Steepest mile

[tlbj6142]

We have the hardest mile thread going, but what about the steepest mile? Meaning net elevation gain or loss (depending on direction) over a full mile.

Looking at the few maps I have (GSMNP, most of VA, VT/NH and ME), there appears to be quite a few 1000'/mile sections, and maybe a couple of 1200'/mile sections. I hiked a few of those on a recent ME section hike, and they were not as bad in person as they appear on a profile.

Their are a few short sections that are steeper, a full mile worth, I can't find.

Just wondering?

[Blue Jay]

The profiles on the AT maps are a complete fiction. Some of them are for mountains that are no longer even on the AT. It would be hard to beat the Big K.

[MOWGLI]

I would vote for somewhere on Katahdin, Mahoosuc Arm, or the north side of Moosilauke. All of 'em are pretty darn steep.

IMO, there is nothing like any of those climbs south of NH.

[monkeymuscles]

I have no clue of other steep grades on the trail but the hike up Wawayanda Mountain to the Pinwheel Vista is a very steep climb for what is most likely a mile if not more. I don't know the elevation but I would think it's more then a 1000' change. Just about the whole way up the trail is all switchbacks. Now I don't know if this is considered a large climb on the A.T. but it's one of my favorite hikes and I even posted some views from the top of the mountain at the Pinwheel Vista on the photo board if anyone wants to take a look.

[TREE-HUGGER]

I have to agree with MOWGLI16. The first climb that came to my mind was The Mahusooc arm coming up out of the notch. And then I went to Katahdin. I guess Katahdin would pretty much win out in a side by side comparison.

[squirrel bait]

Dragons Tooth south of Catwaba Valley. Heading south over this with a way to heavy pack was pretty steep and hard.

[orangebug]

I was real impressed with the climb south of Sam's Gap - the mountain past Boone Cove Road up to Frozen Knob just kept going. There was a brief respite at Sugarloaf Gap, but I think that was something like 1500 in about 1 mile.

[TankHiker]

Funny, I never thought Mahoosuc Arm was that bad. In fact, I kind of enjoyed that climb.

The climb out of Palmerton was pretty steep. And the rock scramble up Katahdin was steep. But my vote also goes to the north (east) side of Moosilauke. Man, that was a killer!

-Tank

[chris]

Having been in the Whites only briefly and not in Maine at all, I'll can't quite offer a steepest mile idea, but I will say that NY, particularly the early parts, were really rather steep. The trail designers seemed to think it a good idea to go over every little pile of rocks possible, whether or not there was a view or aesthetic reason for it. And, the trail up had to have as much vertical as possible.

Other bitchass climbs that come to mind include Stecoah Gap and the climb out of the James. Of course, the James is low, and it was really hot and humid when I came through that area. On top of that, the climb was the last thing to do before the end of a 30+ mile day. Even worse, hikers rolled into the shelter I was staying at around 9:30 and proceeded to stage an impromptu concert. I was glad to have earplugs.

[The Solemates]

I have to agree that descending Moosilauke into Kinsman Notch put a hurtin on my knees. That was probably the longest steepest descent in my mind. Mahoosuc Arm didnt seem too bad, of course I would rather go uphill any day.

[java]

There is a ton of hand-over-hand on Wildcat. Also a steep climb.

[c.coyle]

In Pennsylvania, at least , it's the northbound climb out of Lehigh Gap.

[Jack Tarlin]

In New Hampshire, I'd have to agree that Wildcat and Moosilauke are about the worst, tho I'd add South Kinsman, too. Also, Garfield and Madison aren't that long, but they're pretty tough, especially if it's wet. And the stretch between Pinkham Notch and Madison is memorable, especially if you're stupid enough to do it Southbound. Also, I've always disliked Mt. Success, which is New Hampshire's "good-bye" kick in the ass before you cross into Maine.

In Maine, there's a nasty rock scramble just before Carlo Col shelter that's kind of a pain. Likewise, some of the rock scrambles on Goose Eye are harder than they look. For the record, tho, I'd haveta agree that Mahoosuc Arm is one of the worst, tho there are all sorts of other places that come to mind....Moody Mtn. near Andover, Saddleback if it's wet, Avery if you're tired. Going up Speck Southbound out of Grafton Notch is also no day at the beach.

The single hardest one-day climb, oddly enough, is your very last day, but the funny thing is that on Katahdin, nobody seems to care.

Nobody's talked much about the South. The ones I'd rather not do again in a southbound direction are the climbs out of Erwin, and the Priest in Virginia, which you can FLY down if you're a Northbounder, but it takes about 10 years
if you're unlucky enough to be going the other way.

[Peaks]

The steepest climb is reputed to be the Hunt Trail on Katahdin, from Katahdin Steam Falls to the Gateway. It's 3000 feet or so in about 2 1/2 miles.

Mahoosac Arm is about 1500 feet in 1 1/2 miles or less.

Beaver Brook on Moosalauke is about 1700 feet in about 1 1/2 miles.

All three are certainly good climbs or descents, depending on which way you are headed. One difference is that most thru-hikers slack pack up Katahdin, and not the other two.

[weary]

I had hiked mostly in Maine and New Hampshire -- well with side trips to places like the Grand Canyon and Rainier, before I started in Georgia 11 years ago. I never particularly noticed any "steep" climbs until I reached New Hampshire.

I suspect Katahdin has easily the steepest continuous climb on the the trail.
As I read my trail map, the AT on Katahdin goes from 1,750 feet to 4,600 feet in a bit more than two miles.

The AT from Katahdin Stream to Katahdin's summit is a little more than five miles long and gains about 4,000 feet in elevation in that distance. But the first mile or so and the last mile or so are pretty moderate. The bulk of the gain is in the middle two miles.

Weary

[Hikerhead]

After mostly hiking about in Va, I was shown what a true climb was when I hiked up to the Franconia Ridge last year. Nothing can get you ready for that. My hiking bud went right on up but she hikes that part of the country a lot and I know that helps a bunch. A week ago I met up with her again to hike the Kinsman heading south from Franconia Notch. Again, another insightful experience of what a true climb is. We planned on going over Moosilakee but my planned 15 miles/day dropped to around 9 so maybe I'll have that pleasure next year.

I hiked all of Ga this year including a hike from Deep Gap NC down to Bly Gap and back. Climbing Bly Gap was tough but no way does it compare to the Whites.



.

[Kerosene]

Nobody's talked much about the South. The ones I'd rather not do again in a southbound direction are the climbs out of Erwin, and the Priest in Virginia, which you can FLY down if you're a Northbounder, but it takes about 10 years if you're unlucky enough to be going the other way.ATwalker99 and I left our camp at the Tye River heading SOBO up the 30-odd switchbacks that ascend 3,000 feet and 5 miles to the summit of The Priest. I was smart enough to start slow and give my body time to warm up, and we decided to breakfast at the viewpoint about halfway up, so overall it was tough but reasonable (unlike those New Hampshire trails that just go s-t-r-a-i-g-h-t up at 1,000'/mile+).

I think a lot of the perceived difficulty depends on your nutrition level, fitness level, time of day, pace, temperature, humidity, and all those hoo-ha biorhythms. Some stuff seems harder than it should be, some stuff quite a bit easier. I do like the elevation profiles though, because they always seem to make me think the ascent will be worse than it actually turns out to be.

[Kerosene]

Dragons Tooth south of Catwaba Valley. Heading south over this with a way to heavy pack was pretty steep and hard.Heading south up that amazing series of stone steps was pretty hard even with a light pack! Here's a picture (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/1749/size/big/password/0/sort/1/cat/500) of the final bit of ascent.

[Kerosene]

...the hike up Wawayanda Mountain to the Pinwheel Vista is a very steep climb for what is most likely a mile if not more. I don't know the elevation but I would think it's more then a 1000' change.The NOBO 800' vertical climb up to Pinwheel Vista is about 0.8 miles from the base of the mountain.

Once again, I did this first thing in the morning after hammocking just west of NJ-94, with the goal of breakfasting at the peak (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/4014/size/big/password/0/sort/1/cat/500). I had a nice early morning climb on a clear, crisp summer morning. It may have been steep, but a trail runner interrupted my reverie and informed me that he used the climb to practice for an endurance run he had coming up!

[MOWGLI]

If we're talkin' about the south, nobody has mentioned Three Ridges yet. That was a bear of a climb. Am I recalling correctly that the Tye River lies at the base of Three Ridges?

[A-Train]

Couple that come to mind:

Agony Grind-just south of Rt 17 in NY before entering Harriman. The whole section from 17A-17 is a series of stiff ups and downs, but the ascent and descent over Agony can tire you out more than NY should.

The mile or so from the last Wildcat down to Carter Notch Hut was about as steep as it gets on the AT-my knees were screaming. As I recall, the climb outta the notch wasn't much easier (going up Carter Dome).

The descent into Pearisburg (northbound) was a knee-jarrer too. I've heard of a number of thru-hikers ironically injuring themselves coming into Pearisburg, its a bad luck spot of sorts. Maybe its just cause people are in a rush to reach town. It was at the end of a 25 mile mile, too-long day and I remember my feet throbbing.

[Kerosene]

If we're talkin' about the south, nobody has mentioned Three Ridges yet. That was a bear of a climb. Am I recalling correctly that the Tye River lies at the base of Three Ridges?Yes, the Tye River separates The Priest and Three Ridges. Frankly, it looked like the Three Ridges climb might be harder than The Priest in that the trail seemed to be less manicured and steeper in some sections.

[squirrel bait]

Thanks Keorsene, that picture sure reminds me of a hard climb. I knew I was in trouble when after clearing the ascent that overlooks Four Pines Hostel and meeting a group of kids at the bottom. I said that climbing Dragoons Tooth was pretty hard and they looked around witha puzzled grin and asked which I had come from. I said from the north, they had seen me coming down the switchbacks, and of course they pointed southbound and said ya ain't done it yet. Man that was one long hard day that I wouldn't trade for anything. That was the day I discovered I could create rainbows with my socks by twirling them in the sunshine. Over Dragoons Tooth (southbound) in July.

[Kerosene]

That was the day I discovered I could create rainbows with my socks by twirling them in the sunshine.It's amazing what the hiker brain can think about after hours of physical exertion alone in the woods.:sun

[Repeat]

NoBo from Hughes Gap up the southern flank of Roan Mountain--1.3 miles/ 1300 ft in elevation to the top of Bear Town Mountain. I tried to distract myself by counting my deep breaths---stoped at 600-haha.

[Grimace]

The hike south from Kinkora I remember kicked my butt. Not sure if it was the hospitality of Bob or not.

I don't remember the hike south from Fontana being a picnic either

[MOWGLI]

Couple that come to mind:

Agony Grind-just south of Rt 17 in NY before entering Harriman. The whole section from 17A-17 is a series of stiff ups and downs, but the ascent and descent over Agony can tire you out more than NY should.



When I was employed by Verizon and living in New York, I led a hike for my co-workers from the Elk Pen (about .3 north of Agony Grind) to West Mombasha Road. The distance was perhaps 5 miles. We were not even halfway up Agony Grind when one of my co-workers started trembling uncontrolably. Physically, it was WAY too much for the poor guy. I had to have my sweeper take him and his wife back to their car.

At the end of the day, I think I had pretty well traumatized my co-workers, even though we hiked at about 1 MPH. A day hike of 5 miles might seem like nothing for you & me, but for these folks, it was all they could handle. BTW, they had all been warned repeatedly that this was a very strenuous hike, while in actuality - it was more like a moderate hike.

[bearbait2k4]

Although I still have a few hundred miles to go before completing the entire trail, and have not done some of these "steep" climbs that are being spoken of, I cannot imagine there being a steeper climb (or descent) than Mt. Moosilauke.

[Rain Man]

So far, I'd surely vote for the middle section of Katahdin for the steepest climb over one mile.

Rain Man

.

[Oteast]

Keroscene's Comment is a accurate one:

"I think a lot of the perceived difficulty depends on your nutrition level, fitness level, time

of day, pace, temperature, humidity, and all those hoo-ha biorhythms. Some stuff seems harder

than it should be, some stuff quite a bit easier. I do like the elevation profiles though,

because they always seem to make me think the ascent will be worse than it actually turns out to

be."

Given that some memorable slogs that were tough at the time as a Northbounder were, diverging

off a comment below, I think the Southern Mountains hit me harder as I was used to the rock

strewn trails of the Whites where I had backpacked as a teenager and college student. The

Southern mountains have long continous uphills with no "stairs" provided by rocks, the mud in

the steep footpath can cause a Northerner to loose energy in trying to grip, the Nanatahals were

probably more of challange to me from Bly Gap to Fontana Dam than any other stretch, especially

the Stecoah range from the Nanatahala river to Fontana Dam. On the other hand Pennsylvannia for

a New Englander just flys by underfoot as it like the Whites just, laid flat...:

Frosty Mtn (on the approach trail)
Just after Bly Gap
Snowbird Mtn.
Waylah Bald
Wesser Bald
Stecoah Bald (Cheoh Bald)
Thunderhead
Pond Mountain (the trail went over this in '93 right before Watuga Dam)
The mountain right after Moreland Gap on 19E (forget the name now)
Catawaba Mtn. (Macafee Knob)
Tinker Cliffs
Three Ridges
Mt. Blue and Cove Mountain (to either side of the Cumberland Valley, the 106 F heat wave might

have contributed to these.
Southtwin Mtn.
Moody Mtn.
South and North Crocker Mtns.
Barren/Chairback Mtn.
Mt. Liberty (Franconia Ridge)

Some sections don't climb, much but man the ups and downs get you:

1) the 20 miles proceeding the Blackburn Center in Northern Virginia
2) the Nanatahala's; gaps are deep, peaks are high almost as high as the Smokies and the Whites
the Moohoosucs; not high peeks nore deep gaps but rugged, rooty and steep and wet; very pretty

stretch though.
3) The Georgia section fromHawk Mountain to Blood Mtn. where the GATC seems to route the path

over every possible mountain peak on the ridgeline, I remember the second evening out looking

400' up the kno called Sassafras Mtn. One look at the Trail winding its way right up the cone on

it after done what seemed to be 50 before it and it was Tent-Out-in-the-Gap-Time
My guess is views and terrain/vegitation/landscape "eye candy" often can do wonder to distract the climber on the slog up maybe making some acents "easier" in mind than others. Some that didn't seem so bad at all, but should have been worse going by elevation gain on the maps were:

Blood Mtn.
Tray Mtn.
Siler Bald
Albert Mtn.
Standing Indian
Shuckstack Mtn.
Clingman's Dome
Max Patch
Big Bald
Big Butt
Roan Mountain (High Knob)
Whitetop Mtn. (and Mt. Rodgers)
Hawksbill Mtn.
Stoney Man
Mt. Greylock.
Stratten Mtn.
Moosilauke
The Bigelows
Pinkham Notch (gaining the Southern Presidentials)
Wildcat
Carter Notch Rainbow Dome, Mt. Height and the Carters
Mt. Gooseeye/Carlo Col
Mahoosic Arm
Baldpate Mtn.
Saddleback Mtn.
The Bigelow Range
Katahdin

There's many more memorable for difficulty or ease but it seems very subjective to me based on exhuastion, weather, availability of views, companions, etc.

[Bolivershagnasty]

My steepest mile is ALWAYS from the truck back up my porch to the front door.

[TOW]

the one that is embedded in my minds eye is going south in the wilderness and after coming upon a road, going darn near straight up for what i believe was a mile to crescent pond. the start of the ascent was approximately 2 1/2 miles south of rainbow streams lean-to.....

[The Hog]

After summiting Katahdin, we came down on the Abol Trail. I know, it's not on the A.T., but I would wager that it's steeper than anything on the entire Appalachian Trail.

[Jeff]

Although most folks are going downhill, SOBO from Sages Ravine up Bear Mtn in CT is steep, steep, steep.

[Kerosene]

Although most folks are going downhill, SOBO from Sages Ravine up Bear Mtn in CT is steep, steep, steep.It's even steeper in late March when the northern slopes are still covered in ice and slippery as all get-out!

[LIhikers]

After having lunch and a couple of beers at the Doyle Hotel, in Duncannon, PA, I'd swear that the steepest climb was southbound out of town.......lol

[TOW]

After having lunch and a couple of beers at the Doyle Hotel, in Duncannon, PA, I'd swear that the steepest climb was southbound out of town.......lolthat's what beer does for ya....i remember that climb too, but it wasn't that bad...i left out of there on a cold rainy/snowy late afternoon in december 2001. it got dark around 5 pm and i hadn't even made it to the top...

right before i left town, the barefoot sisters had emailed me and told me to keep an eye out for patches that was hiking to harpers ferry from kathadin and that they would try and meet him there.

anyway as i am going up the trail, the snow had become so thick and it was slushy and i lose the trail. so i stp and get my bearings and tried to backtrack, but that didn't work, so i start looking for a place to pitch my enormous kiva teepee or at least bed down and pull it over me...the rocks are too numerous and too small.

i get to thinking the trail has to be up there and up there is the top and i start climbing...after about an half hour, the snow had quit and i come out to the top and a clearing and a bunch of dear that scared the crap right out of me...all those eyes lighting up in my headlamp...they were more scared though and scooted to points beyond.

so i'm looking for the trail and i notice another headlamp coming my way, so i wait till it gets near and i hollared (that's what we do down south here, in case some of you northerners are a little slow, we hollar while you guys bellow....) and it's patches!

he gets me back on the trail, i didn't let him know i got lost being the super duper hiking legend in my own mind i am thing, and i give him his message. his parents are waiting for him in duncannon, so we didn't talk long...

then he tells me the turn off for the shelter is only about a half of a mile and it had began snowing again and i hiked right past it and after a mile or so, i backtrack to find it...

i didn't get in there till 10 pm and the place was full of hunters and weekend warriors, but they made room for me and since i'm a story teller and they like stories, we stay up till one or so and they even fed me...

the next day, after all that exertion, i decided to lay around and not do a thing, i use to do that alot when i hiked, but now i usually stay on a routine...those hunters fixed me breakfast because they liked to hear stories and i awoke before all of them and had one going when their eyes popped open...("i know, some of you guys call that BS and had there been any of you there, you would have told me to shut up and probably had not been too polite about, but i like to call it story telling")....in fact, some of them before they pulled out, left me with some extra goodies and i'll be darned if they all didn't give me their phone numbers and emails and said to give them a call if i ever need a care package...i thought that was pretty cool....

i emailed some of them, never did need anything from them, but have lost contact with them since then...some of them had even got onto "hobocentral" and was rubbing elbows with a few old blue blazers.....

then after that........

[Kerosene]

We started on a NOBO section from Duncannon in early April 1974 with 50-pound packs as high school juniors, so it was a pretty tough climb up. The old bridge across the Susquehanna was really narrow, with the traffic whizzing close by.

[TOW]

We started on a NOBO section from Duncannon in early April 1974 with 50-pound packs as high school juniors, so it was a pretty tough climb up. The old bridge across the Susquehanna was really narrow, with the traffic whizzing close by.what, were you like 16 or 17 at the time???

[fiddlehead]

In Pennsylvania, at least , it's the northbound climb out of Lehigh Gap.I think the southbound climb out of Port Clinton is steeper although much shorter of course.
The steepest I ever saw (fortunately it was a downhill for me) was in the Pyrenees where our maps confirmed that it was 1000 metre descent in 1.5 kms. (aprox 3000' per mile) This thing seemed almost straight up and down with some excellent trailbuilding with many very short switchbacks making it doable.
But for the AT, i have to say it's either Wildcat or Katahdin.
PCT: Forrester Pass?
CDT: Hope pass southbound or northbound. although i felt like i was going straight up one time in NM when Slo Ryd and i were bushwhacking and getting caught in those Ravines. (remember that day Nean? you stayed with Lori and took the mapped route. wise)

[Freighttrain]

***The single hardest one-day climb, oddly enough, is your very last day, but the funny thing is that on Katahdin, nobody seems to care.***


Its day one for us SOBO's!... DAY 1.!! took me the entire day to go up n back down..... i had to take a zero at Abol bridge because it put such a hurtin on me :)

[Kerosene]

what, were you like 16 or 17 at the time???Yep, I was just shy of 16 that hike, as were my three hiking partners. This was our second section hike. Three of us had done DWG to Unionville a year prior when we were 15. To this day I'm amazed that my parents let me go out in the woods for a week when I was that young, but I think they trusted my scouting experience (which only helped a little with long distance backpacking it turns out!).

[spike]

You can choose your poison. Going north is Three Ridges, and going south is The Priest.

I've section-hiked over both of these, and I didn't think they were that bad. As someone noted, the trails have plenty of switchbacks, so a "slow-and-steady" approach will get you over with no problems. A worse climb to me was the climb from Brown Mountain Creek shelter north to the top of Bald Mountain. Never thought it would end.

Another hard piece of trail is the infamous Mau-Har Trail "shortcut" going north from the Tye. The trail climbs along a steep creek, and it just about killed me the first time I did it. Of course it was a very hot day, and on the last day of my first section-hike.

(For you purists out there, I have since gone back and done the section without the shortcut!)

[neo]

I would vote for somewhere on Katahdin, Mahoosuc Arm, or the north side of Moosilauke. All of 'em are pretty darn steep.

IMO, there is nothing like any of those climbs south of NH.
i did the north side of moosilauke a few weeks ago,it took me over 2 hours to do the first 1.6 mile up to beaver brook shelter,it got easier after that:cool: neo

[neo]

You can choose your poison. Going north is Three Ridges, and going south is The Priest.

I've section-hiked over both of these, and I didn't think they were that bad. As someone noted, the trails have plenty of switchbacks, so a "slow-and-steady" approach will get you over with no problems. A worse climb to me was the climb from Brown Mountain Creek shelter north to the top of Bald Mountain. Never thought it would end.

Another hard piece of trail is the infamous Mau-Har Trail "shortcut" going north from the Tye. The trail climbs along a steep creek, and it just about killed me the first time I did it. Of course it was a very hot day, and on the last day of my first section-hike.

(For you purists out there, I have since gone back and done the section without the shortcut!)
i did 3 ridges in the rain in october 2002:cool: neo

[MoBeach42]

I'd add South Kinsman, too
I think this was one of my favorite climbs on the whole trail. Hand over hand exhiliaration!

I have to quote a trailbuddy of mine this year.

Chino's Rule #2 for the AT:
"Never trust another hiker's opinion or interpretation of distance ("It can't be more than 20 minutes from here"), difficulty ("you can easily do two 25 mile days out of Kincora.") or map reading in general ("looks like all down hill today.")."

Rule #1, of course, is: "Don't Get Killed."

Thanks, "Chino"!

[Kerosene]

I was SOBO down Three Ridges on a rainy, windy day in October a few years ago and was glad I wasn't going up on a humid hot July day. I thought that the ascent of The Priest would be much easier, probably because the trail surface was smoother with easier switchbacks.

[Cookerhiker]

I agree with most of the ascents cited but no one mentioned Pleasant Pond Mountain in Maine - over 1,100 feet in less than a mile. I remember this well because I strained my rib cage from stretching to boost myself up one of the hand-over-hand climbs. Like most of Maine, the views on top were worth it!

[Bankrobber]

I feared for my life dropping down the Beaver Brook trail on the north/east face of Moosilauke. The entire Mahoosuc section seemed impossibly steep. In the south, the climb down the Priest and up the Three Ridges is a butt kicker. I also seem to remember a particular section near Trey Mtn in Georgia called Kelly Knob that seemed quite tough.

[RockyTrail]

I also seem to remember a particular section near Trey Mtn in Georgia called Kelly Knob that seemed quite tough.

Yep, Kelly Knob north of Tray Mtn can be a doozy. It has some straight-up, no switchback sections that seem to go on for quite a while. It hits folks especially hard when they started from Blue Mtn or Unicoi Gap headed NOBO to Deep Gap, been hiking all day, they're almost there, and then right before Deep Gap BLAMO there's this huge hill to climb. But it's got a nice view and it makes arrival at Deep that much sweeter.

Another one in Georgia that surprises many is Sassafras; it's not all that bad, but for fresh starts from Springer it seems huge when they hit it on the second day.

[Kerosene]

Is Kelly Knob the climb out of Addis Gap? I was making good time from Blue Mountain Shelter in early April last year on my way to Hiawassee for the night. I really wanted to stop at the annual hiker feed in Addis Gap when I found out that it was going on, but it was near the end of the feed and my schedule didn't really allow spending several hours off-trail (a drawback to section hiking). It started to rain on the ascent and I bonked big-time, forcing me to stand there and re-fuel. That was the only climb in Georgia that I wasn't able to do without stopping to rest.

The funny thing is, Hikerhead, my hiking partner who was somewhere behind me, didn't arrive at Dicks Creek Gap until 4 hours after I did!

[generoll]

Kelly Nob is before Addis gap if you are northbound. and yeah, it certainly got my attention this past weekend.

[Smile]

Kelly Knob is next biggie after Tray Mtn. And a long hike uphill it is.....and downhill for that matter, very long down hill to Deep Gap Shelter.

[swift]

Probably a protective mechanism but I can't recall or compare in terms of single miles and a lot of the pieces mentioned here are in those days. Maybe I should start a Hardest Day Thread. Using that criteria 3 come to mind: Kinsman to Franconia Notch....the 17 or so miles with Mahoosuc Notch dead center....Pinkham Notch through Wildats. Katadhin seems like a nero day as a thruhiker, a half-day romp up and down. For sure I will never whine or complain about the terrain or steepnes of anything in the south again

[Kerosene]

Kelly [K]Nob is before Addis gap if you are northbound.Maybe that's why I bonked after Addis Gap...I might have maxed out on the Kelly Knob climb.

[RockyTrail]

Is Kelly Knob the climb out of Addis Gap?

Yes, it's one mile north of Addis Gap. In fact the climb starts at Addis and goes mostly straight up about 960 feet in one mile according to this topo map:
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=17&n=3862268&e=257307&s=50&size=l&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25

I realize there are far worse climbs, but notice the trail goes pretty much directly across the contour lines at right angles; that means straight up, baby!

[Hikerhead]

The funny thing is, Hikerhead, my hiking partner who was somewhere behind me, didn't arrive at Dicks Creek Gap until 4 hours after I did!

I wasn't in no hurry, I had all damn day to get there. :)

[Moxie00]

I started at Springer and I thought Albert was the only thing that resembled the moutains I was used to growing up in Maine. The rest were just very tall hills. Dragons tooth did have a little challange to it, I didn't mind Moosalauke because I was going downhill snf the Dartmouth Hiking Club had installed wonderful wood steps. After the notch Mahoosac Arm is a real Bitch. I feel it is to me the steepest climb on a scale geared to difficulty. Jack is 100% correct on weather. Avery in the rain or icy conditions or Saddleback can bust your chops in bad weather. Katahdin is the hardest and steepest but by the time you get there you are flying and most thru hikers wouldn't notice,(or slow down) if it was straight up and covered with ice.

[pdhoffman]

I agree with the "fearing for my life" sentiment. I came down the north side of Moosilauke in the rain and there was a significant pucker factor present. One slip and you are going to take a long slide down the smooth rock faces. A very tense time. :eek:

Pete Hoffman
Old Corpus:

[RITBlake]

As a southbounder.... i remember the climb up to 'dragons tooth' being incredibley steep. The 'priest' was rough, as well as '3 peaks'. But....I think the Abol trail up Katahdin was about as steep as it ever got, but thats not really on the AT. So I guess my answer is dragons tooth.

[Kerosene]

There is no NOBO climb up Dragon's Tooth as you're already walking the ridgeline of Cove Mountain. The SOBO climb is like a StairStepper on level 10 that just keeps going and going; the amount of rock-work involved is amazing. I went up on a warm afternoon and really felt it, even though I had already been on the trail a week and was in great shape. Here's a picture (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=1749&original=1&c=665&userid=3) of the last scramble to the top where they decided to forego additional rock steps.

[partly cloudy]

We started on a NOBO section from Duncannon in early April 1974 with 50-pound packs as high school juniors, so it was a pretty tough climb up. The old bridge across the Susquehanna was really narrow, with the traffic whizzing close by.

I drove big truck acoss that bridge in the 70's and 80's. Ya always worried about your mirrors. Had to be the worst bridge in the country for a mojor highway. Couldn't imagine walking across it with all the traffic.

[maxNcathy]

Nice picture Kerosene

Max

[vortex]

I did my Thru-Hike in 1995 so my memory may need some jogging, but isn't the climb north out of Stecoah Gap a real monster:confused: Maybe it seemed worse than it really is because it is early in game for a NOB.

Vortex Ga-Me 95:banana

[gsingjane]

Does anyone who has done many of these climbs know how they compare with St. John's Ledges in CT? I thought that was awful tough (the 90 degree weather in early June didn't help, either), but am curious to know if that's just a minor thing next to some of these other climbs?

Jane in CT

[Cookerhiker]

Does anyone who has done many of these climbs know how they compare with St. John's Ledges in CT? I thought that was awful tough (the 90 degree weather in early June didn't help, either), but am curious to know if that's just a minor thing next to some of these other climbs?

Jane in CT

I've hiked St. Johns Ledges twice, both times downhill and agree it was very difficult but that may be because they're like nothing encountered in the previous several hundred miles. Most previous steep ascents/descents (West Mountain NY comes to mind) don't feature the rock structure of St. J Ledges which makes them difficult. You mentioned 90 degree heat which certainly is a factor but I can tell you that hiking them in late Fall which I did has its own problems with the dry freshly-fallen leaves rendering the footing very treacherous.

When a friend of mine who's gradually section-hiking her way north approached them last Fall, I filled her head with cautionary statements, especially since she had thought Lehigh Gap, PA was absolutely scary. I hiked with her in southern CT; it took us over an hour to descend St. Johns' ledges. When anyone asks, I tell them it's a good tune-up for Northern New England.

So I'd rank them tough but not as much as some others including my own citation previously in this post of Pleasant Pond Mt. in Maine. At least the St. J Ledges ascent or descent is short. In Maine alone, there are probably at least 10 ascents/descents which are tougher and that's before Katahdin.

[Krewzer]

I did my Thru-Hike in 1995 so my memory may need some jogging, but isn't the climb north out of Stecoah Gap a real monster:confused: Maybe it seemed worse than it really is because it is early in game for a NOB.

Vortex Ga-Me 95:banana

I don't know when it was done, but the trail north out of Stecoah Gap was relocated. You may have passed through when it was famous for being a very hard section of the AT, especially in the south. There's still lots of up, but not as strenuous as it once was. The old trail route is still visible in places as you go up.

[patrickwittman]

The profiles on the AT maps are a complete fiction. Some of them are for mountains that are no longer even on the AT. It would be hard to beat the Big K.

Sorry to resurrect such an old post, however I came across this while looking for some elevation profile maps that had actual slope. As Blue Jay mentioned the profiles on the AT maps are very deceiving because they are trying to cram them on to the page along a section that is actually much longer. The ratio of width to height is way off with the width being far too narrow and thus making the slope look much worse than it actually is. I'm wondering if anyone has created more realistic profiles with more accurate slopes? I'm about to start a SOBO thru-hike and when looking at the hunt trail profile I nearly had a heart attack with how steep it looks. Then I did some math and noticed the scale of rise to run was no where near 1:1 so I felt much better.

[tdoczi]

Sorry to resurrect such an old post, however I came across this while looking for some elevation profile maps that had actual slope. As Blue Jay mentioned the profiles on the AT maps are very deceiving because they are trying to cram them on to the page along a section that is actually much longer. The ratio of width to height is way off with the width being far too narrow and thus making the slope look much worse than it actually is. I'm wondering if anyone has created more realistic profiles with more accurate slopes? I'm about to start a SOBO thru-hike and when looking at the hunt trail profile I nearly had a heart attack with how steep it looks. Then I did some math and noticed the scale of rise to run was no where near 1:1 so I felt much better.

a 1:1 scale would be useless as it would be nearly flat for most of the AT. its vertically exaggerrated on purpose to make it useful. in spite of the exaggeration you can still accurately read elevation gain over distance

[hikerboy57]

mahoosuc arm s**ked, was downright scary in parts.

[rocketsocks]

Down to Lehigh Gap,PA is pretty steep,and the Red trail up to the top of Mt Tammany,DWG,NJ.

[10-K]

One step at a time... You don't have to hike the entire climb at once. Just that next step.

[peakbagger]

I havent looked at a Maine AT map for while but the last map with Kathadin on it used to be all at the same vertical scale. It was a farily flat profile running along the bottom of the page and then profile expanded upwards to about 1/4 of the page to show the climb up Katahdin.

[hikerboy57]

I've done the hunt trail what about to be abol trail?

[Majortrauma]

I SOBO hiked "The Priest and althouhg that was not the highest/steepest, it was pretty tough I thought.

[Kerosene]

I SOBO hiked "The Priest and althouhg that was not the highest/steepest, it was pretty tough I thought.Interesting how people experience the AT differently. I climbed The Priest SOBO in mid-October 2002 after hammocking at Tye River. I started out at 8 am after a big breakfast, planning to take a break at the rocky overlook of Silver Valley 2.8 miles up. It was a lovely morning, albeit a touch humid, and while I started slowly to give my Achilles the chance to warm up, it only took me an hour to get to the overlook. I ate a Clif Bar while chatting with my hiking partner while he was eating breakfast, moving on after an hour in the morning sun. It took me another hour to reach the summit. Certainly breaking up the climb into two parts made it feel a lot easier than the imposing elevation profile and 37 switchbacks implied. A nice sunny morning on a full stomach helps a lot also!

[10-K]

When I hiked up the Priest it was snowing like mad. I passed a boy scout troop on their way to the shelter about halfway up - mostly wearing jeans and non-hiking clothing.

Evidently, the leaders called off the trip and they turned around because they never showed up and I know they didn't stop and camp somewhere.

Good thing.. my thermometer said it was 13* the next morning.

FWIW, I didn't think it was a hard climb but it went on and on. The snow made it a bit easier probably by filling in the holes and covering the rocks.

[Crash! Bang!]

All answers outside of New Hampshire or Maine are irrelevant.

[LIhikers]

The trail from the top of Wildcat Mtn. peak E down into Pinkham Notch is pretty steep.

[DavidNH]

the climb of Mount Katahdin for sure. There are quite a few runners up but I can't think of any part of the AT where one goes from 1,500 or less feet to 5,280 feet mostly in three miles. Keep in mind, out of the 5 miles from K Stream Campground to Baxter Peak, the first mile is relatively easy, the last mile is a cake walk, and the middle three miles up and at 'em over the rocks!

[Kerosene]

The trail from the top of Wildcat Mtn. peak E down into Pinkham Notch is pretty steep.It's incredibly steep, according to the guidebooks. Of course, I get to tackle it in the first hour of my section hike next month. Oh goody.

[jakedatc]

still doesn't have stairs bolted to rock. Cascades on the north side of Moosilauke still wins i think. 1900' of the 3100' of climbing in the first 1.5mi from Kinsman notch which has a fairly relaxed start. Wildcat A down to carter is definitely in the running though 1000' in .7mi

[tdoczi]

still doesn't have stairs bolted to rock. Cascades on the north side of Moosilauke still wins i think. 1900' of the 3100' of climbing in the first 1.5mi from Kinsman notch which has a fairly relaxed start. Wildcat A down to carter is definitely in the running though 1000' in .7mi


pinkham to carter totally does have stares attached to the rockface. the big wooden ones if i remember. maybe not steel rungs but i dont see how it makes a difference.

frankly ive always thought of moosilauke as the most overrated mountain in the whites as far as difficulty, and i went DOWN the hard part. the hard part is too short to bat much of an eye at as far as i'm concerned.

[Driver8]

frankly ive always thought of moosilauke as the most overrated mountain in the whites as far as difficulty, and i went DOWN the hard part. the hard part is too short to bat much of an eye at as far as i'm concerned.

Might make a difference if you did it at the end of a long day. With fresh legs, probably less of a problem. I'm hoping to do the Moosilauke traverse SOBO before too long.

[10-K]

I slackpacked the 26 miles from Franconia Notch back to the hostel at Glencliff in one day and went up Moosilauke SOBO in a driving rainstorm and I thought I was going to die.... It would have been fine had it been dry but I was sliding all over the place.

[jakedatc]

pinkham to carter totally does have stares attached to the rockface. the big wooden ones if i remember. maybe not steel rungs but i dont see how it makes a difference.

frankly ive always thought of moosilauke as the most overrated mountain in the whites as far as difficulty, and i went DOWN the hard part. the hard part is too short to bat much of an eye at as far as i'm concerned.

hardest, no. the thread is about steepest and on the AT. it is pretty damn steep. I find going down hills far harder than uphills so my difficulty "ratings" are all screwed up compared to other people. I went up and down the thing on a rest day from rock climbing...

i didn't remember stairs down to carter notch.. rock stairs yes. wood steps on one of the southern Wildcats and the "chimney" everyone is afraid of..

[tdoczi]

hardest, no. the thread is about steepest and on the AT. it is pretty damn steep. I find going down hills far harder than uphills so my difficulty "ratings" are all screwed up compared to other people. I went up and down the thing on a rest day from rock climbing...

i didn't remember stairs down to carter notch.. rock stairs yes. wood steps on one of the southern Wildcats and the "chimney" everyone is afraid of..


ehh this is getting too confusing for me and i dont know which end of wildcat were talking about anymore. there was a post that mentioned pinkham notch (and i now realize perhaps they meant carter) thats where i was saying there were steps.

to me length is part of steepest. the new rock steps on bear mtn ny are incredibly steep. every time you come to one they just go straight up, literally perpendicular.... for a foot or so at a time. i just remember moosilauke not living up to the hype, as far as difficulty/steepness/whatever.

[jakedatc]

haha we broke your brain :) the views on Moosilauke did not disappoint me, that we can probably agree on. And i think going down Bear mtn CT, down to Rt9 in VT, going down from Wildcats to Carter are all worse to do than go down Moosilauke unless it is wet/icy like 10K had

[Kerosene]

still doesn't have stairs bolted to rock. Cascades on the north side of Moosilauke still wins i think. 1900' of the 3100' of climbing in the first 1.5mi from Kinsman notch which has a fairly relaxed start.I was NOBO from Beaver Creek Shelter, so I descended the stairs bolted to the rock. Fortunately it was mostly dry, but I went down way too fast for my first full day, which blew out my quads at the start of a week-long trip, which resulted in knee pain, which probably contributed to a ruptured quadriceps a few years later, which now gives me daily pain. I would have preferred to climb.

[Del Q]

If there is anything steeper than the North side of Moosilauke I am buyiing a used parachute online now!

Good thing with steep downs...............nobody seems to brag about how FAST they did them. Slow & easy for this old guy.

[Prime Time]

2 other steep climbs in the Whites that I didn't see posted are South Twin Mountain from Galehead Hut, 1102 feet in .9 miles, and Webster Cliff up from Crawford Notch (Rt 302), 2073 feet in 1.8 miles.

One of the most disheartening descends comes from dropping down from Madison Hut to Valley Way tent site which you almost must do if you get caught in bad weather and Madison Hut is full or closed, 900 feet in .6 miles! Then you get to climb back up the next morning!

[SassyWindsor]

I'm just glad the AT didn't start at the base of Katahdin or Moosilauke. The AT drop out, or drop dead, rate would be much higher.

[RED-DOG]

Yeah the climb up Katahdan was steep and the climb up Blue MT from Leigh Gap was steep but i always thought the climb from the N.O.C to the top of Cheoah Bald now that was Brutal.

[fredmugs]

Yeah the climb up Katahdan was steep and the climb up Blue MT from Leigh Gap was steep but i always thought the climb from the N.O.C to the top of Cheoah Bald now that was Brutal.

Talk about perspective. The climb from the NOC was cake for me - in fact I went from NOC to Fontana Dam in a day no problem. Katahdin was no big deal either and neither was SOBO up Moosilauke. The steepest and hardest thing for me was SOBO down into the Mahoosic Notch. By far the hardest day I ever had hiking.

[hikerboy57]

Talk about perspective. The climb from the NOC was cake for me - in fact I went from NOC to Fontana Dam in a day no problem. Katahdin was no big deal either and neither was SOBO up Moosilauke. The steepest and hardest thing for me was SOBO down into the Mahoosic Notch. By far the hardest day I ever had hiking.
coming down mahoosuc arm

[FlyPaper]

The profiles on the AT maps are a complete fiction. Some of them are for mountains that are no longer even on the AT. It would be hard to beat the Big K.

Some trail clubs do better than others. For example, the elevation profiles in Georgia seem very accurate. The profiles in SNP are accurate.

Some other places, I've downgraded in my mind from "true" to "based on a true story", then to "inspired by a true store". And some seem to be complete fiction. There are some maps that you can see clear discrepancies between the elevation profiles and the trail map.

[FlyPaper]

a 1:1 scale would be useless as it would be nearly flat for most of the AT. its vertically exaggerrated on purpose to make it useful. in spite of the exaggeration you can still accurately read elevation gain over distance

Indeed. A vertical exaggeration of around 5:1 generally matches what the trail "feels" like.

[swamp dawg]

Wildcat mountain section in NH always wears me out......swamp dawg

[Train Wreck]

Some trail clubs do better than others. For example, the elevation profiles in Georgia seem very accurate. The profiles in SNP are accurate.

Some other places, I've downgraded in my mind from "true" to "based on a true story", then to "inspired by a true store". And some seem to be complete fiction. There are some maps that you can see clear discrepancies between the elevation profiles and the trail map.

Ha!
Welcome to the world of Appalachian Trail fiction.
Guidebooks and maps, often referred to as the "Book of Lies" by grizzled old-timers.

[tdoczi]

Some trail clubs do better than others. For example, the elevation profiles in Georgia seem very accurate. The profiles in SNP are accurate.

Some other places, I've downgraded in my mind from "true" to "based on a true story", then to "inspired by a true store". And some seem to be complete fiction. There are some maps that you can see clear discrepancies between the elevation profiles and the trail map.


oh wow, is it time already for another round of the "maps are wrong and i'm right" already? that ones my favorites!

the "inaccuracies" in the profiles are largely a question of scale. lets say, for illustration, that some section of the trail had a sudden perfectly vertical drop of 500 feet into a gorge that was 10 feet across and the immediately regained that 500 feet just as instantly as it was lost. almost no elevation profile would show that this existed. less severe versions of this phenomena occur all the way up and down the trail. its not an error, its called SCALE. inaccurate is an apt way to describe it, but to imply that its blatant error or laziness or has to do with the skill of a given trail club or some other some failing beyond the amount of space one has to reasonably print an elevation profile is exaggerating.

[Llama Legs]

Also, Garfield and Madison aren't that long, but they're pretty tough, especially if it's wet.

I remember that it took me an hour to go 0.6 mile downhill from the Garfield water source !

[FlyPaper]

oh wow, is it time already for another round of the "maps are wrong and i'm right" already? that ones my favorites!

the "inaccuracies" in the profiles are largely a question of scale. lets say, for illustration, that some section of the trail had a sudden perfectly vertical drop of 500 feet into a gorge that was 10 feet across and the immediately regained that 500 feet just as instantly as it was lost. almost no elevation profile would show that this existed. less severe versions of this phenomena occur all the way up and down the trail. its not an error, its called SCALE. inaccurate is an apt way to describe it, but to imply that its blatant error or laziness or has to do with the skill of a given trail club or some other some failing beyond the amount of space one has to reasonably print an elevation profile is exaggerating.

Sorry I missed previous rounds. I should first acknowledge being aware that most work producing such maps is the work of volunteers and that in every trip I've been grateful to have such maps, inaccuracies and all. And no doubt there are some cases of "inaccuracies" which are actually nothing more than a map that is out of date, and I wouldn't expect a volunteer organization to be able to release new maps for every reroute, and still keep the cost of the maps down.

Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion that there are many cases inaccuracies are inaccuracies, and they cannot be explained away by scale. There are many instances where elevation changes on the trail occur on a large enough scale over a large enough distance that they would show up clearly on correctly drawn elevation profiles, but the maps do not match the actual trail.

I can show you other cases where the map with an elevation profile ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE SAME SHEET OF PAPER do not have any plausible way to be reconciled. If I get around to it, I may scan images and post them. It will be harder to demonstrate inconsistencies between the actual trail and the map because we won't be able to take a field trip together.

That being said, hats of to the Georgia trail club. Their maps were so accurate I could gauge distance by noticing a very small change in gradient on the trail and matching that to the elevation profiles.

[tdoczi]

Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion that there are many cases inaccuracies are inaccuracies, and they cannot be explained away by scale. There are many instances where elevation changes on the trail occur on a large enough scale over a large enough distance that they would show up clearly on correctly drawn elevation profiles, but the maps do not match the actual trail.

I can show you other cases where the map with an elevation profile ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE SAME SHEET OF PAPER do not have any plausible way to be reconciled. If I get around to it, I may scan images and post them. It will be harder to demonstrate inconsistencies between the actual trail and the map because we won't be able to take a field trip together.



if you can think of an area between waynesboro and grafton notch, i have the map. i would however like to point out the differences in scale between the map and the elevation profile. now if youve seriously ever encountered an area where the trail went downhill for a mile where the profile said it should be going uphill, youd have me convinced. ive yet to ever run across anything even remotely like that. that there may be what seems on the ground to be very steep uphills in an area the profile shows as flat are a matter of scale and nothing more.

[-SEEKER-]

I feared for my life dropping down the Beaver Brook trail on the north/east face of Moosilauke. The entire Mahoosuc section seemed impossibly steep.
I too feared for my life on this section. I left Hanover that morning planning to stay at Beaver Brook, but I let the locals talk me into going past it to the next shelter (since it was only 1:00). What a mistake. I got to the next shelter ( can't recall the name right now) at dark, physically and mentally beat to a pulp. That'll teach me to ignore my intuition and listen to others. :(

[tdoczi]

I feared for my life dropping down the Beaver Brook trail on the north/east face of Moosilauke. The entire Mahoosuc section seemed impossibly steep.
I too feared for my life on this section. I left Hanover that morning planning to stay at Beaver Brook, but I let the locals talk me into going past it to the next shelter (since it was only 1:00). What a mistake. I got to the next shelter ( can't recall the name right now) at dark, physically and mentally beat to a pulp. That'll teach me to ignore my intuition and listen to others. :(

your plan was to hike 53 miles and the locals in hanover talked you into trying to hike 60 instead? and you made it!?!?! yeah i'd feel beat up by then too.

also odd that the 53 miles only took you until 1pm and the remaining 7 took you until dark.

or did you mean glencliff?

[FlyPaper]

if you can think of an area between waynesboro and grafton notch, i have the map. i would however like to point out the differences in scale between the map and the elevation profile. now if youve seriously ever encountered an area where the trail went downhill for a mile where the profile said it should be going uphill, youd have me convinced. ive yet to ever run across anything even remotely like that. that there may be what seems on the ground to be very steep uphills in an area the profile shows as flat are a matter of scale and nothing more.

I've hiked most of SNP up through Pen Mar State Park. I did much of SNP after having gained enough hiking experience to be in tune with discrepancies. I would agree that through SNP the maps are well aligned with the reality of the trail. My earliest hikes were Maryland, and VA north of SNP. Although I don't recall any discrepancies, I really didn't have enough experience for my own perception to matter a whole lot for that region.

Georgia, also is very accurate.

Virginia, south of Waynesboro, on the other hand, has a number of inaccuracies that cannot be discounted by scale. Also, in northern TN, around Pond Mountain, I happened across a friends version of that map and compared it with my more recent edition. If I can get a hold of my friends map, I'll scan the two and put it up for discussion. Personally, I think it is a smoking gun for the argument that "fudging" has taken place, and I'm more convinced so after having hiked the region. A healthy skepticism on your part is good, especially if you've largely found the maps of the places you've hiked to be accurate. But I would suggest you wait and see. Presumably you'll get around to hiking south of Waynesboro (I've hiked up to the James River and can confirm bona-fide inaccuracies in Virginia at least up to the James River). You're in for a few surprises if you're carrying elevation profiles.

I have a map in front of me now that is typical in its scale. Looks like about 1 vertical cm for 500'. Would you agree in principle at least that a 300' climb over half a mile should not look flat on this profile?

[-SEEKER-]

your plan was to hike 53 miles and the locals in hanover talked you into trying to hike 60 instead? and you made it!?!?! yeah i'd feel beat up by then too.

also odd that the 53 miles only took you until 1pm and the remaining 7 took you until dark.

or did you mean glencliff?

YES I MEANT GLENCLIFF! THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT. I thing the shelter I stayed at was Eliza Brook.

[-SEEKER-]

I need a correction option on here for spelling and brain cramps. :0

[tdoczi]

I've hiked most of SNP up through Pen Mar State Park. I did much of SNP after having gained enough hiking experience to be in tune with discrepancies. I would agree that through SNP the maps are well aligned with the reality of the trail. My earliest hikes were Maryland, and VA north of SNP. Although I don't recall any discrepancies, I really didn't have enough experience for my own perception to matter a whole lot for that region.

Georgia, also is very accurate.

Virginia, south of Waynesboro, on the other hand, has a number of inaccuracies that cannot be discounted by scale. Also, in northern TN, around Pond Mountain, I happened across a friends version of that map and compared it with my more recent edition. If I can get a hold of my friends map, I'll scan the two and put it up for discussion. Personally, I think it is a smoking gun for the argument that "fudging" has taken place, and I'm more convinced so after having hiked the region. A healthy skepticism on your part is good, especially if you've largely found the maps of the places you've hiked to be accurate. But I would suggest you wait and see. Presumably you'll get around to hiking south of Waynesboro (I've hiked up to the James River and can confirm bona-fide inaccuracies in Virginia at least up to the James River). You're in for a few surprises if you're carrying elevation profiles.

I have a map in front of me now that is typical in its scale. Looks like about 1 vertical cm for 500'. Would you agree in principle at least that a 300' climb over half a mile should not look flat on this profile?

i dont have a map in front of me to stare at and ponder the question. i'll get back to you.

ill also concede you may be entirely right about southern VA and maybe the trail club there is out to lunch, who knows. but if so its very isolated. you yourself attest to GAs accuracy, and i'll vouch for the 1000miles or so ive hiked. that doesnt leave much left that could possibly be all that wrong.

[hikerboy57]

it's always steeper then it looks on the map.
always.

[tdoczi]

it's always steeper then it looks on the map.
always.

sure, but does that mean the map is wrong?

this is the same sort of argument that pops up every so often where someone will insist the distance between some point a and some point b is actually several miles longer than the maps claim (and then usually follows all sorts of bizarre theories as to why).


actually theres been a time or two when i was expecting worse based on the profile, but it is rare.

[FlyPaper]

sure, but does that mean the map is wrong?

this is the same sort of argument that pops up every so often where someone will insist the distance between some point a and some point b is actually several miles longer than the maps claim (and then usually follows all sorts of bizarre theories as to why).


actually theres been a time or two when i was expecting worse based on the profile, but it is rare.

I've usually found that "easy" sections are never as easy as I expected. But also the sections that look like they're going to be very difficult are not quite as hard as I feared. I haven't done NH yet though.

Also, most people I talk to tend to overestimate the distance they've walked unless there are concrete milestones to measure by. In almost all cases where an unofficial source gives a measure for a side trail, it grossly overestimates the distance. If someone says a side trail to a spring is 0.3 mile, then usually it's really only about 0.1 of a mile. If the measurement comes from a more "official" source, then it is more likely accurate.

If the maps sold by the ATC show a distance different than the guidebooks sold by the ATC, usually the guide books are correct (at least in the areas I've been hiking).

[FlyPaper]

i dont have a map in front of me to stare at and ponder the question. i'll get back to you.

ill also concede you may be entirely right about southern VA and maybe the trail club there is out to lunch, who knows. but if so its very isolated. you yourself attest to GAs accuracy, and i'll vouch for the 1000miles or so ive hiked. that doesnt leave much left that could possibly be all that wrong.

Well, I'm glad to hear most of the northern AT has accurate elevation profiles. From the VA/TN border to the James River is over 300 miles. From there it is about 80 more miles to Waynesboro, which I haven't hiked, but would expect the same degree of accuracy as the other 300 miles. And in TN, at least the Pond Mtn area has what appears to be fudging. That's more than half of the 600+ miles I've hiked were on sections that had questionable accuracy. The whole NC/TN section is almost 400 miles that I can't give much opinion one way or the other.

[hikerboy57]

sure, but does that mean the map is wrong?

this is the same sort of argument that pops up every so often where someone will insist the distance between some point a and some point b is actually several miles longer than the maps claim (and then usually follows all sorts of bizarre theories as to why).


actually theres been a time or two when i was expecting worse based on the profile, but it is rare.
the carters were a bit decpetive, alot more puds than i anticipated.
but although ill look at the maps in the am before i start, i generally just pick my end point for the day and start walking, taking whatever the terrain gives me. by midday, ive got a pretty good idea where ill end up.
im still trying to figure out why most guidebooks are written sobo.
i had to walk backwards through new hampshire!

[tdoczi]

I have a map in front of me now that is typical in its scale. Looks like about 1 vertical cm for 500'. Would you agree in principle at least that a 300' climb over half a mile should not look flat on this profile?

i'm looking at a SNP map and yes, i would agree. i would also point out that while walking a 300 foot gain over 1/2 mile is something i might not even notice. i certainly wouldnt think of it as uphill. id be willing to go so far as to say that if the map called this flat i probably wouldnt care enough to notice

its the much shorter, steeper changes in elevation that get lost, which makes it seem more egregious an error. looking at a map of the same scale would you agree that a +200 foot change followed by a -200 foot change that occurred within 1/10 of a mile wouldnt even register due to scale?

also scales are not consistent. the SNP maps are very big. looking at the VT/NH maps, the same spacing that represents 500 vertical feet on the SNP maps represents over a 1000 on the VT/NH maps. does this make this profile inherently less accurate? yes. was using this scale instead of the one that the PATC uses for SNP a bad decision? arguably, but you have to consider how much bigger than anything in SNP mount washington is. does this mean the VT/NH maps are wrong or that the people who made them could have done a better job or that they havent been updated in a very long time? not at all.

[Papa D]

Climbing Moosilaukie from the North might qualify - not sure.

[FlyPaper]

i'm looking at a SNP map and yes, i would agree. i would also point out that while walking a 300 foot gain over 1/2 mile is something i might not even notice. i certainly wouldnt think of it as uphill. id be willing to go so far as to say that if the map called this flat i probably wouldnt care enough to notice

its the much shorter, steeper changes in elevation that get lost, which makes it seem more egregious an error. looking at a map of the same scale would you agree that a +200 foot change followed by a -200 foot change that occurred within 1/10 of a mile wouldnt even register due to scale?



Hmm. Perhaps your hiking in NH has gotten you in a lot better shape than me. I've noticed a common AT grade is around 500' per mile. For places that can add switch backs and can choose to go longer and less steep, or shorter and more steep, they seem to target about 500' per mile. And I ALWAYS feel the burn at that rate, although it's not so steep I can't keep walking. So a 300' rise in 1/2 mile, being slightly steeper is something I would notice. 300' over a mile, I would breeze through. 1000' over a mile would emotionally scar me.

A 200' drop followed by a 200' rise in 1/10 of a mile, I guess could get left out completely. That would be a grueling 0.1 mile.

I tend to procrastinate such things, but today I actually scanned some images to put up for discussion. Stay tuned.

[tdoczi]

Hmm. Perhaps your hiking in NH has gotten you in a lot better shape than me. I've noticed a common AT grade is around 500' per mile. For places that can add switch backs and can choose to go longer and less steep, or shorter and more steep, they seem to target about 500' per mile. And I ALWAYS feel the burn at that rate, although it's not so steep I can't keep walking. So a 300' rise in 1/2 mile, being slightly steeper is something I would notice. 300' over a mile, I would breeze through. 1000' over a mile would emotionally scar me.

A 200' drop followed by a 200' rise in 1/10 of a mile, I guess could get left out completely. That would be a grueling 0.1 mile.

I tend to procrastinate such things, but today I actually scanned some images to put up for discussion. Stay tuned.

a quick glance at SNP (again, going for something we have in common) i see hogback mountain seems to climb about 500 feet in under a mile. thats about the steepest thing i remember in SNP. thats not steep. i was exaggerating a bit when i said i wouldnt even notice 300 feet in 1/2 mile, or perhaps i was mentally thinking in 1 mile. my 1/10 example was a little over the top also, but lets say 100 feet up and down in 1/4 mile? if that did register itd be a tiny zig on the NH maps. if you look at mahoosuc arm, which a few in this thread mention, youre looking at 1500 feet or so in about 1.5 miles. with the scale the map is printed at quick changes of 100 feet dont show up much at all, and there are alot of them in the mahoosucs. if you try and count how many hills youve gone over relative to what the profile shows up there to try and determine where you are youll find yourself constantly nowhere near where you think you are, which could easily lead one to incorrect conclusion that the maps must be wrong.

[FlyPaper]

I tend to procrastinate such things, but today I actually scanned some images to put up for discussion. Stay tuned.

Okay, hopefully this image uploader will work properly. The first image shows Laurel Fork Shelter to Pond Flats (Northern TN) from the ATC map copyright 2005.

The second shows the same region copyright 2006.17527

First of all, the regular map of the section does not show a change. It seemed to match what I remember hiking. The first elevation profile shows about a 3 mile distance. The second shows the south side of the mountain being less steep, and the whole distance from the shelter to Pond Flats as being close to 4 miles. The AT databook lists this distance as 3.8 miles.

This cannot be explained by a reroute unless we accept that they accounted for the reroute in the Elevation profiles, but not the map. Also, it is very hard for a reroute to make a whole 1800' climb less steep unless the whole route is changed. They couldn't just reroute a short section and result in the whole section having less steepness. Also, I recall it being flat leaving the shelter for much further than shown on the newer map. And the south side of the mountain was noticeably steeper than the north side. The 2006 map appears to be a "fudge" to align the distance with the AT data book without any real attempt to align with the actual elevation profile in the region.

For planning purposes, it was an 1800' climb, so the map was still very useful.

I've got another example that is even more profound.

[FlyPaper]

I tend to procrastinate such things, but today I actually scanned some images to put up for discussion. Stay tuned.

Here are elevation profiles for just south of the James River footbridge. I've also attached the terrain of the area with the AT center line
from the ATC interactive map. I was just there this spring, and I can tell you the ATC interactive map is very much aligned with the reality of the trail and the topography of the region. On the other hand, the elevation profile of the section shows a descent from Big Cove Branch of over 1000' followed by a nearly 500' rise to Matts Creek Shelter. This followed by a peak that is almost 800' higher than the James River.

From the ATC interactive map, Matt's Creek shelter is at least 400' off in elevation versus the elevation profile. And there is not even a plausible route through the region that would result in descending 500' below Matt's Creek shelter. I cannot come up with any reasonable hypothetical re-route that would have ever matched this profile. And even if that were possible, Matts Creek shelter didn't move. I didn't scan it, but the map that goes with the elevation profile is completely aligned with the reality as shown on the ATC interactive map. So again, it is not even consistent with the elevation profile that is on the same side of the same map.

Obviously we can't take a field trip to confirm that the elevation profile is wrong, but anyone that has hiked the region can call me on it if I'm wrong about this. Going south from Matts Creek shelter, there is no descent. It is uphill for 1000+ feet. And going north there is only about a 200' drop to the level of the James River and that is over a mile or two.

This is one of the more egregious discrepancies. There are many more subtle ones that are significant enough that the elevation profiles should look different, and that cannot be discounted by scaling.

1752817529

[DaveSail]

On Katahdin the HUNT Trail ( AT ) is pretty steep . Probably 4000 feet in five miles . But , I believe , the ABOL slide trail next to it is steeper .
From Abol Campground to Thoreau Spring it gains 3,365 feet in 2.8 miles . Someone else can do the math ! David

[tdoczi]

Here are elevation profiles for just south of the James River footbridge. I've also attached the terrain of the area with the AT center line
from the ATC interactive map. I was just there this spring, and I can tell you the ATC interactive map is very much aligned with the reality of the trail and the topography of the region. On the other hand, the elevation profile of the section shows a descent from Big Cove Branch of over 1000' followed by a nearly 500' rise to Matts Creek Shelter. This followed by a peak that is almost 800' higher than the James River.

From the ATC interactive map, Matt's Creek shelter is at least 400' off in elevation versus the elevation profile. And there is not even a plausible route through the region that would result in descending 500' below Matt's Creek shelter. I cannot come up with any reasonable hypothetical re-route that would have ever matched this profile. And even if that were possible, Matts Creek shelter didn't move. I didn't scan it, but the map that goes with the elevation profile is completely aligned with the reality as shown on the ATC interactive map. So again, it is not even consistent with the elevation profile that is on the same side of the same map.

Obviously we can't take a field trip to confirm that the elevation profile is wrong, but anyone that has hiked the region can call me on it if I'm wrong about this. Going south from Matts Creek shelter, there is no descent. It is uphill for 1000+ feet. And going north there is only about a 200' drop to the level of the James River and that is over a mile or two.

This is one of the more egregious discrepancies. There are many more subtle ones that are significant enough that the elevation profiles should look different, and that cannot be discounted by scaling.

1752817529
i certainly see the discrepancy, and ive never hiked there so i cant shed any light on which is correct. i will say that the image from the ATC website looks like it cant possibly be all that accurate and that a couple more twists in the trail plus moving the shelter slightly up the side of the hill could account for the apparent discrepancy. id be interested if anyone else whos hiked the area would be willing to weigh in.

you also may not be considering that the ups and downs on the elevation profile may all be on the same hill. this happens a lot where the trail is running along the side of a ridge and meandering up and down instead of just going straight down) this looks like the sort of place where this could certainly be the case. in NH you actually climb part of MT washington a second time 4 or 5 miles or so after you climb it the first time. on the profile it looks like 2 different mountains, but of course it isnt.

[tdoczi]

Okay, hopefully this image uploader will work properly. The first image shows Laurel Fork Shelter to Pond Flats (Northern TN) from the ATC map copyright 2005.

The second shows the same region copyright 2006.17527

First of all, the regular map of the section does not show a change. It seemed to match what I remember hiking. The first elevation profile shows about a 3 mile distance.

really? by my reading it shows about 3.5 miles. were talking about to the pond flats tentsite, yes?




The second shows the south side of the mountain being less steep, and the whole distance from the shelter to Pond Flats as being close to 4 miles. The AT databook lists this distance as 3.8 miles.

i honestly read it as about 3.5 miles on both profiles. the one where it looks less steep its because the horizontal scale is different.

[tdoczi]

really? by my reading it shows about 3.5 miles. were talking about to the pond flats tentsite, yes?





i honestly read it as about 3.5 miles on both profiles. the one where it looks less steep its because the horizontal scale is different.

ok, i'm trying to study this more closely to understand your point better and theres MAYBE a tenth to a 2 tenth mileage difference between the 2 profiles, but i'd be willing to chalk that up to the words for either of the two locations we're measuring between just being printed slightly over in one direction on one of the maps. again, these things just arent laser precise devices, but that doesnt make them "wrong." if there even is a difference of a tenth or so that could easily be accounted for by a very short reroute that might not show up on the trail map very clearly.

[FlyPaper]

i certainly see the discrepancy, and ive never hiked there so i cant shed any light on which is correct. i will say that the image from the ATC website looks like it cant possibly be all that accurate and that a couple more twists in the trail plus moving the shelter slightly up the side of the hill could account for the apparent discrepancy. id be interested if anyone else whos hiked the area would be willing to weigh in.

you also may not be considering that the ups and downs on the elevation profile may all be on the same hill. this happens a lot where the trail is running along the side of a ridge and meandering up and down instead of just going straight down) this looks like the sort of place where this could certainly be the case. in NH you actually climb part of MT washington a second time 4 or 5 miles or so after you climb it the first time. on the profile it looks like 2 different mountains, but of course it isnt.

Don't forget the part where I said I was just there this spring. This area is fresh in my mind. The ATC image is very accurate. The shelter is right on the trail. The descent to the shelter is a near constant grade. There is no meandering up and down. And the shelter is right beside the creek. You either have to accept the fact that the elevation profile is badly off, or think that I'm a bald face liar. Presumably you'll hike through one day and confirm all this.

I've wondered how these profiles were ever generated. My hypothesis is that they have an approximate AT path that doesn't exactly align with the actual trail, then use a computer program to output an elevation profile based on geological data of the approximate AT. Then they just put the shelter based solely on distance.

[hikerboy57]

What do you rely on when theres no elevation profile?

[tdoczi]

Don't forget the part where I said I was just there this spring. This area is fresh in my mind. The ATC image is very accurate. The shelter is right on the trail. The descent to the shelter is a near constant grade. There is no meandering up and down. And the shelter is right beside the creek. You either have to accept the fact that the elevation profile is badly off, or think that I'm a bald face liar. Presumably you'll hike through one day and confirm all this.

I've wondered how these profiles were ever generated. My hypothesis is that they have an approximate AT path that doesn't exactly align with the actual trail, then use a computer program to output an elevation profile based on geological data of the approximate AT. Then they just put the shelter based solely on distance.

i certainly dont think you are a liar, and as you said, ive never been there. hopefully i'll make it that way next march or june and ill find out. if what you say is correct then yes, that sounds like a blatant error. that makes 1. my guess would be theyve marked the location of the shelter incorrectly on the profile.

[tdoczi]

What do you rely on when theres no elevation profile?

i dont know, i suppose id get by and just take it all as a surprise. how the people who hike without maps or anything do it ive never been able to figure out. or more correctly, i guess why they do it is what i dont get it.

[hikerboy57]

i dont know, i suppose id get by and just take it all as a surprise. how the people who hike without maps or anything do it ive never been able to figure out. or more correctly, i guess why they do it is what i dont get it.

the only maps i own that have elevation profiles are the AT maps and a couple of natl geo maps. but i hike plenty of other trails with just the maps.
i had said before, ill look at my maps the night before and again in the am to see whats in store for the day, but im still looking to make miles, and whatever the profile map may show,i still have to make miles, i still have to climb that hill.i just keep track of where i am on the trail in relation to my map and by midday i ve got a pretty good idea where ill end up that night.
im not sure why all the discussion of the accuracy of the profiles, ive found most "flat sections" misleading which youve already pointed out.

[tdoczi]

the only maps i own that have elevation profiles are the AT maps and a couple of natl geo maps. but i hike plenty of other trails with just the maps.
i had said before, ill look at my maps the night before and again in the am to see whats in store for the day, but im still looking to make miles, and whatever the profile map may show,i still have to make miles, i still have to climb that hill.i just keep track of where i am on the trail in relation to my map and by midday i ve got a pretty good idea where ill end up that night.
im not sure why all the discussion of the accuracy of the profiles, ive found most "flat sections" misleading which youve already pointed out.

i see what youre saying, i guess i hike plenty of times with no profile also, just not on the AT. usually just dayhikes though, which i guess makes it less of an issue. i suppose the profile is really most handy during planning and figuring how far to go in a day. on a dayhike in harriman state park thats really not an issue. i suppose one could have that mentality towards hiking the AT.

why the discussion? for me, boredom combined with my personal annoyance with "the maps are wrong!" crowd. this isnt as good as the "mileages are incorrect because they dont account for gain and loss of elevation" 'argument' that some others have put forth, but itll do until i can pick my car up from the shop later.

[FlyPaper]

I haven't hiked without elevation profiles since my first hike.

[hikerboy57]

my point is neither maps or elevation profiles are perfect. on maps withcontour lines of 50 or 100 ft, it will never show you the puds between the lines.what looks to be uphill on a map is very often a series of ups and downs, areas that look fairly flat are sometimes a series of short but steep ups and downs, and the profiles are very misleading no matter how accurately theyre attempting to make them.
no matter wehat , you're still going to have to climb that hill, regardss of the profile.
all it does is give you some idea that you'll be able to hike farther in areas with less total elevation gain, but even then, depending on how you're feeling that particular day, you wont know how many miles you'll finsh that day until you're out there for a while experiencing the terrain.
im not sure how profiles help at all, except in a very general sense.

[tdoczi]

my point is neither maps or elevation profiles are perfect. on maps withcontour lines of 50 or 100 ft, it will never show you the puds between the lines.what looks to be uphill on a map is very often a series of ups and downs, areas that look fairly flat are sometimes a series of short but steep ups and downs, and the profiles are very misleading no matter how accurately theyre attempting to make them.
no matter wehat , you're still going to have to climb that hill, regardss of the profile.
all it does is give you some idea that you'll be able to hike farther in areas with less total elevation gain, but even then, depending on how you're feeling that particular day, you wont know how many miles you'll finsh that day until you're out there for a while experiencing the terrain.
im not sure how profiles help at all, except in a very general sense.

well, if not for seeing the profile i would be positive that i could hike across the mahoosuc range in 1.5, 2 days max. i cant.

i agree with everything else you say, i just take exception to the attitude that seems to boil down to "it was harder than i expected, therefore the map (or profile, or whatever) must be wrong." though i'll admit to thinking this many times in the heat of the moment, upon later more sane reflection i always know it isnt true.

[FlyPaper]

i certainly dont think you are a liar, and as you said, ive never been there. hopefully i'll make it that way next march or june and ill find out. if what you say is correct then yes, that sounds like a blatant error. that makes 1. my guess would be theyve marked the location of the shelter incorrectly on the profile.

Aside from the shelter location, the profiles themselves you will find are blatantly wrong. It shows more than 500' descent going south when there is none.

Yes this is 1. The discussion was whether elevation profiles are accurate. I presented a very blatant one. I also asserted there are more that are more subtle. Also I acknowledged that Georgia maps and SNP maps are very accurate. If I were the type of person that imagined discrepancies, you would think I would imagine them equally in all parts of the trial. I would think that with all this, I would have a bit more credibility for an area that I've hiked and you say you haven't.

[tdoczi]

Aside from the shelter location, the profiles themselves you will find are blatantly wrong. It shows more than 500' descent going south when there is none.

Yes this is 1. The discussion was whether elevation profiles are accurate. I presented a very blatant one. I also asserted there are more that are more subtle. Also I acknowledged that Georgia maps and SNP maps are very accurate. If I were the type of person that imagined discrepancies, you would think I would imagine them equally in all parts of the trial. I would think that with all this, I would have a bit more credibility for an area that I've hiked and you say you haven't.


well, based on my reply, what do you think of the other, more subtle, "error" you provided evidence of? because that one is not an error, sorry.

[FlyPaper]

well, based on my reply, what do you think of the other, more subtle, "error" you provided evidence of? because that one is not an error, sorry.
I made the claim for a section that I've been on and you have not that there are other errors. For some reason you've decided you know better.

[tdoczi]

I made the claim for a section that I've been on and you have not that there are other errors. For some reason you've decided you know better.

but your claim of an error is based on 2 different maps that allegedly dont agree, except they do agree. i really dont know what else it is youre getting at with that one.

no i'm not going to take yours or anyone else's word for it and just accept that there are errors all over the trail in all the places i havent hiked.

[fredmugs]

Getting back to that perspective thing....based on my last section hike that was in Maine and NH the other hikers I spoke with never noticed that the NH maps are in 500 foot increments and the ME maps are in 250 foot increments. If all you're looking at is lines going up and down you need to tie that to another piece of information.

[tdoczi]

Getting back to that perspective thing....based on my last section hike that was in Maine and NH the other hikers I spoke with never noticed that the NH maps are in 500 foot increments and the ME maps are in 250 foot increments. If all you're looking at is lines going up and down you need to tie that to another piece of information.

and I've also come to conclude from having this discussion that just because two different areas of trail have profiles that show the slope to both be, say, 500 feet per half mile, that does not in anyway mean they are really equally as difficult. again, i think this has to do with scale. something like mahoosuc arm, if shown blown up to a very detailed level, would show many very short sections that are incredibly steep, alternating with tiny little breaks that make the average 500 feet per half mile. another area that is a constant grade for a half mile and gains the same elevation in that time is way easier.

in other words, this whole thread has always been pointless.

[hikerboy57]

in other words, this whole thread has always been pointless.

but the pointless threads are always the most fun!
simple answer, throw away all the profile maps.

[Another Kevin]

A lot of profiles are produced by people recording tracks on a GPS receiver.

GPS is much less accurate for altitude than it is for horizontal position, and you need more accuracy for altitude to do a good job. (Show a trail wandering 500 feet from side to side over a mile, you'll hardly notice; show it wandering 500 feet up and down and that's a lot!)

And, well, elevation profiles at least tell you the general trends. You know that something looking like http://www.catskillhiker.net/maps/eaglebalsam_gra.png (just one spot that I happened to remember as being seriously tough) is going to be steep getting up on the ridge and back down off it, even if you don't know how bad the PUD's on the ridge line will be. In that particular case, not too bad, I've managed that hike in winter. I really wished I had brought crampons to climb up there, but microspikes were fine for the ridge walk. But I can tell you from experience that the little hump that graph shows at 2.2 miles isn't there. It's just the GPS wandering off. That's pretty typical of GPS tracks.

[tdoczi]

but the pointless threads are always the most fun!
simple answer, throw away all the profile maps.

i wouldn't call them completely useless, but i would say that the steepest trail is not necessarily the one whose elevation profile reads the biggest gain per mile or half mile or whatever.

[tdoczi]

A lot of profiles are produced by people recording tracks on a GPS receiver.

GPS is much less accurate for altitude than it is for horizontal position, and you need more accuracy for altitude to do a good job. (Show a trail wandering 500 feet from side to side over a mile, you'll hardly notice; show it wandering 500 feet up and down and that's a lot!)

And, well, elevation profiles at least tell you the general trends. You know that something looking like http://www.catskillhiker.net/maps/eaglebalsam_gra.png (just one spot that I happened to remember as being seriously tough) is going to be steep getting up on the ridge and back down off it, even if you don't know how bad the PUD's on the ridge line will be. In that particular case, not too bad, I've managed that hike in winter. I really wished I had brought crampons to climb up there, but microspikes were fine for the ridge walk. But I can tell you from experience that the little hump that graph shows at 2.2 miles isn't there. It's just the GPS wandering off. That's pretty typical of GPS tracks.

i feel like elevation profiles of the AT predate GPS and probably have never been completely redone from scratch, just updated.

[hikerboy57]

i wouldn't call them completely useless, but i would say that the steepest trail is not necessarily the one whose elevation profile reads the biggest gain per mile or half mile or whatever.

your description of mahoosuc arm was right on the money, a perfect example of how little use elevation profiles can be. i agree with your statement earlier about the mahoosucs and how long it woudl take, i think thats all theyre good for is to compare sections, to gauge how many mpd you can do thru various types of terrain.
(and im really not comfortable agreeing with you so much these days, tdoczi:confused:)

[FlyPaper]

but your claim of an error is based on 2 different maps that allegedly dont agree, except they do agree. i really dont know what else it is youre getting at with that one.

no i'm not going to take yours or anyone else's word for it and just accept that there are errors all over the trail in all the places i havent hiked.

Anyone can look at the two maps and see they don't agree. I brought up two points as one possible measure of inspection. There are other visual inspections that can be made. In the 2005 map, the shelter is at 176.4 and Pond Flats is at 179.8 (3.4 miles apart). In the 2006 map, the shelter is at 1.9 and Pond Flats is at 5.6 (3.7 miles apart). Also, in the 2005 map, there is about 1 mile of flat trail going north from the shelter. In the 2006 map there is about 0.5 miles of flat trail going north from the shelter. In the 2005 map, there is about 2 miles of ascent to the flat area just before Pond Flats. In the 2006 map, there is about 3 miles of ascent. You can't discount this by horizontal scale. The horizontal scale is identical. And in case there was doubt, the north slope of the mountain shows a similar grade on both maps. The south slope is compressed in the latter map. They didn't change the horizontal scale and Pond Flats.

I don't expect you to take my word that there are others. But I would expect a little less condescension for the "maps are wrong" crowd after I've made two compelling cases.

When you said the profiles north of Waynesboro were accurate, I believed you and I was glad about it. But if you can't see the difference between these two pictures, well I guess I'm not quite as convinced that the northern elevation profiles are accurate.

[tdoczi]

Anyone can look at the two maps and see they don't agree. I brought up two points as one possible measure of inspection. There are other visual inspections that can be made. In the 2005 map, the shelter is at 176.4 and Pond Flats is at 179.8 (3.4 miles apart). In the 2006 map, the shelter is at 1.9 and Pond Flats is at 5.6 (3.7 miles apart). Also, in the 2005 map, there is about 1 mile of flat trail going north from the shelter. In the 2006 map there is about 0.5 miles of flat trail going north from the shelter. In the 2005 map, there is about 2 miles of ascent to the flat area just before Pond Flats. In the 2006 map, there is about 3 miles of ascent. You can't discount this by horizontal scale. The horizontal scale is identical. And in case there was doubt, the north slope of the mountain shows a similar grade on both maps. The south slope is compressed in the latter map. They didn't change the horizontal scale and Pond Flats.

I don't expect you to take my word that there are others. But I would expect a little less condescension for the "maps are wrong" crowd after I've made two compelling cases.

When you said the profiles north of Waynesboro were accurate, I believed you and I was glad about it. But if you can't see the difference between these two pictures, well I guess I'm not quite as convinced that the northern elevation profiles are accurate.

i was about to give these a second look and try to understand you again, and then i read this line in the post where you uploaded the pictures-

"The first elevation profile shows about a 3 mile distance."

the problem is that this statement is just wrong. the elevation profile which you uploaded doesnt show that at all. one of us is visually impaired. maybe we can convince someone else to try and read it and see what they come up with, but the section you claim as being 3 miles on 1 map and 4 miles on the other, to my eye, is about 3.6 on both of them. until someone can explain to me how it is i come up with these numbers you come up with a difference of a mile from one map to another, we're at a standstill.

[tdoczi]

Anyone can look at the two maps and see they don't agree. I brought up two points as one possible measure of inspection. There are other visual inspections that can be made. In the 2005 map, the shelter is at 176.4 and Pond Flats is at 179.8 (3.4 miles apart). In the 2006 map, the shelter is at 1.9 and Pond Flats is at 5.6 (3.7 miles apart). Also, in the 2005 map, there is about 1 mile of flat trail going north from the shelter. In the 2006 map there is about 0.5 miles of flat trail going north from the shelter. In the 2005 map, there is about 2 miles of ascent to the flat area just before Pond Flats. In the 2006 map, there is about 3 miles of ascent. You can't discount this by horizontal scale. The horizontal scale is identical. And in case there was doubt, the north slope of the mountain shows a similar grade on both maps. The south slope is compressed in the latter map. They didn't change the horizontal scale and Pond Flats.

I don't expect you to take my word that there are others. But I would expect a little less condescension for the "maps are wrong" crowd after I've made two compelling cases.

When you said the profiles north of Waynesboro were accurate, I believed you and I was glad about it. But if you can't see the difference between these two pictures, well I guess I'm not quite as convinced that the northern elevation profiles are accurate.


ok, i just looked at the north end of the mountain, from pond flats down to the highway. once again, by my count, theres a difference of maybe a tenth or so from one map to the other, and thats easily explained by the highway not being very clearly marked on either version of the profile.

you can say the scale is the same all you want, but if you actually count up the lines both horizontally and vertically youd see that despite how it may look different to the naked eye from one map to the other, it is actually expressing the exact same values.

[trovar]

Three Ridges was steep, but Katahdin takes the cake.

[hoffhiker]

:)i hiked from clingmans dome to cades cove sobo and the steepest climb was thunderhead mtn my knees were in my chest the whole way up the mtn cant wait till i see the top again

[q-tip]

Georgia.....

[Kerosene]

There's nothing in Georgia, or anyplace south of Roan for that matter, that compares with a number of the climbs in NH or ME. South Kinsman (NOBO) continues to rank as my hardest ascent, despite tackling early in the morning when I was fresh on a perfect September day. No one had ever mentioned that climb to me, beyond a minor warning in the guidebook not to tackle late in the day,which is the only reason I stopped at Eliza Brook Shelter at 3 pm after only 9.1 miles...okay, that and the fact that my quads were toast after descending Moosilaukee.