Wearing socks inside out and terminology

Hi everyone,

I’m not sure if this is the right thread to ask the question, but did I get it right that according to the first tech tips we should wear socks inside out when hiking?

Another question is about the terminology. We carefully defined the terms elevation, altitude and height, does it somehow transfer to adjectives? As far as I know, we only say that a mountain or a hill is [something] m high, meaning it’s elevation is [something] m.

About the cultural aspects of the mountain definition, I can add that in Czech Republic we have Říp Mountain, which, according to a legend, was a vantage point from which our Forefather Čech decided to settle the land that the mountain oversaw. Although it is only 460 m (1510 ft) high, nobody here would call it a hill.

2 Likes

Regarding the socks, you made me realize I’d misunderstood the video’s advice. I thought they were suggesting trying them inside out to get a better sense of how smooth they’re on the outside but then going back to using them the normal way. But the video seems to suggests just using them inside out all the time. It probably depends on the socks: I’ve had hiking socks were the inside and outside felt clearly different, but the softer inside seemed more comfortable. So it’s probably a case-by-case situation.

1 Like

Hi Jiri :slight_smile: Wearing socks inside out makes perfect sense to me - especially those with rough seams or knots on the inside. It reduces friction on the feet. For a great discussion on socks have a look at this forum thread on Mountains 101. Lots of good suggestions for socks!

About the terminology, it seems to me altitude is usually used for moveable objects eg a bird or cloud but elevation is for fixed objects. Or maybe that’s just how I use them. Dictionaries say both words are nouns so you would add an adjective if you wanted.

Interesting about Rib Mountain! That it was bare until 1879 is interesting. I wonder why plants hadn’t colonized it? Maybe a geologist on the course can explain. But to cover it with the current forest, I wonder if they had to build up soil? Do you know?

1 Like

I don’t know if there are any Brits here (Hi, if there are!) but many of us will have gone through an award scheme called DofE as teenagers which requires multi-day hiking trips for completion. Certainly when I did bronze and silver back in the day (nearly 2 decades ago :scream:) the turning your socks inside out advice was widely accepted and shared wisdom. In the early 2000s we were just leaving behind the era of shapeless towelled sports socks (remember those :joy:) and you really didn’t want that rough thick towelling next to your feet for 8 hours of hiking. Socks nowadays are much cleverer, but I still think turning inside out is best and you should let the textured surface take the heat (literally in the case of rubbing!). And as someone else has commented, seamless socks are never as seamless as we’d like them to be, and those joins are better on the outside of the sock away from your delicate toes! When your boots are on, no-one knows you’re in the secret society of inside out sock wearers :grin:

7 Likes

I am still curious why Rip Mountain would have stayed bare until being planted with trees in 1879 as Wikipedia reports [paragraph 2]. Was it deforested in the Middle Ages or is there a geological/climate reason? Anyone know or have an educated guess?

There is a recent book on Rip Mountain called ‘Sociocultural Psychology on the Regional Scale: A Case Study of a Hill.’ All it says is that ‘In 1879, Moric Lobkowitz had trees planted on Rip, thus transforming its appearance of a hill covered with grass.’ You can preview it on google books. Interesting that it’s called a hill in the title.
I wonder if the reason why it was grassy before was because it was an old volcano with a basalt cone. Would this have prevented trees naturally growing on it?

I’m interested in why Moric (or Moritz) Lobkowitz decided to made a forest there in 1879. I can find nothing on his except the most basic information here https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q55855134

2 Likes

The wiki articles says it is composed of " basalt nephelites containing olivine granules, amphibole, leucite and — among others — magnetite"
Does basalt prevent plant growth? Not all if it was ‘covered with grass’. Intensive grazing could have prevented forest growth also. As they killed off all the predators, deer and/or sheep kept it as grass?

I found the Lobkowitz family tree :slight_smile: Apparently the most famous was a patron of Beethoven and Hayden! Here is Moritz’s family tree.

2 Likes

Oh my! They have free virtual tours of the Lobkowicz Palace Museum! The current ‘Prince’ looks lively :slight_smile: I’m sure they’ll know the forest story.

2 Likes

Hi everyone,

I love how the discussion got lively. Thanks @Beth and @Millie for your inputs regarding the socks.

As for the Říp Mountain, this webpage (unfortunately only in Czech) says that there were forests even before the 1879 forestation, but no further details or references to that matter. The hypothesis considering basalt preventing plant growth seems interesting, I wonder if some geologist could expand this thought. Nevertheless, Říp is another example of the dome mountain, which was surprising to me to find out.

3 Likes

U r correct It depends on the Sox

1 Like