|
| gams124. 08. 2020 08:02:29 |
Congratulations, nice photos, how is the ascent to Vršac and descent towards Čelo if you went along the ridge?
|
|
|
|
| bos24. 08. 2020 20:37:34 |
I didn't go directly along the ridge. I bypassed Vršac on the left and climbed to Mala vrata and then to the top. Return back to Mala vrata and along the ridge to Čelo. Ascent to both summits requires some easy climbing.
|
|
|
|
| Julijec11. 09. 2021 13:40:38 |
The path from Zjabcev to Velikih vrat is well traceable. Otherwise it's overgrown in places and some trees are in the way, but nothing special, marks are clearly visible. From Vrata to Čelo the path goes past many cairns, further along the ridge to Travnik and Plaskega Vogla real pleasure, at descents from Čelo and Vršaca quite demanding.
| (+2) |  | |
|
|
|
|
| ločanka11. 09. 2021 17:23:58 |
Wonderful pictures !
|
|
|
|
| mdenac10. 07. 2022 12:30:41 |
Yesterday Luka and I did a wonderful tour: we slept at Planina Za Skalo, in the morning climbed to Plaški Kuk and from it along the ridge traversed to Plaški Vogel. From there we returned towards Travnik and continued along the ridge to Vršac, Čelo and Glava za bajto and over Velika vrata and Vrh Škrila to Kal.
In the morning we went to Travnik Valley along a nicely trodden path, when grassy slopes of Plaški Kuk opened above us, we headed into some right gully and up it to the ridge. Better choice is the left gully (in picture below), as it exits to ridge closer to top and less backtracking needed. Ascent to top of Plaški Kuk didn't seem easiest, a bit fought with bushes right to top, bypassed bushes on very exposed ledge. Ridge continuation to Travnik somewhat spoiled by strong gusts of north wind. To top of Plaški Vogel along ridge some gymnastics, so descended from it over triangular scree described by Habjan and below ridge traversed back towards Travnik. Took poles and descended to Škrbina (saddle with Vršac). Ridge to Vršac is quite wild, the hardest part seemed some belly in middle of ridge. Exposure high all time, so rode the ridge at two short spots. Continuation to top Vršac and descent to Mala vrata exceptionally liked, elegant and very nice passages. To top Čelo without issues, somewhat more to right side of ridge, to Glava za bajto just pleasant walk. From it descended right side of ridge and at cairn down scree gully to ledge below. Along this ledge continued long until rocky slabs and bushes towards Velika vrata opened ahead. Here at first straight towards Velika vrata but soon reached drops overgrown with bushes. To find passages had to go back a bit and left (east), where found cairns again. From Velika vrata to Kal terrain easy for long, quite excited by huge rocky platform right at start. Ascent to forepeak Kal somewhat harder up some gully then through very rugged terrain full of holes and boulders. Continuation to top Kal easy, last trouble of day descent to path from Mala vrata which joins marked path in Dol za bajerjem. From top descended NW on steep terrain then sharp turn south and on very exposed ledge to below Kal wall. There found cairns, so obviously missed optimal descent from top in upper part. Followed shepherd path without issues to marked, from there long way to car (Pod Zjabci) and home.
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
| (+17) | | |
|
|
|
|
| miri10. 07. 2022 16:22:20 |
Long and beautiful, as are the photos too.
| (+2) | | |
|
|
|
|
| Hammond10. 07. 2022 21:09:25 |
Is that overgrown summit really the main summit of Plaški Kuk? When I was there and judging by the contours on the map, the first summit is higher than its rubble colleague behind the green notch. That ledge is really quite exposed, probably the best and most logical way to avoid the summit greenery.
| (+2) | | |
|
|
|
|
| Trobec11. 07. 2022 09:51:55 |
@Hammond, yes the grassy neighbor is higher, when you stand up there it's pretty clear. But according to maps it's that scree one marked as the summit.
Regarding those gullies up there, there's one more before. But it's more exposed. And finally there was a herd of young goats up there and nearly dropped projectiles on the buddy 
Otherwise super tour, I always gladly return to Travnik Valley.
 1
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| mdenac11. 07. 2022 11:43:02 |
Yes, as @Trobec wrote - the neighboring grassy summit is higher and also has a bigger cairn on top, but according to the map Plaški Kuk is the one with scree. On the tour we helped ourselves sometimes with the Locus Map app and there it was nicely visible.
|
|
|
|
| Loerst11. 07. 2022 13:03:05 |
In our country, summits are often marked on maps where geodetic points are placed, whereby surveyors often did not concern themselves with whether it is really technically a "summit" of something, but had other criteria. This also happened in the case of Plaški Kuk, where on the lower, scree-covered summit there is a geodetic point (which today god knows one would no longer find in that thicket, but it is there), and thus through the automatism of copying data from GURS it ended up on all maps.
For the same reason, we have in our little country at least a few dozen "summits" which in reality are not, and vice versa, true summits that are not marked anywhere like that. So whoever has conquered the grassy Plaški Kuk also counts.
One more thing - before a debate develops on whether something is a summit or not, the essential thing is missing - the definition of a summit. Unfortunately, it does not exist, hence such confusion.
| (+2) | | |
|
|
|
|
| turbo11. 07. 2022 13:41:17 |
| (+3) | | |
|
|
|
|
| Trobec11. 07. 2022 15:21:58 |
Well, sometimes the criterion is 50m relative height, sometimes 30m, and then there are exceptions like "old and well-established naming", and in practice we arrive at what @Loerst says, a whole bunch of summits where there is no real summit. Plaški Kuk is far from an exception here.
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| Hammond11. 07. 2022 16:02:56 |
Interesting thoughts, I agree with them. What are other examples of such summits?
|
|
|
|
| Loerst12. 07. 2022 01:17:23 |
First an apology - I know this is a topic about conditions on Plaški Kuk, which I'm now hijacking for something else. As an apology and sign of repentance, I'm posting in the neighboring topic the report on the Sunday trip to Planjava.
The M&M criterion on prominence (= relative height above the saddle to the higher peak) of at least 50 m seems at first glance completely correct and common-sensical, but basically has the same problems as the other criteria:
- it is not generally accepted as some standard. Summit definitions vary from 50 m prominence and at least 1 km from the neighboring higher summit or prominence at least 100 m if the summits are closer (Hrvatski planinarski savez), 100 m prominence (PeakBagger), 30 or 300 m prominence (peak or summit) and "suitable" morphology and importance (UIAA), at least 1,500 m height and slope over 2 degrees or at least 1,000 m height and slope over 5 degrees (UN) etc. etc....
- everything is a matter of agreement. There is no special reason why the prominence threshold should be e.g. 30 m or 50 m or 100 m or...
- a prominence threshold of 50 m e.g. means that Visoki Rokav, Mala Mojstrovka, Kokrska Kočna, Šplevta, Staničev vrh, Mala Tičarica... are not "summits". Even Triglav, which we have on our coat of arms and flag, would have to be renamed Dvoglav, because Mali Triglav simply wouldn't count. On the entire Košuta ridge, you'd be left with about 5 two-thousanders, although summit collectors now list +10. Prominence up or down, many people would basically have a problem with such a definition. If you lower the criterion to e.g. 30 m, you immediately get hundreds of new summits (especially in Kočevski rog or Snežnik plateau), many of which wouldn't even have a name. And if you opt for the subjective criterion of "importance" of the summit, you fall into the trap of subjective judgment.
@Hammond off the top of my head, e.g. Kremant on Ratitovec or e.g. Maribor viewpoint (I don't know if Maribor people perceive it as a "summit" or as a viewpoint? Because in reality it is only the latter). Most Dolenjci would be completely stunned if you told them that the summit of Mirna gora is not where thousands of people visit it but a few dozen meters to the west. Also Mali Draški vrh is not where the stamp and logbook box are. There are actually dozens of such examples; if you dig a bit into the maps, you'll quickly find a whole bunch more.
| (+9) | | |
|
|
|
|
| Hammond12. 07. 2022 08:31:11 |
Thanks for the explanation.
|
|
|
|
| Trobec14. 07. 2022 20:06:10 |
What I remember off the top of my head...
- Kalška gora has a "summit" at the end of the ridge, actually the slightly higher part a couple of 10m before.
- For Mokrica I can hardly say it's a summit. More a point at the end of the ridge.
- already mentioned Mali Triglav... with the 50m criterion it wouldn't be a summit at all.
As a curiosity... in the official counting of 8000ers the requirement is at least 600m relative height of the summit. But now there are also some initiatives for "softening" this criterion, then the number of 8000ers would nicely grow.
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| taubi415. 07. 2022 17:27:46 |
According to this criterion (600 m relative height) there are only 12 two-thousanders in Slovenia.
By absolute height:
Triglav 2048 m relative height
Škrlatica 972 m
Mangart 1067 m
Kanin 1397 m
Grintavec 1706 m
Krn 605 m
Stol 1018 m
Kepa 705 m
Košutnikov turn 764 m
Storžič 667 m
Kordeževa glava (Peca) 875 m
Raduha 803 m
Data summarized from (( Slovenski dvatisočaki (Marijana & Marko)))
| (+3) | | |
|
|
|
|
| djimuzl15. 07. 2022 18:03:50 |
I assume that here only those two-thousanders with marked paths leading to them are considered. Non-two-thousanders are not considered here.
|
|
|
|
| Trobec15. 07. 2022 19:40:33 |
No, all 2-thousanders. Because if we look at e.g. the entire Martuljek group (Rokavi, Oltarji,...) none has 600m relative height, they are all too close to Škrlatica. The same with the nearby and slightly wider area of Triglav - the entire Špičja ridge and further, the entire Fužinske planine area... In the central ridge of KSA only Grintovec remains, in Kanin area only Visoki Kanin...
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| Loerst15. 07. 2022 21:08:34 |
Taubi and Trobec are right, only 12 listed two-thousanders have relative height over 600 m (and only about 95 over 100 m).
And if we're already listing Slovenian peaks with relative height over 600 m, besides the listed ones these are:
- Snežnik
- Uršlja gora
- (Kobariški) Stol
- Matajur
- Porezen
- Jerebikovec
- Črni vrh
- Vivodnik
- Mali Golak
- Basališče
- Kum
- Črni vrh
- Trdinov vrh (*by arbitration the peak is in Hr)
- Veliki Javornik and
- Boč.
Or put differently - by the strictest criteria we have 27 mountain peaks in Slovenia, by "slightly" looser ones GURS once counted 8317 (yep, I checked). The range between the two numbers also explains why there's no simple answer to how many peaks there are in Slovenia.
| (+4) | | |
|
|
|
You must log in to post a comment:
If you do not yet have a username, you must first
register.