Steepest mile

[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.

Attachment 17528Attachment 17529

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.Attachment 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.