Snowdon is a pretty empty place at night.

Yes. Yellowstone National Park covers 8,983 km2, most of it roadless.
Snowdonia National Park covers 2,132 km2.

Yeah, Yellowstone is nearly half the size of Wales (43% to be precise).

Quoted message said:

And Yellowstone is
surrounded by a much bigger area of mostly wild land, Greater
Yellowstone.

Probably the whole of Wales then?

Probably bigger. There's a map of it here:

http://www.greateryellowstone.org/media/maps/gye-poster-map-full.jpg

Of course Greater Yellowstone includes development, farming, roads,
towns and more.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Backpacking and wild camping is the only way to see much
of Yellowstone.

Or you could fly around it in a flight sim! :-) Actually, even in the sim
(now with moving vehicles on the roads which give a better idea of scale)
it's still hard to grasp the size of the place. It doesn't take very long to
fly over it in a plane, even a relatively slow one, but I'm sure it would
take a lot longer on foot.

Quoted message said:

The park has over 900 miles of trails and one of the
ideas I've had is to do a circular route in the park linking many of
these.

Sounds good. I gather there are lots of shorter trails that only take a few
hours, aimed at the tourists?

Trails of every length. The popular thermal areas have boardwalks across
them. I did one of these, the 1 km West Thumb Basin Trail, during a stop
on the snowcoach journey to Old Faithful last winter - it was a planned
stop and the snowcoach driver took us on the walk.

http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/granthike.htm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When I walked the Continental Divide Trail I began in Glacier National
Park in June when the high ground was still snow covered. On one
narrow trail with steep slopes either side I followed grizzly tracks
in the snow for quite a way before the tracks turned off and headed
uphill to a high pass. There was no food this high up.

Perhaps the bear was taking a short cut?

A long one then, involving many miles of steep, snow covered trails.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see. I was thinking more in terms of mountains like the Grand
Teton, just south of Yellowstone.

Those do like the Cuillin, only much bigger. I saw them on last
winters trip - we drove past them en route to Yellowstone - and they
are very impressive. They aren't typical of the Rockies however -
just as the Cuillin aren't typical of the Highlands.

It's hard to appreciate what's typical out there, having never been there.

The typical Yellowstone scenery is rolling hills, forests and big
meadows. But then Yellowstone isn't typical of the Rockies as a whole!
Having walked the length of the Rockies there are patterns that recur
but also huge variety.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The High Sierra in California have a great relative height, rising
> 10,000 foot from Owens Valley to the highest summits, a very
> impressive sight.

I must check out some photos.

Yes, impressive indeed! I wonder if there's any flight sim scenery for that
area...

Where are they exactly, this area wouldn't cover them by any chance, would
it?
http://www.megascenery.com/megasceneryxsocal.htm

No, that's further south and east.

This shows what it's like:

http://www.terragalleria.com/california/picture.usca9897.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Much longer walks though?

Elbert is a day walk. It's 3.8 miles and 4,400 feet of ascent from the
nearest trailhead, which is at 10,060 feet, to the summit. That's a
little shorter distance and the same amount of ascent as Ben Nevis.
Mount Massive is 6.4 miles and 4,300 feet to the summit.

Interesting, so similar walks to the UK are possible? I got the impression
that any mountain climb would be a serious undertaking with very long
walk-ins.

Not in Colorado. More true for Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Colorado Rockies are pretty accessible. Colorado has many high
level roads and wilderness areas are small. Yellowstone is much
bigger and more remote.

Strange. I don't really have much knowledge of the US wilderness at all,
from a practical point of view. Seen plenty of photos of course, but no idea
of the reality of walking out there.

Well, I jumped in at the deep end by walking the 2,600 mile Pacific
Crest Trail on my first visit! I've been back many times since,
including walking the 3,000 mile Continental Divide Trail, so I've got a
fair idea of the Western US wilderness (and the Canadian wilderness -
the border doesn't mean anything in landscape terms). I've only made one
visit to the east - two weeks in the White Mountains of New Hampshire -
so I'm not very familiar with the Appalachians.
--
Chris Townsend

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk