old trail route on anthony's nose?

[tdoczi]

a friend of mine showed me the trail described here yesterday-

http://hikingonthebear.wordpress.com...-nose-7-25-10/

the marks that are referenced in the first paragraph appear to be old unmaintained AT markers. this trail does not appear on any maps and most people dont know about it, but above the lowest portion is still very clearly there and easy to follow. is this an old route of the AT? anyone know when and why it was changed? it has the distinct advantage of actually summiting anthony's nose, which the cureent AT route does not do unless you make a point of taking the blue blaze from the AT to the summit.

also made a wrong turn on the way down and found another trail similarly marked in old white blazes a bit further north on 9D from where the trail currently meets the road.

[Dogwood]

Don't know about the origin but going up along the front to Anthony's Nose is very steep, as the article says, probably about 65-75 degrees. It's almost a 3 pt contact climb. I wouldn't go back down it but take the Blue Blaze from the top of "the nose" back over to the AT and take that down which is a little easier. The front route begins basically at the NY entrance to the bridge.

[tdoczi]

Don't know about the origin but going up along the front to Anthony's Nose is very steep, as the article says, probably about 65-75 degrees. It's almost a 3 pt contact climb. I wouldn't go back down it but take the Blue Blaze from the top of "the nose" back over to the AT and take that down which is a little easier. The front route begins basically at the NY entrance to the bridge.

i didnt find it to be that steep at all, perhaps because i was expecting worse. i dont think i used my hands more than once or twice. certainly nowhere near as steep or precarious as even the "easy" climbs in the whites or maine, or the south taconics for that matter. i wouldnt go back down it either, given the available alternate, but one could. just as one could go down, say, south kinsman (i wouldn't want to) or the north side of moosilauke (i have).

but really thats besides the point. if youve been up it youve no doubt noticed its full of white rectangular blazing. seems unlikely to be a coincidence.

[rock_on]

Going down this just about killed my knees! It was a bit treacherous but because I had just seen an incredible view it was totally worth it. I got turned around some so I can't remember if the steep part was part of the AT or the blue-blaze trail. I was section hiking but went off to get an extra view of the Hudson. It was just a lot of boulders, steep, but definitely not a "climb" by any means. A steep hike, yes. I guess I have seen worse as I am from New England!

Definitely worth the extra hike.

[Starchild]

I have hiked it many times, it is a quazi trail, not really a unmaintained trail but not on many maps either. It is a trail that exists but it doesn't.

It does include a rock scramble, it is blazed and those blazes maintained (blue IIRC) and recently repainted, but for many years did not exist on many trail maps.

Part of the reason may be it's proximity to the Bear Mountain Bridge supports, which may have encourages a request to remove it from hiking maps, though that area is officially open to hiking so there is nothing they can do about people using that old trail. And it is so well know and popular that I feel it has made it back on some maps.

I have also heard it was part of the older route of the AT.

Well that's what I know about it. YMMV

[pawlinghiker]

can you camp up top ?