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.

[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. 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?

[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.

[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 of the final bit of ascent.

[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

[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 neo

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.