Four Fine Peaks and a Not-too-shabby Walerfall in Maine

[spencer]

To clarify:

There IS a building on Moxie. Maybe PB has tried so hard to ignore it all that he forgot already. Or maybe since he stoically refused to step on the heli-platform, he couldn't see the small building about 10 yards east of the proper summit. There is a bank of photovoltaic cells that is about 30 feet wide by about 8 feet tall. Along side the building is a whole suite of large plastic tubs that house upwards of 2 dozen batteries (I know b/c I opened them).

I saw no signs of an old building, and the one that is currently there is not "old"

I seem to not have gotten any pictures of it either, but the cells look exactly like those in the picture below (which is actually from Big Sqaw).

PB, remind me how to put the pictures inline while not hosting them on VFTT (as opposed to remotely like you do).

spencer

 

[spencer]

But EB says you'll climb Pogy with me and TE will give us a leanto. ;-(

I will and does she have an extra reservation or something? It sounds familiar...

I'll send an email and we can plan it.

anyone else interested in it?

 

[Papa Bear]

PB, remind me how to put the pictures inline while not hosting them on VFTT (as opposed to remotely like you do).

spencer

Unfortunately, to get a picture in-line it has to be somewhere on the internet first. I have a site for my photos (http://gallery.backcountry.net) which has many of the pictures from this trip. Once you know the URL of the pitcture, you use the IMG option (click on the small square yellow icon that has a mountain in it above the edit box) and put in your URL.

If you just want to post a picture you have on your own PC, you have to do it the way you did. It ends up on the VFTT site as you know.

 

[spencer]

well, since I've been demoted to dial-up while I'm away from work, I'm not maintaining my webshots site. I'll have to wait to get a bunch of pictures up.

spencer

 

[Nate]

Papa Bear, thank you for the detailed trip report to Saddleback. I was up there this past weekend, and your directions were very helpful. Merther Road might not have been signed as such, but it was the only road coming in on the right anywhere near the six-mile point on the KI Road. Plus, it was marked with a hand-made sign that said "CB-27", and I encountered a few other signs right after turning down it (which had to do with hunting regulations and snowmobile usage, among other things). I would just add to Papa Bear's directions that about a mile down Merther Road there's a fork, where it isn't obvious which is the correct way to Saddleback. I happened to choose the right branch, and for once I was right. The road became rougher soon after, so anyone in a regular-height car should drive cautiously. The sharp left turn was located as advertised, but that road proved to be even rougher. However, I still managed to reach the trailhead in my little rental. It wasn't a fun ride though. The two boulders mentioned in the trip report actually aren't visible from the old logging road, as they're located around the first corner. But, as long as you know far in it is, it's a very obvious side road, and is right where the logging road turns left and starts to go down the hill.

As for the hike itself, my experience wasn't quite as easy as Oncoman's. The skid paths were overgrown, and while the lower woods weren't bad, they grew thicker once I climbed above the highest skidder path. Even though I pretty much rode the ridge, for the life of me I found very few herd paths, and none of the ones I encountered lasted very long. But, overall it wasn't too bad of a whack (and if you pick your spots better than I did the vegetation won't be too thick), and finding the highpoint wasn't difficult. Plus, I had the good fortune of visiting on a clear, sunny day, so the outlook near the canister had gorgeous views of the wilderness to the north.

 

[Papa Bear]

...
Plus, I had the good fortune of visiting on a clear, sunny day, so the outlook near the canister had gorgeous views of the wilderness to the north.

Canister? What canister?

Nate - your PM quota is full. send me your email address if you would.

 

[spencer]

PB, we didn't find a canister, did we? I remember that we thought we were on the summit but I insisted on going further until it clearly dropped off sharply.

spencer

 

[Papa Bear]

PB, we didn't find a canister, did we? I remember that we thought we were on the summit but I insisted on going further until it clearly dropped off sharply.

spencer

We did not. Oncoman did the peak a month or two ago and also did not. Since the peak is only 2998' (Map), not on the 3K list, we figured there wasn't one there.

 

[Oncoman]

No! Not another missed canister? Had to go back 3 times on Caribou!

However I am convinced I reached the farthest & highest peak on ridge (also reading of my altimeter concurred with stated value on map), where I found an orange string attached to tree but no canister.

Did someone put a canister there recently? Don't feel like going back to check it out.

Pierre

 

[Nate]

For all those who have already hiked Saddleback, you didn't miss the canister. Having visited on a perfectly clear and snow-free day, I can say with authority that the tree with the orange string is indeed at the mountain's highpoint. When I was up there last weekend, I planted a canister. With the increased traffic this peak has seen due to being on the Fifty Finest list (as well as being only two feet shy of being a 3k), I felt it merited a register. I know that if I hadn't been up there yet, I'd be interested in seeing a record of who else had proceeded me. For those who've already bagged this summit, be assured that you aren't missing anything, since at this point I presume the only entry in the register is my long-winded account of how this whack proved to be less herd path ridden than I had expected. But then again, that's every register entry I've ever written.

 

[RoySwkr]

With the increased traffic this peak has seen due to being on the Fifty Finest list (as well as being only two feet shy of being a 3k), I felt it merited a register.

We found the survey marker hidden under a cairn. Actually NOAA thinks the marker is 2999 and hence the summit is 3001

QG1318 DESIGNATION - SADDLEROCK
QG1318 PID - QG1318
QG1318 STATE/COUNTY- ME/PISCATAQUIS
QG1318 USGS QUAD - BIG SHANTY MOUNTAIN (1988)
QG1318
QG1318 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL
QG1318 ___________________________________________________________________
QG1318* NAD 83(1996)- 45 30 34.23438(N) 069 08 09.10831(W) ADJUSTED
QG1318* NAVD 88 - 914. (meters) 2999. (feet) SCALED
... THE STATION
QG1318'IS IN SOLID ROCK ABOUT 75 FT SW . OF, AND 2 FT BELOW THE EXTREME PEAK
QG1318'OF MOUNTAIN AND ON EDGE OF CLIFF OVERLOOKING VALLEY TO S.

 

[Papa Bear]

We found the survey marker hidden under a cairn. Actually NOAA thinks the marker is 2999 and hence the summit is 3001

QG1318 DESIGNATION - SADDLEROCK
QG1318 PID - QG1318
QG1318 STATE/COUNTY- ME/PISCATAQUIS
QG1318 USGS QUAD - BIG SHANTY MOUNTAIN (1988)
QG1318
QG1318 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL
QG1318 ___________________________________________________________________
QG1318* NAD 83(1996)- 45 30 34.23438(N) 069 08 09.10831(W) ADJUSTED
QG1318* NAVD 88 - 914. (meters) 2999. (feet) SCALED
... THE STATION
QG1318'IS IN SOLID ROCK ABOUT 75 FT SW . OF, AND 2 FT BELOW THE EXTREME PEAK
QG1318'OF MOUNTAIN AND ON EDGE OF CLIFF OVERLOOKING VALLEY TO S.

Unfortunately that's not what NOAA thinks.

The elevation on the datasheet is marked "SCALED" and further down (not in Roy's excerpt) it says

QG1318.The orthometric height was scaled from a topographic map.

The mark is a USGS mark set in 1939 as a triangulation station. It was not a bench mark and no elevation was determined for the mark, only the position. Most marks either indicate an accurate elevation (bench marks) or position (triangulation stations) but not both. To measure an elevation for this mark they would have to run a level line up the mountain. Not unheard of but rarely done.

So what map did they get the elevation from? It would have been the old 15 minute map. Here's a link: Old map, Jo-Mary Mountain quad The map shows the elevation "2998" on Saddleback, in brown print. The triangle is the USGS station. Brown print means it's an estimate, not an accurate measurement. On the map's margin it says "Topography from aerial photographs by multiplex methods". This means that elevations were determined by comparing stereo phots of the area, and at certain points (mountain tops, etc.) a "spot" elevation was determined. Since the "top" of the mountain is the feature that was being measured, and the difference between the "top" and the disk would almost certainly be indistinguishable at this scale, we can only say that the mountain is 2998' subject to the accuracy of the photos and the process used. Notice on the same old map, just under Crater Pond to the northeast of Saddleback, "BM x 1671" in black print near a dirt road. This indicates a bench mark was set with an accutae elevation.

So where did 2999' in the datasheet come from? Probably when they recalculated values from the NGVD29 (used on the map) to the NAVD88 datum. Or else the clerk who scaled the elevation off the map misread the number!! Remember, scaled elevations were not set by surveyors, they were set back at the office by clerks who had to pull out a map and find the spot and read what was there.

So what about the 2998' on the more recent 1:24000 topo map (Topozone, Big Shanty quad (1988)) come from? I understand that new photos were used and the same process was employed. If they were lazy, maybe they just copied it from the old map, but since a number of elevations changed in that map rollout, we must assume that they did the job right.

So the best we can say is the elevation of the mountain is 2998' (not 3001') subject to the accuracy of the photos and methods used on the 1:24000 scale maps.

Interesting factoid: the triangulation station name is "Saddlerock" not "Saddleback". It says (1939) that it was on Saddlerock Mountain. By 1947 (the edition of the old map that's on line) it was Saddleback. Either it changed, or the surveyors got the name wrong in 1939.

 

[RoySwkr]

Some people may feel that to be consistent you should base a list only on USGS maps, hence Saddlerock/Saddleback will not be 3K until the USGS map has a 3K contour. These people need read no further.

So the best we can say is the elevation of the mountain is 2998' (not 3001') subject to the accuracy of the photos and methods used on the 1:24000 scale maps.

The 2998 elevation is next to the survey marker and hence is the elevation of the marker. As the marker description says the summit is two feet higher, that puts the summit about 3000'. People who believe a list should include all possible peaks such as Mr. Daniell hence should include this summit on a 3k list while those like Mr. Schlimmer who prefer only more certain peaks will leave it off.

So what map did they get the elevation from? It would have been the old 15 minute map.

I'm not quite sure why you think the agency with primary responsibility for control surveys in the US gets elevations from scaling off outdated maps. Given that it is NGS/NOAA and not USGS that sets the shape of the geoid, I feel the 2999 is more likely to be correct and hence the summit is even more likely to be over 3k. Note that there are some peaks such as Jo-Mary and Chase where NGS and USGS elevations are quite far apart.

In any case it is a 500 Highest peak and will immediately attract a couple dozen hikers if that list is ever released.

 

[dms]

In any case it is a 500 Highest peak and will immediately attract a couple dozen hikers if that list is ever released.

Whoosh!! I am on my way!!!

 

[Papa Bear]

I'm not quite sure why you think the agency with primary responsibility for control surveys in the US gets elevations from scaling off outdated maps. Given that it is NGS/NOAA and not USGS that sets the shape of the geoid, I feel the 2999 is more likely to be correct and hence the summit is even more likely to be over 3k. Note that there are some peaks such as Jo-Mary and Chase where NGS and USGS elevations are quite far apart.

First off, it's the USGS (Interior Dept.) that controls what's on their maps, and it's the NGS (Commerce Dept.) that has an on-line database. And yes the NGS datasheet clearly states the elevation was scaled from a map. They could well have left it blank since they had no accurate information on the elevation. To reiterate, yes, one agency is making an estimate by looking at a map produced by another agency. That's the whole point in telling us, so we will know the information is not suitable for control purposes.

As for the map being obsolete - it was the current map when the entry was put into their data in 1939.

Similarly they have scaled locations for bench marks, which have accurate elevations but locations taken from maps, which have been know to be off by .1 miles. The point is that NGS makes no representation that the scaled elevations or positions are accurate, but that they were taken off a map, not measured. So why do they put them in? They don't say, but I asume it's for the convenience of the users. (After all, that's what we do when we estimate elevations for many peaks (scale them from a map). And we certainly don't represent them as accurate.)

As for the spot elevation corresponding to the triangle, not the highest point, I would say since they are in different color print, it's not likely, but we don't know do we? There are certainly spot elevations at other places where there are no triangles or "x" marks. The bench mark I pointed out down on the road by the pond is much more definitive, since the symbol and elevation value appear to be in the same hand with the same color ink. But it's all irrelevent since the photogrammatic merthod used would be unable to distinguish the two points anyway.

Something tells me you just want this peak to be a 3K.

 

[RoySwkr]

And yes the NGS datasheet clearly states the elevation was scaled from a map.

It says 29/SCALED which presumably means 1929 datum, maybe the 2999 is from adjustment to 1988 datum. And then add 2 feet from marker to summit.

Something tells me you just want this peak to be a 3K.

I'm with Gene, questionable peaks should be listed although slackers may choose not to climb them