This does not appear to be in the Austrians' Kataster +I have just (May 1990) found an old note book which says this was explored by John, Tony and Andy C, but gives no detail on where or what. +There is a strong suspicion that the cave was one of the "promising leads" found on their trip to Wildenseealm. However, the only +published account refers the reader to the 1980 log book. This latter is, unfortunately, missing.
+This does not appear to be in the Austrians' Kataster. +
+AERW email 30 June 2020: +The name Verlorenschacht was probably invented by me, and in the absence +of the 1980 logbook, there is no real reason to believe it was a schacht, +just something they thought worth a number in a year when we were making +the effort to actually number stuff we found. It is _probably_ not (as you +might hope) somewhere between 113 and 115, but it _might_ be ... There is +something in that area that one steps over on a particular (probably +obscure) route from one cave to another. I don't *think* it got a +number but it *might* be 114. If that surmise is anywhere near, then it +is between the Stogerweg and 113, rather than close to 115. +
+> But it is definitely not a "Schacht": more a horizontal scramble with a +> couple of pits. [Philip] + +That doesn't sound like the thing in the 113 area I'm thinking of - that +was at least a bit of a climb down at the entrance (enough not to venture +in without at least a handline). Of course, if it was something on the +Wildenseealm walk, then it is nowhere near 113/41/115. +
+The missing 1980 logbook really is critical to this one. +
+Philip Sargent email 1 July 2020 to Wookey: +
+> According to AERW it might or might not be the same cave, or be might +> be remembering something else; but it is arguably in the right place +> as at least two groups have found it while looking for 115 coming from +> the path - and 113 is on the other (upper) side of the path - so it is +> topologically between 113 and 115 even if not geometrically between 113 and 115. +> +> I say let's go for it and rub out the uncertainty. +> Which means I had better write up a sketch survey for all 15m of it. +
+I've not followed the whole thread/saga, but at this stage I think this sounds reasonable. Almost anything would be an improvment and so long as we're reasonably sure that the original 114 is not marked as such in a way that might one day be noticed (and it seems unlikely that the 1980 logbook will surface at this point) any reasonable effort to get a cave in about the right place should suffice. +
+Wookey
+
+