4,000-footers with minimum 300 foot cols

It is my understanding that in NY's Adirondacks that a 300-foot col is the minimum for a peak to be considered separate by 46er standards. Of course, of the 46, only 42 are truly 4,000-footers.

It is also my understanding that the minimum col in New Hampshire is only 200 feet for the AMC 4,000-footer club standards.

Now, what if you only counted the peaks with a minimum of 300-foot cols in your list of 4,000 footers. how many would New Hampshire actually have? What peaks would be disqualified by the 300-foot col rule?

Anybody have any lists like this out there?

This Page lists almost all the named 4000'ers in New England. I don't believe SW Twin is on here so it can't be complete. You can sort it by prominence and see for yourself which peaks >300'

-Dr. Wu

Thunder Dan said:

It is my understanding that in NY's Adirondacks that a 300-foot col is the minimum for a peak to be considered separate by 46er standards.

Click to expand...

Not quite.
For the ADK 46 the rule calls (sorry!) for a 300 foot col OR .75 miles of distance from the neighbouring peak. (or is it .70 miles?)

Now get this, for the ADK HH, or if you prefer, the "lower 54" the rule is a 300 foot col AND .7 whatever miles. Much more stringent.

As for the New Hampshire rule I can't help you. In fact I've never heard of such a place.

Neil said:

As for the New Hampshire rule I can't help you. In fact I've never heard of such a place.

Click to expand...

I doubt this is true at all. Most Canadians know the names of the US States quite well...

-Dr. Wu

dr_wu002 said:

I doubt this is true at all. Most Canadians know the names of the US States quite well...

-Dr. Wu

Click to expand...

Kan U name the Kanadeyun provinces? Ide b cerprized. Doo U no how menny der iz eevun?

The provinces I've got OK -- it's the territories that confuse me. Now is Toronto a territory or a province

Dr. Wu, thanks for that link. It is very useful.

Based on my analysis of that list, using the 300-foot col rule would disqualify approximately 16 of the New Hampshire peaks,

sooooo, if you compare apples to apples, the Adirondacks 42 4000-footers beats out NH's 32 4000-footers with at least a 300-foot col.

Hmmmmm...

Thunder Dan said:

sooooo, if you compare apples to apples, the Adirondacks 42 4000-footers beats out NH's 32 4000-footers with at least a 300-foot col.

Click to expand...

But if we were to compare 5,000'ers, NY doesn't looks so good, now does it? And don't even think about 6,000'ers.



-dave-

David Metsky said:

But if we were to compare 5,000'ers, NY doesn't looks so good, now does it? And don't even think about 6,000'ers.



-dave-

Click to expand...

Give us another 100,000 years and say that. Our mountains are still growing.

Check this link out:
http://gretchen.geo.rpi.edu/roecker/nys/adir_txt.html

In the early 1980s, remeasurement of the elevations of old surveyors' bench marks showed that the Adirondacks may be rising at the astonishing (to a geologist!) rate of 2 to 3 mm per year. The mountains are growing about 30 times as fast as erosion is wearing them away.

Click to expand...

do you know the capital of canada???

(ans) the american dollar!!!!
o.k. it's a joke,red square me iffin you wanna

Thunder Dan said:

Dr. Wu, thanks for that link. It is very useful.

Based on my analysis of that list, using the 300-foot col rule would disqualify approximately 16 of the New Hampshire peaks,

sooooo, if you compare apples to apples, the Adirondacks 42 4000-footers beats out NH's 32 4000-footers with at least a 300-foot col.

Hmmmmm...

Click to expand...

Maybe we should compare acres of alpine zone....hmmmm....

There is a lot more imprecision once you start plugging col depths into these calculations anyway. Absent a benchmark, you are working from contours and if the summit height is based on a contour as well you have two sources of potential error. The amount of potential error is not trivial either if the contour intervals are 6 meters....potentially as much as 10%. And of course this assumes that the maps are correct. As anyone who has climbed west bond knows, this is not a good assumption, as the col there between Bond and West bond is probably about 120 feet.
The ADK 46 list may have been based upon a "rule" of 300 feet or .7 miles, but it would appear that based on current maps includes peaks that do not qualify under either rule (e.g. Gray).
Tom

Pyramid (ADKS) and Guyot (Whites) are two of my favorites, and they don't count on any of the lists... except for my own.

That said, I like that there are different criteria amongst different mountain groups. Home rules dictate.... When in Rome....

The mountains on the moon are the nicest anyways.

Kevin Rooney said:

I love these silly "my mountains are better than your mountain threads" - people can get quite creative on what is considered a positive attribute.

Click to expand...

I agree. FWIW I should have posted this list... it's the ADK Peaks >3700'. If you sort by prominence you'll find that the # of peaks above 4000' with prominence >300' is about what you'll find in NH.

-Dr. Wu

Forget 200 ft. and 300 ft. cols. The "real" mountains of the Northeast boast 2,000 ft. prominence. And surprisingly, Maine tops the other states on this list...Maine has 16, Vermont 13, New York 13, and New Hampshire 12. Massachusetts' Greylock completes the list. Pretenders like Lincoln, Iroquois, Skylight and Hamlin Peak, mere appendages of taller neighbors, don't stand a chance here.

Thunder Dan said:

Dr. Wu, thanks for that link. It is very useful.

Based on my analysis of that list, using the 300-foot col rule would disqualify approximately 16 of the New Hampshire peaks,

sooooo, if you compare apples to apples, the Adirondacks 42 4000-footers beats out NH's 32 4000-footers with at least a 300-foot col.

Hmmmmm...

Click to expand...

Not so fast Thunder Dan. Whenever you make comparisons you need to use a consistent criteria. Dr. Wu beat me at posting the Adirondack list. Based on that list there are only 29 Adirondack 4000 footers that have a 300' clean prominence. For a New York vs. New Hampshire comparison you should also include the two Catskill 4000 footers (they both have clean prominence over 2000').

So the consistent criteria comparison is:
32 New Hampshire
31 New York
Still close but advantage to the Hampsters. Somebody may want to double check the counts.

It should be noted that the 46er and other lists were not created with the "clean" (or pessimistic) prominence, but by using lowest contours at both summits and cols for which there is no actual measurement. With that 300' criteria there may be a few more 4000-footers in both states.

Let's make our own rules.

Has anyone considered creating a VFTT list? It could include the most interesting peaks from the Whites, ADKs, and Cats. Somewhere between 50-100 peaks. Of course hikers from each area may argue which of their home peaks should be included and by what criteria but I still think it would be a cool list once the debate was over (years from now most likely). Best views, steepest climbs, something like that. Not just elevation because that's always done and doesn't always include the nicest hikes. Maybe a vote? Just a thought. I haven't been around too long so if something like this already exists scrap the notion by all means.

P.S.-I vote for any of the ones I've climbed already.

bigmoose said:

Forget 200 ft. and 300 ft. cols. The "real" mountains of the Northeast boast 2,000 ft. prominence. And surprisingly, Maine tops the other states on this list...Maine has 16, Vermont 13, New York 13, and New Hampshire 12. Massachusetts' Greylock completes the list. Pretenders like Lincoln, Iroquois, Skylight and Hamlin Peak, mere appendages of taller neighbors, don't stand a chance here.

Click to expand...

The 55 peaks above 2000' is the only list I'm very much sort of doing. But to say that Maine mountains are better because they have more is getting back to that 'my state/range' is better than yours thing. I've had the opportunity to hike in NY (ADK's and Catskills), Mass, NH, VT and ME and all of them are beautiful and have their charm. I couldn't possibly say one is better because one has more 4000'ers or 5000'ers or more peaks w/ >2000' prominence. Compared to the West these numbers are pretty small. But for me, the North East is a beautiful place and I'm lucky to be here.

-Dr. Wu

Mark,

Thanks for posting the link to the ADK prominence list. I agree that based on comparing lists that NH does beat NY on Mtns with 300-ft cols after all.

Having hiked both places, I enjoy both and like getting outdoors period.

catskillclimber said:

Has anyone considered creating a VFTT list?

Click to expand...

It's pretty much the USGS list of place names.

-dave-