Mt. Guyot

[Ed'n Lauky]

This is just a curiosity question. Having just done the Bonds traverse, I was wondering why Mt. Guyot was not an official 4000 footer. There definitely was over 200' elevation gain coming up from Zealand and it seemed to me that there was at least a 200' drop while heading towards West Bond and Bond. I do admit that I wasn't thinking that much about it at the time and didn't check my altimeter that carefully, so perhaps I'm wrong there. I remember the last time I went through the same question came to mind, so I thought I would ask the question.

 

[Mattl]

I couldn't agree more. Coming down from West Bond and Bond, it is a serious change in elevation through there. That would make 49, and of people would want 50 to make it even. South West Twin! -Mattl

 

[dug]

Without anything handy, I think it is the drop/rise from South Twin.

 

[albee]

The col depth is theoretically the same on the South Twin AND the Bondcliff sides. The best case scenario in terms of prominence (the technical term for this is "optimistic prominence") is 4600-4360=240', and the worst case scenario is 4561-4399=162'. The odds are it falls somewhere in between these two scenarios, although the true height of the col is more likely to be underestimated since there are two places where it could be higher than 4360'.

A similar argument can be made for West Bond and South Hancock, but why bother - if it's close, just hike 'em all and enjoy the views.

This could all be solved in less than 48 hours with some expensive survey-grade GPS equipment (accurate to less than a tenth on an inch) but you would have to find the low point on the ridge and the high point on the peak, and let the equipment take readings for a while to get the most accurate elevation. Anyone want to foot the bill for that and pay an official AMC rep to witness the data collection?

 

[skiguy]

This could all be solved in less than 48 hours with some expensive survey-grade GPS equipment (accurate to less than a tenth on an inch) but you would have to find the low point on the ridge and the high point on the peak, and let the equipment take readings for a while to get the most accurate elevation. Anyone want to foot the bill for that and pay an official AMC rep to witness the data collection?

While your at it...Owl's Head is in the same neighborhood

 

[MichaelJ]

So, having just done a Bonds Traverse with my 60CSx strapped to my pack, here are some of the numbers I got. Note that I was in motion for many of them, for some they include my own height, for others the pack was lying on the ground, I was never off trail, and so at best they're only good for relative comparisons.

Bond: 4722'
Low point of West Bond Spur: 4312'
West Bond: 4542'
Low point of Bond/Guyot col: 4377'
The white quartz cairn: 4595'
Bondcliff/Twinway junction: 4525'
High point on trail over Guyot: 4598'
Low point of Guyot/Zealand col: 4075'
Zealand: 4290'

 

[Mattl]

I move for making Guyot the the 49th 4000 footer. The precise data Michael presented is evidence enough, unless someone else can show other data that disagrees. Its not like people are going out of there way to get there. It is right in the middle of several, so its more about making it official. -Mattl

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I've been from Zealand to South Twin, and from Bondcliff to West Bond, but have only seen Guyot from the two sides. Some day I will traverse Zealand to Lincoln Woods and pick it up, but I did not cross it while completing the NH48.

Tim

 

[dr_wu002]

The key col is between South Twin and Guyot. This data was not included in Michael J's numbers.

-Dr. Wu

 

[DougPaul]

The precise data Michael presented is evidence enough,

I doubt it. The difference between the numbers for Guyot and the Bond/Guyot col is 221 ft, leaving a margin of 21 ft. The accuracy of his GPS has not been established to be good enough to guarantee that the 21 foot difference is reliable.

Note that MJ's numbers for West Bond are 38 ft high and Bond 24 ft high (compared to the 25K scale USGS topo). This suggests that the absolute errors are greater than 21 ft and the relative errors change by 14 ft.

Garmin states the error of the altimeter is +-10 ft when properly calibrated. Add in on the ground vs on his back and you get more like +15-10 ft. This gives a theoretical error of ~ +-18 ft for differences of two measurements.

We also don't know how good the calibration was or how much it changed between locations. (MJ hasn't even told us which calibration method was used.)

The numbers may also be biased, depending on how MJ chose them. If he took the highest point of the curve to find the high spot and the lowest point to find the low spot, then the highest point will be biased high and the lowest point will be biased low due to short-term noise. (These biases would tend to inflate the 221 ft difference number.)

MJ's numbers are good enough to suggest that the issue might be resolved with survey grade equipment.

The key col is between South Twin and Guyot. This data was not included in Michael J's numbers.

I get a dip of 210 feet (G=4570, S-G col=4360) from the DEM included with my copy of NG TOPO!. My method for getting these numbers suffers from the bias mentioned above. Same conclusion: these data are also inconclusive.

(Just to be complete, using the DEM to estimate the Bond-Guyot col gives a dip of 207 ft.)

Doug

 

[nartreb]

I read somewhere (probably here on VFTT) that Guyot was left off the original list because it had *two* "questionable cols", whereas, for example, South Hancock had only one.

 

[skiguy]

I heard because of all the hair splitting on VFTT that the AMC is no longer sanctioning "THE GAME" of climbing the NH 4000 list.

 

[DougPaul]

I read somewhere (probably here on VFTT) that Guyot was left off the original list because it had *two* "questionable cols", whereas, for example, South Hancock had only one.

A probabilistic argument.

I heard because of all the hair splitting on VFTT that the AMC is no longer sanctioning "THE GAME" of climbing the NH 4000 list.

Ultimately any time one imposes a hard threshold on noisy measured numbers, there will be hairsplitting...

I prefer just to hike them, list or not.

Doug

 

[dr_wu002]

MJ's numbers are good enough to suggest that the issue might be resolved with survey grade equipment.

The issue has been resolved -- it's not on the list.

The thing is -- the 4000'er list was created by someone or some people for fun and they chose the requirements and probably didn't intend to go nuts with survey equipment. Over the years however it seems as if somehow "the list" has acquired "legitimacy" and other competing lists (ever hear of the list with the 300' col requirement? Yeah, that's totally 1968...) went by the wayside. My guess is that 200' col gives a nice number around 50 peaks while anything more than 200' col would eliminate too many peaks and a smaller number like 50' or 100' col would guarantee that every podunk on a ridge above 4000' would be included. Also, they probably looked around at named peaks and fit that to a 200' col rule. Things like 4357' (SW Twin) might not have jumped out at anyone due to lack of name and <100' col.

-Dr. Wu

 

[mookie]

podunk on a ridge above 4000' would be included. -Dr. Wu

hehe
u said podunk

 

[sapblatt]

The key col is between South Twin and Guyot. This data was not included in Michael J's numbers.

-Dr. Wu

The few times I have done that section I have found it to be very easy with little climbing...

 

[jniehof]

The precise data Michael presented is evidence enough, unless someone else can show other data that disagrees.

"Determinations are made according to the most current USGS topographical maps" (4000-footer committee FAQ)
"...the Four Thousand Footer Committee uses the USGS maps as the authority for all elevations..." (WMG, 28th edition)
"...the Four Thousand Footer Committee uses USGS maps as the authority for all elevations, while AMC uses GPS in recording elevations." (MEG, 9th edition)

Given that the 4000-footer committee has chosen the USGS maps over Brad Washburn (in the Presis), I don't think anybody's GPS measurements are going to overthrow the USGS quads as the standard. It makes sense, in that the standard should be something everyone has access to, not what any one person strikes out and finds on their own.

 

[Mattl]

I was kind of half kidding when i said that about his MJ's data, I still would like to see someone else take another look.
-Mattl

 

[DougPaul]

The thing is -- the 4000'er list was created by someone or some people for fun and they chose the requirements and probably didn't intend to go nuts with survey equipment.

I thought I read somewhere that the list was created using altitude data from USGS topo maps. Once you decide on a threshold, the difficulty becomes estimating altitudes when all you know is that the point is between two contour lines. (This leads to the probabilistic arguments when 2 or more cols become iffy.) And, of course, GPS didn't exist back when the 4K list was originally written.

Doug

Edit: I see jniehof confirmed my recollections.

 

[dr_wu002]

I thought I read somewhere that the list was created using altitude data from USGS topo maps. Once you decide on a threshold, the difficulty becomes estimating altitudes when all you know is that the point is between two contour lines. (This leads to the probabilistic arguments when 2 or more cols become iffy.) And, of course, GPS didn't exist back when the 4K list was originally written.

Doug

Edit: I see jniehof confirmed my recollections.

A simple solution could be to use volume instead of height when selecting the criteria for the list. I doubt we'd be having this discussion now if the originators of "the list" weren't so careless.

-Dr. Wu