Cumulative Elevation gain for Wapack

[pedxing]

Does anyone have a figure for the elevation gain for a Wapack traverse (especially a reliable or authoritative one)?

A Wapack traverse has been a rite of spring for me the past five years, but I've never gotten a handle on the elevation gain. Several times someone with me has tracked elevation gain on a GPS but they've come up with very different numbers. A quick web search gives me numbers from 4200 to 6000 feet. The net gain is very small, so direction could not account for the difference. I'll be doing a trip with the AMC and would like to include reliable info on elevation (for now I'm guesstimating 5K).

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Define "reliable" or "authoritative". Every time I repeat a hike I get a slightly different number. If I upload the track to Google Earth, Strava, Caltopo, etc., they all give me a different number too. None agree with the reported AMC WMG numbers either. The size of the ruler affects the measurement.

Tim

 

[pedxing]

It's the nearly 50% difference between the lowest number and the highest that seems extreme. I suppose I could split the difference and say 5100 feet.

For definitions, reliable would be if someone has done it a couple times and come up with the same number - or multiple GPS's on a trip give the same number or get a count. I'd also go with someone who's who's GPS readings come close to published elevation gains for other trails, or something coming from a more organized or systematic survey.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

http://www.wapack.org/
http://www.wapack.org/faq.html

Maybe somewhere in here or one of the contacts can give you official numbers.

Tim

 

[byron8]

In planning this myself, I can't remember where my web search finally led me, but I wrote down that traveling south it's 5500', traveling north 4600'.

 

[Mohamed Ellozy]

How about doing it the old fashioned way, counting contours on a topo map?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

How about doing it the old fashioned way, counting contours on a topo map?

Waiting for you to add it to http://home.earthlink.net/~ellozy/ so we don't have to

Tim

 

[Mohamed Ellozy]

For definitions, reliable would be if someone has done it a couple times and come up with the same number - or multiple GPS's on a trip give the same number or get a count. I'd also go with someone who's who's GPS readings come close to published elevation gains for other trails, or something coming from a more organized or systematic survey.

For me reliable is someone who has counted the contour lines on a map. Knowing both editors of the Southern New Hampshire Trail Guide I would consider their numbers authoritative: 4,850 feet from MA 119 to Old Mountain Road.

 

[pedxing]

Thanks Mohammed. I have asked the friends of the Wapack, but no response to date. 4850 seems pretty reasonable for a northbound hike. I think that given the numerous relatively small gains, contour lines won't be as accurate as for some hikes (though I suppose there are maps with much better resolution than I have).

Byron8s numbers demonstrate the variability of estimates out there, since the net elevation gain either way is very small (maybe 100 feet).

In terms of actual experience, it never feels like even 4,000 feet of elevation gain to me, I suppose that is because there are is barely more than 1000 feet of difference between the highest and lowest points.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

If it's an AMC trip and you're citing the AMC Southern NH Guide, you can't be faulted for your number Put the source in the posting if you want to be extremely safe...

Tim

 

[RoySwkr]

How about doing it the old fashioned way, counting contours on a topo map?

I don't feel that the map shows the trail route that accurately (there used to be multiple routes some places) and side trips to some rocky outcrops are common which may not be on the official route.

A spike in a GPS reading can increase the total unless you review the profile and edit the spikes.

I do feel that the guidebook number is accurate enough to allow people to decide if the hike is suitable for them, and how they are feeling that day will affect their performance more than a couple hundred feet either way.

Byron8s numbers demonstrate the variability of estimates out there, since the net elevation gain either way is very small (maybe 100 feet).

I agree

In terms of actual experience, it never feels like even 4,000 feet of elevation gain to me, I suppose that is because there are is barely more than 1000 feet of difference between the highest and lowest points.

I disagree, being used to hikes with all the up in the beginning it seemed like a lot going up at the end

 

[pedxing]

I disagree, being used to hikes with all the up in the beginning it seemed like a lot going up at the end

I'll take that as strong evidence that it's tough to generalize about subjective difficulty.

 

[pedxing]

As follow up - I heard back from a representative of the Friends of the Wapack. They have not calculated cumulative elevation gain for the trail, but are now considering doing so. I've posted the trip as 4850 feet per the AMC guide, via Mohamed.

 

[hikerfast]

i have never done the whole trail in one day. that would be quite a feat, though it seems a lot of people seem to do it regularly

 

[pedxing]

Let me know if you want to try it - it's a great way to burn off the cobwebs while it is still slushy and/or muddy at higher elevations to the North. I always leave a car with a cooler at about midway, as a bail out car and to lighten the carrying loads.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

This has always been on my bucket list. I live fairly close to the northern end. Would consider doing the car spot by bicycle even if that interests you.

Tim

 

[Quietman]

A bunch of us did this back in 2004, was it really that long ago? Wapack thru hike report It is tough to plan between mud and bug season. We missed most of the mud but not the bugs. Let me know if you are thinking of going. I'm in better hiking shape than I was back then.

 

[Quietman]

Here is BobandJeri's GPS track for the 2004 hike from their site, looks like approx. 5,300 +/- for the end to end.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

Here is BobandJeri's GPS track for the 2004 hike from their site, looks like approx. 5,300 +/- for the end to end.

South to North ?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

That profile is north to south. The two 2K peaks are North and South Pack respectively.

Tim