RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=44.52616,-72.81512&z=16&t=T
A well-known peakbagger told me that someone was claiming that The Nose of Mt Mansfield should be a separate 4k peak, so I inquired for myself and this is what I found:
RS:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to find the freestanding height of a pinnacle called The Nose
> on Mt Mansfield
>
> The USGS map shows "BM 3849" at the base of The Nose about .1 mi N of the
> summit, with a 4020 highest contour and no elevation of the summit marker
>
> NOAA marker PG1699 has a datasheet elevation of 4062.0 - is this
> comparable to the USGS elevation and if so why isn't there at 4040
> contour at least?
Dan Martin, NOAA:
>The height that is listed on the NOAA/NGS data sheet (4062.0 feet) is
>comparable to the USGS elevation. As it turns out, I was the one who
>observed the station and processed the data to publish that specific
>height as well as the updated published height for the summit mark on
>the chin (see description for "Mt Mansfield Highest Point" AE3691). The
>old height was published as 4393.2. My observations in 1996 show the
>height to be 4395.3 feet.
>In reading the description, it appears that the mark on the Nose is not
>at the highest point of the Nose, but is either 50 feet or 5 feet
>southeast of the highest point of the Nose. Both 50 feet and 5 feet are
>listed in the station recovery history. I am not sure why there is no
>spot elevation shown on the USGS quad map.
>As far as why the 4040 contour is missing, I have no answer. It is
>possible though that that contour was omitted since it cannot be shown
>on the east side of the nose. The east side of the nose is a nearly
>vertical cliff that contains the 4020 and 4040 contours. In that
>location, the two contours would plot on top of each other. However I
>agree that the 4040 contour should be plotted on the south, west, and
>north extents of the nose.
Hopefully when the AMC adds this peak they will delete the impostor South Hancock
A well-known peakbagger told me that someone was claiming that The Nose of Mt Mansfield should be a separate 4k peak, so I inquired for myself and this is what I found:
RS:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to find the freestanding height of a pinnacle called The Nose
> on Mt Mansfield
>
> The USGS map shows "BM 3849" at the base of The Nose about .1 mi N of the
> summit, with a 4020 highest contour and no elevation of the summit marker
>
> NOAA marker PG1699 has a datasheet elevation of 4062.0 - is this
> comparable to the USGS elevation and if so why isn't there at 4040
> contour at least?
Dan Martin, NOAA:
>The height that is listed on the NOAA/NGS data sheet (4062.0 feet) is
>comparable to the USGS elevation. As it turns out, I was the one who
>observed the station and processed the data to publish that specific
>height as well as the updated published height for the summit mark on
>the chin (see description for "Mt Mansfield Highest Point" AE3691). The
>old height was published as 4393.2. My observations in 1996 show the
>height to be 4395.3 feet.
>In reading the description, it appears that the mark on the Nose is not
>at the highest point of the Nose, but is either 50 feet or 5 feet
>southeast of the highest point of the Nose. Both 50 feet and 5 feet are
>listed in the station recovery history. I am not sure why there is no
>spot elevation shown on the USGS quad map.
>As far as why the 4040 contour is missing, I have no answer. It is
>possible though that that contour was omitted since it cannot be shown
>on the east side of the nose. The east side of the nose is a nearly
>vertical cliff that contains the 4020 and 4040 contours. In that
>location, the two contours would plot on top of each other. However I
>agree that the 4040 contour should be plotted on the south, west, and
>north extents of the nose.
Hopefully when the AMC adds this peak they will delete the impostor South Hancock