Statistical Location Reconstruction

[wan]

I'll start with some background, but my question involves travel rates on horseback and on foot through hilly wilderness, and how to define "a day and a half" in hours for travelers in the 1800s.

Several years back I heard a local story of a lost mine (circa 1800s), plopped open google maps, and the math was simply absurd. There are reasonable and common mistakes people make when traversing wilderness. I have more than a little experience and I've made these kinds of mistakes at times by being over-confident. However, it's a pointless chase when your forced to 'unreasonably' assume, if the story is true, the witnesses were simply stupid. It just unreasonable to assume that travelers in the 1800s lacked a good sense of direction, landmarks, and distance, though they almost certainly were still subject to common mistakes.

Recently I happened upon a source that give me four seperate stories, involving historical people, of the same location. These four stories occurred over the period ~1830 to 1900. The first story I heard seems to be a mix of these four, yet the math is roughly the same in all of them! Perhaps I should revisit my own assumptions.

Basic numbers:
Reported travel time (round trip on foot): 3 to 4 days.
Reported travel time (one way on horseback): Day and a half.
Distance to reported location: 5 to 8 miles (8 to 13 km).
*Perhaps you see the problem here.

So I pull up google, zoom in on the terrain selection (topo map), something I didn't have before, and realized that to get beyond a certain point requires traversing around many miles of hills and ravines. This would also explain why, for knowledgable travelers in the 1800s, it would be so easy to miss after being there before. So, with some quick guessamatics, I cut a string on scale with the distance I guessed they would travel in the alotted time, strung it through the assumably traversable terrain accross my monitor, and it overshot my best guess location by only 4 miles. Wow, the math is not so rediculous, and abnormally close given the gross guestimations. The bonus here is that, given the limitations on traversable pathing information and timing, it places enough restrictions on possible locations to be searchable in a matter of weeks, provided that a proper systematic approach is taken. Shotgun search patterns can reduce 95%+ odds of discovery to well under 20%, assuming it exist at all.

Now it's a matter of getting a search plan together. I've started with google topological screenshots, to chop and paste together in a graphics app for a wall sized topo map. Note: The satelite view gives an inverted perception of relative altitudes in wilderness, due to shadow effects over the green trees, and leads to a huge underestimate of hillyness. The median hill grade here is about 250%!!! (Yes, very dangerous territory). In fact, today, there is a road within a couple of thousand feet of my best guess location, yet you would have to hike well over 5 miles to get there from that road.

Now to define a search plan I need to define each major ravine in terms of it's relative odds, given the path and timing information. I would like to know what ranges people here would give in terms of travel rates and hours.

1) Travel Time:
How many hours and/or range of hours of actual travel time would you associate with a "day and a half" for travelers in the 1800s? How soon after sunrise would you assume the traveling started?

2) Travel Rates (on foot):
How many miles (or km) per hour would you guess travelers in the 1800s would traverse in hilly wilderness?

3) Travel Rates (horseback):
Same question as 2), except for horses?

Perhaps by the time it cools off a little this fall, I'll have a search plan ready to put in action. Visibility tend to be orders of magnitude better in the fall also. Some preliminary recon over the summer would be useful also, to verify pathing assumptions.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[wan]

I'm guessing about 2 mph (3.2 km) in the mountainous terrain on horseback.
On the travel time I'm guessing a "day and a half" is 13 to 15 hours.

This limits search area to about 12 major ravines which would take a hard days hike to search each, not counting getting there. Failing this, farther north is a huge double ridge region about 5 miles long. That leaves about 20 miles of ground to cover to effectively search. To the south is a loop canyon, and to the northeast is a smaller canyon. It gets bad after that. To the southeast is about 35 square miles of very rough terrain, with potentially impassable ridges dividing it. Not much that makes sense to cover after that. Some areas it seems unreasonable to assume hasn't been explored fairly well, other would be more than a little difficult.

There is a single road within 10 miles, and no homes in the area. It's the most remote area I know in the state. Dangerous, without any quick access help even if you can make contact (maybe).

Still interested if anybody thinks these numbers are fairly accurate travel rates.

 

[TheHarleyMan2]

Hello Wan, Welcome to T-Net!

I have thought about the same thing when I got into metal detecting and reading about lost loot, buried treasure, gold mines, etc.

I used to have horses a good while back prior to Desert Strom in 1991. I rode every weekend when I had the chance and would ride in and around central Louisiana. On average, on level wooded ground to somewhat hilly terrain. A horse wih a rider can travel about 25-30 miles in about daylight time starting around 8am until an hour before dark, but horses have to rest just like us.

Thinking back about the 1800's how people traveled and their wagons, equipment, terrain, etc. I think that most of the time anyone traveling even with just a rider and horse would have some supplies to carry if they were traveling. Towns were many days ride apart in some areas, depending on location. I think that with rough terrain, yes, people would have to find a away around it, and thinking that generally the overgrowth of trees, shrubs and foilage. What trail would a horse rider use? How would he know where a trail was if he never been through that area before?

I think that most cases they would travel on level ground as possible that wasn't over grown with foilage maybe following along a river, or dry river bed, or creek. I think that if a rider wanted to ride up a mountain, I think taking consideration as what type of mountain nad terrain it is, is it just wooded, is it rocky with alot of boulders? Can the rider visually see from his location a good safe path to climb the mountain with a horse?

I believe in some cases, some may have found trails, usually used by wild animals as they tend to use the same path constantly so there is visible trails, but how big would the path be? Also during that time Indians had their trails they used. But with one in the 1800's knowing the west was a hostile environment along with hostile Indians what path would they logically take?

Now with wagon trains or just a wagon. Most of those travelers had someone on horseback who would ride ahead and look for possible terrain that could be traveled by wagon. Again, due to the wagon, with wooden wheels, I think that settlers knew rough terrain would probably constantly break wagon wheels, I don't know for fact, but common sense would have one think a wooden wagon wheel is not going to last very long in a rocky terrain. With the loaded supplies and the horses pulling the wagons they usually traveled about 15 miles a day depending on the load, and to also give the horses rest.

I beleive that a rider, riders, or wagons when they traveled not looking for anything particular, stayed in an area for a day or two and made camp while traveling as people have to eat, maybe someone taking some time away from camp scouted out around the area as sometimes one would have to hunt for food and what suppllies they needed.

With the exception of having to cross a mountain. I believe people with wagons traveled mostly along rivers or creeks and not too far off from a water source for their survival as well as the animals they were using. Horses drink a lot of water, plus they have to be fed and finding a place for them to graze a grassy area. Pioniers using wagons would travel in plains areas as it was easier to travel also. But as I said, they usually had someone on horseback traveling with them in most cases to scout out trails, especailly if they had to cross a mountain. I think that if 1 or 2 people on a wogon, (without a horse rider), that just took their chances, mainly would take a plains route or shallow river, dry river, or creek bed, if no plains route was available.

With the exception of the military building forts along the trails, routes were made by contstant travel using one route soldiers and people traveling to the forts made, so terrain was worn down so to speak into dirt roads.

If you want to get an accurate walking or hiking distance. I am not sure where you live. But I used to hike in some mountainous areas, usally with a 40-60 pound pack with 2 gallons of water, some food for a day or two, (MRE's if I was going to be out for more than 1 day), a sleeping bag, first aid kit, shovel, toiletries, a hammock, change of clothes and about 4 pairs of socks, some survival supplies, ie, matches, lighter fluid, mirror, flashlight, and a couple packs of batteries and a am/fm radio.

I would suggest going out somewhere walking in your nieghborhood and time yourself on a 1 or 2 hour walk and see how much distance you cover and how long it took you to cover it.

Then I would suggest finding a wooded area that has lots of hills creeks, somewhere that you could hike through, (make sure you bring a gallon of water, first aid kit and a compass), and be careful with snakes. If you know how to read a topo map and read a compass, get a terrain map of the area you want to hike. Now before starting your venture, mark out a level area of 100 meters. Start from one point and count every other step, ie (starting on your right foot) at normal walking speed, count how many times your left foot hits the ground until you get to the end of the 100 meter distance. That is called your pace count.

Bring someone along if you can. Hike the area for about 1 or 2 hours, or if you have most of the day to spend, hike the terrain, making sure you write down and keep track of every 100 meters you traveled and make sure you constantly look at your compass so you won't get lost and use it with your terrain map. Then you can calculate how long it took you to travel and distance, adn type of the terrain.

I know all this sounds too much to have to do, but you have to realize, people walk and hike at different speeds, how much load one is carrying, etc.

If you are planning to hike in or ride in that area, it would be best not to do it alone, but being you are the one who is going to attempt it, it would be best to calculate your own travel time and distance in a close to simular area to get an accurate idea of how long it will take you. Also keep in mind, mountainous terrain depending on the hieght, the oxygen level drops some, so getting short winded climbing will have an effect on you.

The information on the internet about how much time and distance it took someone to travel back in those days are there, but they left out important facts, ie, weight of the horse carrying the load or pulling the wagon so loads on the horses plays an important factor, Also, those using wagons, did they use horses, cattle, or mules? Also what type of terrain did they say was used?

 

[BuckleBoy]

If you can find an old map with old roads, or plot the locations of old roads by walking them--which is really a Must in this type of work--then you can put them on google earth and have an accurate guage of distance rather than just an "as the crow flies" way (which will always be miles off). Now I will say this--even ONE mile off is Too far in a search like this! That is a range of 2 miles square around the point you pinpoint. Huge area! And if you're 4 miles off, then you will be searching an area of 8 miles square!

Something to think about. I prefer to be off by Yards, NOT miles.

Best Wishes,


Buckleboy

 

[TheHarleyMan2]

I didn't think of that BuckleBoy. You are right about that. Old maps would have trails on it that was used. I will haev to keep that in mind. I will haev to try that on some of my research I been pondering on. I heard about people doing map overlays and it sounds like a good idea.

More than one brain is deinitely better than one!

 

[wan]

This area would be completely impassable by wagon, with not much chance of trails. During the time roads and trails went well around this area, with perhaps some exceptions to the south which is not very interesting for my search. The area was never mapped during the time, as many ridges are simply impassable. Neither were any roads ever cut through the region, till modern times. Even todays such roads are highly limited. In principle, even today, you could travel in excess of 20 miles in a dead straight line without ever finding a road or a house, though that wouldn't make much sense with even reasonably knowledgeable choices.

Ironically, it is these limitations of the terrain that makes it worth considering searching, given reasonable assumptions about the stories. Four miles may seem like a lot, squared out in total area, but the geographic conditions on the target location places far greater constraints on the search path. Most of those four miles is not even very interesting for search purposes, though other areas must also be considered. The southeast area I spoke of is more problematic in requiring total area searches, but is a relatively unlikely target. Due to the likelihood of prior exploration, travel timing and direction, etc., the entire southern and western regions are not of search interest.

Thanks TheHarleyMan2,
In the summer it can be 9pm or better before dark, which makes you timing about 13 to 14 hours. That's a range of 1.92 to 2.14 mph, which I can assume should be in the lower range given the terrain. That would essentially erase my 4 mile overshoot, but the start and end time is still somewhat vague from the stories. I'll work with this as the epicenter and access the geography, in a radial fashion from there, for the best geographic fits to the target location. This epicenter constitutes the area with the densest matching geography. It would be nice to have a printer to print large maps. I have a topo map down to 20 feet elevation gradients on the computer, but a large wall map would make detailed path variations a lot easier to compare.

Thanks BuckleBoy,
But in this particular region people routed around rather than through it for the most part. There are no roads or trails that date back very far, and very few even now. Even the Indians of the region only traveled into the particular area of interest on special occasions. However, geography to a large degree defines what can be considered a path, which is what makes a fairly systematic search even conceivable. It remains an extensive search, with steeply diminishing odds beyond a certain range, but geographic consideration dictate that IIF it exist, and your within a mile of searching the right area, you have a very high likelihood of finding it, provided you know what to look for and read the geography right. A full systematic approach could still take a several weeks of full time searching without any guarantees, even if it's there.

Awesome camping, with a fair likelihood of seeing bear, regardless.