|1623 / 114||Verlorenhohle||1T/+|
Good sketch of how to find it in Logbook Wed 11 Jul 2007 when Mark Doherty and Anthony Day found it (again) while looking for 115. 114 is the "Small Cave Entrance (body-sized tube)". Inserted here too:
NOTE The shape, length and orientation of the cave is very suspiciously similar to surveyed 1623-228 "Kleine Schnellzughohle". And the entrance is very close (60m) to Schnellzughohle and does indeed look like a smaller version of Schnellzughohle. So is the survey location of 1623-228 in Egglgrube valley incorrect ?
This does not appear to be in the Austrians' Kataster.
AERW email 30 June 2020: The name Verlorenschacht was probably invented by me, and in the absence of the 1980 logbook, there is no real reason to believe it was a schacht, just something they thought worth a number in a year when we were making the effort to actually number stuff we found. It is _probably_ not (as you might hope) somewhere between 113 and 115, but it _might_ be ... There is something in that area that one steps over on a particular (probably obscure) route from one cave to another. I don't *think* it got a number but it *might* be 114. If that surmise is anywhere near, then it is between the Stogerweg and 113, rather than close to 115.
> But it is definitely not a "Schacht": more a horizontal scramble with a > couple of pits. [Philip] That doesn't sound like the thing in the 113 area I'm thinking of - that was at least a bit of a climb down at the entrance (enough not to venture in without at least a handline). Of course, if it was something on the Wildenseealm walk, then it is nowhere near 113/41/115.
The missing 1980 logbook really is critical to this one.
Philip Sargent email 1 July 2020 to Wookey:
> According to AERW it might or might not be the same cave, or be might > be remembering something else; but it is arguably in the right place > as at least two groups have found it while looking for 115 coming from > the path - and 113 is on the other (upper) side of the path - so it is > topologically between 113 and 115 even if not geometrically between 113 and 115. > > I say let's go for it and rub out the uncertainty. > Which means I had better write up a sketch survey for all 15m of it.
I've not followed the whole thread/saga, but at this stage I think this sounds reasonable. Almost anything would be an improvment and so long as we're reasonably sure that the original 114 is not marked as such in a way that might one day be noticed (and it seems unlikely that the 1980 logbook will surface at this point) any reasonable effort to get a cave in about the right place should suffice.