Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: McKenzie Mountain - what's the "true" elevation?

  1. #1
    Senior Member iAmKrzys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    359

    McKenzie Mountain - what's the "true" elevation?

    I recently hiked McKenzie Mountain in Adirondacks and I noticed that there are sizable differences in quoted elevation depending on the source:

    To add a bit of color my GPS has peaked at 3853 ft, but that's likely not too accurate.

    Is this perhaps due to differences between elevation models? Even if so, 39 ft seems like quite a spread.
    Last edited by iAmKrzys; 07-08-2018 at 10:27 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member TCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,732
    Older topo maps show it at 1168m (3827').

    But the ADK book is usually quite accurate, so there may be more to the story. Paging Tony...

  3. #3
    Senior Member Mohamed Ellozy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Brookline, MA
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by iAmKrzys View Post
    I recently hiked McKenzie Mountain in Adirondacks and I noticed that there are sizable differences in quoted elevation depending on the source:
    • ...
    • OpenStreetMap has it at 3822 ft (I'm not sure as to the source)
    • ...
    The 3822 ft elevation for McKenzie Mountain is (like many OSM elevations) from the GNIS (Geographic Names Information System), in this case dated 23 Jan 1980, so take it with multiple grains of salt.

    [ADDED]
    Just found How accurate is the elevation data in the Geographic Names Information System Database?:

    The elevation data in GNIS are not official.
    Only the geographic name and locative attributes are official.
    [/ADDED]
    Last edited by Mohamed Ellozy; 07-09-2018 at 06:57 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member iAmKrzys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by TCD View Post
    Older topo maps show it at 1168m (3827').

    But the ADK book is usually quite accurate, so there may be more to the story. Paging Tony...
    TCD, thanks for your help! I'm really curious what you find out. Please share what you learn from Tony!

  5. #5
    Senior Member iAmKrzys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by Mohamed Ellozy View Post
    The 3822 ft elevation for McKenzie Mountain is (like many OSM elevations) from the GNIS (Geographic Names Information System), in this case dated 23 Jan 1980, so take it with multiple grains of salt.

    [ADDED]
    Just found How accurate is the elevation data in the Geographic Names Information System Database?:


    [/ADDED]
    You are right. I just did a little bit of digging myself starting with OSM history for the McKenzie Mountain (version 1 in https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3...3623/-74.03217 had gnis:feature_id tag) and from there I got to the GNIS record that you have probably already seen: https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=g...:P3_FID:956798
    Last edited by iAmKrzys; 07-09-2018 at 07:42 PM.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Keene, New York
    Posts
    85
    The 3,861 elevation is from the 1953 15' series of USGS topo maps that used 20' contours. Because that elevation was printed in black on the 1953 topo, it was considered a "checked elevation" derived from actually having an instrument on the summit. There doesn't appear to be any benchmark shown on the summit, but I accept that as the best elevation since the 1953 series of maps appear to have been done with more care than the more recent metric maps that had the elevation at 3,832'. I agree that this seems to be a pretty big discrepancy, but not nearly as great as some of the discrepancies between the 1902 maps (done without aerial photography) and the 1953 maps where Couchsachraga "lost" 180'.

  7. #7
    Senior Member iAmKrzys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by tgoodwin View Post
    The 3,861 elevation is from the 1953 15' series of USGS topo maps that used 20' contours. Because that elevation was printed in black on the 1953 topo, it was considered a "checked elevation" derived from actually having an instrument on the summit. There doesn't appear to be any benchmark shown on the summit, but I accept that as the best elevation since the 1953 series of maps appear to have been done with more care than the more recent metric maps that had the elevation at 3,832'. I agree that this seems to be a pretty big discrepancy, but not nearly as great as some of the discrepancies between the 1902 maps (done without aerial photography) and the 1953 maps where Couchsachraga "lost" 180'.
    Thanks very much for the detailed explanation! I bet elevation measured with an instrument is a lot more likely to be close to the "real" elevation than something interpolated from the contour lines. Perhaps one day someone will bring surveying-grade equipment and update that elevation, but for now 3861 feet seemed closest to what my GPS showed, although I do recognize that my hiking GPS can't be relied on.

  8. #8
    Senior Member TCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,732
    Thanks, Tony, for the info!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •