New York Highest 100

[Peakbagr]

Thought this thread was worth bumping up.

 

[ALGonquin Bob]

Definitely. And now I'm crazy obsessed with trying to finish the W-46 this winter. 10 done and still 16 to go. I won't give up until the calendar says "spring" ... somebody help me!!!

 

[peak_bgr]

Definitely. And now I'm crazy obsessed with trying to finish the W-46 this winter. 10 done and still 16 to go. I won't give up until the calendar says "spring" ... somebody help me!!!

We are the sick among the twisted, my friend.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

New York 100 Highest List

There was a later thread in which Tom Rankin generated the NY 100 Highest list, and posted a link to it. Tom generated the list from the NE 3000' peak (770) list, and then selecting the highest 100 NY mountains on it.

Or if you are in a rush, here is a direct link: New York 100 Highest

 

[Dean G.]

Another Link to the NY 100 Highest

Summit post also has a NY 100 Highest list with some differences from TR's list? Here's the link.

http://www.summitpost.org/list/193398/new-york-s-100-highest-mountains.html

 

[AntlerPeak]

What about this website? Have any of you seen this? Comes with a patch and all.
ADK 100 Highest

 

[Mark Schaefer]

Antler Peak, The ADK HH is a fine list. Their website has both a ADK HH and Catskill HH list. A NY HH list would cover the entire state in one list.

Summit post also has a NY 100 Highest list with some differences from TR's list? Here's the link.

http://www.summitpost.org/list/193398/new-york-s-100-highest-mountains.html

The short answer is different criteria.

As is stated on the Summit Post list, it was derived from the ADK 100 HH list (from the ADK guidebook) which has two criteria:

300' rise or 0.75 mile distance - for the 46
300' rise and 0.75 mile distance - for the remaining 54​

and the Catskill 3500 Club list:

200' rise (the ADK guidebook states 250' or 0.50 mile distance which is from the club's bylaws, however, the actual list matches the standard 200' rise criteria, not the stated club bylaws criteria)​

So the Summit Post list is based on a mix of 3 different criteria.

Tom's list is based on the NE 770 list (3000' peaks) which uses a 200' rise criteria. However, it grandfathers in the 46er peaks that do not have a 200' rise. Ideally these should be deleted from the NY HH list to maintain a consistent criteria. Both the Summit Post and Tom's list includes these:

Iroquois, Gray, Armstrong, Donaldson, Emmons, Nye
Note: Carson (South Dix), Dial - had a 200' rise on the 1950 maps, but are below 200' rise on the newer metric maps​

Tom's list does have several Adirondack peaks which have a 200' rise, but less than 300' rise or were closer than 0.75 mile. Thus they are not on the Adirondack HH list nor the Summit Post list:

Table Top East Peak, Yard, McDonnel, Rist, Howard, Sawtooth wsw, Sawtooth sse
(Table Top East Peak has more than a 300' rise, but is only about 0.6 mile from Table Top)​

There are also differences in elevations. The NE 770 and Tom used the more recent metric maps for the Adirondacks. The ADK 100 and Summit Post used the 1950 era maps with elevations in feet. I did notice that Tom used the 1950 era elevations for Couchsachraga and Hurricane.

So perhaps we still need a consensus NY HH list. IMO it should use a single and consistent criteria with no grandfathering. My personal preference would be for no distance criteria. There are several options on the rise. 300' would require dropping a very large number of 46er peaks, and some Catskill peaks. It may be better to use either a 200' rise, or the 160' clean prominence used by the Peakbagger.com and Prominence groups. 160' clean prominence is equivalent to 200' rise where there are 40' contour lines (as on some White Mountain USGS quads), and it is a bit generous where there are 10 meter (328') contour lines in the Adirondacks. 160' clean prominence would also keep more Carson and Dial on the list. All of the Catskill Peaks in play for the NY HH list have 180' clean prominence, and no additional Catskill peaks come into play with a 160' clean prominence.

 

[Puma concolor]

Hey, other Mark S, I'm a regular on Summit Post and will forward RobA your comments. I don't necessarily think he was trying to put together any sort of new/official list, just compiling a list of mountains based on different existing standards for the ranges in question ... kind of like the Northeast 115.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

Agreed other Mark S. Yes, just like the 111/115 list which had the noble goal of utilizing existing 4000' lists. And I am not trying to be critical of anybody's posted list. Anyone can create a list with any criteria they want. A consistent criteria is perhaps an ideal.

Here are two peakbagger.com lists which use the same 160' clean prominence criteria, which might be useful in developing a NY list:

Adirondack Mountains 3700-foot Peaks
Catskill 3500-foot Peaks​

It will be necessary to go a little below 3700', so some poring over Adirondack maps will be required. The numbered peaks on these lists meet the 160' clean prominence criteria. Other peaks are shown for information. There is one error on this Catskill list. Leavitt Peak (Hunter Mountain-Southwest Peak) elevation is 3740' with 180' clean prominence, not 3720' with 160' clean prominence.

And I also understand some individuals have problems with the accuracy of the newer metric maps and prefer to use the older 1950 era maps. So that could also be a point of contention.

 

[Tom Rankin]

The NY100 I posted was meant to start discussion. I'll be glad to alter my list, given Mark Schaefer's comments. Now, someone, just tell me what it should have on it!

 

[Peakbagr]

"What about this website? Have any of you seen this? Comes with a patch and all."
http://adirondack100highest.com/welcome.aspx

You'll note that the site Antler refers to has both the ADK100 AND the Catskill 100 list(linked) on the site. Also a peak locator for both.

 

[mavs00]

Thought this thread was worth bumping up.

good threads never die, they just go into occasional 3 year slumbers ​

Those are all interesting sites and worthy of a look. I'm curious though, are there any sites that not only list the peaks by name, but also indicate which peaks have "private property" issues. I know Alan's site does list those issues under each individual peak info, but I'm talking about a straightforward list (like those on Tom's of the peaksbagger sites) that has a designation on it for which ones are "private", or "private from the south" or something like that.

Not everyone cares about those issues, but some do and it'd sure be helpful for us that do as we go about researching best approaches, who to contact, ect. I know all of the issues for the ADK peaks but when it comes to the Cats, I'm lucky if I can find em' on a map, let alone figure out if I'm crossing private lands, or if I have to ask for permission.

 

[Peakbagr]

Mavs talkin' about the Cat100. Looking for my nitroglycerine pill
as I type.

You don't need no 'stinkin online source. Just ask Mark or Mudhook. If they don't know, no one does.

Alan

 

[mavs00]

Mavs talkin' about the Cat100. Looking for my nitroglycerine pill
as I type.

Might have even done one or two already, you never know

I kinda knew to ask a pro (I generally do that anyway), but figured I'd throw it out there since this is a thread about online sources for info on these peaks. That would surely be helpful.

Also, I generally love the peak identifier stuff, those are helpful and with the technology out there (google maps, ect) it wouln'd be tough to do. Some people do not like them, but for us visual learners, they are nice.

Here's one for the ADK100 (that I did awhile back), and I think Tom has done one for the Cats35. I just don't recall if anyone has done a NY100 (or even NE100, ect....)

 

[Mark Schaefer]

good threads never die, they just go into occasional 3 year slumbers ​

Yes, we have an Ala(ddi)n who is rubbing old threads, and we now have new threads from old.

In the case of the Catskill 35, and those that would appear on the NY HH list: All except Doubletop and Graham are state owned. These two are owned by the family estate of Jay Gould (former railroad financier). The Catskill 3500 Club has a good relationship with the family. Hikers may contact the estate caretaker to gain permission to hike these two mountains, and is routinely granted. His name and phone have been posted publically many times:

William J Scholl, Dry Brook Rd, Arkville, NY 12406, 845-586-4056.​

There are many private peaks on the lower 67 of the Catskill HH (102) list, which we are in the process of determining. Eventually I will include an indication of which are private on the web postings of the Catskill HH list. I expect we will also have a method by which hikers can determine who to contact for the privately owned mountains.

 

[Peakbagr]

Mark is right on the money. Those of us doing the Cat100 have in fact been talking abouty a lot of these issues and trying to develop contacts among the local landowners.

We want to be sure a contact is rock solid, the cooperating landowner doesn't mind the requests, and that the contact infomation only goes to those who are serious about the list. The last thing we'd want to subject landowners generous enough to let us hike is to have the careless leave open livestock gates, cut or pull down pasture fencing, block driveways and woods roads, or call the people at 6am on a Sunday morning asking for permission. We've also tried to stay away from the private property peaks during the hunting season, a time when they are deluged for requests by hunters.

How this is accomplished with instant internet communication and a demand by everyone to have the same information that others possess is a matter of ongoing debate.

 

[mavs00]

Awesome.......... That's just the kind of info that I was talking about Mark.

 

[Neil]

ADKHH - Has anyone else had these thoughts or is it just me?

Somewhat reluctantly and some time after the fact I came to the realization that, 78 peaks in, I had already sub-consciously abandoned the idea of completing this specific list. (Actually, I think of it as the ADK-lower 54 list). For me, the spirit of the list and what encouraged me to pursue it was the bushwhacking and the feeling you get of being in trackless wilderness when doing the Sawtooths from the north.

Mountains such as Pillsbury and Sentinel are worlds apart and their being on the same list has always seemed peculiar to me. Given the choice between Gore and Lewey or Blue Mtn. and Fishing Brook I always go for the trailless mountain and tell myself I'll figure out an off-trail route later for the others. (Not an easy task when you see the PP around Blue Mtn.)

Anyway, I would bet that we all agree that a list is just a means to an end, getting out there and having the experience of one’s choice. There is no need in this life to do any hikes one doesn’t really feel like doing and for me to do so just for the sake of a list doesn’t make any sense. Especially when 9 hours of driving are required.

I still like the concept of the list and will do all of the 13 or 14 trailless ones on the HH list that I have yet to do. But what I like better is the idea of a list of purely off-trail mountains. But then the 54 gets whittled down to what? 38 peaks? From the standpoint of interest I have to admit I don’t have much. Ie. The “lower 38 trailless” versus the “Adirondack Hundred Highest”?

On another note, I would eliminate the distance rule altogether. If it rises 300 feet above the col then what the heck - it’s a mountain in my books.

 

[Rob S]

Some of those peaks that you "don't feel like climbing" might end up being gems. When I climbed Cascade, I remember almost dreading it because of the many stories of huge crowds on the summit. But Cascade ended up being one of my favorite mountains, certainly not for the challenge of climbing her in the summer, but for the excellent views and serenity. Yes, I said serenity! My wife and I decided to get up early and we started up the trail at sunrise. We had the summit to ourselves and it was wonderful. Granted the lack of people didn't last, but for awhile we were alone on a popular ADK peak with 360 degree views on a blue-bird sky day. Perfect.

My point is, I hope you decide, in your own time and in your own way, to climb all of the "lower 54", and maybe even all of the 3000 footers. That should keep you busy for a little while.

And it's not like you have to finish any list next year or the year after or the year after. The lists are your menus for the rest of your life. Finish a list or not, you're still a winner.

On another note, I would eliminate the distance rule altogether. If it rises 300 feet above the col then what the heck - it’s a mountain in my books.

YES! Make your own rules. And eat your dessert before the main course!

 

[Peakbagr]

Different strokes for different folks. As a friend who is wiser than I said something like this:
"I like keeping a lot of lists going. It focuses me on going places I've never been and when I get tired of one list, I have others to work on."
Its great that everyone has their own thing, motivation, and reason for getting out in the woods. I much prefer bushwhacking to trail hiking for the same reasons you do. Not everyone shares our same interests. For most of 2005, I was on 25 ADK100 trailless hikes. I was beatup, scratched, fallen on, chewed up, sliced & flayed by thick stuff and blowdown. I went on 2 trailled hikes all year. They were a wonderful contrast to the bushwhacking and balanced things out for me. There are many others where that amount of bushwhacking would be unpalatable. The ADK100 list, in its entirety, as the Cat100 list would be less interesting FOR ME, if it eliminated the Noonmarks, Hurricanes, Pitchoffs. Besides, some of those mountains are the ones that get others interested in doing them all.

For example, running over the same list of peaks over and over, weekly, monthly or pretty much any other way would bore me silly. I respect the determination that drives those who do things like that, it just ain't my cup of tea.