ADK100 question - Elevation variation

[mavs00]

A question for you ADK 100 folks out there. In the back of the ADK High Peaks guide the bottom 10 are listed as;

090 BLUE RIDGE (NE OF DISHRAG POND) 3497
091 UNNAMED (FISHING BROOK) 3480
092 PUFFER MT 3472
093 SAWTEETH #4 3460
094 SAWTOOTH #5 3460
095 WOLF POND MT.(S OF BOREAS) 3460
096 CELLAR MT.(CEDAR RIVER FLOW) 3447
097 BLUE RIDGE(N OF HOFFMAN) 3440
098 MORGAN MT 3440
099 BLUE RIDGE(NW DISHRAG POND) 3436
100 (UNNAMED PEAK) BROWN POND MT. 3425

Using the same criteria (Distance and Elevation) given in the book, and looking at the most recent USGS 7.5' maps, I've noticed a few oddities with the elevations and the list. Most of the summit elevations are listed in Metrics, but using the standard conversion to feet (3.2808), I get the following peaks for the bottom 10.

90 Blue Ridge (NE of Dishrag Pond) 3,465
91t Unnamed (Fishing brook) 3,468
91t Blue Ridge(N of Hoffman,ADK) 3,468
93t Morgan mt. 3,458
93t Wilmington (ne Copper Kill) 3,458 - Not on ADK list
95t Puffer Mt. 3,451
95t Unnamed(E of Hornet Notch) 3,451 - Not on ADK list
97t Cellar Mt.(cedar river flow) 3,445
97t Sawtooth (#4) 3,445
99 Wolf Pond Mt.(S of Boreas) 3,442
100 Bullhead Mt. 3,432 - Not on ADK list

Obviously this is all academic as there really is a million ways to "make a list" and people should just climb whichever ones you feel like anyyway. But I am curious as to discrepancy in the elevations and list order for these peaks. I'm sure there is a very logical reason and I'm just to dumb to see it. Hence the post. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks again

Anyone even know what I'm talking about?

 

[Rik]

Tim,
The metric survey you are using is the most recent but apparently not trusted enough to have changed the list. As noted in the book they are aware of Willmington and Bullhead but haven't changed the list and added them. Maybe they missed Blue Ridge (w peak) and if so probably others as well?

 

[mavs00]

Yeah, I read that in the book too, I was curious as to why they are not trustworthy numbers. The only thing I can think of is that they are metric measurements, and as we all know, Canadians use metrics..........

..... And EVERYONE KNOWS Canadians are not trustworthy.



Just kidding, you know I love Canadians of course. In fact, if my Pepere' had chosen to stay put those many years ago, I'd be one...

 

[Neil]

And EVERYONE KNOWS Canadians are not trustworthy.

Mr. (or Monsieur) Dubois,
This utterance is a serious and totally unforgivable trangression of the unwritten code of human grooviness. When organic cleansings transcend the frontier's lonliest outpost of murmured misgivings then, what's the point of even trying? I mean who are you to try and govern the drifting prison moons of a forgotten sun anyway????
And besides, you can't even skate!

 

[mavs00]

My most humble apologies, Mon ami. I could not resist.

Anyhow, I found out the answer from Tony Goodwin and if your the slightest bit interested in this sort of thing, It's posted in my forum -HERE-.

Oh yeah, feel free to join up if you wish

 

[Explorer Editor]

Do GPS units give reliable measurements of elevation? If so, it might be interesting for those climbing the 100 highest (or just the 46) to record and post their elevations. Hikers might be able to resolve these issues without waiting for the government to act.

 

[masshysteria]

Do GPS units give reliable measurements of elevation?

Not anywhere accurate enough to be reliable for verifying elevations in that situation. The GPS shows elevation based on atmospheric pressure, therefore changes in weather affect the readout. When I head out for a hike, I try to set my elevation at a known elevation, like a benchmark. If I return to that point at the end of the trip, the elevation readout has changed, sometimes by as much as 50 ft.

 

[mavs00]

This weekend on Lost Pond Peak, my Garmin E-trex Vista recorded a summit elevation of 3912'. Thes USGS elevation is registered at 3900'. That good enough for me I suppose.

 

[RoySwkr]

Just a generic comment on list making:

Not all peaks have specified summit elevations. If no elevation is given, you can either use the elevation of the highest contour (peak is at least that high) or add half the contour interval (probabalistically most likely elevation). At one time the AMC White Mtn Guide listed the 4000-footers both ways and of course the order was different. Similarly whether a peak counts may depend on whether you allow 6 10m contours (~198') to count as 200' (most list makers do but you get a shorter list by not) or 2 40' contours to be 100' (Trailwrights allow some but not all).

 

[moose_mckenzie]

Back up a few numbers. Ever sit on Phelps and look at all three peaks of Table Mt? Each one looks like a peak in itself! One even has a bald spot on it, probably a Verplank Colvin's triangulation site.

My philosophy is that if it looks like fun, then hike it. Of the 6000 or so registered 46'ers who have hiked Table Mtn, how many of them have gone beyond and hiked the other two peaks? 100 maybe?

Moose

 

[Neil]

My philosophy is that if it looks like fun, then hike it. Of the 6000 or so registered 46'ers who have hiked Table Mtn, how many of them have gone beyond and hiked the other two peaks? 100 maybe?

Moose

Butting in...
Funny you should mention that. A Ttop to Phelps bushwhacking session is on my to-do list for this summer. I have read that it's a wee bit thick and that progress will be on the slow side. Something like an hour per half mile. Send me a PM if you'd like to do it.
I'll step out of the thread now.