WhiteBlaze Pages 2024
A Complete Appalachian Trail Guidebook.
AVAILABLE NOW. $4 for interactive PDF(smartphone version)
Read more here WhiteBlaze Pages Store

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8
Results 141 to 151 of 151

Thread: Steepest mile

  1. #141
    Clueless Weekender
    Join Date
    04-10-2011
    Location
    Niskayuna, New York
    Age
    68
    Posts
    3,879
    Journal Entries
    10

    Default

    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 always know where I am. I'm right here.

  2. #142
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    47
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hikerboy57 View Post
    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.

  3. #143
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    47
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Another Kevin View Post
    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.

  4. #144

    Join Date
    07-18-2010
    Location
    island park,ny
    Age
    66
    Posts
    11,909
    Images
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdoczi View Post
    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)

  5. #145
    Registered User
    Join Date
    07-21-2005
    Location
    Garner, NC
    Age
    58
    Posts
    649
    Images
    279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdoczi View Post
    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.

  6. #146
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    47
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyPaper View Post
    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.

  7. #147
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    47
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyPaper View Post
    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.

  8. #148

    Default

    Three Ridges was steep, butKatahdin takes the cake.

  9. #149
    Registered User hoffhiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-22-2013
    Location
    syracuse,ny
    Age
    42
    Posts
    14

    Default

    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

  10. #150
    Registered User q-tip's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-04-2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,034
    Images
    54

    Default

    Georgia.....

  11. #151
    LT '79; AT '73-'14 in sections; Donating Member Kerosene's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-03-2002
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,446
    Images
    558

    Default

    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.
    GA←↕→ME: 1973 to 2014

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •