Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 58

Thread: Mt Tecumseh Elevation Article

  1. #16
    Senior Member TJsName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    'Springtime' on the Carters (Tamworth, NH)
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisB View Post
    No way!!

    I am 6 feet tall, so it should stay a 4000 footer for me (3995 + 6 = 4001). All you shorter-than-5-foot folks will need another summit for your award.
    Oh look, another height supremacist reveals themselves.
    | 64.5% W48: 19/48
    Trail Adopter of the Guinea Pond Trail

  2. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    6,347
    I haven't seen any definition of exactly what constitutes the top of the mountain? Barring a flat granite ledge, many summits have natural loose material of unknown depth over ledge. When I see USGS disks they generally are not on the high spot rather they are on a nearby secure point that has a reasonable chance of not moving. but does have a good view of the surrounding terrain. Up until this recent high tech method, the triangulation methods used were optical so disks needed to be located to allow the survey targets to be seen from a distance.

    With that background, the question of a pile of stones being built to raise the elevation of the summit comes up. I don't think the clubs have traditionally accepted this as a workaround. There have been attempts over the years to maintain a pile of rocks on the summit of Mt Katahdin to be at least 13 feet high so that the summit is one mile high. On many of these visits the pile of stones appears to be short of the 13' height. It gets stranger with a location like Jay peak that reportedly blasted the summit elevation to allow a building to be built over the high point.

  3. #18
    Moderator David Metsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Somerville, MA
    Posts
    5,005
    Quote Originally Posted by egilbe View Post
    If they take off Tecumseh, I hope they add Hight or Guyot to replace it.
    The number 48 isn't part of the list, it's been 46 and 47 in the past. There's no need to replace anything. If Hight or Guyot qualify they'll be added in their own right.
    You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself, any direction you choose. -- Dr. Seuss

  4. #19
    Senior Member Rob S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    668
    For me personally, regardless of actual height, the Catskills will always have 35 peaks, the ADKs 46, and the Whites 48. I value tradition over precision, but would not have any issue with any club changing their list. Like Tecumseh, life is too short, ..... (haha!), and I'd prefer to keep hiking the peaks I want to hike, whether on a list or not. :-)

  5. #20
    Senior Member Scubahhh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Woodstock VT
    Posts
    236
    Pick up your dog and hold him over your head and it'll be 4000'
    Add life to your years!

  6. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ipswich, MA
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob S View Post
    For me personally, regardless of actual height, the Catskills will always have 35 peaks, the ADKs 46, and the Whites 48. I value tradition over precision, but would not have any issue with any club changing their list. Like Tecumseh, life is too short, ..... (haha!), and I'd prefer to keep hiking the peaks I want to hike, whether on a list or not. :-)
    If you value tradition then why 48 for the Whites?

  7. #22
    Senior Member Salty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Warner, NH
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by egilbe View Post
    If they take off Tecumseh, I hope they add Hight or Guyot to replace it. It wouldn't matter to me, since I've hiked them, too. Now that 52 with a view list has some summits that are overgrowing. Nothing a judicious cut or two with a hand saw wouldn't correct.
    Myself and another guy who's been looking at the LiDAR data have independently determined Guyot is almost certainly within the 4k qualifications (col height has what's kept it off). I also believe (as others have previously noted from the maps) that Lincoln and S. Hancock most definitely do NOT meet the qualifications (lack of col). That being said, if Those That Be decide to go the way of science, Tecumseh will still be on the NEHH list. Or, if you like it, hike it. If you don't, don't.

    I wish the author had not mentioned a 3 foot pile of rocks on top, nor would I advocate taking view pruning of any kind outside of proper channels. It's a slippery slope risking going overboard (case in point: Tecumseh) when individuals decide what's best for everyone else.

    And you kids get off my lawn!

  8. #23
    Senior Member Salty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Warner, NH
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by peakbagger View Post
    I haven't seen any definition of exactly what constitutes the top of the mountain? Barring a flat granite ledge, many summits have natural loose material of unknown depth over ledge.
    The County Highpointers define it as the highest naturally occurring spot. So scree, soil, huge boulder or ledge, doesn't matter. Whatever's there at the time, though I think perhaps your point is some summits are naturally unstable in height to some degree.

  9. #24
    Senior Member Rob S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshandBaron View Post
    If you value tradition then why 48 for the Whites?
    You're right. I should have said "tradition as known in my lifetime".

  10. #25
    Senior Member skiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Center Conway, NH
    Posts
    2,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob S View Post
    For me personally, regardless of actual height, the Catskills will always have 35 peaks, the ADKs 46, and the Whites 48. I value tradition over precision, but would not have any issue with any club changing their list. Like Tecumseh, life is too short, ..... (haha!), and I'd prefer to keep hiking the peaks I want to hike, whether on a list or not. :-)
    It’s nice to have lists with rules and all the other fun things created by other people than yourself to follow. It certainly gets you out there and gives you the lay of the land. After more than half of century of hiking and climbing I got accustomed to peaks being listed and delisted as part of the game a long time ago. Whom remembers and or has climbed West Tecumseh? It was on the NE 100 HH at one time but was delisted entirely. At least for Tecumseh even though it is not a 4000 foot Mountain it still is on the 100 HH so it is not totally orphaned.
    "I'm getting up and going to work everyday and I am stoked. That does not suck!"__Shane McConkey

  11. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by Salty View Post
    I wish the author had not mentioned a 3 foot pile of rocks on top, nor would I advocate taking view pruning of any kind outside of proper channels. It's a slippery slope risking going overboard (case in point: Tecumseh) when individuals decide what's best for everyone else.

    And you kids get off my lawn!
    The DEC in New York has been dismantling the cairn atop Skylight, where for years tradition called for hikers to bring up rocks to add to it. Summit got to be a mess in recent years. The mountain also grew a couple of feet taller.

  12. #27
    Senior Member skiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Center Conway, NH
    Posts
    2,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Eagan View Post
    The DEC in New York has been dismantling the cairn atop Skylight, where for years tradition called for hikers to bring up rocks to add to it. Summit got to be a mess in recent years. The mountain also grew a couple of feet taller.
    I don't think it's being dismantled but Eisenhower in the Southern Presie's has had a somewhat practice of the same tradition. Back in the 70's we all use to joke that people were trying to change it's viewable profile to look like a certain female body part.
    "I'm getting up and going to work everyday and I am stoked. That does not suck!"__Shane McConkey

  13. #28
    Moderator bikehikeskifish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    5,766
    Has the FTFC moved the summit of Owl's Head yet?

    Tim
    Bike, Hike, Ski, Sleep. Eat, Fish, Repeat.

  14. #29
    Senior Member Tom Rankin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bloomville, New York Avatar: Dress for success!
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by skiguy View Post
    I don't think it's being dismantled but Eisenhower in the Southern Presie's has had a somewhat practice of the same tradition. Back in the 70's we all use to joke that people were trying to change it's viewable profile to look like a certain female body part.
    NY has a Nippletop, on the 46'er list. I remember one of my friends, on approaching the summit 'cone', saying 'Looks like we're still on the ***'.
    Tom Rankin
    Volunteer Balsam Lake Mountain
    Past President Catskill 3500 Club
    CEO

  15. #30
    Senior Member Tom Rankin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bloomville, New York Avatar: Dress for success!
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by bikehikeskifish View Post
    Has the FTFC moved the summit of Owl's Head yet?

    Tim
    I'll assume that's sarcasm, but does the FTFC ever precisely define any summit location? Or, do all of them have signs now? (It's been a while, but I do have 3 rounds)
    Tom Rankin
    Volunteer Balsam Lake Mountain
    Past President Catskill 3500 Club
    CEO

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-08-2014, 08:10 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-25-2013, 04:19 PM
  3. Interesting article about living at elevation
    By Tom Rankin in forum General Backcountry
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-30-2013, 08:54 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-04-2009, 05:41 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-08-2008, 05:56 PM

Posting Permissions

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