UKC

Just binged 12 episodes of “SOS Extreme Rescues” on BBC2 catch-up which I can highly recommend. 
Nearly all of these rescues were either on Tryfan or Cader Idris and most involved either walkers or climbers getting stuck on the descent. The Ogwen Mountain Rescue are attending 350 incidents per year. 
I was just wondering what the general reaction would be to coloured dots showing the easiest way off from the summit. I have been very glad of these in Spain on the Puig Campana and other places.

The source of many problems on Cader Idris is apparently a sharp right turn on the descent to contour back to the start. People have missed this and continued into a steep valley. What’s wrong with a small wooden sign saying “not this way”? A little bit like the path erosion signs under Stanage. Again, I have seen this a lot in Spain. 

I realise this is a bit nanny state and think that people should be more responsible when the go onto the hills ( not holding my breath) but it would save the mountain rescue volunteers some dangerous call outs. 

No use in the dark so they would need to be illuminated - Neon perhaps would be best? 

And an audible warning would be helpful too, like they have on the side on cement wagons when they're turning left

To be fair, there is precedent in the UK on busy hills. the way markers on the summit plateau of Ben Nevis come to mind, as does the sign at the start of Crib Goch, and the signs at the Pen Y Pass and Ogwen Cottage car parks informing of snow conditions. No idea if the MRTs noticed any change in call outs after these were erected. 

And cairns have obviously long been a feature in the mountains. 

Let's ask members of MR what they think - surely some must be on here.

I know one or two and I have a feeling they would feel that painting dots on stones would not be helpful.  

But perhaps I'm wrong

Learning to use a map and compass a better option IMO. However, accidents can happen to anyone.

Try again in 100 years. 

Whether one agrees with this idea or not, right now, if you did this in the UK, by the end of the first weekend somebody would have been up there with a wire brush and scrubbed it off. 

MRT here, strong believer in Percy Unna's philosophy on the UK's wild places

https://www.scottish-places.info/people/famousfirst3558.html

I tend to agree with you and didn’t advocate painting dots everywhere but they could save some uninformed lives and would look a lot less intrusive than the paved paths and steps that are all over our out outdoors and multiplying. 

A bit of a rant.

TLDR: People should be responsible for their own actions in the mountains.

Plenty will disagree and I know it's been discussed on here many times but if people had to pay for rescue in mountainous or marine environments (where you have made a conscious decision to put yourself away from normal emergency service access) then these numbers would quickly drop. Whenever I go abroad hiking I never assume there will be a large group of willing volunteers who will drop everything to come and rescue me. Why shouldn't the same apply to the UK?

In principle I agree, they seem to work on marked trials I'm the Alps and elsewhere. However, I prefer minimal intrusion to he landscape as possible (again, another topic well discussed here about "natural" environments). Sadly, we have already seen some hill races in recent years using not so biodegradable chalk paint to mark routes. It wouldn't be long before some Instagram inspired dickhead to start literally marking their routes on the hills. Frankly I don't trust the UK public to behave well enough not abuse well intended painted markers.

Again, I agree in principle but there is a big risk in scope creep. Similar signs could be placed at the top of Striding / Swirril / Sharp edges, Jacks rake, Aonach Eagach, all the Skye Cuillin etc etc. 

There has been a trend for more call outs to be resolved by remotely guiding people down the mountain, especially in summer. There will always be deaths in the mountains but far too many people are either ignorant of the risks and unwilling to get themselves un-lost, instead being far to reliant on their phone to resolve any issue. 

At some point there will be an avoidable mass casualty event involving ill equipped folk, perhaps  some sort of charity event, that draws a large media circus . No doubt there will be calls for measures to make the mountains safer (signs, more MR, better mobile reception, helicopters etc etc) but there will be little focus on questioning how the group could have been better prepared.

Rant over.

Some countries have volunteer services. Some have professional services, either police or military. Some have a mixture of both.

I don't think there are many that have no rescue services at all.

I also don't think people go out relying on MRT to come and get them. But they are glad of their services if things go wrong.

There is already plenty of effort by National Parks, etc, and Countryside Code to encourage people to he properly equipped and skilled. Rather than calls for signage and handrails.

I quite like in Spain where the path heads in an "obvious " direction that is wrong there is a little painted cross on a rock to suggest you should look more carefully for the correct route.

Unobtrusive and has prevented me straying into more dangerous ground than I anticipated.

You find it won’t make any difference to the typical incidents they are called out to.

https://ogwen-rescue.org.uk/incident-details/

Speaking as an MR volunteer I wander all over bits of the mountain that are off the beaten track and sometimes hazardous. If people spent more time reading maps and paying attention to their surroundings and less time blindly following paths we'd have less callouts. We should be fostering a culture of hillwalkers taking responsibility for their own safety rather than expecting to have their hands held at each step of the way.

They are not hillwalkers. They are people out for a walk. 

Absolutely - crucial distinction. 

Back in the 1960s, my mum was always getting clippings from the newspaper with 'Climber Killed on Snowdon' (the clickbait of its day) and waving them at me. I'd read them, hand them back and tell her that they weren't climbers and didn't seem to be hillwalkers either. As you say, people out for a walk. 

In our self-absorbed culture, maybe doing 'wild' stuff and getting 'extreme' selfies means more unprepared people on the hills?

Mick 

Anyone not carrying paper map, compass, rescue shelter, emergency beacon, rockets and unable to quote Naismith's Rule and the Countryside Code should be forcibly escorted off the mountain immediately. Hanging is too good for these people.

I think this is a sound idea. The only reason this is not yr wyddfa is that the paths are now like motorways and people follow the queue, or the beautiful Carneddau is that people don't appreciate them as much. 

The concept of 'challenges' in our society (often with a social media leaning) leads people to the mountains for short periods without any kind of apprenticeship. I wonder how many are inspired to continue? Unless there is a societal change, using unobtrusive signs &/or chains seems a logical way of helping people enjoy the mountains with increased safety.

For many on this site, this will seem wrong, they will have a shared experience of being taught or learning map work and navigation, formal education at National centres etc, perhaps of leading groups, helping with MR (or having family members on MR) and through climbing knowing the many objective and subjective dangers in the mountains. However whilst I don't want the hills turned into some H&S assessed play area, there is probably a place for some small measures.

As an ex-MR team member I would not be against some subtle marking posts on the honeypot accident areas. Some time ago we had a spate of accidents in the five finger gully are on the Ben which arguably could have been prevented with marker posts. I say arguably because any markers can easily be missed in bad weather. 

To counter the no markers in the wilderness argument, I would suggest that on a clear day from the top of Ben Nevis looking down on Fort William isn't exactly prime wilderness so the addition of a few marker posts beside the very much non wilderness path wouldn't make much difference. I seriously doubt that the addition of half a dozen markers would detract from the enjoyment of climbing a hill with 200+ other people.

Wilder areas in the country shouldn't need many markers as they don't attract 'the same sort of people'. Saying that, there is a false path on Cruachan, Drochaid Ghlas I think, where the 'obvious' route continues straight ahead, while the real path veers to the left (heading west). It's an easy one to get wrong in the mist and has caught me out despite knowing the hill well. After a short distance this false path begins to peter out, as people turn around and find the correct route, but it could, and has, led to more than one rescue over the years. A small marker post here would have meant a dozen MR people would have been safe and warm at home on a rainy Sunday evening on at least one occasion that I can think of.

And because it’s already been done without anyone batting an eyelid as far as I can tell.

(The fact that they keep adding more, and the number of people you meet up there totally out of their depth and apparently lost might suggest they don’t work all to well though!)

You can't mark everything. Better ways need to be found. In my view, the best measure would be more regularly taking kids out, showing them how to use a map and compass, giving them a bit of mountain sense - and above all, a good time. D of E is a great scheme in many ways, but it also has problems and limitations. It would be good if there were more schemes, perhaps with a less masochistic element (I loved hulking a bag for several days, but it must put many off!).

On a slightly separate note, having less nationalistic/monarchist schemes would also be great. I'm sure the nationalist, colonial and royal associations of scouts and DofE is a factor in representing adventure activities as the preserve of white people. Hyper-macho, ex-marine Bear Grylls just compounds this.

I completely disagree, but we are in accord with regards to the binge-watching.

Agreed. There is also the danger of setting expectations: Once you start marking "safe ways down" you risk making sure that they ARE safe (whatever that means) and that any unsafe ways down are also suitably marked. That way - sooner or later - lies litigious madness.

Absolutely 100% NO. Mountain Rescue, Coastguard and RNLI are amazing institutions served by very hard working and dedicated volunteers. I work in a location where we are assisted by the coastguard or RNLI every week (multiple times) during the summer months, and never do you hear them complaining about the person's actions that got them into that situation, and believe me, some of them have been completely avoidable. However, there are a huge amount of casual accidents that require extraction as an ambulance crew can't get to them due to the terrain. We (me and my team) are often the people calling the coastguard for assistance, and I for one do not want to be in the situation of asking the patient "do you want to spend £10,000 to have the coastguard come, or would you rather wait until your broken ankle heals by itself?" What if someone is having a seizure and you can't ask them? What if people die on the mountains because they know they can't afford to call emergency services?
On the flip side, seeing the amount of incidents, and knowing our voluntary service will come out no matter how trivial, I am extremely relieved that if for whatever reason, if I was in trouble myself, that a rescue service would come out without question. Accidents happen and can to each and every one of us! Passing visitors often comment like you have, and I respond in the same way which changes their line of thinking. What if it was you? Where is the line between 'serious incident needing attention' and 'idiotic act that the patient should pay for' ?

Indeed. There's a line you just don't want to cross. 

Mountain Rescue, Coastguard and RNLI seem like shining examples of the kind of society we would wish - but don't have. Long may they endure. 

Mick 

I'm on the Ogwen team, but expressing my own opinions here.

I don't think marking a path would make any difference on Tryfan. People would still have accidents, the wildly unprepared would still get stuck and those trying to descend in a straight line to the car would still end up on the top of Milestone buttress. 

If you have some reasonable mountain sense and can follow erosion there is basically a path the whole way on the North Ridge. The problem starts with unprepared people heading up a scramble without a clue of what they're doing and without doing any research. Better education is the way to fix this, not marking the mountains with reflective cats eyes.

I also don't think I've been on any 'dangerous' callouts. I work as an instructor and know the mountains on our patch pretty well. I think the knee jerk reaction of people calling out others for putting rescuers lives at risk is a bit far fetched. I wouldn't put my life at risk and neither would the team leader in charge of a job. Is it more dangerous than sitting at home? Yes, probably. Is it any more dangerous than my day job? Probably not.

Learn to navigate, it's works everywhere, with or without cairns, signs, winter, summer, day or night.

In parts of Italy there is a scale of rescue costs from zero (genuine emergency), something (serious but avoidable problem) , lots (taking the piss). Seems a reasonable approach. Questions asked later 

We had a guy last year who's dog got itself into trouble, stuck on a cliff. CG came out and rescued after a long ordeal. The local paper got hold of it and the comments section was just horrendous with what they said about him even though he was far more sensible than most of our visitors who let their dogs run free, off lead, out of sight. He was obviously embarrassed, and wouldn't have called the CG if we weren't there to advise they'd safely assist. Anyway, he did a cani-cross 10k to raise money for the CG a few months later, with said dog, not that that made the papers. 

How does that work? Do they turn up, give a quote and offer a contract for signature? Who get to judge 'avoidable'? What if the rescued deems the cost 'unreasonable' after the event? How is it legally enforced?

I'm not an Italian lawyer!! 

As above, you will be rescued , questions later. I think it's up to the rescuers (who I think are state employees) to decide

The team leader decides. 

Some info in this article towards the bottom

https://www.thelocal.it/20150311/lombardy-region-to-charge-for-mountain-res...

Sadly, most social media comments are horrendous. There was a thing on my FB feed yesterday about a small housing development in South Oxfordshire. It descended into "there are six million people in this country who shouldn't be here"; vile, 'not locals', racist, xenophobic stuff. People complaining about having no countryside left, in a small village, surrounded by hectare upon hectare of open (well, not PRoW open obviously, it is Oxfordshire...) farmland.

Sadly that appears to behind a paywall. Any chance of a summary?

"The team leader decides..." is the obvious answer, but I still wonder how that's enforced from a legal (contractual) point of view. Given that I obviously know very little about Italian law.

I wrote a big long reply about the pros Vs cons of insurance / experiences in other countries but I deleted it - frankly I was boring myself.

We are seeing multiple MR teams recording incredibly high numbers of call outs, many of which are avoidable. A few little markers are unlikely to stop the random person who has travelled x number of hours to do "their goal".

Actions have consequences, and currently too many people don't recognise the consequences of their actions on others. Until there is some sort of obvious sanction / consequence of blatant ill preparedness then unfortunately MR in key areas will continue to pick up the mess.

A great example was of the group that was reported missing on Scafell Pike a while back and caused a huge search operation. Despite repeated phone calls and messages from the emergency services / MR the group didn't respond because they didn't recognise the phone numbers., truly selfish. I believe wasting police time was suggested as a charge but no further action was taken as far as I am aware.

No-one I know in MR wants people to be charged for rescue. If, as you say, the problem is people being unaware of the impact their actions have on others, then how likely is it they would be aware of charges for rescue? The sort of people you're excoriating would call for help anyway whilst others with more of a clue could be put off from making a 999 call until they're in a potentially more serious situation.

What we need, if this trend of increased participation in the outdoors is to continue, is more money spent on promoting mountain safety and the countryside code, and better funding for MRTs. I've been a member of two different teams - in one fundraising is a big focus and takes up hundreds of volunteer hours per year, in the other its not and consequently funds are very tight. We'd like a base, a new vehicle, new waterproofs, lighter stretchers etc etc, but the time that team members have to contribute is limited - cut down on our need to fundraise and our capacity would increase.

Some local businesses have done very well out of the uptick in visitors post-pandemic and I don't think its unreasonable to expect them to contribute. The extra revenue Gwynedd council is getting from second homes and holiday lets would be a good place to start looking.

"Elsewhere in Italy people already risk heavy fees for calling mountain rescue. In the Veneto region those saved with serious injuries risk a bill of up to €500, while the figure jumps to €7,500 for those who call rescuers but are only lightly hurt.

Trentino-Alto Adige has cracked down on people making unnecessary calls by charging €750, while in Valle d’Aosta the same mistake will cost €137 for every minute a helicopter is in use.  

This sounds f-ing awful to be honest. I volunteer because I see MR as mutual aid - if we started charging casualties I think I'd probably quit.

Why awful? It's a highly effective rescue service in Italy (and in e.g. Switzerland where you pay regardless and response time is 20 minutes or less to any point).

The UK approach seems to work but appears a bit hacked together. (E.g. reliant on charity, helicopter rescue only if not busy on other things etc). I can see why other countries, particularly alpine ones, have more structured (and chargeable) approaches

I'm sure those statement have been made, but what I'm looking for is the legal basis. And I accept that neither of us is a lawyer.

It seems there are two possibilities: (a) it's based on a verbal contract for services or (b) it's a fine:

(a) For there to be a legally binding contract, the parties have to agree the terms up front. You can't decide the 'consideration' after the event (point of verbal agreement). So I'm not sure how the judgement of 'avoidable or not' (for instance) would work. You can't have a contract where there may or may not be a consideration. There is also a requirement that both parties need to be competent to make the agreement. Here it's not clear that someone hypothermic lying on a snowy mountain with a broken leg (avoidable or not) is 'competent' in much the same way that you can't make a contract with someone who is drunk.

(b) A fine can be whatever the legal authority decides, but it presumes that the offending party has done something illegal. Can having an accident be illegal? Perhaps 'going into the mountain ill-equipped' could be illegal, but that seems that that is something way beyond what has been reported.

There is of course (c), the possibility that it's just a scare/wakeup tactic with no legal basis designed to make people going into the mountains to think a bit more carefully about what they are doing. Any 'charge' would in effect be a 'voluntary donation' rather than a charge*. I'm actually  OK with that.

* With the proviso that if you don't pay, don't bother calling us ever again. Or is that extortion?

At an absolute guess, something like "wasting police time/resources" (I don't know about Italy but in France it is technically gendames who pick you up). Or, the charge is always the higher level with a verbal contract as a result of calling but the benevolent authorities sometimes waive it.

Hmm, that would work for an 'unnecessary' call-out, but perhaps not in a serious-but-avoidable accident scenario. It also raises the potential issue that you (the 'gendarme') cannot charge for something you are legally obliged to do anyway. Is a 'gendarme' legally required to help?

That might work, but still leaves the 'competence' issue.

I think we've reached the limit of our legal understanding, so should probably leave it here.

Italy is special, unsurprisingly, they did try to prosecute their geologists for not predicting an earthquake. 

Imagine a mass market insurance route, staggered premiums based on alleged experience and qualifications, no claims bonus etc? No thanks. 

Indeed they did, but I also have a vague memory that their grounds for prosecution were somewhat more complicated than 'not predicting an earthquake'. Can't remember the details though.

Is there not pretty much a mass market insurance route now for people climbing in the mountains? BMC, Snowcard, AAC and the like sell a lot of insurance covering medical but also rescue costs without making it too complicated.

There is but there aren't uk based mrts and SAR helicopters claiming against them for what could be 1000s of cases per year. I think generally very few people ever claim against their overseas insurance. Plus i think many of us also over insure ourselves to be on the safe side. 

If you suddenly had an invoice for a 30 person team callout and a helicopter because you tried Crib Goch in high heels then insurance companies will need to start covering themselves. 

Note. I bet many in the new post brexit world who go on ski holidays have inadequate cover. 

Even in pricey Switzerland, rescue insurance is not that much (40CHF) and you can get cow rescue cover if you need it too. Free/volunteer approach os great if it works but it doesn't scale beyond a certain point. Similarities with volunteer fire service, I think.

https://www.rega.ch/en/rega-patron/become-a-patron#register-a-patronage

Why awful? Because I strongly believe that rescue should be free at the point of delivery for both ethical and practical reasons.

What's the point of charging for rescue? Is it as a disincentive or is it to raise money? If it's the former then insurance would defeat the object, if it's the latter we'd be better off if everyone just donated generously to the local team when they visit an area - that way we'd just cut out the insurance companies.

Well OK, if it works. As above and and in the OP, there do seem to be limits that are perhaps being reached in honeypot areas to a volunteer system.

A bit of both probably. Certainly alpine rescue systems are better resourced.tban UK (although not all charge). I would think paying something would also focus minds a bit as a form of disincentive too.

Well again that fine if it happens sufficiently.

I'm quite happy with UK system if it works and happily donate the occasional tenner. Equally I am happy with the French, Swiss, Italian systems when there and am happy to pay insurance. They certainly aren't awful.

I think rescue services have to match the environment, rescuing relatively low numbers from high alpine hills versus the uk's low hills, but high concentration of participants requires very different SAR assets and responses. 

Yeah insurance for alps is cheap in fact it's a bargain. But most people who climb alpine peaks, climb year round, having insurance feels like good value. In the uk, the people who are rescued most are those on one off trips or extremely infrequent, they aren't going to bother with insurance, just like they won't buy decent equipment for their once a lifetime attempt to conquer Mount Snowdon or the 3 Peaks etc..

I'm Ex SAR and we logged ever job to the nth detail, bills are never/extremely rarely passed on, the only slight conflict were medical transfers if it was thought a hospital was using SAR to avoid paying for it's own ground level move. Again goodwill meant bills didn't exchange hands in 99% of these cases, especially on island to mainland jobs. But cost wise when you factor in man hours, fuel, equipment, airfield time, ground support, helicopter hours... the sums involved are huge.  For even a quick job when say Oggie deploy on the north ridge as cloud level was marginal, but the heli makes it in and winches the cas out and it's all over in an hour, you're looking at comfortably 5 figures every time and that's before medical care.

Edit. A point to note is that each government has a responsibility under various international agreements for rescues of all types within its SAR region. The assets to cover Switzerland are vastly different to the uk which has a huge maritime area and needs a helicopter that can hopefully evacuate an oil rig or trawler, compared winching or highlines at 3-4000m in the Alps.

Off at a slight tangent I know but 50 odd years ago I was involved in a road traffic accident, quite serious and not my fault but I received a bill from the ambulance service for the pick up. Does this still apply or was it stopped years ago?

In some cases, the aim is to recover the money you have paid out e.g. running a helicopter (I am not saying those rescued should pay. I am just answering the question)

Air Zermatt flies 25-30 rescue operations daily with 3 helis at the height of the season, Chamonix must have similar figures, then there´d be Innsbruck, Bolzano, Salzburg etc; must add up to well over 100 per day for the whole Alps during the summer.

Air Zermatt, average of 1000-2000 jobs per year, 11 helicopters in total, multiple locations, 75 staff in total. Not a small operation, but quite as large as you suggest. 

I don't think cham is quite so busy, I've camped next to it many times and visited there. I wouldn't suggest it's quiet though june to aug. Their funding and structure is different to air zermatt. Neither are cheap though. 

They don't have the volunteer base of free labour in the alps, but they must be historically busier than decades ago. I'm sure they've other challenges. 

This kind of thing makes me very nervous when it comes to health and disability. I have the kind of injury that means most guiding outfits, insurance providers etc probably wouldn't accept me as having a 'good level of fitness' and so the average outdoorsman - or MRT, and definitely my GP - may well think that if I had a bad turn, I shouldn't have been up on the tops. I imagine this might be similar for someone at risk of a second stroke, heart attack, or chronic illness.

Does that mean I stay indoors? No, obviously, I adapt my routes and head out cautiously, but it's not impossible something could go wrong. So I'm very ruddy wary of anyone else making decisions about what was or wasn't an acceptable risk to take. (Particularly as said injury was sustained not from climbing, scrambling or hiking but doing something entirely reasonable!)

In all of this we can so easily make extremely ableist assumptions about who does and doesn't get to head out into the hills.

I'd suggest there is a big difference between warning signs for those setting off on a famous route that may be above their current capabilities and providing a handrail for the way down that might encourage those who have just "conquered Mount Scafell" to expect such aids on every hill.

Vast difference between experienced hillwalkers and inexperienced casuals. Perhaps just a few easy paths should have frequent marks which would help the latter in poor visibility (similar to some areas on continent). They would be useful to indicate the best escape if anyone was lost and crossed their line. It's all very well hoping for better education in hill sense but it's probably never going to happen for those who need it most.

Perhaps therein lies the problem: If there were fewer 'easy paths' - or should that be 'apparently easy paths'? - the problem would be minimised. Seems like a win-win in so many ways.

Sums up life, really.

I see the concern.  No idea how this is handled in Italy, but there are plenty of fairly decrepit looking hill goers as well as honed physiques!

It is a different country with a different legal system and culture, but you seem to be trying to fit it to the British system.

Reading many of these posts on this thread, I would say, peoples perspective has been shaped by the NHS, free at point of use, its just how the British think, possibly other nations think differently.

I do think MGs suggestion has merit. If one takes a risk one should be prepared to accept responsibility for one's actions, but on this thread there seems to be a desire to push this away, to others.

Paying a financial penalty is not the same as accepting responsibility.

Not at all. Those general principles of contract law and the precedence of law over authority are  pretty much standard across western (UK, EU, US) countries. Yes, they differ in details, but not at the level discussed. Cultures (e.g., acceptance of risk) and circumstances do of course vary considerably, but as you point out, you shouldn't assume something which is culturally & pragmatically the norm in another country would work well here. Even if it has the same legal basis.

Most car crashes aren't 'accidents', they are human error should their insurance be raised to cover the cost of police, fire, ambulance, medical treatment, road repairs etc..? Or is civilised society better than that? You can argue a SAR helicopter is already paid for out of taxes just like a fire engine.

I dunno. I’m ambivalent about Baz’s suggestion, but I don’t think it’s that different to what he suggested for Cader Idris at least. 

If we must have the sneering, can we at least try for an original joke?

I think it's about balance, next to the NDG pub putting a sign at the first wall saying this way up the man made steps to the man made dam, isn't the same as multiple way markers above the last walls across open hillside signposting summits. People will just begin to see these signs as a substitute for having or reading a map.

It's an interesting ethics question.  If you go into the mountains in Switzerland even serious alpine routes are waymarked with the classic yellow signs and paint splashes on rock.  Maybe it's because the UK is such a packed urbanised country at times that we feel we want our proper wildernesses to remain?  It was even controversial putting the Crib Goch signage on Snowdon, a mountain that already has a train up the side and a cafe on top!

I've more than once met (typically younger) Europeans on UK mountains who needed help with directions having gone up expecting a detailed map not to be necessary.

As I say, I’m ambivalent, but what you describe is very different to what Baz suggested for Cader Idris so a bit of a strawman. 

The spot on cader that's being discussed has an obvious well-built path crossing a stile in one direction and a faint sheep track in the other. If someone takes the wrong path there they'd likely walk straight past a discreet sign as well.

There's another notorious decision point on the other side of the mountain, close to the summit, where people often go wrong in the clag. Ironically it's poorly placed cairns that seem to cause the problem there.

Like the two Swiss guys hitching to Kintail.
"We are looking for the real wilderness!"
So I helpfully point out various places and show them on a map the real wilderness that these routes lead to. 
"Are there many signs?"
Oops. This could all go very wrong. 

Yep - Switzerland is particularly well signposted, a map is almost never actually needed, though a guidebook of some sort might be prudent so you're not following routes randomly.

Indeed while Switzerland has something a bit like OS maps (actually looks more like Harvey mapping) it isn't as detailed as OS or Harvey - you just don't need it, you follow the signed Wanderweg/Bergweg/Alpinweg.

(If interested it's free to view what they do have here: https://map.geo.admin.ch/)

WHAT!!!?  Swiss maps are unbelievably detailed and accurate!

The normal Swisstopo ones aren't.  Is there another scale available?

They certainly are.  They are avaialble in all scales down to 1:25k.  Here's every zig-zag and crevasse on the Matterhorn approach

https://map.geo.admin.ch/?lang=en&topic=ech&bgLayer=ch.swisstopo.pi...

Sneering and unoriginal - that's me told then.

I've also got mixed feelings about signs or way markers on British hills. Both that it might further encourage the unprepared or over-confident and that it reduces the experience of being in a (relatively) wild place. But, to be honest, there are times when I've been glad to find some of the existing ones or wished there were more when navigating off a plateau in bad visibility. 

No marking of walls/fences etc though that I can see?  That'd be a lot more use than the exact shape of the rock formation or the exact orientation of buildings.

I don't know if you have ever been near the Matterhorn but it's not known for it's fences!!

I think it would be OK in some places but not others.  For instance I'd have no issue with fully waymarking the main Snowdon paths and the Ben Nevis tourist path including distances/times Swiss style, it'd probably save a life or two.  I don't think I'd mind it if the Yorkshire Three Peaks route was waymarked either.  However I don't think I'd want to see that in wilder places.

(Snowdon is basically a tourist attraction - it's only one mountain, if you're not a fan of that pick one of the many others instead)

It's just like it's fine to have bolted sport crags but taking a drill to Stanage would not be the right thing to do.

More seriously, fences and walls aren't really a feature of the landscape in Switzerland in the same way as the  UK, so I can understand why they don't.  Having used both Swiss and UK maps for nearly 30  years, I'd say the Swiss 1:25k is more useful than the UK ones.  The detail is about the same but the Swiss ones have shading that shows the landscape more clearly.  1:50k Swiss maps are more detailed than the UK ones.

The Matterhorn no, but they're not marked in lowland areas either where they would be on an OS 1:25K.

I find the *useful* level of detail on them (for hillwalking nav) to be roughly equivalent to, but slightly better than, an OS Landranger, but not as good as an Explorer.

But then if the paths in CH are nearly all signposted, you don't as much need such features for navigation as you do in the UK.  So maybe in context it's the right choice for them.

Shading is I guess a personal view - Harvey maps do that, but I've never really liked it because I find it clutters the map.  But each to their own.

That´s because the Swiss tend to use movable electric fences for containing livestock; permanent fixtures are rare.

Fortunately, modern electronic mapping can do that for you. Here's OruxMaps rendering of SRTM DEM:

Thanks.  If you interested in such things

http://www.reliefshading.com/

I mucked about with such things using LandSerf, way back in 2007 or so. Orux does it in real time...

LandSerf did many other geomorphology analysis things, like finding ridges and gulleys.

Many of our stones walls are centuries old. I'm sure the Swiss must have used stone walls in a similar way. Admittedly, I remember being surprised by the lack of obvious boundaries between chalets when doing the TMB. 

Certainly in the alpine areas, it seems not -I'm struggling to think of seeing any.  I think cow bells served the comparable function!

I've played around with QGIS and that gives you lots of capabilities too. I used it to create a customs map with all roads colour-coded by gradient (useful/fun for cycling).

One of the leading organisations in mountain rescue in Italy is the Treasury Police (Guardia di Finanza) so there is expertise in both mountain rescue and invoicing I suppose!

Weird! Is there less-than-obvious logic in that? Or just history?

They are kind of coastguard/border police as well as treasury police, which makes a little more sense.  There are a bewildering number of Italian police forces however

Guardia di Finanza

Caribinieri

Polizia Locale

Polizia Stato

Vigilanzia

Corpo Forestale