And then there were 47?

[gram]

https://www.outdoors.org/articles/blogs/trails-blog/4000-footer-peak-drops-off-list-of-48

 

[B the Hiker]

A few years back, another VFTT member and I led the entire Long Trail as a series of section hikes with the AMC. I naively thought we would have a crowd who were interested in doing the entire trail, and it's not easy section hiking, due to the car-spotting, and the AMC makes it easier because you have a number of people.

Nope!

When we did a 4,000-footer, we had a big crowd. For the remaining sections, a couple of people, or just the two of us. People like their lists.

The Baldface loop, Sandwich Dome, Mt. Crawford. Great mountains, wonderful hikes, lovely views. Each under-hiked, which each weekend people head out to Owlshead because it's on the 4,000-footer list and the others are not.

Brian

 

[Ken MacGray]

The headline on that article is not quite accurate. The Committee hasn't made any decisions on removing anything.

 

[peakbagger]

When the new 7.5 quads got released in the late 1980s the 100 highest list had 4 summits affected so two went off and two went on. I was on a group hike with Gene Daniell doing White Cap and Boundary Peak. We got up to the col between White Cap and Kennebago Divide, he suggested that we had time to visit the "new hundred highest". He mentioned that given technology would be ever improving and could potentially impact more summits his opinion and he claimed of the committee was that would be last change and they would adopt the policy of the ADK 46's and use a historical list.

Of course more 4000 footers could drop off the list in the next few decades. The 4000 footers are based on elevation above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Actual MSL is rising. I have seen estimates that actual MSL will rise about 10 feet in 2 decades. At some point the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAV D88) could be replaced to reflect the rise of actual MSL and that raising of MSL will mean more summits may drop below the magic elevation. If Tecumseh fell off and Sandwich grew a few feet I would not mind.

 

[Ken MacGray]

It is my understanding at this point that Sandwich won't become a 4K.

 

[skiguy]

Personally I really couldn't care what happens to Tecumseh. I like Tecumseh because it is a nice hike whether or not if it is on a list or not. I've done most of the lists and have picked up a lot of nice non-listed peaks along the way. List are nice because they do provide motivation and direction but the badge collecting part of it is over rated IMO. For instance Guyout and Mt. Height are great mountains with very interesting views. If one were to just stick to lists you might never enjoy awesome places like that. To each his own and hike your hike.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

For instance Guyout and Mt. Height are great mountains with very interesting views. If one were to just stick to lists you might never enjoy awesome places like that.

These are both on the Trailwrights list, FWIW.

Tim

 

[skiguy]

These are both on the Trailwrights list, FWIW.

Tim

I told you I wasn't into lists...LOL Thanks for the clarification.

 

[maineguy]

I had climbed all but 8 of the 4Ks in NH by 1969, but then went away to school and military and didn't return to hike the Whites until 1981. My wife bought me a new guidebook and I set about to transferring the dates of the peaks climbed from my old guidebook (1966). She said "wouldn't it be funny if they added some mountains". Then I realized that they had indeed added 2 peaks...Bondcliff and Galehead. Luckily, I had climbed them both, one by accident. So, when I was working on the NE4K list many years later, as I was on my way to Abraham in Maine, I took the short spur path to Spaulding because I figured that being that it was only a few feet below 4000, it might someday become a 4K peak. I'm sure glad I did.

 

[Mike P.]

Will wait and see what else they find but until the committee makes a decision..... Tecumseh coming off the list might make it a better time as parking would be better for the smaller lot off of Tripoli Road which has the better approach, IMO If they are looking at changes, I'd be looking at the Saddle between the Hancocks and also between Lincoln and Lafayette which has been brought up in the past as possible changes.

 

[peakbagger]

This article seems to indicate that high spec GPS is not the source of the proposed elevation change. I am unable to listen to the linked radio version but the article states the reference is from LIDAR data from aerial overflights.

https://www.nhpr.org/post/new-measu...med-4000-footer-list-may-be-changing#stream/0

I don't claim to be a LIDAR expert but the commercial use of LIDAR I have seen is high accuracy topographical features rather than actual altitude verification. Any LIDAR signal is just time of flight from the transmitter to the receiver which is in a moving plane. There would still need to be high spec GPS reference to the plane's elevation and I am not sure that that is at a high resolution. I would tend to trust a high spec GPS sitting on top of the mountain over the potential errors introduced from a Lidar overflight but perhaps I am wrong. I have seen other references that Larry actually walked all the trails with high spec GPS unit so I question why the refence to LIDAR?

No doubt the USGS elevation for Tecumseh and other 4000 footers could be wrong. Even though the USGS map shows a triangle at the summit of Tecumseh implying a USGS benchmark, when I search the database there is not a station listed and I believe the elevation listed on the map is calculated from other vertical control points in the area or possibly stereophotogrammetry techniques. Mt Osceola does have two benchmarks but the datasheet shows the elevation listed as scaled off of topographic maps so even its elevation would also be in question.

FYI USGS Maps have minimum accuracy standards "2. Vertical accuracy, as applied to contour maps on all publication scales, shall be such that not more than 10 percent of the elevations tested shall be in error by more than one-half the contour interval. In checking elevations taken from the map, the apparent vertical error may be decreased by assuming a horizontal displacement within the permissible horizontal error for a map of that scale.


For the most current USGS quad for Tecumseh (Waterville Valley 1995) the contour interval is 40 feet. Using the map accuracy standard from above that means the stated elevated on Tecumseh of 4003 feet could actually be plus or minus 20 feet and still meet the standard although the horizontal displacement adjustment would also factor in.

 

[Stan]

Does this all mean we have to turn in our badges?

 

[JoshandBaron]

Does this all mean we have to turn in our badges?

We don't need no stinking badges.

 

[skiguy]

We don't need no stinking badges.

Or decoder rings.

 

[B the Hiker]

A short and decent article on changes to the New Hampshire and Adirondack lists over the years.

http://goeast.ems.com/tradition-tru...rSDHqcZTDYhshVqGXRPrhslO5VMVP0z5FqRvreOu8zTi8

 

[talktapes]

For instance Guyout and Mt. Height are great mountains with very interesting views. If one were to just stick to lists you might never enjoy awesome places like that.

It's mind boggling that people go out of their way to tick Carter Dome off the list and won't go 10 easy minutes out of the way to hit Height. I remember camping at Guyot a few years ago and another camper there paid for a thru hiker to stay overnight as a courtesy. Apparently the thru hiker ran out of water, had to go out of his way to hit the spring at the campsite and didn't budget enough for the AMC fee.

I asked him if he was planning on hitting West Bond and the answer was no, it would mess up his itinerary. It's like dude I know you have a schedule but it's already messed up, you'd be adding maybe half an hour to visit one of the best summits in New Hampshire and it's right there, just take the bonus and do a little night hiking if you have to.

Incidentally when did Mohamed's 48 4k Earthlink site go down?

 

[dug]

Thru-hikers are a category all their own. Much of their hike is dictated by budget and timing, and a side-route of a couple of miles in the midst of a 20+ mile day could mean a missed connection, which could mean a missed trip to the bank or a real meal, a late start the next day, and it cascades.

 

[talktapes]

I understand, what I'm getting at is that this guy already had planned poorly to the point where he had to go significantly out of his way to grab water (instead of filling up at Galehead or managing his supply more efficiently) and ended up in an area that required cash to camp as night was approaching. An extra mile with negligible elevation gain when you're already behind to see West Bond seems like a gimme. Thru hikers have more of an excuse than someone working on the 48 but it just seemed crazy to me being that close to such a remote, low-effort summit (if you're up there already) and having zero interest in it. To be fair I don't find the AT appealing at all so to each their own, everyone hikes for different reasons.

 

[TCD]

A short and decent article on changes to the New Hampshire and Adirondack lists over the years.

http://goeast.ems.com/tradition-tru...rSDHqcZTDYhshVqGXRPrhslO5VMVP0z5FqRvreOu8zTi8

Good article; thanks!

I'm probably not going to end up doing the 48, but I've been around the Adirondack 46 a couple times. I like the way we are handling the elevation question here in the Adirondacks. Basically, who cares about high tech new data, prominence, etc.? The "list" is a tradition, not a topographic survey. And we're simply sticking with the tradition.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Incidentally when did Mohamed's 48 4k Earthlink site go down?

I found a mirror of it on GitHub: https://bmhatfield.github.io/white-mountains/

Tim