Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: Lidar Article with comments about the AMC 4K list

  1. #31
    Senior Member maineguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    689
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Rankin View Post
    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 by maineguy; 07-15-2022 at 10:41 AM.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Puma concolor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Road to Nowhere
    Posts
    1,004
    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.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    647
    Quote Originally Posted by Puma concolor View Post

    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.
    Why not 1000m peaks with 100m cols? Just trolling

  4. #34
    Senior Member Tom Rankin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bloomville, New York
    Posts
    6,827
    Quote Originally Posted by maineguy View Post
    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.
    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
    Web Master - NY Forest Fire Lookout Association
    Volunteer - Balsam Lake Mountain
    Past President - Catskill 3500 Club
    CEO - Views and Brews

  5. #35
    Senior Member Tom Rankin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bloomville, New York
    Posts
    6,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Puma concolor View Post
    He might be talking about Yard and that weirdo Middle Tabletop thing … all in the ‘Dacks. Catskill guy forgot about the Catskills. LOL.
    As you can see from my previous post, I did not forget about the Catskills. Perish the thought!
    Tom Rankin
    Web Master - NY Forest Fire Lookout Association
    Volunteer - Balsam Lake Mountain
    Past President - Catskill 3500 Club
    CEO - Views and Brews

  6. #36
    Senior Member Puma concolor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Road to Nowhere
    Posts
    1,004
    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/stat...FNBpw2rqDFTlcQ
    Last edited by Puma concolor; 07-18-2022 at 05:56 AM.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Tom Rankin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bloomville, New York
    Posts
    6,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Puma concolor View Post
    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.”
    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.
    Tom Rankin
    Web Master - NY Forest Fire Lookout Association
    Volunteer - Balsam Lake Mountain
    Past President - Catskill 3500 Club
    CEO - Views and Brews

  8. #38
    Senior Member Puma concolor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Road to Nowhere
    Posts
    1,004
    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/PeakStat...tyczynski&s=NY
    Last edited by Puma concolor; 07-18-2022 at 08:56 AM.

  9. #39
    Senior Member B the Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    1,072
    Quote Originally Posted by skiguy View Post
    Yes with all due respect I see your point but to make it sound like it is a burden is a farce IMO. While it is all just a game someone made up within the context of their own self-created paradigms. Again, all they are really doing is officiating a game. So why create the game to begin with or be an official if it is a task. I fail to see your premise of the need for there to be an incentive structure if it has been become a task.
    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."

  10. #40
    Senior Member B the Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    1,072
    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

  11. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Worcester, MA
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by B the Hiker View Post
    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
    It is also fun to think of summiting North and South Hancock after J. E. Henry trains left and before the Kancamagus.

  12. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    7,418
    There are references that early AMC members who deplored JE Henry's logging practices would line up for "Sunday Special" trips on Henry's logging railroads into the Pemi. I have not seen a reference that lists what routes were used for these tourist trains. My guess is they may have gone out to Stillwater. The claim was that the trails up the Hancocks was based on following old logging paths and dugways combined with the slide.

    Cabot no doubt had a trail to the lookout tower and the "rangers spring" was halfway along the ridge to the summit, therefore the additional trail to the summit was not a major stretch but given the somewhat featureless summit there probably was no reason. The first time I did Zealand in the late eighties, there was no attempt at a screed in path to the current summit. I think the sign was right on the side of the trail. My speculation is that enough folks wandered around in the woods looking for a summit that someone finally picked a spot and just ran a defined path to it to reduce impact to the woods.

  13. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ipswich, MA
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by peakbagger View Post
    There are references that early AMC members who deplored JE Henry's logging practices would line up for "Sunday Special" trips on Henry's logging railroads into the Pemi. I have not seen a reference that lists what routes were used for these tourist trains. My guess is they may have gone out to Stillwater.
    The Belcher book includes a 1904 reference to the "Blueberry Express" trains going to Camp 10 on Saturday afternoons and a photo of an excursion train loaded with passengers at Camp 13
    Last edited by JoshandBaron; 07-18-2022 at 05:02 PM.

  14. #44
    Senior Member skiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,214
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshandBaron View Post
    The Belcher book includes a 1904 reference to the "Blueberry Express" trains going to Camp 10 on Saturday afternoons and a photo of an excursion train loaded with passengers at Camp 13
    I guess the rules have changed. You could ride a train but gosh forbid if you ride a bike now. LOL Darn those Appies for coming up with a game they want everyone to play but only by their rules.
    "I'm getting up and going to work everyday and I am stoked. That does not suck!"__Shane McConkey

  15. #45
    Senior Member TEO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by nartreb View Post
    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).
    I'm in agreement with your disappointment nartreb.

    In an old interview with Gene Daniel, maybe in the late naughts or early '10s, I recall that he took a subtle dig at the Adirondack 46ers for sticking with a historical list and likewise took pride in the AMC 4k'er Committee adapting its lists as mapping accuracy was improved. That said, it's my understanding that even at the time of the article, it was known that S. Hancock didn't have a 200' col and they were keeping it on the list because of tradition. The 4k'er Committee will not recognize the Nose because the GMC doesn't want it recognized, and understandibly so. Much alpine vegatation has returned since the closing of the Triangle and Back Nose trails. Reopening one of those trails would require the hiring of another summit steward and divert financial resources in order to protect the alpine area, and even still, it would likely suffer. As Nartreb points out, they can fall back on the errant USGS topo to support their decision, despite the Nose's U.SS Coast & Geodetic Survey benchmark.

    It makes sense that the Adk. 46ers stick with the historical list, but given the AMC 4k'er Committee's history of updating their lists, I'm disappointed that they are ignoring the LIDAR data.

Posting Permissions

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