Feelings toward Lists and New Surveys that Change Cruitial Elevations Requirements

[dom15931]

I am wondering what that general consensus is when it comes to new surveying producing a new elevation for a summit that either puts a mountain above an existing elevation requirement for a list (e.g. 4000') or below the requirement. Mt Nye is a good example in which the old survey was greatly off and the mountain now sits well below the 4000'. Do historical factors out way the actual elevations when surveyed with accurate modern techniques?


This poll is difficult to word in the space provided as it is a complex issue. Hopefully the choices are clear enough!

 

[David Metsky]

In NY - Historical aspects are paramount
In NH - Elevation is key (although we don't always hold to that for cols)

I like both methods, and both are appropriate in their own way.

 

[Stan]

I don't think it is a difficult issue when the principles are defined by each club. I'd vote for, "doesn't matter to me, I'll hike 'em either way".

 

[Tom Rankin]

In NY - Historical aspects are paramount

You can think of doing the ADK 46 as doing the 'Bob Marshall Memorial Circuit'.

 

[pedxing]

I'm with Stan (even though my first spell check program would recommend "Satan" as a correction for Stan).

BTW: http://www.goodsearch.com/search.aspx?keywords=cruitial

 

[RoySwkr]

I didn't vote because I feel that each list maker should do as they think right, list hikers can choose to play the game or not. What I don't like is totally arbitrary choices like the NH 4k sometimes changing and sometimes not.

 

[erugs]

Accuracy seems important. History is interesting for comparison. Lists are a guideline for making choices.

 

[Little Rickie]

In NY - Historical aspects are paramount
In NH - Elevation is key (although we don't always hold to that for cols).

I'm from NY. The fun is more important than the list.

 

[MichaelJ]

I feel that whatever is chosen to do is fine for a given list, so long as it's done *consistently* to that list. That might mean I actually agree with Roy!

 

[dom15931]

I didn't vote because I feel that each list maker should do as they think right, list hikers can choose to play the game or not. .

I should have included this option in the poll...it is an obvious choice and likely a common response.

 

[rocket21]

My opinion (after decades of comtemplation):

- Numeric lists (ie "_ Hundred Highest") should reflect the latest, most accurate data - drop disqualified peaks, add new peaks

- Club lists (ie NH/NE 4000 footers) should not drop any peaks*. Adjacent peaks could be substituted (ie Wildcat D for Wildcat E), new peaks can be added, but otherwise peaks should not be dropped*.

* - except for Owl's Head. Good riddance!

 

[Paradox]

IMHO it's just a list. No more or less important than the Sunday Times Crossword. It is only important to follow the rules if you want the patch. I pursue the lists that interest me, and follow the rules provided because it is fun for me to do so.

 

[rocket21]

No more or less important than the Sunday Times Crossword. It is only important to follow the rules if you want the patch.

Wait a minute, they're giving out patches for solving crossword puzzles? Why wasn't I alerted to this!

 

[John H Swanson]

There's another factor to consider. Who is to say the new survey is more accurate than the old one? Perhaps the new survey is in error and the old survey is correct. Some people consider if the new survey results are likely to be correct in which case the changing of peaks on the list might not follow a hard fast rule. Old peaks that are just below the threshhold might be deemed too close to call and therefore kept on the list. Where as obvious corrections like Couchie, Nye, and Leroy (ME) can easily be reclasified.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I voted in the poll even though none of the choices reflect the way I feel.

Elevation is relative over the long haul anyway. It's a question of whether the forces of erosion will wear a mountain down faster than the forces which caused it to be pushed up.

 

[Puma concolor]

Having played around in both NY and NE, I've always liked the fact that they've both done their own thing. Can't say one way ever struck me as being better than the other. But now that I'm mainly into State Highpoints for listbagging, I definitely think using the historical approach that the 46Rs use for a list such as HPs would be kind of ridiculous. "Yeah we know, Mount Arvon is less than a foot higher than Mount Curwood, but highpointers have always climbed Curwood so we're sticking with that."

So to review, I guess it depends.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

There's another factor to consider. Who is to say the new survey is more accurate than the old one? ...

Very good point. Consider the newer metric maps in the High Peaks in NY. There are a few OBVIOUS mistakes on them. (Compare Nye on the Metric, 1953, then with your eyes as one example.) When there are some ovbious mistakes, how much should the rest be trusted?


-Pete (waiting for Couchie to again be 4000)

 

[Christa]

I also go for the "It doesn't matter" option.

Lists are arbitrary anyway, so I'm not sure it really matters which is the "right" way to handle them when new survey data. I mean, why is it a minimum of 4000 feet with a 200 foot col (using the NH48 as an example)? Why can't it be 4000 feet with a 150 foot col or 4500 feet with a 100 foot col? Lists are merely a societal challenge created with the best information they have at the time of the list creation, including survey data.

Therefore, each of the list makers/maintainers has the right to set their own rules, and that includes whether they want to add peaks, remove peaks or substitute peaks. If that means that the number changes, then so be it. If you don't like the way a list is managed, then don't do the list.

 

[Paradox]

Wait a minute, they're giving out patches for solving crossword puzzles? Why wasn't I alerted to this!

Oh ya! But with crosswords you can cheat!