Another 100-peak list in NH

[RoySwkr]

For those who don't know, SummitPost.org is a massive worldwide compilation of data about summits, including photos, trip reports, and virtual peak registers. Information quality is whatever people have posted and generally good, although there is some questionable stuff such as the guy who was told it costs $50 to hike up Sunapee in the winter because you have to buy a lift ticket.

Right now there are 103 listings for NH, actually more summits than that because some such as the Kinsmans cover multiple summits. (Choose "Mountains and Rocks" from below the title bar, click "Advanced" next to Search, select "New Hampshire" from the "US State" dropdown list, then click "OK". This list was not selected by a committee but is just the sum total of whatever summits members decided to add (and there are some familiar names among the members.) And unlike other lists this one will keep getting harder as members keep adding new summits
http://www.summitpost.org/object_li..._province_1=New+Hampshire&sort_select_1=score


Right now there's only one peak on the NH list where I haven't been to the true summit (but I've probably been as close as the guy who posted it). I haven't hiked in that area for 20 years but maybe it's time to go back.

 

[Amicus]

OK - Which one?

I'll bite - which one haven't you summited and why do you think the poster didn't?

Thanks for flagging this site - good info on some of the lower peaks that so often make excellent climbs.

 

[arghman]

I'm going to guess Snows Mtn (haven't been there, but the usgs map & the poster of that peak on summitpost show a trail not leading all the way to the summit -- almost like someone decided to build a trail to the top, got most of the way there, then said "Oh never mind" & turned around.)

argh, another evil time-sucking website

 

[nartreb]

I happen to be familiar with the Mt Lethe page:

As Royswkr reminds me, the summit of Mt Lethe (pt 3584) is about a hundred yards east of the Carter-Moriah trail. He describes the bush here as "very thick" and notes that at the top there is a rocky outcrop with views of the Wild River valley.

I've got another guess, it's also a page I know well, and it's also a peak where the trail doesn't reach the true summit.

 

[Double Bow]

FWIW, to me it seems that for a hiking list to be worth pursuing (or even putting together), there ought to be some sort of geographic criteria for the list (100 Highest, 4Ks, 3Ks, 52-With-A-View, etc). Otherwise, it's just a random list that makes no sense. There needs to be a reason why this peak is on the list but that peak is not. This list is kind of like the list that someone on a different website has been trying to make up for a few months. It makes no sense. You might as well fire buckshot at a map and have the peaks that are hit be the ones on the list.

The best list is the one I'm currently working on. It called "The list of peaks I have climbed and the ones I haven't". I figure this one will keep me busy until the day after I die.

 

[Tom Rankin]

FWIW, to me it seems that for a hiking list to be worth pursuing (or even putting together), there ought to be some sort of geographic criteria for the list (100 Highest, 4Ks, 3Ks, 52-With-A-View, etc). Otherwise, it's just a random list that makes no sense. There needs to be a reason why this peak is on the list but that peak is not.

Oh, you mean like Couch, Blake, Nye, and Cliff ? (All < 4K, but 'required')

P.S. I know all about 'why', let's not start a debate here!

 

[Amicus]

FWIW, to me it seems that for a hiking list to be worth pursuing (or even putting together), there ought to be some sort of geographic criteria for the list (100 Highest, 4Ks, 3Ks, 52-With-A-View, etc). Otherwise, it's just a random list that makes no sense.

The best list is the one I'm currently working on. It called "The list of peaks I have climbed and the ones I haven't". I figure this one will keep me busy until the day after I die.

I agree, except that the criteria need not be solely geographic (e.g., peaks with fire towers, or ones mentioned by Thoreau).

I still want to know which one of those 103 NH peaks Roy Schweiker was referring to, however, and that site does have lots of good stuff on off-beat destinations like Piper Mt.

 

[dug]

You might as well fire buckshot at a map and have the peaks that are hit be the ones on the list.

That works for me. Just my two cents, but this is as good as a criteria as any other.

 

[Dennis C.]

Seems to me I remember hearing of another privately accessed peak in NH that I'm told costs $50 to climb also, Roy. I'll bet you didn't have to pay for that one either .

From a quick glance of the list, it appears that all have trails, good views, former fire tower peaks, etc. Did anyone spot any bushwhacks listed (with a view?)

As far as what "mystery peak" that Roy hasn't done, don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. He will tease you awhile until he feels it's time to respond with a zinger ...

 

[Mattl]

Oh boy..ill be on here for awhile.-Mattl

 

[RoySwkr]

I'm going to guess Snows Mtn (haven't been there, but the usgs map & the poster of that peak on summitpost show a trail not leading all the way to the summit

Got it first guess, I've hiked the trail (which it appears is all the page author did) and may have actually been closer descending Flat Mtn via Lost Pass but haven't been to the true summit. The PeakMaster has described it as a long slog.

As to the peak with the apostrophe (which kept me from finding it with the search function), I was there years ago in the winter, somebody even found the Lafayette view.

FWIW, to me it seems that for a hiking list to be worth pursuing (or even putting together), there ought to be some sort of geographic criteria for the list

I tend to agree, this isn't even "100 people's favorite peaks" as some people have multiple entries. I just thought it curious that the number of entries was so close to 100.

 

[nartreb]

>almost like someone decided to build a trail to the top, got most of the way there, then said "Oh never mind" & turned around

Roy, on the other hand, recently went to see for himself, I hear.

So, Roy, if you were building that trail, would you bother going all the way to the summit?

 

[RoySwkr]

So, Roy, if you were building that trail, would you bother going all the way to the summit?

I think the rest of the way is perhaps more interesting than the existing trail which follows a ski trail at one end and a road at the other, however there are no outstanding features that I identified. I suspect the existing trail was built to its present length for less ambitious or time-challenged hikers and people wanting a 6-mile hike (with a bit more elevation gain) might prefer just to go to Tecumseh or Osceola.