Skip to main content

Mapping the World, or Maybe Just Rural Banffshire

Yesterday I set a new record for myself. I walked 7.17 miles. A new route which involved a walk of 110 minutes was the major contributor. And I did not stop once, not to look at the view, to take a photo, or to talk to a neighbour. And the sun was out.

As with all my first time walking along roads I had previously only driven, I saw things I had never noticed. Because one of the benefits of travelling by foot is the greater connection with one's surroundings.

One of our neighbours has turkeys. The distinctive "gobble, gobble" alerted me even though they were a couple of hundred metres from the road.

I saw a small gravel pit just behind trees at the edge of the road that I had never known was there.

And most important, I saw a sign saying "Footpath". Now that matters because although my new route was good exercise, it was comparatively boring visually. It has a long straight bit of road that seemed to take forever to get to the end of. About 22 minutes walk in fact, with no change in the horizon.

Mr Google provides excellent maps for planning journies and calculating distances. But it shows roads where there are no roads visible in the real world. There is a reason for that. Local authority catalogues of unclassified roads are in some instances decades behind the on-the-ground reality. And Mr Google reflects their records.

The "Footpath" sign, it was clearly a relatively new sign, was important because it indicated a current route for walking which I had assumed was a "ghost" road. I have been passing the other end of this track for a couple of weeks but had concluded that it looked unlikely to be something that went all the way that the map showed. The signpost at the other end is a game-changer. I shall explore that later today. A longer route and the prospect of a visually more stimulating route.

During yesterday, I had an exchange of emails with one of the Australian parts of our family. He is a bit of an athlete. Come on Stewart! Ross has cycled right around Oz. He is a lot of an athlete.

Maybe not quite as much as my Danish nephew Jamie, who has won orienteering world medals twice. His weekly training used to involve running 160 miles a week.

But the advice from Ross sounded good. It was about boredom in training. And I suppose my daily walks, only with the purpose of getting fitter, amount to training.

Having 'fessed up to Ross that I had a rowing machine glowering at me from the corner of the room from boredom through its not being used, I think his advice to use it as part of my fitness training is good.

It's not that the scenery as one's rows to nowhere is going to be very exciting. But a change in the routine of the training will help keep motivation. And the rowing machine will exercise another set of muscles.

Although it mainly exercises the thighs, as walking does, it will do so more vigorously. It can also slim down the belly, a consummation much to be desired, and drive higher heart and lung performance. I feel that arm muscle will benefit too.

One of the age effects is the loss of muscle bulk and, in particular, the reduction in upper-body strength that comes from that. Good advice Ross. Maybe this afternoon. NO .. schedule it in the diary Stewart. Won't happen otherwise.

And the diary has another meeting today. At the comparatively early time of 0830. With yet another technology. I have used ZOOM.US, Skype and the plain-old electric telephone for meetings up 'til now. Today it's Microsoft Team.

This constant chopping and changing between conference technology platforms is a bit-stress inducing. Prevents one from building up a stream of experience that would enable one to discover the capabilities and quirks of one platform. Creates anxiousness each time one uses a new platform. Will it work properly? What is the other end seeing? How do I mute the microphone when I merely want to lurk on the sidelines rather than be an active participant?

I have concluded that I like ZOOM best. Yes, I know that there is some debate about its security, believe me, you'd learn little and I'd lose less if you crept into our electronic room, but it is simple to use. And this morning I discovered one can use a photo as background thus pretending to be somewhere you aren't.

And that's back to creating variety in life that social isolation is fighting to create monotony in.

My late mother-in-law said of her relationship with her husband, "Divorce never, murder possible". Don't imagine that means that they didn't get on. They did. Albeit that Jim's ability to retreat to his shed to do his marquetry, provided the temporary escape and relief from monotony, that sustained an even-tempered life.

There's a lot of potential for boredom for a lot of people for months to come.

Read books. Go for walks. Meet online. Stay fit and sane.

Oh, if you want maps down the ages, look at the National Library of Scotland's maps archive at http://maps.nls.uk. Covers the world, probably the world's best. And nearly as good as physically visiting their map room in Edinburgh. Their old maps have all these "ghost roads" while they were still alive.

Now, will I shave before my 0830 meeting? Yes. Standards, standards. Some routines are worth maintaining.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Genealogy Series: Betsy (or Elizabeth) Esplin Bell (1858-1930).

Betsy (or Elizabeth) Esplin Bell (1858-1930). She had a long criminal record driven by her addiction to drink, but was she her husband’s victim? by Stewart Stevenson. Betsy was born on 26 th January 1858 in Dundee to David Bell, a carpenter, and his wife, Agnes Sandeman. i  Father registered the birth, but is recorded as “Not Present”. George T Bisset-Smith, the Registration Examiner, published his book “Vital Registration”, the manual for Scottish Registrars in 1907. ii  In it he states that a “liberal interpretation” should be given to the word “Present” in this context but also states that “Not Present” must not be used. I suspect that leaves most genealogists, me included, little the wiser as to what “Present” was actually supposed to mean. So let’s pass on to the story. Betsy’s parents married in 1856, iii  with her mother Agnes making her mark, an ”X”, rather than signing the registration record, indicating that she was illiterate. Her husband David signed. ...

Clutter

When big things go wrong, and one feels powerless to do much about them, small things in one's life can become surrogates for one's anger. And there are quite a few big things around at the moment; COVID-19, No-Deal Brexit; A US Presidential Election where the incumbent leads with racist statements. As the end of the current session rushes towards us, many of my colleagues are concluding that they will not be putting themselves forward at the forthcoming election. A couple of our younger colleagues are placing their families first. But most are looking at being in their eighth decade, as I already am, at the end of the next session. When the two leading candidates for the US President are both older than I am - seventy-four in five week's time - it may seem surprising that retirement may be beckoning for me and others a lustrum younger than I am. But it illustrates the profound differences between being a back-bencher in our Parliament and the political life of a US Senator...

Tome for a new keybiard

Today is the one hundred and eighth daily episode of my reports from an 8th decader's lockdown. For a mathematician, 108 is a "good" number. Having three digits just locks into parts of the brain that tune into threes. And at a glance, it is a number that is divisible by three. Why, at a glance? Because if you add up the digits one, zero and eight, the answer is nine. Any number whose digits add up to a number that divides by three is itself divisible by three. If after the first add, you have answer bigger than nine, add the digits together and keep doing that until you have a single digit. This is a digit sum. If the final digit is a nine, then the original number will be divisible by three and by nine. If it's a six, then it's divisible by two and by three. And finally, if it's a three, then it is an odd number which is divisible by three. I am far from sure, but my memory is trying to persuade me that I was taught this at school. I am certain about...