New Hampshire 200 Highest and New Hampshire 300 Highest Lists

[rocket21]

The elusive NH 200 and NH 300 lists have been posted and there's now a patch!

Hi to All

A new list has been added to the "Grid" website.

The "NH 200" & "NH 300" highest summits.

There is currently no "Official" NH 300 List. This is a best effort approximation researched and developed by Bryan Cuddihee over the past 6-8 months.

Patches will be awarded for both completion of the "NH 200" ( 203 summits ) and the "NH 300" ( 307 summits ).

Eventually, an addendum will be added to this web page that will provide additional options, possibilities, and "delisted" peaks, visited over the years.

This web page is meant to honor "all" finishers, past & future, of "all" versions of this list.


Note: As stated, there are other versions of this list. They are shared selectively and with some exclusivity. This version of the list is meant to be shared by all.

The complete list, instructions for obtaining patches, rules of the game, etc., can be found at the "grid" website listed below.

www.48x12.com

Just click on the button for the "NH 200" & "NH 300".


Thanks,
And, Take Care

Ed

New Hampshire 300 Highest

 

[Becca M]

It is nice that these lists are available and not so secretive.

 

[RoySwkr]

I am not quite sure why Ed continues to sully his reputation by sponsoring bogus peak lists.

This is a pretty poor excuse for a peak list, as usual someone has published it without bothering to review existing information and even though it is supposed to be a spreadsheet there is one peak seriously out of order in the version I downloaded yesterday.

Because many given elevations are not the same as on USGS maps and many names are unusual or misspelled, it is hard to match up with more correct lists but so far I have discovered the following:
* It contains South Hancock with only 4 40' contours and another peak with only 9 20' contours but excludes maybe 8 peaks with 5 or more 40' contours or 10 20' contours so the rules aren't being applied consistently
* It includes a peak whose summit is in Quebec according to both USGS and Canadian maps as well as those who've actually been there

I know of 3 people who have completed the NH 300 (there are probably others), each using a separate list using criteria they selected, the posted list uses no particular consistent criteria and was apparently made up by someone who needs new glasses

 

[rocket21]

I am not quite sure why Ed continues to sully his reputation by sponsoring bogus peak lists.

This is a pretty poor excuse for a peak list, as usual someone has published it without bothering to review existing information

What exisiting information? The other lists that aren't made public and aren't shared unless you know the secret handshake?

even though it is supposed to be a spreadsheet there is one peak seriously out of order in the version I downloaded yesterday.

I didn't know the list has to be hiked in order of elevation. Regardless, if one wants to sort by elevation, one can do so in less than 5 seconds.

Because many given elevations are not the same as on USGS maps and many names are unusual or misspelled, it is hard to match up with more correct lists but so far I have discovered the following:
* It contains South Hancock with only 4 40' contours and another peak with only 9 20' contours but excludes maybe 8 peaks with 5 or more 40' contours or 10 20' contours so the rules aren't being applied consistently

I think the first complaint should be brought to the 4,000 Footer Committee.

I know of 3 people who have completed the NH 300 (there are probably others), each using a separate list using criteria they selected, the posted list uses no particular consistent criteria and was apparently made up by someone who needs new glasses

The suggestion is that the first three lists, presumably different than each other, are correct, but the fourth is not?

I think Ed and Bryan have done a great job. If you've ever talked with them in person about these recently posted lists (such as the NH300 or the fire tower list), you'll find that they're interested in any suggestions. They're also quite civil in their online communications.

 

[Peakbagr]

"I know of 3 people who have completed the NH 300 (there are probably others), each using a separate list using criteria they selected, the posted list uses no particular consistent criteria and was apparently made up by someone who needs new glasses."

Roy, how would you like having your efforts referred to in this way?

 

[akafuzzjones]

From Ed's note: As stated, there are other versions of this list. They are shared selectively and with some exclusivity. This version of the list is meant to be shared by all.

While I will likely never go this deep into the peak lists here in NH, big thanks to Bryan for sharing his version of the list. I'm sure there is some backstory here that I don't know but why haven't the other versions of these lists been shared previously? Is there some secret society of peakbaggers out there?

 

[skiguy]

I am not quite sure why Ed continues to sully his reputation by sponsoring bogus peak lists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf8CWeWd-iE

 

[NewHampshire]

Doing the NH300 list was one of the toughest and most rewarding tasks I have ever done. It is not that some of the whacks are harder than any others, but the time investment in driving and the lack of beta for so many of them was enough to drive one mad. I can't even begin to remember how many peaks we were denied due to closed gates, closed roads and all host of other issues. But success falls to those who persevere!

The history of the NH300 is quite an interesting one, though perhaps interesting only to those crazy people intent on doing it. The concept of the NH300 started on a hand written piece of paper by a man who has become a bit of a legend in the New England whacking community, John Person, in the early 1990's. His original intent was a NE1000, but the basis of the NH300 came from that first list. Fast forward some years and a few other crazy people entered the picture. Keith D'Alessandro and his wife were lucky enough to come into possession of the list, both completing it themselves. Al Bernier also worked, and finished, the list. All the while, everyone interested in it was working to improve it. The Person version of the list lacked a few peaks as well as had a few that eventually were discovered to lack enough prominence, but it is understandable since, ironically, John never himself completed.

My friend Greg spent quite an amount of time and effort himself in browsing the maps, and thanks to help from guys like Al Bernier, Roy Schweiker, Keith D'Alessandro, Ethan Paquin and a few other legends of the whacking community we were able to tweak things on our end too. This meant climbing some questionable peaks, some that meant doing a whack that in the end was for a peak we decided to take off the list, but it was all a worthwhile adventure. Discovering new places, visiting old ones. My friend and I believe we managed to cover all our bases, but even we will be the first to admit our version may not be perfect.

I know full well my friend and I were not the first to finish. Or second. Maybe not even in the first 10. All we did was follow in some very large footsteps. So to all who went before, and to all who follow, I salute you, wish you the best of luck, and may you have dry trails and open woods!

Brian

 

[JCarter]

From Ed's note: As stated, there are other versions of this list. They are shared selectively and with some exclusivity. This version of the list is meant to be shared by all.

While I will likely never go this deep into the peak lists here in NH, big thanks to Bryan for sharing his version of the list. I'm sure there is some backstory here that I don't know but why haven't the other versions of these lists been shared previously? Is there some secret society of peakbaggers out there?

The first rule of the secret society of peakbaggers is that you never talk about the secret society of peakbaggers.

 

[Raven]

Doing the NH300 list was one of the toughest and most rewarding tasks I have ever done. It is not that some of the whacks are harder than any others, but the time investment in driving and the lack of beta for so many of them was enough to drive one mad. I can't even begin to remember how many peaks we were denied due to closed gates, closed roads and all host of other issues. But success falls to those who persevere!

The history of the NH300 is quite an interesting one, though perhaps interesting only to those crazy people intent on doing it. The concept of the NH300 started on a hand written piece of paper by a man who has become a bit of a legend in the New England whacking community, John Person, in the early 1990's. His original intent was a NE1000, but the basis of the NH300 came from that first list. Fast forward some years and a few other crazy people entered the picture. Keith D'Alessandro and his wife were lucky enough to come into possession of the list, both completing it themselves. Al Bernier also worked, and finished, the list. All the while, everyone interested in it was working to improve it. The Person version of the list lacked a few peaks as well as had a few that eventually were discovered to lack enough prominence, but it is understandable since, ironically, John never himself completed.

My friend Greg spent quite an amount of time and effort himself in browsing the maps, and thanks to help from guys like Al Bernier, Roy Schweiker, Keith D'Alessandro, Ethan Paquin and a few other legends of the whacking community we were able to tweak things on our end too. This meant climbing some questionable peaks, some that meant doing a whack that in the end was for a peak we decided to take off the list, but it was all a worthwhile adventure. Discovering new places, visiting old ones. My friend and I believe we managed to cover all our bases, but even we will be the first to admit our version may not be perfect.

I know full well my friend and I were not the first to finish. Or second. Maybe not even in the first 10. All we did was follow in some very large footsteps. So to all who went before, and to all who follow, I salute you, wish you the best of luck, and may you have dry trails and open woods!

Brian

Thanks for sharing Brian. At this point, the NH300 is probably not something I will pursue, but I enjoyed reading how this came about.

Wasn't Oncoman working on the NE1000? I thought I saw some posts over the past few years on that.

 

[RoySwkr]

What exisiting information? The other lists that aren't made public and aren't shared unless you know the secret handshake?

I have always provided Ed with anything he wanted, although I don't know why I bother as he doesn't ask until after he posts a list and then rarely makes changes

I didn't know the list has to be hiked in order of elevation. Regardless, if one wants to sort by elevation, one can do so in less than 5 seconds.

It doesn't, but having a peak out of order on a height list is just another indication of sloppiness

I think the first complaint should be brought to the 4,000 Footer Committee.

Why? They have nothing to do with this list and the makers of new lists should not be constrained by irregular old lists - this list includes Guyot for instance

The suggestion is that the first three lists, presumably different than each other, are correct, but the fourth is not?

If you have a list called "52 with a view", you can presumably put any 52 points on it and they don't even have to be peaks, but if you are developing a height list it should be done to consistent standards which the 3 lists I mention had and the posted one does not. (One person chose to include peaks with 10x6m=197' cols and one did not for instance, the choice you make here is less important than that you are consistent,)

I think Ed and Bryan have done a great job.

I'm not surprised that you feel that way

Let's look at what I consider a good peak list - the NH 100 Most Prominent. http://listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/Prominence.php?State=NH Note that if you click on any peak, you get not just the coords for every peak and col but a clickable link to a topographic map that shows it.

By comparision the NH 300 list posted:
* Uses inconsistent criteria for peaks on list
* Doesn't use the same elevations as USGS maps so may be hard to locate peaks as coords aren't provided either
* Uses misspelled or non-traditional names so hard to locate by search
* Didn't bother to take 5 seconds to sort list

If they would like to delete this bogus list before any more copies are downloaded, I would be happy to help create a more correct one once they decide what criteria their list should have.
For instance:
* (All summits to be located in the state of NH) or (Include high point at state line if summit elsewhere, example Rump Mtn)
* (Summit elevation determined by spot elevation if present or interpolation otherwise) or (Summit elevation always determined by interpolation)
* (Col elevation determined by spot elevation if present or interpolation otherwise) or (Col elevation always determined by interpolation)
* (Minimum col depth to be on list is 200') or (Minimum col depth to be on list is 200' on quads using feet or 60m=197' if col or summit on metric quad)
* (Peak must qualify at least on 7.5' (new) quads) or (Peak must qualify at least on 15' (old) quads) or (Peak must qualify on either 7.5' or 15' quads) or (Peak must qualify on both 7.5' and 15' quads)

I know there are Excel freaks out there but using a spreadsheet to keep track of a list that is likely to change is sheer foolishness. Suppose that you have entered 250 dates and Ed decides to correct the 50+/- incorrect elevations, names, and rows. You either have to figure out which 50 have changed and manually make the corrections to your copy, or else reenter the 250 dates into a correct copy. If this information was stored in a database you wouldn't need to do anything except check for new rows, and if you climbed a peak on multiple lists (height, prominence, fire towers, etc.) you need only enter the date once. In fact this capability is already available at sites like listsofjohn.com where you can get a list of every peak in NH with a 300' col and he even flags some marginal ones - there are 648 presently listed so that should keep even BM busy for awhile.

Roy, how would you like having your efforts referred to in this way?

If I had made such a poor effort, I would deserve it - and if this is the only way to discourage people from posting erroneous lists I'll continue to call them out

 

[Peakbagr]

Actually, Roy, snarky posts discourage people from replying and people tune you out. You can convey what you know and all you've accomplished by not demeaning people with whom you disagree.

 

[TEO]

I'm sure there is some backstory here that I don't know but why haven't the other versions of these lists been shared previously? Is there some secret society of peakbaggers out there?

Indeed there is a secret society of peakbaggers, however while it may be signing a death-warrant, I can tell you how to unravel the super-secret membership roster: bushwhack to the summit of a sub-NEHH peak. If there is a canister, its register will contain a partial membership roster. By bushwhacking to more of these peaks, you will eventually accumulate an almost-complete roster.

To be slightly more serious--and I'm largely inferring, because I've never created a peakbagging list of my own--I'm guessing that these lists are not shared openly on the internet because the creators want to minimize the impact to the many of these peaks that still exist in a relatively wild state. One might think that difficulty reaching many of these peaks would keep them in pristine shape, but it takes a relatively few number of people to have a lasting impact. To wit, recently on a traverse of the southern four peaks of the Hitchcock massif, I was a little surprised to see faint herd paths developing in places.

Others, too, may feel that by not publicizing them, they will help prevent people from getting in over their heads, such as the instance related in a now-deleted thread about a NEHH hike gone-awry in Vermont. Still others may feel that publishing these lists online takes away some of the sense of adventure and/or exploration, mystery, mystique--you choose.

Or maybe I'm completely off base on these guesses. What I do know is that I've requested two lists from people that I didn't know, both of whom I contacted through VFTT, and both people readily shared their information. OTH, a fellow peakbagging friend, in the pre-internet days, once wrote a group that he suspected might have the list he was looking for, and indeed they did. But, instead of sending the list he had requested, they sent him another, easier list, and suggested that he complete that list first and then come back and ask again for the list he wanted.

 

[Raymond]

I knew if I waited long enough some herd paths would appear.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I did the Garfield Ridge peaks yesterday. East has a pretty clear herd path but maybe a dozen visitors this year. None between me and 6/28. I recognized most of the names in the log.

West has less if a herd path but wasn't thick at all. I went up both in shorts and short sleeves without a scratch. My dog was initially confused by the lack of a trail but seemed to understand the objective was to go up. He followed our exact tracks down. Gotta love that nose.

In neither case was any navigational aid required. Only a mental note of the number of puds on the GRT and from there head up when the trail leveled out.

These have to be two very easy peaks given the proximity to the GRT. If you are beginning your NHHH quest these are probably a good start. Being NHHH makes them more popular than the 3Ks and the NH200/300 as well.

Tim

 

[peakbagger]

I expect the herd paths are another consequence of GPS use. In the past map and compass bushwhacks tended to zig zag on featureless wooded ridges. With GPS someone can just set a course between two points and follow the beeps. I expect its far less prevalent on lesser used peaks but sharing GPS tracks is getting quite popular.

 

[Becca M]

You can indeed find the active bushwhackers by looking at the sign-ins... unfortunately, you may also notice a pattern of snarky/inappropriate/rude remarks that correlates to this "secret society". Transparency concerning these lists is a good thing.

 

[NewHampshire]

Thanks for sharing Brian. At this point, the NH300 is probably not something I will pursue, but I enjoyed reading how this came about.

Wasn't Oncoman working on the NE1000? I thought I saw some posts over the past few years on that.

Absolutely! Oncoman is but another legend of sorts. There are a few people who's entries you go into a log almost expecting, Oncoman among them (Nefarious Nate and Al Bernier a.k.a. Albee the others ). I have not had the pleasure of meeting Oncoman yet, though 2 of my friends happened to have had a chance encounter with him when they apparently decided to pick the same day to do the Black Crescents over near York Pond Road.

Brian

 

[TJsName]

I know there are Excel freaks out there...

If you want to compare versions, use the vlookup formula to find the reference on the opposite sheet. The ones that don't have matches have been changed, so it's a lot easier to sort them out.

 

[Raymond]

I already climbed the two Garfield Ridge peaks, before there were herd paths. It was the news of the Hitchcock peaks having paths developing that caught my attention. One of my least-favorite and most-confusing bushwhacks was East Hitchcock.