Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 58

Thread: Mt Tecumseh Elevation Article

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    5,980

    Mt Tecumseh Elevation Article

    https://www.nhmagazine.com/a-4000-footer-controversy/

    A nice summary on the background for the decision to list Tecumseh under 4000 feet.

    Now we need the 4K committee to officially weigh in on the reduction in height as their list still includes it.

    I figure Isolation and Waumbek are next given AGW predictions on Mean Seal Level rise

  2. #2
    Senior Member CaptCaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    AHH....SKYLINE
    Posts
    536
    They should come up with a give or take 5 ft either side of 4k's that can be left in. Grandfathered so to speak. Tecumseh is an enjoyable hike unlike some of the other 4k's. Who cares if it's 5 ft shy. It's still a 4k. Do the math and see that's it's probably 99.9 % 4K. Hope they aren't so anal about these enjoyable just 4k's.
    Now some on the 52 WAV list should be taken out as they just plain stink.

  3. #3
    Senior Member skiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Center Conway, NH
    Posts
    2,488
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptCaper View Post
    Now some on the 52 WAV list should be taken out as they just plain stink.
    It’s under review.
    "I'm getting up and going to work everyday and I am stoked. That does not suck!"__Shane McConkey

  4. #4
    Moderator bikehikeskifish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    5,614
    Quote Originally Posted by skiguy View Post
    It’s under review.
    Which one(s) are candidates for departure? I'll leave them towards the end

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

  5. #5
    Senior Member skiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Center Conway, NH
    Posts
    2,488
    Quote Originally Posted by bikehikeskifish View Post
    Which one(s) are candidates for departure? I'll leave them towards the end

    Tim
    Maybe Dingo will chime in on that. It was mentioned that the list would be changing on his 52 with a View FB Page.
    "I'm getting up and going to work everyday and I am stoked. That does not suck!"__Shane McConkey

  6. #6
    Senior Member JustJoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ipswich, Ma.
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by bikehikeskifish View Post
    Which one(s) are candidates for departure? I'll leave them towards the end

    Tim
    The OTHH'ers are just now starting to look into replacing some peaks. Nothing named for departure or addition yet as far as I know. Change my be a good year out. Ken MacGray probably knows more.
    Joe

  7. #7
    Senior Member Tom Rankin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bloomville, New York Avatar: Dress for success!
    Posts
    6,592
    CaptCaper, your response is subjective. What if I dislike Tecumseh because it is near a ski center, and love Isolation because of its - Isolation

    The best approach is science and data.

    (Unfortunately the Catskill 3500 Club has chosen to side with your approach in NOT de-listing Rocky, which is now 3487, even though it was willing to add peaks in the past).
    Tom Rankin
    Volunteer Balsam Lake Mountain
    Past President Catskill 3500 Club
    CEO

  8. #8
    Senior Member TCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,848
    Tom, of course this is subjective, but I disagree. I think the reason a lot of folks pursue a particular list is tradition, not precision.

    So I like that the Adirondack 46 list stays the same. Who cares if surveyors 150 years ago could not be as precise as surveyors today? Or that Couchsacraga (on the list) is only 3820, or that McNaughton (not on the list) is 4000, or what the "prominence" of Yard Mountain is? The list is the list.

    Of course any area like the Catskills or the Whites or whatever are free to manage this any way they want, but they should remember it's all supposed to be just for fun!

  9. #9
    Moderator David Metsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Somerville, MA
    Posts
    4,967
    Quote Originally Posted by TCD View Post
    Tom, of course this is subjective, but I disagree. I think the reason a lot of folks pursue a particular list is tradition, not precision.
    But the history of the NH 4000'ers is precision, not tradition. Peaks have been removed and added in the past because of new surveys; there's no reason to change the practice now.
    You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself, any direction you choose. -- Dr. Seuss

  10. #10
    Senior Member TEO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    755
    Quote Originally Posted by David Metsky View Post
    But the history of the NH 4000'ers is precision, not tradition. Peaks have been removed and added in the past because of new surveys; there's no reason to change the practice now.
    I concur. And while they're at it, shouldn't they de-list South Hancock? It my understanding that it has less than 200' prominence.

  11. #11
    Moderator David Metsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Somerville, MA
    Posts
    4,967
    Quote Originally Posted by TEO View Post
    I concur. And while they're at it, shouldn't they de-list South Hancock? It my understanding that it has less than 200' prominence.
    There are a few that should be delisted; Lincoln probably doesn't have 200' prominence either.
    You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself, any direction you choose. -- Dr. Seuss

  12. #12
    Senior Member Salty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Warner, NH
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by TEO View Post
    I concur. And while they're at it, shouldn't they de-list South Hancock? It my understanding that it has less than 200' prominence.
    I think I posted most of this last summer but here's what I came up with for some peaks that I looked at, by brute force method (checking data points manually). As can be seen from the note in Guyot, it can be off, but I expect all of these numbers to be pretty close for the col depths (summits should be spot on, assuming, as mentioned in the article, the LiDAR point hit the true highpoint).

    Tecumseh: 3994.6'

    Bondcliff: 4262.8'
    Bondcliff-Bond col: 4042.7'
    Prominence: 220.1'

    West Bond: 4517.5
    West Bond-Bond col: 4301.8
    Prominence: 215.7'
    Another guy came up with 221.8' through automated data analysis

    south Guyot: 4564.1'
    north Guyot: 4581.4'
    Guyot-Bond col: 4344.4'
    Guyot-S. Twin col: 4361.9'
    Prominence: 219.5'

    Sandwich: 3960.6'

    Lincoln: 5078.5'
    Lincoln-Lafayette col: 4899.5'
    Prominence: 179'

    south S. Hancock: 4257.4'
    north S. Hancock: 4246.6'
    S. Hancock-N. Hancock col 4078.3'
    Prominence: 179.1'

    The northern of the two S. Kinsman bumps is higher by 29 cm.

    Owl's Head. South bump 4025.38', north bump 4029.22' at 71.6049301W 44.1444949N. There is a 4028.79' bump just 45' south of that.

  13. #13
    Senior Member sierra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New hampshire
    Posts
    2,627
    Me and my dog are hitting the Big T tomorrow. He's working on the 3k's. Joking aside, I am ambivalent as to whether the peak should be removed or not. Its their list, their rules, they can decide what they see fit. I'm in a spot where list don't matter anyway, I just hike and Tecumseh happens to be one of my go to peaks. Its a nice hike and I love the valley. So many great short hikes you can wander on if you feel like doing more. P.S. I actually like CaptCaper's idea of the 5ft. either way rule to allow peaks to stay. I mean 5 ft. there are cairns taller then that.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Scubahhh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Woodstock VT
    Posts
    227
    Pick up your dog and hold him over your head and it'll be 4000'
    Add life to your years!

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Lewiston, and Biddeford Maine
    Posts
    649
    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.

Posting Permissions

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