Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > General Adirondack Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-18-2018, 04:19 PM   #1
bluequill
Member
 
bluequill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Saranac Lake
Posts: 749
4000' peaks not a 46'r ?

Are there any peaks over 4000' that are not included as a 46'r?

Or just the reverse.....any under 4k and included as a 46'r?
bluequill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2018, 04:46 PM   #2
Neil
Kayak-46
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,974
I have done five 4K peaks that did not make the cut due to insufficient col depth.
  1. Little Marcy
  2. Boomerang-shaped ridge that runs between L. Arnold and the Van Ho trail. Or, on a N-S axis, between Gray and TR Mtn.
  3. Outlier peak to the west of Wright peak.
  4. Point Balk, which is NE of and a part of Little Marcy
  5. Tabletop East
All of these surpass 4k feet.
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2018, 05:12 PM   #3
bluequill
Member
 
bluequill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Saranac Lake
Posts: 749
Thanks!

Having a discussion with a friend and I thought there was a peak somewhere that WAS included but was shy of 4000'.
bluequill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2018, 05:29 PM   #4
Neil
Kayak-46
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluequill View Post
Thanks!

Having a discussion with a friend and I thought there was a peak somewhere that WAS included but was shy of 4000'.
Blake, Couch and Cliff are all under 4k.
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2018, 06:24 PM   #5
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
Blake, Couch and Cliff are all under 4k.
And Nye.

And of course this thread would not be complete without mention of MacNaughton, which is right around 4000'.

What matters for the 46 is tradition, not GPS readings. The "list" is the list developed, and later refined, by the Marshalls. Now that it's an accepted tradition, it really doesn't matter that there are some on the list that are under 4K, and some (sort of mountains) that are over 4K and not on the list. If someone discovered a heretofore hidden 5000' peak in the middle of the Adirondacks, I would probably go climb it; but I would not advocate to change the 46 list.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2018, 07:37 PM   #6
Bob K
Member
 
Bob K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Saratoga County, NY
Posts: 522
A quirk on this subject, fr
om memory I believe Snowy mtn (at 3899) is higher than several of the "46".
Bob K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2018, 07:58 PM   #7
dundee
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,534
I don't have a map with me at the moment, but I used to have a mental checklist of these peaks:
Pyramid
West Street
Little Santanoni
and the ones Neil mentioned
dundee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2018, 10:56 PM   #8
Trail Boss
Member
 
Trail Boss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 902
It's my belief the Marshall brothers used a map that was based on a USGS survey predating their exploits by about 20 years. In other words, they used whatever was available to them at the time and later surveys would prove what they had wasn't all that accurate. I doubt they concerned themselves with prominence and simply took the USGS map at its word and hiked all the named peaks exceeding 4000 feet.

Here's a nice old USGS map.

Subsequent surveys would demote some of the peaks they chose. No big deal. The ADK 46ers is more of an homage to the Marshalls' accomplishment than an accurate list of all 4K peaks in the Adirondacks.
__________________
Looking for views!
Trail Boss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2018, 08:46 AM   #9
Hear the Footsteps
Member
 
Hear the Footsteps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Saratoga County, NY
Posts: 146
MacNaughton at 3983'
Though someone measured >4,000' elevation using modern surveying equipment (search on VFTT) and submitted data to USGS. This was also mentioned in Adirondac in an article by T Goodwin.

Yard is over 4000' but lacks prominence.
A nice ridge hike from Big Slide. Or, you can go over Yard to get to Big Slide. I just climbed that way again last month from South Meadows Road. Also makes a nice loop if climbing from JBL. Recommended.

Don
Hear the Footsteps is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2018, 08:54 AM   #10
Neil
Kayak-46
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,974
Of course, Yard! Forgot all about it! Early in our 46er quest I only used the trail map to find summits over 4k. After Big Slide we headed to Yard and back in order to add another peak to our growing list of 46ers. When we returned to BS people there told us Yard wasn't on the list.
I have since gone over Yard number of times. It is very nice to do various loops and thru-hikes that include Yard from South Meadows.
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2018, 08:00 PM   #11
Kevin Rooney
Member
 
Kevin Rooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornice on Ben Nevis, 5/2018
Posts: 4
MacNaughton has a rather long summit ridge, all of which is 4K'+ by a good margin - as much as 40' or more.
Kevin Rooney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2018, 05:50 PM   #12
Trail Boss
Member
 
Trail Boss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Rooney View Post
MacNaughton has a rather long summit ridge, all of which is 4K'+ by a good margin - as much as 40' or more.
40 feet? Can you share your reference for this claim?


I have correspondence with the individual who measured it with commercial-grade equipment (see HearTheFootSteps post above) and the summit clocked in at a hair over 4004 feet. That's four, not forty.

4,1934101.5584,605694.7946,4004.4137,SUMMIT-PEAK-SIGN
5,1934101.6437,605694.8096,4004.3118,SUMMIT-PEAK-SIGN
6,1934101.6734,605694.8069,4004.3096,SUMMIT-PEAK-SIGN
__________________
Looking for views!
Trail Boss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2018, 08:25 PM   #13
Kevin Rooney
Member
 
Kevin Rooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornice on Ben Nevis, 5/2018
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trail Boss View Post
40 feet? Can you share your reference for this claim?


I have correspondence with the individual who measured it with commercial-grade equipment (see HearTheFootSteps post above) and the summit clocked in at a hair over 4004 feet. That's four, not forty.

4,1934101.5584,605694.7946,4004.4137,SUMMIT-PEAK-SIGN
5,1934101.6437,605694.8096,4004.3118,SUMMIT-PEAK-SIGN
6,1934101.6734,605694.8069,4004.3096,SUMMIT-PEAK-SIGN
Send me a PM and will make arrangements to send you a GPX track from a March, 2015 ascent.
Kevin Rooney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2018, 09:44 PM   #14
Trail Boss
Member
 
Trail Boss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 902
What was used to record the track?

If it was a consumer-level GPS, honestly, I'm uninterested because its vertical accuracy is well-known to be poorer than its horizontal accuracy. I have my own track of MacNaughton, recorded by a consumer-level Garmin Rino 530 HCx. The highest point it recorded was 4006 feet at the lookout. That's darn close to the results I posted above, recorded by professional gear. So if you have something recorded with consumer-level GPS claiming 40 feet higher, that's just way out of the ballpark.


However, if you hauled up industrial-grade gear, with millimeter accuracy, then I definitely want to see it. Just send it via PM.
__________________
Looking for views!
Trail Boss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 11:25 AM   #15
Kevin Rooney
Member
 
Kevin Rooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornice on Ben Nevis, 5/2018
Posts: 4
LiDAR mapsets will provide the most accurate info in terms of height of peaks, depth of cols between peaks, etc.
Kevin Rooney is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.