Distance covered.

[Mechanic-AL]

Often when reading historical accounts of early explorers and bushwalkers they will end each days diary entry or notes with an approximation of distance covered for the day. Considering these people were venturing into wilderness areas that were mostly un-chartered territory it could be fair to assume that a lot of these mileage estimates were simply a number plucked from where the sun doesn't shine. But in many accounts the distance traveled is suprisingly acurate.
I've recently been putting a bit of effort into improving my skills with a map and compass but have yet to find an accurate way of measuring the distance covered without a map. No big deal but it could be a handy skill to have off track when the weather turns to soup and the batteries havent lived up to the manufacturers specifications.

So how did people such as Alexander Mckay and George Robinson work out how far they had traveled with any degree of accuracy without maps and charts ?

[Gadgetgeek]

It helps to have a surveyor in the group. I'm not sure of the guys you refer to, but many old expeditions had members dedicated to pace counting, or other more accurate methods of measuring. They also used celestial positioning equipment to get accurate locations. I think some of those guys also were just really practiced at keeping a really good pace count. Hopefully someone else has some more definite info.

[GPSGuided]

I’d say pace count and experience. Those guys walk for many many days that few of us hardly if ever match. They’d have a good sense of their distances through repeated practices and whatever navigational aids they had could further calibrate.

[ILUVSWTAS]

... and they had convicts they could whip if they didn't count each step accurately....

[Aardvark]

I believe it all comes down to practice. These days it seems as if people think there is nothing to bushwalking and anyone can do it. I mean 'how technical can it possibly get without technology?' It is not until you've done it alot do you realise that the skills you develop are not that common amongst those who don't use them.
Pacing could be of some use but as said before, you might need someone in the group who is dedicated to that. I have found that through practice you can easily estimate distance from time. You need to be acknowledging as you go what distractions develop, and delays.
I have several catagories i use. Throughwalk pack 1-2 k per hour, daypack 3k per hour, full pace lightweight 5k per hour,
Of course there are sub catagories such as the terrain, off track/ on track.
Just yesterday, four of us went out to Kalinya L/O from O'Reillys in Lamington NP. The return journey included, amounted to appx 31k. It took 9 hours.
The first 8.7k is graded track and therefore also the last 8.7k. I knew it was 5.2k to a particular junction. I also knew that if we kept a certain pace we would take 1 minute to do 100m. A pace we often do on highways. ( i jokingly refer to graded tracks as highways). As we approached the junction i announced to the group that we would arrive in 2 minutes and we did. All i'm saying is that it can be surprisingly accurate. As the day went on, occasionally someone would ask 'how far do you think we have come from ????' Each person would make their estimate and we would discuss their reasoning. It all is good practice. Might i add we didn't use any map or GPS all day.

[north-north-west]

Iit's a skill that continues to elude me. Pace counting, time vs terrain, visual estimation, whatever.

I need a few of those convicts to take care of the issue for me. Any volunteers?

[Mechanic-AL]

Not sure I'd be much of an asset as the pace counter.
Eleven thousand four hundred and thirty seven.........or was that seven thousand four hundred and thirty seven, um ????

[Aardvark]

Use your activity tracker

[peregrinator]

Carry a chain. In the old money, 1 Chain = 66 Feet.

[michael_p]

Chains where used by many surveyors/explorers to measure distance. Coupled with compass bearings they can produce a fairly accurate measurement. And 1 chain is a cricket pitch.

[Aardvark]

Carry a chain. In the old money, 1 Chain = 66 Feet.

Brilliant. No batteries required.

[bernieq]

They used a sextant. I don't think dead reckoning (no matter how well experienced) would be sufficiently accurate - too many variables.

With just a sextant, taking a sighting at approximately the same time each day, a good navigator can calculate position (and then distance travelled) to within around 500m. It's more conveniently done with an acurate watch (which the explorers had).

A chain is/was OK for shorter distances than that walked in a day. A chain has another problem as well. Distance travelled is horizontal but if you lay a chain on a steep slope, you'll measure 22 yds when the horizontal distance is much less.

[Gadgetgeek]

Did a walk this weekend that was supposed to be 6km each way... actual distance traveled must have been much longer due to how steep it was.

[bernieq]

No more than an additional 10%, max.

For example : if you walked 6km and climbed 2500m (a very big climb and moderately steep at 22deg) then walked back down you would walk 12km on a map - but 13km on the slope.

More realistically, a 4 day Vic High Country walk might be 50km and 4000m up & 4000 down. That calculates to an additional 635m on the slope - not worth worrying about.

[Mechanic-AL]

Thanks to everyone who has chipped in on this topic. Your replies have gone a long way towards solving a mystery that I have pondered for a long time now. It has also sent me wandering off into the left field, hopefully without getting lost !
I'm not real keen on the idea of adding a chain to my gear list and good convicts are getting increasingly harder to find so..........
I'm shopping for a sextant.
Light weight and nothing to bulky obviously. I love the idea of being as self sufficient as possible in the bush and for some weird reason I've never been much of a GPS fan. ( feels too much like somebody else is telling you where to go ).
I reckon learning the art of using a sextant could add a whole new dimension to an activity I already enjoy.
And I've definitely seen people carrying weirder things into the bush !!

[bernieq]

Good on you - certainly a skill worth having.

However, a GPS can not only tell you where you are but also the distance you have actually walked (and a fair bit quicker than a sextant).

Good luck

[taswegian]

At least a sextant won't run out of batteries or suffer electronic failure.

There's several old, tried and true ways to work out distances.
But as others mentioned, we've lost (generally) that ability to appreciate those natural abilities once embedded (from necessity) in the human syche.

Some useful things are
Hold your hand at arm's length:

The width of your little finger is about one degree—enough to cover the moon and sun, both of which are each half a degree across.
The width of the first three fingers side-by-side spans about five degrees.
A closed fist is about ten degrees.
If you spread out your fingers, the distance from the tip of your first finger to the tip of your little finger is 15 degrees.
If you spread out your fingers, the distance from little finger to thumb covers about 25 degrees of sky.

Two fingers, say 30mm wide, at arms length, say 800 mm subtended (cover) about 38 metres at a km, fatter fingers @45mm would push that to 56 metres.

Early explorers etc, would read compass bearings to prominent peaks, rock outcrops, natural features obvious from several locations, and then can with reasonable estimate of distances work out where they are on their progressive map.
Checked with sextant, walking time etc could give some relative and reasonable accuracy.

Horses probably had a more steady and predictable gait to humans and distances travelled could be better ascertained.
Hills etc not to be discounted.

Heights of lone trees would be a fixed height but a mathematical calculation for the ever changing distance as an equation of the subtended angle observed top to base.

Their relative reasonable accuracy would no doubt differ with our fast paced life where we now split seconds to 100ths to time events and worry because mail takes 3 days instead of 1.

[madpom]

I find step counting gives me reasonable accuracy on tracks or tops or rivers - within 10% generally and rarely worse than 20%. Clise enough to know which peak or river forks I've reached, or where to branch off a track - which is generally what I need to know.

There's a real skill to it though - knowing what factor to apply to get meters. For me - road walking 100 paces is 90m. Most rough tramping tracks its 200 paces for 90m. Climbs can double or quadruple that. But with practise the multiplier becomes instinctive.

And practically I count yards, not steps. So count 1 for every 1 or 2 or 4 or whatever steps. Git to the stage my brain can do it in the background whilst I think of other things. Though it's not too reluable at rolling over the 100s.

Serious bushbashing it doesn't work for. Judge the dustance to a feature and keep a running tally. If you can see anything through the scrub.

[north-north-west]

Early explorers etc, would read compass bearings to prominent peaks, rock outcrops, natural features obvious from several locations, and then can with reasonable estimate of distances work out where they are on their progressive map.

Which is fine when you can see, but if you're in thick scrub, forest or fog, there aren't any landmarks visible.