New Presidential for you peakbaggers

[RoySwkr]

http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:2701999

Why didn't the Reagan supporters think of this?

 

[Tom Rankin]

How much col or prominence does it have?

 

[Raymond]

Is that Huntington Ravine that that is above? I wonder if I went over it already.

 

[thegibba]

20 feet of prominence?

Edit: To be fair. It does have quite the view.

 

[RoySwkr]

How much col or prominence does it have?

http://listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/Climbers.php?Id=139241

Is that Huntington Ravine that that is above? I wonder if I went over it already.

According to the guy who named it, the summit is off the trail

 

[RollingRock]

Is that Huntington Ravine that that is above? I wonder if I went over it already.

This site has a map that will tell you exactly where it is. I've never actually been up on it but I'll make a point to check it out next time I'm in the area:

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Clean Prominence: 9 ft/3 m
Optimistic Prominence: 28 ft/9 m
Line Parent: Ball Crag
Key Col: 5709 ft/1740 m

9 - 28 feet

Tim

 

[expat]

Is the "g" in Agiocochook hard or soft? I haven't heard it pronounced, and I'm wondering whether it's hard, like Agamenticus.

 

[Raymond]

I guess I hit Ball Crag. Haven’t gone the other direction, while either descending or ascending Huntington Ravine.

Thanks!

 

[DayTrip]

There are several new editions to the list of 4000 footers on the Peakbagger list for this year. I printed a fresh copy for my winter 4k list in November and noticed many of the older non-200 ft prominence named peaks had been deleted and replaced with new ones. In many cases the ones they deleted had more prominence than the ones they added. Not sure how they go about generating these lists. If they are going to count every lump with 9' of prominence the 4000 footer list is going to get pretty large!

 

[RoySwkr]

Clean Prominence: 9 ft/3 m
Optimistic Prominence: 28 ft/9 m
Line Parent: Ball Crag
Key Col: 5709 ft/1740 m

9 - 28 feet

LoJ says average of 59', correct as it has 3 contours, so "clean" ~ 40' and "optimistic" ~ 80'

Note that 1770m contour on USGS map is mislabeled

 

[KRobi]

Expat,
The g sound in Abenaki is pronounced like the g in the word go.

 

[Still Steppin']

Agiocochook (center left) as seen from Ball Crag?
I was up there this past August to get Clay & Washington then Ball and Nelson Crags for my own list (a modification of Eric Savage's NH T3000 list.) I remember being surprised that the prominent bump (Agiocochook?) between Ball and Nelson wasn't named on my map.

 

[MattD]

I am a little confused... Is this a new mountain on the AMC 4000 list? Or does it not count?

 

[IQuest]

It's not on the AMC list. It does not have the required prominence.

 

[Driver8]

Speaking of this, it's interesting this question of required prominence. Lincoln and South Hancock don't have 200', but are on the list. I understand that Lincoln is both a beautiful mountain and a sentimental favorite, and it's close to 200'. I guess its optimistic prominence is listed as 209', but it's clean prominence is 169'. So. Hancock's optimistic prominence is listed as 199', clean is 160'.

I can understand how Lincoln and South Hancock are listed, but what I don't get is why Guyot, with optimistic prominence at 240' and clean at 160', matching South H and close to Lincoln, is not. Can anyone shed any light on this?

 

[MichaelJ]

Optimistic and clean prominence apply when determining values from a topo map, but don't we have real, measured values for these peaks?

 

[jniehof]

Optimistic and clean prominence apply when determining values from a topo map, but don't we have real, measured values for these peaks?

It's relevant to the col. 4000-footer rule is to interpolate between the contours (so mean of optimistic and clean prominence), but the current effective rule is "clear in or out." So list stands, barring 200' of clean prominence to get on or under 200' of optimistic prominence to go off. I think South Hancock in particular is considered sentimental more than anything.

The source for this is my poor memory from somebody's post, probably here! So here's some salt....

 

[David Metsky]

I can understand how Lincoln and South Hancock are listed, but what I don't get is why Guyot, with optimistic prominence at 240' and clean at 160', matching South H and close to Lincoln, is not. Can anyone shed any light on this?

Tradition.

 

[Driver8]

Tradition.

Throw in Guyot for 49, and I'd be happy. It's named for a great early explorer of these and other mountains, for goodness' sake, and is, from what I've been able to discern from afar and from others' reports, quite the lovely peak. Just sayin'!