True summit of Osceola

[RoySwkr]

Scudder is accepting the 4358 as the reputed summit measurement, so I guess he's confusing the reference mark with a summit measurement. But so are the AMC (on my 27th edition maps) and Map Adventures (3rd edition white mountains map).

The 28th WMG redrawn map gives this even more emphasis, with an obvious
summit point on the E bump, while the text in both editions in
non-committal. Interestingly the WMG (and I) call them the N and S bumps
(perhaps because of the general orientation of the A.T.) but Scudder is
more locally correct to call them E and W.

Where Scudder convinced me was on his measurement of the W bump as higher than the E bump. He therefore claims S Kinsman as 4388'. I see what you mean on the topo maps, though.

I personally think that the W bump is higher but not by anything like
30', for one thing if it was more than 2' higher it should have another
contour line although it could be a couple more feet as tiny contours are
often omitted. I may try a measurement with my hand level next month but
probably the vertical drop is too much to do efficiently with a 6' rule
and we need a 20' flagpole. I will forward a comment to Steve S. in case
he isn't lurking and perhaps to Mr. Scudder later.

OK, and thanks, but I'm not giving up easy on North Twin. The side trail from the "summit cairn" to the west outlook goes up.

I was adding to your list, not disputing it.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

This would be the rock in question - 2" higher than the old fire tower footings, and at the end of the herd path heading north from the fire tower footings, for a dozen or so paces. I don't remember going here last time through... but I remembered reading this thread and so I wandered around the bunches of herd paths on Osceola until I found this nice rock, and the nice view which you get from standing on top of it.



Tim

 

[Chip]

What's the rule with counting a summit as summited ? I can see, as an example, someone stopping at the Gondola House on Wildcat D and not being able to count that because they were still a distance to the actual summit, but on something like Osceola - The summit "area" has got to be good enough, no ? Has it ever been indicted that you need to touch the actual high point ? Or is that just a personal compulsion ?

As you can tell, I'm more of a "summit area" summitter myself.

 

[Willoughby]

What's the rule with counting a summit as summited ? I can see, as an example, someone stopping at the Gondola House on Wildcat D and not being able to count that because they were still a distance to the actual summit, but on something like Osceola - The summit "area" has got to be good enough, no ? Has it ever been indicted that you need to touch the actual high point ? Or is that just a personal compulsion ?

As you can tell, I'm more of a "summit area" summitter myself.

Chip,

As far as I know the Four Thousand Footer Committee agrees with you. The position (I'm paraphrasing others) appears to be that all the 4,000'ers have trails to the summit, so if you followed the trail you must have gone to the summit.

That said, I think it's interesting to keep my eyes open. Peakbaggers before us (well, before most of us?) didn't have trails everywhere and nice summit markers. They had to figure it out for themselves. I appreciate the trails but I like to look beyond them, too.

Willoughby