So far, this is the best advice I've gotten (although responses on the
list have been helpful as well), but I'm hoping I might come up with
something better before next weekend. I'm willing to take a train (or
Bus) a ways---even 5 hours would be okay by me. That makes Austria,
Slovenia, Slovakia, etc all fair game. Anyone have any more info? I'm
going to check out the hostel site that was posted.

Other than that, have a nice time .

Years and years ago I had trouble finding even what would be considered
'remote' much less 'wilderness' areas around Budapest - or around E.
Europe at all for that matter. Even skiing in Norway took me only from
hut to hut and villiage to villiage.

Sweden has plenty of wild land, especially in the Arctic. Sarek National
Park is one of the wildest places left in Western Europe.

are going to be different than those you find in the U.S. If you return
to the U.S. you'll return with great memories of what walks in Europe
can be like AND with a GREAT appreciation for the little WILDERNESS
that we do have available - an d even more in Canada!

There is certainly no wild areas left in Europe comparable to those
found in the Western USA, Alaska and Canada.

When I hiked in the White Mountains of New Hampshire I was struck by its
resemblance to the Scottish Highlands and Norway though. In fact I'd say
it's more developed than the Highlands due to the huts and the trail
system.

[ manmoose@naomml.org ]
'remote' much less 'wilderness' areas around Budapest - or around E.

To be fair, Northern Scandinavia have some really remote places, and
there is also (mostly in Sweden) large uninhabited wood areas. And
even though the huts are there in the Norwegian mountains, you don't
have to use them or the marked trails. But even Scandinavia doesn't
have anything like the huge uninhabited regions of e.g. Canada, and
continental Europe is small and densely inhabited with little true
wilderness left.

In article <MeuZuCEaiqBCFwbh@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Townsend <Chris@DELETEauchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Sweden has plenty of wild land, especially in the Arctic. Sarek National
Park is one of the wildest places left in Western Europe.

From what I have heard: so-so.
It's not Siberia or Alaska.

are going to be different than those you find in the U.S. If you return
to the U.S. you'll return with great memories of what walks in Europe
can be like AND with a GREAT appreciation for the little WILDERNESS
that we do have available - an d even more in Canada!

There is certainly no wild areas left in Europe comparable to those
found in the Western USA, Alaska and Canada.

That's why it is called the Old world.

When I hiked in the White Mountains of New Hampshire I was struck by its
resemblance to the Scottish Highlands and Norway though. In fact I'd say
it's more developed than the Highlands due to the huts and the trail
system.

In article <xunfz087u2p.fsf@riget284.uio.no>,
Martin Thornquist <martint+rec@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
[ manmoose@naomml.org ]
'remote' much less 'wilderness' areas around Budapest - or around E.

To be fair, Northern Scandinavia have some really remote places, and
there is also (mostly in Sweden) large uninhabited wood areas. And

You guy don't have nearly the number of posters asking where the most
remote spot in the country is. 8^) That in the US, it's implict to the
lower-48 and via a car seems a minor detail to those people.

On 6 Feb 2005 23:20:34 -0800, eugene@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote:

In article <xunfz087u2p.fsf@riget284.uio.no>,
Martin Thornquist <martint+rec@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
[ manmoose@naomml.org ]
'remote' much less 'wilderness' areas around Budapest - or around E.

To be fair, Northern Scandinavia have some really remote places, and
there is also (mostly in Sweden) large uninhabited wood areas. And

You guy don't have nearly the number of posters asking where the most
remote spot in the country is. 8^) That in the US, it's implict to the
lower-48 and via a car seems a minor detail to those people.

Wouldn't some corrollary to the Heisenberg Principal apply here?

The very act of going to, or even identifying, a remote spot makes it
less remote.

'remote' much less 'wilderness' areas around Budapest -
To be fair, Northern Scandinavia have some really remote places, and
there is also (mostly in Sweden) large uninhabited wood areas. And

You guy don't have nearly the number of posters asking where the most
remote spot in the country is. 8^) That in the US, it's implict to the
lower-48 and via a car seems a minor detail to those people.

Wouldn't some corollary to the Heisenberg Principal apply here?

The very act of going to, or even identifying, a remote spot makes it
less remote.

'remote' much less 'wilderness' areas around Budapest - or around E.

Is it remote if anyone is there?

Remote from what? I'm 40 miles from the nearest cinema, the nearest
MacDonalds, the nearest Pizza Hut. How remote am I?

With regard to the remotest spot in the country and similar questions
here some people search out blank kilometre squares on UK topo maps.

A UK magazine that has an amazing amount of statistics and collectors is
The Angry Corrie: Scotland's Finest Hillwalking Fanzine.

'remote' much less 'wilderness' areas around Budapest - or around E.

In article <cMk9KcGyV4BCFwYK@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Townsend <Chris@DELETEauchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Is it remote if anyone is there?

Remote from what? I'm 40 miles from the nearest cinema, the nearest
MacDonalds, the nearest Pizza Hut. How remote am I?

Your first metric will be distance.
But distance alone will not be enough.

There is generally some sense of resource sustainability (consider
Scott, oops! not enough resources). Additionally, Nash's favorite:
something which might eat you. Now, we have somewhat of a land based
bias (we are land creatures and poor swimmers).

One of my friends crashed his plane while ferrying loads out of the
Brooks near the Gates. His ELT went off and luckly for him someone heard it.
A city person would think: Oh, good. Anyone familiar with the traffic in
that area would realize how remote that area is. But that's Alaska for you.

With regard to the remotest spot in the country and similar questions
here some people search out blank kilometre squares on UK topo maps.

In the US, there are people who attempt to visit all townships not
privately held.

A UK magazine that has an amazing amount of statistics and collectors is
The Angry Corrie: Scotland's Finest Hillwalking Fanzine.

I'm sure it is. It's developed compared with the Bob Marshall
Wilderness. But there are still large wild areas.

There are European brown bears (same species as the grizzly), wolves and
wolverine in Sweden.

Siberia isn't in Europe

That's why it is called the Old world.
No, it's the Old World because that's where the first European settlers
came from.
It's also because of what you guys did to the place.

That's not how it got the name though. Nor why people left. At least
I've never seen any definition suggesting that.

In article <cugdCRsv2ACCFwio@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Townsend <Chris@DELETEauchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I'm sure it is. It's developed compared with the Bob Marshall
Wilderness. But there are still large wild areas.

Yep, and that's why the roadless terminology had to be adopted.

There are European brown bears (same species as the grizzly), wolves and
wolverine in Sweden.

Yep, but in human controlled numbers. Is that wild?
Got bear stats for that area?

Siberia isn't in Europe :-)

That's Russia's problem. You want Asia to be the only other wild
N.hemisphere area? Where's your sense of Imperialism?

That's why it is called the Old world.
No, it's the Old World because that's where the first European settlers
came from.
It's also because of what you guys did to the place.

That's not how it got the name though. Nor why people left. At least
I've never seen any definition suggesting that.

Your people came here to seek their future.

Remember the thing about
needing timbers to English war ships? Asia likely wasn't much better off.

There was always plenty of timber for ships. It only started running out

Distance from roads is now used here in Scotland to determine what is
wild land. Not totally useful as altitude plays a part too.

Around 1000 brown bears in Sweden, according to the Swedish EPA.

Not all the numbers are human controlled. Sarek is left wild.

Siberia isn't in Europe
That's Russia's problem. You want Asia to be the only other wild
N.hemisphere area? Where's your sense of Imperialism?
Most of Russia is in Asia. Of course it's only a political/historical
division not a geographic one.

I have no sense of imperialism

Old World

And to escape persecution and oppression. But not because Britain or
Europe was any less wild than it had been.

There were more people in the Scottish Highlands, outside of the large
towns, in the 1780s than there are now.

Remember the thing about
needing timbers to English war ships? Asia likely wasn't much better off.

There was always plenty of timber for ships. It only started running out
Only, Chris? 8^)
when iron ships came in. People just had to go farther for it.