How should col depths be calculated for a NH100 peak list?

[RoySwkr]

Obviously setting deeper col requirements will affect height-based lists by removing some peaks, the AMC 48 4k would become the 35 if a 300' col was used. A list of a certain number of peaks will change by adding lower peaks at the end that wouldn't make it if a shallower col was used.

In addition to changing the nominal col depth required, the list is affected by how the depth is calculated. In many cases the exact summit and particularly the col elevations are not shown on a map so a range of elevations is possible within the given contours. This poll is an attempt to determine what criteria people prefer.

* Possibles - this considers the most peaks to be eligible by using the maximum summit elevation possible with the given contours with the minimum col elevation. This method is used by noted peakbagger Bob
Packard who thus climbs maybe 10% more peaks than most anyone else to finish a list. With this method the AMC would add Guyot to the NH 4k and delete South Hancock which mathematically cannot have a 200' col unless the map is wrong. The NH100 highest would end at 3510' with a tie including Savage Mtn.

* Average - calculate needed values by adding half a contour interval to the summit elevation and using a col elevation midway between the two contours there. Mathematically this is the best approximation to the actual true unknown value. With this method the AMC would add Guyot to the NH 4k and delete Lincoln and South Hancock. The NH100 highest would end at 3490' with Dixville Peak, with 5 changes from the Possibles list.

* Proven prominence - this considers the fewest peaks to be eligible by using the minimum summit elevation with the maximum col elevation. This method is popular in Washington state where there are so many mountains they don't need to be lenient with their lists. With this method the AMC would delete Lincoln, W Bond, Bondcliff along with South Hancock. The NH100 highest would end at 3405' with Whitewall Mtn, with 12 changes from the Possibles list and 7 changes from the Average list.

I have a comparative NH100 list showing the peaks included which I will furnish to anyone who will post it on a public hiking website. I will not give it to individuals as I don't want to be accused of limiting it to a private cabal of my friends.

 

[HockeyPuck]

Where is the "figure it out by researching a variety of map sources then actually going there myself" button.

 

[Mike P.]

Lincoln is to iconic to delete. (would it lower the traffic up there? maybe deleting it is not so bad then).

When they updated the list last, they added Bondcliff and, I believe, Galehead as at one point NH and the ADK both had 46. Can't think they reconsider deleting Bondcliff which has adorned how many WMG covers?

NH is 200 and NY is 300, it is what it is.

If they'd adopt the NH rules in the ADK, I'd be two closer as I could cross off Cliff and Couchie. (I'm not advocating that) Think they would add Yard & Little Haystack if they used NH rules & I've done both of those too. (Which button was measure it in the way it benefits me the most)

 

[JCarter]

So, what you're saying is, that by any measure, South Hancock is a poser?

 

[Sherby]

Think they would add Yard & Little Haystack if they used NH rules & I've done both of those too. (Which button was measure it in the way it benefits me the most)

Yard and Table Top Middle/East, but not Little Haystack. Nye is the worst above 4000'.

 

[RoySwkr]

Lincoln is to iconic to delete.

NH is 200 and NY is 300, it is what it is.

NH is 200, sometimes

I have no problem with the idea of an historic list like the Adk46 and perhaps the AMC FTFC should have retained their original list also, but I see no reason to use it to automatically fill the first positions of a new list. Lincoln is no doubt a scenic peak but bumping it allows you to add a peak like Chocorua (which is not on the list if shallow-col peaks like Lincoln are). One purpose of the exercise was so people could see how a list might change as col criteria are stiffened - a more extreme version can be found at http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?18796-The-14-highest-peaks-of-Maine

So, what you're saying is, that by any measure, South Hancock is a poser?

If the USGS map is correct, it can have a maximum col of 199', of course the Trailwrights require only 100'

Where is the "figure it out by researching a variety of map sources then actually going there myself" button.

I agree that I could have added choices such as "Measure it myself with handheld GPS" and "Measure it myself with surveying equipment" but realistically nobody will do it for a list of 100 peaks.

And there are mathematicians in the prominence group who will explain that with spline-fitting algorithms you can get better values than mere averages, but this tends to be done for individual peaks not lengthy
lists. At least one member never actually goes hiking but just likes to play with mountain data.

And yes there are a variety of map sources available but mix-and-match is likely to give inconsistent results, in particular by choosing one map source for summits and another for cols is probably less reliable.

Similarly it could have been interesting to split the last question into "Who cares? I don't do lists!" and "Who cares as long as a list is consistent?" and "Who cares how somebody makes up a list, I just do it anyway?" but that was not the type of opinion this question hoped to attract which is once you choose the type of map you use how do you get an answer.

And there will always be peculiarities, for instance the col for Mt Oscar is on the edge of two different types of maps and which you choose determines whether it has a 200' col.

 

[andrewb]

I am split between using higher and lower rise values. On the one hand, using higher prominence yields a list of more significant peaks in the state - which are inevitably spread quite a good distance apart from each other. On the other, most people doing the 100 highest list I would imagine are not looking for the "highlights" of each range, sub-range, and ridge. We did those peaks a long time ago on other list quests. The NH100 is about filling in the gaps, mainly in places where trails do not go. For this reason, I find it hard to nit-pick. If a peak makes the requirement, or even if it almost makes it - then climb it.

Also, when you think about how much error there could be in the guesstimate for drawing in contour lines on maps, it's hard to imagine why we calculate "exact" figures from these "estimated" lines if they make up a col, then pass or fail a peak even if it misses by a single foot. South Hancock counts in my mind because it's too close to call.

In the 4000'+ category, South Hancock and Guyot, sometimes also Lincoln are cited as questionable rise-wise. Less than 4000' has Middle Moriah missing by 5 feet, Webster by 10. My opinion is the margin of error is hopefully not more than 10 feet, so hopefully these are the only other additions (although S Hancock and Lincoln are not additions). The next problem is adding Guyot, M Moriah, and Webster means three other peaks would be removed, so in the spirit of inclusion my 100 highest list has more than 100 peaks. Confusing?

 

[IQuest]

I'm giving my vote to the possibles. Isn't it about climbing 100 of the highest bumps out there? Who climbs only one Hancock at a time or passes on Hight or Guyot because they weren't on a list? Is adding a Chocoura going to decide if you hike it or not? Let's have a list and walk with it. If you feel strongly about a peak that's not on the list visit that one too. The more the merrier.

 

[RoySwkr]

Also, when you think about how much error there could be in the guesstimate for drawing in contour lines on maps, it's hard to imagine why we calculate "exact" figures from these "estimated" lines if they make up a col, then pass or fail a peak even if it misses by a single foot. South Hancock counts in my mind because it's too close to call.

South Hancock fails by "a single foot" only on the Possibles list, and by more on the other ones. One could create an Even More Possible list to better account for potential map errors which includes South Hancock along with other peaks you mention and some you don't, i.e. NW Hancock, or become more restrictive by using 300' or 500' col so it clearly doesn't belong. I don't regret omitting South Hancock as Guyot more closely fits the mathematical parameters and most people would call it a nicer peak if the AMC insists on keeping 48.

in the spirit of inclusion my 100 highest list has more than 100 peaks. Confusing?

You will find similar additions below 4000' of course, and except in the case of ties hardly anybody except Bob Packard will want to do over 100 for a 100 list

 

[Sherby]

You will find similar additions below 4000' of course, and except in the case of ties hardly anybody except Bob Packard will want to do over 100 for a 100 list

Other than M. Moriah, any particuliar peak in mind ?

 

[RoySwkr]

List is now available in 4 pieces, at bottom of http://hardcorenhhiking.blogspot.com/p/new-hampshire-100.html

 

[JCarter]

If the USGS map is correct, it can have a maximum col of 199', of course the Trailwrights require only 100'

So, an over-eager trail-maintainer with a shovel could fix this? ;-)