I have no issues with the list or any changes to it. Some will enjoy ticking off a list, while others will be indifferent. There is no right or wrong here IMO and therefore no need to stress one way or the other.
Lidar Article with comments about the AMC 4K list
- Thread starter peakbagger
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
Tom Rankin
Well-known member
Ok, it's a game. But it's a game where the rules changed. That's what I don't like. There used to be very specific rules.
Now instead of data, we have emotion. At least, if the list is the list, maybe it won't change anymore...
I understand your point. Seems like either folks have a left or a right brain approach. I think I am a combination of both personally but to each their own. Any which way it's not worth IMO getting OCD about.
nartreb
Well-known member
It's not clear to me that the rules *have* changed. The lists were originally made based on the best available maps. It's been quite a while since I paid any attention, but the rules as I recall them went something like this:
*above 4000' based on USGS maps.
* at least 200' prominence based on USGS maps.
** some rules for "questionable cols" where counting topo lines leaves the prominence uncertain (this has changed a bit, there is a "clean prominence" criterion but older peaks can be grandfathered in)
*** something about having 1 questionable col being ok, but 2 meant leave it off the list? I think that's why Guyot was off originally.
** a rule about standards of proof for changing the list. Like, if Guyot only has one questionable col on a new map, that's not enough to add it now. It has to clearly belong, i.e. have no questionable cols.)
I could be misremembering most of the above, but the point is that the rules are not quite as simple as you might think.
The AMC 4K committee has consistently declined to accept good GPS evidence, until the evidence was reflected in new maps. They've always been less concerned with objective geographic truth than I would like.
The rules specify *USGS* maps, so this new LIDAR map doesn't change anything as far as the 4K committee need be concerned.
Personally, I think the new LIDAR maps should be accepted by the 4K committee and the list revised accordingly. But that would actually require a rule change.
I have a vague worry that I'm forgetting some recent incident where the committee clearly ignored its own rules in favor of leaving some peak on or off the list for the sake of tradition. Hancock maybe? And of course there's the Nose on Mansfield, left off the [NE] list due to a map error (missing topo line).
Last edited:
JoshandBaron
Well-known member
I'm not sure the USGS maps show enough to have changed the Owls Head summit. What did they use in that case?
nartreb
Well-known member
Nothing changed except the herd path and the placement of some unofficial markers. The summit was known all along, it was a question of which bump matched the map. Not easy before GPS, especially as the woods have gotten thicker over the years. It was not uncommon for hikers (myself included) to walk along the ridge a bit extra, rather than rely on the herd path, but anyone who did rely on the herd path and unofficial sign is allowed to keep their patch. (The general rule for the NH48 is you don't have to leave the trail to hunt down an exact summit, so for Owl's Head [and technically a few others - I think the trails on Isolation and Moriah are unofficial] the end of the herd path counts as the summit.)
Osceola (both), Passaconaway, Tom, North Tripyramid, Wildcat A, Galehead, Cabot, Willey, North Twin, South Carter all come to mind
(all have summits that are "slightly" off the trail.)Tim
Everyone arguing for the "sacredness" of the current 48 is aware that that wasn't the original number that the Underhills proposed - right? It was 46 (ironic - eh?). That's what is was when I finished in November 1966. And was still the case when I finished them in winter a few years later.
Tom Rankin
Well-known member
If you want some more irony, there are 48 4Ks in NY, (at least according to the 46ers).
Ken MacGray
Active member
I'm not on the committee, but it's my understanding that the list peaks will be reconsidered again when/if new USGS topo maps are produced. But I'm not holding my breath on when/if that might happen.
If you want some more irony, there are 48 4Ks in NY, (at least according to the 46ers).
Not sure I understand. I assume you are adding the ADK46 with the 2 Catskill peaks. But, the 46ers have nothing to do with those 2 peaks (Catskill club and the NE111er do), right? There are 4 non 4k 46er ADK peaks plus MacNaughton (an actual 4K), which aspiring 46ers don't have to climb.
Last edited:
He might be talking about Yard and that weirdo Middle Tabletop thing … all in the ‘Dacks. Catskill guy forgot about the Catskills. LOL.
Anyway, it’s all BS at the end of the day. NY recognizes a 300 foot rule while NH (and New England) have a 200 foot rule, which was initially based on tourism and saying “hey, New Yorkers, we have the same number of high peaks, come on over here.” So there’s zero equivalence now or ever.
Anyway, it’s all good. No worries.
Anyway, it’s all BS at the end of the day. NY recognizes a 300 foot rule while NH (and New England) have a 200 foot rule, which was initially based on tourism and saying “hey, New Yorkers, we have the same number of high peaks, come on over here.” So there’s zero equivalence now or ever.
Anyway, it’s all good. No worries.
John H Swanson
Active member
Why not 1000m peaks with 100m cols? Just trolling
Tom Rankin
Well-known member
No the 46ers don't technically care about the 2 Catskill peaks, but if you ask some 46ers, they would say the ADKs have 46 4000' peaks. (Of course many know that is not the case). Thus 2 more in the Catskills equals 48. I was not referring to Yard, or MacNaughton, nor any other debated 4K in NY. (BTW, Black Dome is now up to 3995' according to Lidar, close but no cigar).
Tom Rankin
Well-known member
As you can see from my previous post, I did not forget about the Catskills. Perish the thought!
LOL guys.
Anyway, had a fun time on Saturday exploring north of Mount Davis where a new LIDAR point now challenges Mount Davis as the top of Pennsylvania. Didn’t have a GPS but am pretty confident I found it. My Suunto Vector altimeter watch jumped 10 feet at the top of a boulder field. Had some super thick tanglebrush to contend with en route. Might be of some interest to NE 770ers as well as state highpointers. My barometric pressure based watch showed the same elevation as Mount Davis, which I also tagged later on. But that really does nothing to push the ball forward on which is the highest.
Put up a more thorough (well-received) post on the FB 50 State Highpointing Group but also composed a quick drive-by tweet with a few pics.
https://twitter.com/catamount05/status/1548770156079374336?s=21&t=sriOK9BwFNBpw2rqDFTlcQ
Anyway, had a fun time on Saturday exploring north of Mount Davis where a new LIDAR point now challenges Mount Davis as the top of Pennsylvania. Didn’t have a GPS but am pretty confident I found it. My Suunto Vector altimeter watch jumped 10 feet at the top of a boulder field. Had some super thick tanglebrush to contend with en route. Might be of some interest to NE 770ers as well as state highpointers. My barometric pressure based watch showed the same elevation as Mount Davis, which I also tagged later on. But that really does nothing to push the ball forward on which is the highest.
Put up a more thorough (well-received) post on the FB 50 State Highpointing Group but also composed a quick drive-by tweet with a few pics.
https://twitter.com/catamount05/status/1548770156079374336?s=21&t=sriOK9BwFNBpw2rqDFTlcQ
Last edited:
Tom Rankin
Well-known member
From the original Catskill 3500 Club bylaws:
1. There must be at least a 250 foot drop between the peak and any other peak on the list, or
2. The peak must be at least 1/2 mile away from any other peak on the list.
The 'or' is problematic. The '250' is as well. If you take just '1', you have fewer than 35. If you take just 2, you have more. AFAIK, there are no 2 peaks with a 250 foot drop less than 1/2 mile away from each other. In any case, this language is no longer used. It's just a list of 33 peaks.
The ADK46ers state: The list of the “forty-six peaks” given in Russell M. L. Carson’s “Peaks and People of the Adirondacks” is adopted as official for the purpose of membership in the Organization.
So, no 200, and no 300.
Interesting. I always forget the col OR distance thing in NY. And if I ever knew it was 250 feet in the Catskills, age and alcohol have erased that knowledge.
Anyway, I like Lists of John. They don’t really care about the club-controlled list you’re working on. They considered it “ranked” if it has 300 feet of prominence and unranked if it comes in less than that.
For me, I show 112 ranked peaks in NY and 163 total NY summits. Some pretty small prominences on both the 46Rs and the 3500 list.
Like so …
https://www.listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/stateall.php?M=Mark+Styczynski&s=NY
Anyway, I like Lists of John. They don’t really care about the club-controlled list you’re working on. They considered it “ranked” if it has 300 feet of prominence and unranked if it comes in less than that.
For me, I show 112 ranked peaks in NY and 163 total NY summits. Some pretty small prominences on both the 46Rs and the 3500 list.
Like so …
https://www.listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/stateall.php?M=Mark+Styczynski&s=NY
Last edited:
I'm not sure how to respond to this. If one is trying to understand why individuals take an action, or fail to take an action, social science posits that we should examine the incentive structure for doing so. If the members responsible for the decision to change the mountains on a list think there is good reason to do so, they are expected to act on it. If they do not, they likely will not. There is an entire field of science based on this premise, and it is fittingly called "game theory."
Interesting little history of the Four Thousand Footer Club.
http://www.amc4000footer.org/history.html
1951 is a ways back now, but it's fun to think about a time when Cabot, Waumbek, Tom, Zealand, Owl’s Head, West Bond and the Hancocks lacked trails on them.
Brian
http://www.amc4000footer.org/history.html
1951 is a ways back now, but it's fun to think about a time when Cabot, Waumbek, Tom, Zealand, Owl’s Head, West Bond and the Hancocks lacked trails on them.
Brian
