Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ADK trail map. Minor discrepancy

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ADK trail map. Minor discrepancy

    See if you can find it. There's a minor discrepancy on the excellent new ADK Trail Map. Look at McKenzie and Moose and see if you notice it. Hint: Canadians may be advantaged.
    1111111111

  • #2
    I don't have the new map to check, but perhaps McKenzie is spelled as Mackenzie, like the Canadian prime ministers and river?
    ADK 46*/46 CATS 5/35 FT 4/28 Saranac 0/6 Bristol 6/6

    Comment


    • #3
      What version are we up to now? While I prefer the ADK map and generally think it's superior in most ways to the Nat Geo map, I have noticed a couple of slight "variations."
      My mind was wandering like the wild geese in the west.

      Comment


      • #4
        Neil; What I think I found is that us backward, provincial, xenophobic Americans can't even properly convert metric elevations into imperial elevations. Mc Kenzie should be 3,831 ft. should only be 3,9898 ft.

        Comment


        • #5
          After hiking from McKenzie to Moose I felt the ascent out of the lowest point was greater than I anticipated (was checking on my altimeter). I had been under the mistaken impression that McKenzie was the higher of the two peaks. So, I pulled out the map and noted that Moose was indicated as being 38 feet higher. But in metric Moose was shown to be 20 meters higher. 20 x 3.281 = 65.62. As I said, a rather minor discrepancy. I'll assume that it is the imperial numbers that are the correct ones. Ie. Moose = 3899' and Mackenzie = 3861'.

          Most importantly, that is one heckuva beautiful hike! In fact I did it back and forth from the Bartlett Pond Trail junction, which gave me a total of 3900' of elevation gain and loss from the Jackrabbit trail on Whiteface Inn Lane.

          By the way, that junction has a name. What is it? (I forget)
          Last edited by Neil; 10-17-2017, 07:14 AM.
          1111111111

          Comment


          • #6
            Yes, I do believe that the "old" imperial elevations are the correct ones. I forgot that we decided when putting them in parentheses next to the metric elevations that we would use the old ones when there was a discrepancy. I know that I posted somewhere the information that someone took some high-end GPS equipment to the summit of MacNaughton. he was able to maintain communication with two base stations during the time the GPS was taking readings. he came out with an elevation of 4,0005.3 feet. I ran his equipment and methodology past my son, who is a surveyor in Vermont. He confirmed that it was justified to express the elevation to the tenth of a foot, but a hundredth of a foot would not be credible. Your observation and the MacNaughton date are two more reasons I am more determined than ever to get the old 20-foot contours back on the High Peaks map.

            Comment


            • Neil
              Neil commented
              Editing a comment
              Tony, do you remember the name of that trail junction? Ie. from 0.2 mi. north of McK. down to Bartlett Pond.

            • tgoodwin
              tgoodwin commented
              Editing a comment
              No Neil. I don't have any recollection that junction was even named. An old name for Moose Mt. was "St. Armand", and the first sign I remember at that junction (long before the trail had been recut) pointed to St. Armand. That's about al I can tell you.

            • Neil
              Neil commented
              Editing a comment
              There is a sign at Bartlett Pond indicating the distance to the xyz junction. It was someone's name IIRC. At the lower end the junction is called the Twin Brooks junction.

          • #7
            Neil

            The sign says "WADSWORTH JCT 1.85".

            Info comes from a photo I have of the trail-sign (circa 2010).
            Looking for Views!

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by Trail Boss View Post
              Neil

              The sign says "WADSWORTH JCT 1.85".

              Info comes from a photo I have of the trail-sign (circa 2010).
              Could this be the Wadsworth in question?
              http://adirondackmusic.org/subpages/...teve-wadsworth
              1111111111

              Comment


              • Trail Boss
                Trail Boss commented
                Editing a comment
                Could be. You could try asking the fellow who re-opened the SOA trails (Richard Hayes Phillips):
                http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/soa.htm

                However, I don't know if he posted those trail-signs or someone else did.

              • tgoodwin
                tgoodwin commented
                Editing a comment
                I really should have noticed the name for the junction. The "Wadsworth" in question was Bob Wadsworth, who was a Boy Scout leader associated with the Boy Scout camp that once existed on Eagle Island in Lake Placid. It was he with scout helpers who originally cut the trail along the ridge in the early 50s. The scouts kept that trail and the other SOA trails maintained into the early 60s, which is when I believe they gave up their Eagle Island camp. The trail were then unmaintained until Richard Phillips personally (no DEC permission) reopened them, starting in the mid-90s.

                Even with the signs and markers, that trail gets little use, and is definitely harder to follow than most High Peaks herd paths. I have had a few conversations with the DEC about including most of the SOA trails as official trails when a UMP for the McKenzie Mt. Wilderness is finally completed. Not much movement on that front so far, but the DEC does seem to realize that there needs to be an access to the Two Brook and Bartlett Pond trails that does not go past all the lakeshore houses. There is nearly continuous state land on which this could be done, it would just be a matter of doing it. Once those trails are more clearly marked and with good public access, they should be a great alternative to the High Peaks on crowded weekends.

                Finally, that jog in the middle of the ridge where the trail goes 90-degrees left and then quickly 90-degrees right is due to having two crews cutting the original trail from each end. Unfortunately, they didn't quite agree on where to meet up.

            • #9
              Speaking of ADK map errors, I am looking at my 14th edition Revised 2015, 2016 and the 1050 contour label on the west side of Hough Peak is placed on the 1100 contour line.

              Comment


              • Trail Boss
                Trail Boss commented
                Editing a comment
                Good catch!

              • tgoodwin
                tgoodwin commented
                Editing a comment
                There are other similar errors scattered throughout these metric maps. I have managed to keep in contact with the USGS surveyor that I worked with in 1976 on these maps. He has said that the production of these maps was rushed in order to get them out before the 1980 Olympics - the idea being that this was a good moment to introduce American metric mapping to the world. Of course America never truly "went metric" so the only other metric maps are the "provisional" for much of the southern Adirondacks. When I learned that we would never see anything better than these provisional maps, I spent some time checking the elevations of peaks on the Hundred Highest list and other peaks near that height. In doing that I found that the spot elevation on a peak near Indian Lake did not match the contour elevation obtained by counting contours. I'll have to do a bit more research to remember which peak.

                That USGS surveyor ultimately took early retirement because the rushed schedule continued after the "Olympic" mapping project and he didn't like the errors that were becoming increasingly frequent.

            • #10
              tgoodwin

              Is there any way to use data from the USGS' The National Map to help produce the next version of the ADK High Peaks map? The contour lines show elevation in the Imperial system. Here is the area around Hough. (max zoom level 16).

              USGS The National Map: https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/launch/


              Of course, it too isn't flawless. Lower Ausable Lake is written as "Asuable"!


              Looking for Views!

              Comment


              • tgoodwin
                tgoodwin commented
                Editing a comment
                All that is really needed is the Imperial 20-foot contours. They need to be in a digital format with the 20-foot lines cut where the terrain becomes so steep that all the lines would blend together. If you look carefully with a magnifying glass (at least I needed one) at the steep areas on the old ADK High Peaks map, you will see that there are areas where only the 100-foot index contours remain. At the larger 1:24,000 scale, that wouldn't be necessary, but then the High Peaks map would, as you have pointed out in another post, be way too big to be useful in the field. In the end I may just go ahead and use the uncut 20-foot contours and accept a certain amount of muddiness in exchange for overall more accurate and detailed contouring.

                I think I have looked at that link before, but I'll check it out again tomorrow when it will be raining.
            Working...
            X