Lidar Article with comments about the AMC 4K list

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
P

peakbagger

In Rembrance , July 2024
Joined
Sep 3, 2003
Messages
8,639
Reaction score
689
Location
Gorham NH
The article quotes Larry Garland about the potential disagreements between the prior map based list and the Lidar generated topo. He states that the 4k committee is sticking to the traditional list so we still have an excuse to 4K folks still get to see the exciting summits of Tecumseh and Suth Hancock while breezing past Guyot.

https://www.conwaydailysun.com/outd...cle_5358a52e-ff01-11ec-b5f7-cf2060a311f2.html
 
I've always been a fan of Guyot which is hardly a cheap peak to obtain. Perhaps its reputation has suffered somewhat because of its ill-defined double summit and its proximity to the more imposing Bonds. Seems like a no-brainer to switch it out for South Hancock which has long been questioned and never felt like much of a summit.
 
Grey J said:
I've always been a fan of Guyot which is hardly a cheap peak to obtain. Perhaps its reputation has suffered somewhat because of its ill-defined double summit and its proximity to the more imposing Bonds. Seems like a no-brainer to switch it out for South Hancock which has long been questioned and never felt like much of a summit.
Click to expand...
It’s just a game and the rules are left up to a committee. Whether a peak is on a list or not one can still climb it. That’s why I personally hike my own hike and do my own hair splitting rather than worrying about collecting patches.
 
skiguy said:
It’s just a game and the rules are left up to a committee. Whether a peak is on a list or not one can still climb it. That’s why I personally hike my own hike and do my own hair splitting rather than worrying about collecting patches.
Click to expand...


Great reply. Really. Did they measure Mt Washington from the summit sign pile? it was piled up when they cleared a spot for the Tip Top house. Why not just put a few rocks at the top of Tecumseh and call it a day. It's just a game.
 
Last edited:
I find it odd that the more data we have about the peaks, the less we use it.

The 4K committee and the Catskill 3500 Club now both ignore data that clearly shows that their lists need to be revised, even after revising them in the past.

The 46'ers at least have said for many years that they will not change their list.
 
Tom Rankin said:
I find it odd that the more data we have about the peaks, the less we use it.

The 4K committee and the Catskill 3500 Club now both ignore data that clearly shows that their lists need to be revised, even after revising them in the past.

The 46'ers at least have said for many years that they will not change their list.
Click to expand...
That is why it is just a game. It is not based in fact or current information but by a subjective group of individuals. Which in turn makes the whole situation not worth taking too seriously for some piece of cloth to sew to the back of your pack. Also when the lists do change the previous ones are usually grandfathered. So really what is the point of chasing after breadcrumbs? For instance let’s say one of the brew pubs on the “Views with Brews” list closes down. What is the criteria? Does the list get shortened or does the now closed brew pub get replaced by a new pub and or mountain? Do previous finishers of the list now need to go back and do another hike and pub? If the alcohol level changes on the house special is that pub now eliminated.That probably would be a decision made by the creator of the list and or it’s administrators. Maybe not a directly proportioned analogy but personally this is why I don’t take the whole listing thing too seriously. The rules are made by someone else and if you want to play their game you play by their rules whether they are objective or not. The only thing that is important is that your having fun. Which is what hiking IMO should be rather than loosing sleep over some game an individual has no control over. Kind of reminds me of a time when I was doing The AT up through Rangeley Maine. I was having one of those days where I just couldn’t get my rhythm going. I met another hiker whom was moving in the same direction after we had been leap frogging each other most of the morning. When we both finally stopped to rest in the same spot. He also had been dragging along when he exclaimed to me….”Good thing they call this fun. Otherwise it would be work”!
 
skiguy said:
That is why it is just a game. It is not based in fact or current information but by a subjective group of individuals. Which in turn makes the whole situation not worth taking too seriously for some piece of cloth to sew to the back of your pack. Also when the lists do change the previous ones are usually grandfathered. So really what is the point of chasing after breadcrumbs? For instance let’s say one of the brew pubs on the “Views with Brews” list closes down. What is the criteria? Does the list get shortened or does the now closed brew pub get replaced by a new pub and or mountain? Do previous finishers of the list now need to go back and do another hike and pub? If the alcohol level changes on the house special is that pub now eliminated.That probably would be a decision made by the creator of the list and or it’s administrators. Maybe not a directly proportioned analogy but personally this is why I don’t take the whole listing thing too seriously. The rules are made by someone else and if you want to play their game you play by their rules whether they are objective or not. The only thing that is important is that your having fun. Which is what hiking IMO should be rather than loosing sleep over some game an individual has no control over. Kind of reminds me of a time when I was doing The AT up through Rangeley Maine. I was having one of those days where I just couldn’t get my rhythm going. I met another hiker whom was moving in the same direction after we had been leap frogging each other most of the morning. When we both finally stopped to rest in the same spot. He also had been dragging along when he exclaimed to me….”Good thing they call this fun. Otherwise it would be work”!
Click to expand...

Smokey, this is not 'Nam.
 
skiguy said:
It’s just a game and the rules are left up to a committee.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, allow me to offer a different perspective. When you want to understand the actions of individuals inside an institution, start by reflecting upon their incentive structure.

You have a bunch of folks on a committee whose primary task is to send out patches and certificates to people who attest to having hiked certain mountains in certain time periods. Committee members literally have to check calendars for winter patches, for example. The people who do this take satisfaction from it.

Then one day someone tells them that they have a new task: determine how many "mountains" there are for the main patch. It's no small task! If the members add mountains, there are implications for environmental impacts, parking, and so forth. They grandfather existing patch holders in.

No imagine those folks have to ask themselves if they should take a mountain away!

What rewards do they get for doing so? What costs?

Who will say to them, "Thank you for taking two mountains off this list!" Now imagine, who would be furious at them?

So someone, somewhere, on the 48 Committee or elsewhere, is now tasked with a decision: either drop two mountains and now have "The New Hampshire 46," or keep the status quo ante and recognize that until this point, we got on with our hiking lives just fine in our ignorance.

I just don't see a lot of incentive to take the two off the list.

Brian
 
And throw in that as MSL rises due to ocean level rise, mountains will get shorter unless they are still growing from the last glacial era.
 
B the Hiker said:
With all due respect, allow me to offer a different perspective. When you want to understand the actions of individuals inside an institution, start by reflecting upon their incentive structure.

You have a bunch of folks on a committee whose primary task is to send out patches and certificates to people who attest to having hiked certain mountains in certain time periods. Committee members literally have to check calendars for winter patches, for example. The people who do this take satisfaction from it.

Then one day someone tells them that they have a new task: determine how many "mountains" there are for the main patch. It's no small task! If the members add mountains, there are implications for environmental impacts, parking, and so forth. They grandfather existing patch holders in.

No imagine those folks have to ask themselves if they should take a mountain away!

What rewards do they get for doing so? What costs?

Who will say to them, "Thank you for taking two mountains off this list!" Now imagine, who would be furious at them?

So someone, somewhere, on the 48 Committee or elsewhere, is now tasked with a decision: either drop two mountains and now have "The New Hampshire 46," or keep the status quo ante and recognize that until this point, we got on with our hiking lives just fine in our ignorance.

I just don't see a lot of incentive to take the two off the list.

Brian
Click to expand...

And since it is just a list, there really is no reason to bother making changes. The "traditional 48" is all you need to call it. Millions of years from now it will not matter, assuming it matters now.
 
B the Hiker said:
With all due respect, allow me to offer a different perspective. When you want to understand the actions of individuals inside an institution, start by reflecting upon their incentive structure.

You have a bunch of folks on a committee whose primary task is to send out patches and certificates to people who attest to having hiked certain mountains in certain time periods. Committee members literally have to check calendars for winter patches, for example. The people who do this take satisfaction from it.

Then one day someone tells them that they have a new task: determine how many "mountains" there are for the main patch. It's no small task! If the members add mountains, there are implications for environmental impacts, parking, and so forth. They grandfather existing patch holders in.

No imagine those folks have to ask themselves if they should take a mountain away!

What rewards do they get for doing so? What costs?

Who will say to them, "Thank you for taking two mountains off this list!" Now imagine, who would be furious at them?

So someone, somewhere, on the 48 Committee or elsewhere, is now tasked with a decision: either drop two mountains and now have "The New Hampshire 46," or keep the status quo ante and recognize that until this point, we got on with our hiking lives just fine in our ignorance.

I just don't see a lot of incentive to take the two off the list.

Brian
Click to expand...

Yes with all due respect I see your point but to make it sound like it is a burden is a farce IMO. While it is all just a game someone made up within the context of their own self-created paradigms. Again, all they are really doing is officiating a game. So why create the game to begin with or be an official if it is a task. I fail to see your premise of the need for there to be an incentive structure if it has been become a task. No one forces you to become an official in the first place. I think you are only accentuating what I am saying which is keep it fun. No one forces you to climb mountains and, in my perspective, I could give a rat's arse about some committee that is slaving over the administration of some list that is all about collecting a patch and a certificate. Some of us don't need recognition for fulfillment when they make accomplishments. As far as your comment about parking and impact maybe that would not be a problem if the list had not been created in the first place. Yet another farce is my understanding the list was created originally to disperse impact. People being mad or furious over changes in a list is just down comical IMO. Again relax, stop splitting hairs and have a good time and hike your own hike.
 
I am not a fan of either Lidar or the constant minor readjustments to peak-bagging lists. On many levels it takes some of the fun away from the game and forces all of us OCD types to go back and revisit mountains we’ve already summited because it turns out the tippy top is just over there and not right over here. The wooded summits of the Northeast are much more prone to minor inaccuracies than western peaks. Owl’s Head, NH for example … or the switch years ago from Wildcat E to Wildcat D … or the promotions of Redington and Spaulding. You think you’ve done it right and then somebody spits in your Wheaties and you find yourself redoing a 20 mile round trip hike for the sake of an insignificant bump just around the bend.

And now Lidar has made its first impact on the State Highpoints list. It seems someone has found a bump one ridge north of Mount Davis, Pennsylvania that is less than one foot higher than the historical and well-established state highpoint. As of this past weekend, Lists of John has accepted this data and stripped Mount Davis of its status as the top of PA. So guess who is gonna spend 14 hours in a car on Saturday for the sake of a ridiculous adjustment that may or may not be accurate?

https://www.listsofjohn.com/peak/218278
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

onrhodes
My 48 Summary
Replies
6
Views
1K
onrhodes
onrhodes

Latest posts

Top