PDA

View Full Version : New Presidential for you peakbaggers



RoySwkr
01-25-2014, 02:34 PM
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
01-25-2014, 09:33 PM
How much col or prominence does it have? :D

Raymond
01-26-2014, 02:08 AM
Is that Huntington Ravine that that is above? I wonder if I went over it already.

thegibba
01-26-2014, 07:30 AM
20 feet of prominence?
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-WIFDjkkWcrc/UcZSarvAceI/AAAAAAAAC8Y/fa_uzIJW-K0/w1123-h747-no/DSC_0203.JPG

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

RoySwkr
01-26-2014, 01:25 PM
How much col or prominence does it have? :D
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
01-26-2014, 01:31 PM
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 (http://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=43580). 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
01-26-2014, 06:43 PM
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
01-26-2014, 07:46 PM
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
01-27-2014, 01:44 AM
I guess I hit Ball Crag. Haven’t gone the other direction, while either descending or ascending Huntington Ravine.

Thanks!

DayTrip
01-27-2014, 07:42 AM
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
01-27-2014, 09:54 AM
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
01-27-2014, 05:57 PM
Expat,
The g sound in Abenaki is pronounced like the g in the word go.

Still Steppin'
01-27-2014, 06:03 PM
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.

4863

MattD
01-28-2014, 07:44 AM
I am a little confused... Is this a new mountain on the AMC 4000 list? Or does it not count?

IQuest
01-28-2014, 09:06 AM
It's not on the AMC list. It does not have the required prominence.

Driver8
01-28-2014, 10:56 AM
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
01-28-2014, 12:15 PM
Optimistic and clean prominence apply when determining values from a topo map, but don't we have real, measured values for these peaks?

jniehof
01-28-2014, 12:50 PM
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
01-28-2014, 01:49 PM
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
01-29-2014, 01:37 AM
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'!

RoySwkr
01-29-2014, 07:22 PM
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?

The original list of 46 was made up using the last round of USGS 15' quads which excluded previous peaks like E Hancock, they used a 200' col (and added Old Speck in a preliminary version of the list) to get the same number as the Adk

When the first few 7.5' quads came out it was obvious that Galehead belonged on the list (not sure why all the geology professors staying at the hut never noticed), when it was pointed out that the Adk46 didn't change their list for new maps the then-FTFC chairman (a mathematician) said "That's the way they think in NY" so Galehead was added but Lincoln, Guyot, and The Cliffs of Bond were left in their previous status

A new FTFC chairman liked Bondcliff and got it added, note that Guyot has 5-contour cols in two directions so if you assume there is a 50% chance that each col is deep enough there is only 25% chance that both are deep enough

When the remaining 7.5 quads came out, it was noted that Wildcat D was higher than E (already shown on the Brad Washburn map) so that change was made, but due to some convoluted reasoning which I never understood they kept S Hancock

Note that a 300' col would exclude not just Guyot and Bondcliff but also W Bond and Zealand, while a 100m col would exclude Bond as well so prominence isn't everything in mountains.


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

I believe that one Lafayette-Lincoln col has been measured by a variety of methods, it's on a popular trail and the summit and the col are both easy to locate. [Not sure they did the cols both N & S of N Lafayette] But I don't know the result :-)

Guyot would be much harder to measure as there are cols in 2 directions and both are wooded and maybe not be easy to select

Driver8
01-30-2014, 12:24 AM
... note that Guyot has 5-contour cols in two directions ...

Thank you so much for sharing some background on the history, Roy.

Eyeballing it, it looks to me like the col between South Twin and Guyot is the problem. Looks to be around 150' below G's summit, which starts to get a bit thin for inclusion in the big list.

RoySwkr
01-30-2014, 09:04 AM
Eyeballing it, it looks to me like the col between South Twin and Guyot is the problem. Looks to be around 150' below G's summit, which starts to get a bit thin for inclusion in the big list.
The col toward Bond is very similar

peakbagger
01-30-2014, 09:13 AM
Similar reasoning was applied to the 100 highest list at one point. When the USGS issued the 1987 provisional 7.5 minute quads (some replaced 15 minute quads from the twenties), the committee stated that barring a new set of maps that the list would be changed once to reflect the new maps. Kennebago Divide and Cupsuptic Snow were added turning the four pack into the six pack while one of the Horns on Bigelow was demoted as well as Middle Abraham (Too bad as it was nice summit).

Of course as commitee membership changes, old decisions can be revised so lists will always be a moving target

I believe that in the more obscure lists like the NH100 that there are at least two lists with some variations so most folks do both just in case.

DayTrip
01-31-2014, 08:25 AM
I realize they have to draw the line somewhere for these lists but much like the way people categorize peaks as "hard" or "easy" it really depends what direction you're coming from on how much effort or vertical the climb is. Many of these peaks have routes that require much climbing depending on what direction you come from. These lists are done on the honor system for the most part so if it is possible to bag a peak from a particular direction that meets whatever arbitrary prominence requirement deemed necessary just add it to the list with the caveat that you have to ascend via a route meeting this requirement - be it prominence, total vertical ascent, distance, most difficult trail or whatever. Or maybe you climb all the peaks on the list individually instead of bagging 3 or 4 at a time on traverses or loops.

Mt Clay (one of my favorite peaks) has virtually no climb if you come in from South near Gulf. But if you come up from Sphinx Col there is several hundred feet of climb. And if you came up Jewell Trail and only did Clay didn't you put in quite a bit of effort for a "flat" peak? Adams 4 (Abigail) is a virtually flat walk if you're coming down from Adams but if you come up the Lowes Path directly to it that's quite a climb. And so is Adams 5 for that matter. Slide Peak from Glen Boulder Trail, North Lafayette from Skookumchuk Trail, Nelson Crag, etc, etc, etc.

If it has a name and it has a view go stand on it. That's my rule of thumb. The ultimate list I want to "peak bag" are the mountains I truly enjoy.

RoySwkr
01-31-2014, 11:30 AM
Mt Clay (one of my favorite peaks) has virtually no climb if you come in from South near Gulf. But if you come up from Sphinx Col there is several hundred feet of climb.
One of my toughest day hikes in NH was Clay from Rte.16 via Six Husbands, descending Great Gulf Trail from near Mt Washington, but only summit that day was Clay.

Driver8
01-31-2014, 09:43 PM
The col toward Bond is very similar

At least from the relief maps I see in the UNH archive, it looks like that col is plenty deep at around 260'. It's right about where the shelter trail spurs off the main trail between G and Bond, no? Google Earth has it at about 225'.

Speaking of G.E., it seems to put the South Twin-Guyot col at around 210'. Interesting. ... Google Earth doesn't seem to be super-accurate, from my experience, but its "take" on Guyot is interesting.

Edited to add: Eyeballing in Google Earth, I reckon the South Twin col to be in the area of 44 deg 10' 20.26" N and 71 deg 13' 32.05 W at elevation 4373' or so.

Grey J
02-01-2014, 06:39 PM
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?

If this was an election, I'd vote for Guyot which is a personal favorite. However its always seemed to me that "South Guyot" on the Bondcliff Trial is higher and a more discernible "peak" than the designated spot on Twinway. Must be an optical illusion.

Driver8
02-01-2014, 07:49 PM
If this was an election, I'd vote for Guyot which is a personal favorite. However its always seemed to me that "South Guyot" on the Bondcliff Trial is higher and a more discernible "peak" than the designated spot on Twinway. Must be an optical illusion.

I had a similar experience with photos I took from Moosilauke's summit looking NNW along the Benton/Beaver Brook/Appalachian Trail. Went back this past summer and traversed from the north. No question about it, the summit is near the orange sign, but in pics, it kinda looks like the ground to the NNW is higher. I look forward to visiting the Twins, Bonds, Guyot, et al., soon. If I remember, will do some col vs. Guyot summit comparison for my-own-self with an altimeter or two.

stevetperry
05-30-2014, 10:03 PM
From the north and northeast, Agiocochook Crag is quite noticeable, appearing to be more prominent than Nelson Crag.
During my ascents of Nelson Crag trail and Madison Gulf, I often wondered why that one bump wasn't named.
After looking at many maps and "asking around", no name was found.
So, I decided to try naming it, fully expecting to have that request denied.
8 months later, I received an approval letter from the government. I was shocked.
I named it Agiocochook in honor of God and the native Americans and their original name for what is now "Washington".
(I personally wish Mt Washington had remained named Agiocochook).
I have visited Agiocochook Crag a few times...great views! There is a shiny metal pin embedded in the rock at the peak....must be the work of the government surveyors??? I'll try to post a pic from the peak.
The Nelson Crag trail passes near the peak. But, since there is no trail to the peak, please be sure to step only on rock, avoiding the fragile alpine plants and grasses.

stevetperry
05-30-2014, 10:09 PM
At the peak of Agiocochook Crag, looking southwest toward Ball Crag and the summit of Mt Washington. Notice the shiny new metal pin embedded in the rock.
4967

peakbagger
05-31-2014, 07:20 AM
The shiny "new" metal pin may not be that new. I may be one of Brad Washburns stainless steel control for the Mt Washington map.

stevetperry
05-31-2014, 08:51 AM
The shiny "new" metal pin may not be that new. I may be one of Brad Washburns stainless steel control for the Mt Washington map.
You're probably right! I hadn't thought of that even though I own a copy of Washburn's map of the area.
FYI - That map shows Agiocochook Crag as being 5735 feet, exactly 100 feet above Nelson Crag.

peakbagger
05-31-2014, 09:55 AM
I have ran into a couple of folks who had been attempting to visit all the pins in the field along with all the USGS disks in the WMNF.

alexmtn
06-03-2014, 01:25 PM
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

Based on that 1770m-should-be-1800m map . . .

Maximum possible summit elevation: 1758- m / ~5768- ft
Averaged-out summit elevation: 1755- m / ~5758- ft
Minimum possible summit elevation: 1752 m / ~5748 ft

Maximum possible col elevation: 1740- m / ~5709- ft
Averaged-out col elevation: 1737- m / ~5699- ft
Minimum possible col elevation: 1734 m / ~5689 ft

Maximum possible prominence: 24- m / ~79- ft
"Likely" prominence: 18 m / ~59 ft
Minimum possible prominence: 12+ m / ~39+ ft

Alex

... so roughly in the 39 - 79 ft range. :)