View Full Version : Appalachian Trail Elevations by States and Sections...

atraildreamer

07-13-2013, 11:47

I have posted the following 7 part series of articles:

Appalachian Trail Elevations by States and Sections

They are found in this area of the website:

AT Articles - Data and Schedules

Here is a direct link to the article(s):

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/content.php?19-data-and-schedules

(http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/content.php?19-data-and-schedules)

MarsAndBuddy

02-23-2015, 14:35

Very resourceful- thx for the info!

I wrote this little tool that gives elevation between any 2 points on the trail, NOBO or SOBO:

http://climbers.net/at/elevation.php

atraildreamer

02-24-2015, 13:05

I wrote this little tool that gives elevation between any 2 points on the trail, NOBO or SOBO:

http://climbers.net/at/elevation.php

Nice work! :) You should post it as an article. I'm sure attroll would list it on the home page Menu under the: AT Articles - Data and Schedules listing.

Kerosene

02-24-2015, 14:57

I wrote this little tool that gives elevation between any 2 points on the trail, NOBO or SOBO:

http://climbers.net/at/elevation.phpAck! You mean I no longer have to add it up for myself from the elevation profile! Why couldn't you have done this 10 years ago! Gracias.

atraildreamer

02-24-2015, 17:31

Ack! You mean I no longer have to add it up for myself from the elevation profile! Why couldn't you have done this 10 years ago! Gracias.

I let my spreadsheet do all the math! :D

After entering all of the data points my eyes were like this >>> :eek:

Since the trail was rerouted, I guess I'll have to revise the article(s). :-?

Kerosene

02-25-2015, 08:21

Enhancement Request: Based on the direction being hiked, show the total vertical Gain as well as the total vertical Loss, plus the total elevation change (Gain - Loss).

I've maintained these stats for my section hikes the past 6 years or so, but I'd like to add this to my earlier hikes (recognizing that it won't be as accurate given trail relocations, but at least it gives a sense for the day).

Just Tom

02-25-2015, 10:05

If you are taking requests, I've got one. Something I did (just for here in CT), inspired by your version, was to use Excel to create a trail elevation graph that used a mileage-based x-axis increment instead of landmark-based. So for example, each x-axis tick might be .5 miles, consistently. his yields a more visually accurate representation of the elevation. When each x-axis tick is based on a landmark you get 1 tick being .1 miles, then the next .5 miles, and the next maybe 1.1 miles, while on the graph the space between ticks is always 1/8" or whatever. It distorts the curves.

That was hard to explain, does that make sense?

Just Tom

02-25-2015, 10:15

Here is a snapshot to illustrate, notice that the distances along the x-axis are uniform:

30072

Just Tom, that is pretty much the most accurate representation of what my wife and I did last year (save the last 4 miles from salisbury which i am now moving out to june) - it sure as heck felt like that graph! :) the guide graphs are far less menacing looking, hence everyone thinks CT is 'easy' till they get there. Up down up down up up up down down down lol....

atraildreamer

02-25-2015, 18:11

If you are taking requests, I've got one. Something I did (just for here in CT), inspired by your version, was to use Excel to create a trail elevation graph that used a mileage-based x-axis increment instead of landmark-based. So for example, each x-axis tick might be .5 miles, consistently. his yields a more visually accurate representation of the elevation. When each x-axis tick is based on a landmark you get 1 tick being .1 miles, then the next .5 miles, and the next maybe 1.1 miles, while on the graph the space between ticks is always 1/8" or whatever. It distorts the curves.

That was hard to explain, does that make sense?

I see where using landmarks as the reference causes the distortion that you mention. The reason for the distortion is due to the limitations of the charting function of the Excel-97 version that I used. It tends to make all the different segments the same length when all the mileage and data labels are included in the chart. Most of the mileages between landmarks are less than 1 mile.

Some compromises were needed to put the information into a form that is easily used by a hiker, and is easily printed out from the pdf attachments to the article(s). Additionally, I contacted Rick (attroll) and got some feedback on how big the resulting article(s) should be for posting.

The resulting article was in 7 parts consisting of 63 elevation charts. Each chart covers an average length of ~35 miles of the AT. I could break the charts down into smaller segments of ~12 miles per chart, but that would mean that 189 charts would be needed, but the distortions would still be present.

The only way to get a more accurate elevation profile is to increase the number of data points used. I used 2,585 data points. Postholer (whose work I admire) uses over 270,000 data points for the AT. If I used his data points to generate the 63 charts, I would have to cram ~4300 data points per chart.

As I pointed out in another thread, you are not programming a cruise missile for a precision strike, you are hiking. Accept the distortions, life is full of them. You are going to have to make the climbs and descents anyhow. Leave your laptop at home, shut off your tablet, smartphone, whatever. The data points are already there- they are called White Blazes. Just follow them and enjoy your walk.