expoweb/handbook/look4.htm

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title>
CUCC Expo Prospecting Handbook Issues
</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../../css/main2.css" />
</head>
<body>
<h2 id="tophead">CUCC Expedition Handbook</h2>
<h1>Prospecting - issues</h1>

<p>Much of the area of <a href="../plateau.html">the Loser Augst-Eck plateau</a> is rough limestone
pavement (<b>karren</b>), liberally covered with dense areas of dwarf pine,
and interspersed with small cliffs, open shafts and snow patches. The latter,
in particular, can change the appearance of the plateau from year to year,
and even from week to week in the summer. Getting from one point to another
may involve detours to avoid any of these obstacles, and the whole effect is
very disorientating. There are few landmarks recognisable from a distance or
from a variety of angles, and little chance to relate the ground to the
1:25000 Austrian Alpine Club map. If you are only 5m off the route you may 
have lost the way on.

<p>So walking on the plateau is difficult, and in bad weather (as in 
July 2019) can be 
seriously dangerous if attempted unaccompanied. The 
<a href="../1623/walkin.htm">route to the plateau</a>
is deceptively safe and easy by comparison.

<p>Prospecting is either a matter of searching
for promising-looking caves with a draught, or shaft bashing many open holes
in the hope that one will go. This latter approach is often a waste of time,
but just a few of them lead to really significant finds! Much of the
exploration now is beyond the Steinbr&uuml;cken bivvy in the area known as 
<a href="../remote.html">the far plateau</a></p>

<p><b>Shaft bashing:</b>&nbsp;<a href="../1623/others/l/lrh0.htm">
<img src="../1623/others/t/lrh0.jpg" class="icon" width="143" height="173"
alt="Lost Rucksack Hole 0" /></a>&nbsp;
<a href="../1623/others/l/lrh.htm"><img src="../1623/others/t/lrh.jpg"
class="icon" width="123" height="169"
alt="Lost Rucksack Hole" /></a>&nbsp;
<b>Bolt placing:</b>&nbsp;<a href="../1623/others/l/lrh1.htm"> <img
src="../1623/others/t/lrh1.jpg" class="icon" width="143" height="170"
alt="Lost Rucksack Hole 1" /></a></p>
<p class="caption">(Typical shaft bashing, often easiest on ladders: Adam Cooper
near Top Camp in 1993. Bolt placing usually easier on rope, but still in
T-shirt &amp; shorts!)</p>

<p>All of this has made any systematic prospecting difficult, so there is
still the chance of a significant discovery quite close to Top Camp or to
other known caves. Life is made even more difficult through sloppy recording
in previous years. Hence it is very important that any cave which has been
looked at is marked and documented, to avoid duplication of effort. Very
small caves are usually marked with a simple painted cross to indicate that
they are worth no further effort, however, nowadays we are not allowed to
mark things with paint. More significant caves get a metal tag, a number, and a written
description. The aim is to link all such caves in to existing surface
surveys, which in turn are tied to a number of <a
href="survey/lasers.htm">fixed points</a> located by laser
theodolite/rangefinder from local trig. points.</p>

<div class="onright">
<a href="essentials.html">
<img src="essentials-screenshot.jpg" alt="screenshot of the GPS file" width="250" /></a>
<p class="caption">GPS entrances</p>
</div>
<p>The <a href="../caves">cave index</a> page contains as much description as we have of every cave we know
about. To avoid any possibility of errors, this includes some info on caves
not explored by CUCC, though for reasons of Austrian Kataster politics, these
are not publicly accessible on the "live" web site.</p>

<p>We used to have a <a href="../prospecting_guide/">fancy clickable map</a>
showing the locations of all the caves we have information on with tables
showing which pieces of information we have and what information still needs to
be gathered. But the scanned map is now obsolete and the text table of all the caves
is out of date because the QM data has not been updated and the cross-referencing URLs
are mostly broken. To find current QMs (Question Marks, i.e. open leads) look at
<a href="troggle/scriptsqms.html">QMs and leads</a> - very much a work in progress.
<p>Today we really need a GPS-enabled map of entrances, and we have one! Instructions for 
downloading it are on the <a href="essentials.html">Essential GPS</a> page.
</p>

<hr />

<p><i>The following information is out of date (from 2004). Do not
rely on it being current.</i></p>


<!-- <p><i>[The tables linked from these paragraphs are all at least three years out of date]</i>
Clearly, descriptions of two hundred caves are too much to assimilate or
carry about with you (unless, like Wookey, you carry this entire website
in a Psion !). However, every prospecting party needs to be able to
decide if what they have found needs exploring, marking, surveying, locating
or ignoring. Some caves have been fully explored but are lost, others have
been marked but not explored or vice versa. Hence there is a tabular summary
of CUCC's knowledge of the caves of the Loser plateau. EVERY PROSPECTING
PARTY SHOULD TAKE A (PRINTED) COPY OF THIS WITH THEM INTO THE FIELD. The
caves are divided into five tables:</p>

<dl>
<dt><a href="known.htm">Known</a></dt>
<dd>Caves which are marked and the location of which is "well known" ie. very
well described and surveyed, or known by someone on expo.  The aim is to get
all the caves into this table :-)</dd>
<dt><a href="where.htm">Marked</a></dt>
<dd>Caves which are marked but the location of which is not believed to be
known by anyone on expo. Some may prove easy enough to find if someone looks,
but most have been looked for without success. If found, they need to be
surveyed to and the route to them described.</dd>
<dt><a href="nomark.htm">Unmarked</a></dt>
<dd>Caves which are believed unmarked, but are readily found or have been seen
recently. These need at least to be marked, and may need surveying to.</dd>
<dt><a href="unknow.htm">Unknown</a></dt>
<dd>Caves whose location is uncertain, and which may not be marked. If they
prove to be marked and are found, they should be written up - otherwise we need
to trace someone who knows where they are, or abandon them.</dd>
<dt><a href="plus.htm">Noted</a></dt>
<dd> Caves which have been recorded in a log or survey book, but never given a
number. They may be marked with a "+" or a "-". These are all caves which we
believe can be found again, and which need revisiting to document them and give
them a number. In some cases they are completely unexplored, but looked like
good prospects when first found.</dd>
</dl>  -->

<p>In the tables (and the cave descriptions), bearings are quoted with a
series of standard <a href="abbrev.htm">abbreviations for landmarks</a>,
which gives a good indication of which ones are most useful.</p>

<p>There is also a table of which numbers are CUCC ones and of numbers which
appear on entrances which are wholly misleading, the
<a href="cockup.htm">Cock-Ups</a>.</p>

<p><i>Note that there is still much missing information about many caves
which appear in the "known" and "marked" lists. Though marked, this may not
be correctly with their Austrian Kataster number. The aim is to mark all of
these correctly with a metal tag bearing their 'official' number over the
next few years. Also, many known caves do not have surface surveys to their
entrances.</i></p>

<h4>Numbering Convention</h4>

<p>One problem that has recently arisen is a prohibition on painting numbers
on entrances within the Naturschutzgebiet (Nature Reserve) area. The
Austrians have for a while been marking caves with a numbered alloy
tag bolted to the cave entrance. This also has the advantage of a definite
fixed point to take the survey to.</p>

<p>From 1996, we have also had to abandon the system (which we believed
worked pretty well) whereby we had a block of numbers allocated from the
Austrian Kataster, which we could use to number newly found caves. Nowadays
we have to produce documentation before we get an 'official' number, which
usually means an extra visit with someone who knows the cave's location in
the year following exploration. Such a someone will not necessarily exist,
which is a recipe for the number of "missing" caves increasing rather than
decreasing. However, it is the Austrians' kataster, and we have to work with
their system.</p>

<div class="onleft">
<img alt="Example tag" src="i/9602tg.jpg" width="340" height="286" />
<p class="caption">An example tag - CUCC 96/02</p>
</div>

<p>To overcome this limitation, and try to stop losing caves in which we
have invested effort, CUCC now applies its own unique number to each new
cave, ideally at the time of discovery, using a rock anchor and a tag which
can be replaced when an 'official' number tag is available. As of 2000, the
standard practice has been to allocate initial numbers of the form
"year-nn", e.g. 2003-01. This means that the cave can be identified when
refound, even if no-one who knew where it was came out in subsequent years.
Clearly, a good surface location is also pretty essential. There are also a
number of caves tagged with numbers of the form "year-xx-nn" where xx are
the initials of the discoverer (eg 2002-AD-01), although this system is
vaguely deprecated.</p>

<p>Anything longer than 10m needs a number, a survey of appropriate
accuracy, and location information (<a href="findit.htm">bearings from
entrance to known points</a>, entranc photos and description of route to entrance as a
minimum - <a href="survey/ontop.htm">surface surveys</a> are really required
for caves within a reasonable distance of existing known points, a <a
href="survey/gps.htm">GPS fix</a> is probably a convenient compromise in the
short term). If a cave is not readily apparent from the immediate area,
bearings or a GPS fix will be found to be inadequate to refind it, and a
good sketch or photographs of the entrance and its surroundings will be
necessary as well.</p>

<p>Caves which require further exploration should be marked "-". Caves which
have been fully explored and surveyed marked "|+|". This includes minor
holes less than 10m in length. (Note that prior to 1996, completely explored
caves were marked "+". Any un-numbered caves found so marked need to be
explored again and documented (in the "Noted" list, as a start). A number as
above should be allocated if they exceed 10m in length).</p>

<p>There are <b>many</b> other caves marked just with a "+" symbol and a few
which just have bolts and no numbers. In the past, any cave which could not
be seen not to go just from a surface look has been marked with a "+" to show
that it has been looked at but didn't go anywhere significant. We are
supposed to record these for the Austrians, so if you find one, please mark
it with a unique identifier and record where it is, <b>even if you don't have
time to re-explore it at the time</b>. This will help us to assess how many
of these caves there are, and to target areas where there are lots first.
Overall, this should reduce the amount of work needed to "catch up".</p>

<h4>Previously explored caves</h4>

<p>Having come upon a known cave, and decided on the action needed from the
tables, you can find out more about the cave by looking at the database of
cave descriptions (links from the tables or from the
<a href="../indxal.htm">Index</a> to all caves). This exists mainly to ensure
that <b>anyone</b> (not just CUCC) finding a cave marked or previously
explored by CUCC can find out all we know about it.</p>

<p>For CUCC's caves, we must supply at least a certain minimum of information
to the Austrians, which includes an accurate location, state of exploration,
name/marking, description and some sort of survey. Obviously for significant
caves, we will want a proper drawn up survey, and the aim should be to do a
survey right from the first exploration - if the cave ends, this saves having
to go back again later ! If you find a cave for which adequate information
is not in the database, then at worst document the lack, and at best, go
out and create the missing documentation!</p>

<p>As other groups also work in adjacent areas to ours, it is clearly
important that the information is widely available, to avoid clashes of
interest or duplication of effort. All CUCC's finds are documented here,
together with any other caves which we have information on, which we are
permitted to publish. We will be very pleased to receive any information on
other caves in the area, to make this more complete. It is in no-one's
interest to reexplore known cave, or to intrude on someone else's ongoing
project ! There is a limited amount of information in the database on caves
not explored by CUCC, for which we are not permitted to make the data
publicly available - none of this information has been checked in the field
and is likely to be out of date, if not just plain wrong. The data are
included for completeness and should help CUCC during expeditions. We may be
able to make the data available (through password-protected access to those
net pages) to other groups with a bona fide need.</p>

<hr />

<!--
<h3>Revision history</h3>
<p>(but only revisions to content, not typos and link bugs...)</p>

<dl>
<dt>1996.04.23</dt>
<dd>AJD: First attempt, missing most of the +/- and surface survey info. Also,
haven't marked any caves with asterisks yet AJD</dd>

<dt>1996.06.11</dt>
<dd>AERW: Integrated existing prospecting page with Anthony's "what to do if
you find..." tables from his RTF file. Formatting is currently crap. Links need
putting in to save using the index.</dd>

<dt>1996.07.25</dt>
<dd>AERW: Added section on taking bearings - more views identifying peaks still
needed.</dd>

<dt>1996.11.28</dt>
<dd>AERW: split file up, so tables are in separate pages. Added more info (and
picture) on numbering/tagging scheme. Some rewrite of politically sensitive
points.</dd>

<dt>1997.01.01</dt>
<dd>AERW: finished tidying and linking tables, split off section on taking
bearings, with its pictures of peaks - linked with surveying document.</dd>

<dt>2004.04.21</dt>
<dd>DL: Fiddled formatting slightly, and also updated the section on
provisional tagging of caves in accordance with current practice (those who
disagree with current practice are asked not to shoot the messenger).</dd>  
</dl>
-->
</body>
</html>