No announcement yet.

Peak Northeast of Tabletop

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Peak Northeast of Tabletop

    On the NatGeo map, immediately northeast of Tabletop, there is another peak, that shows as 4304'. It looks like it might have prominence, but I can't quite tell. I've included the map for reference. Anyone know anything about this peak? Is it named? Is it accessible?
    6/46 - Long way to go

  • #2
    Definitely accessible if you like thick bushwhacking, but no name as far as I know. It has a vertical rise of just 200' and is just over 3/4 mile from the summit of Tabletop. So I suppose one could argue that it deserves to be one of the 46. However, the maps that the Marshalls had to work with only showed a prominence of 100' - the same as shown for what was later named Yard Mt.. This rather uninteresting bump of the ridge between Phelps and Tabletop is perhaps a good example of why the 100 Highest criteria are 3/4 of a mile distant AND a 300' prominence.


    • #3
      Prominence is over-rated. Its just under 300 feet up. I say its a 4000er, which is more than I can say for some others that are on the list. Of recent interest being Armstrong... If you want to go with 300 feet, then middle Tabletop would be off the list, it seems. If there were a new list made, according to what it should have been all along, maybe the new peak would be called Tabletop and the former would be called SW Tabletop, or given a new name. That is kind of how the map looks anyway.
      I might be kidding...


      • #4
        Tabletop East (as it's known colloquially in several trip reports on this forum) has actually been on my mind quite a bit lately. I'm hoping to make a visit sometime this winter.

        Originally posted by tgoodwin View Post
        It has a vertical rise of just 200' and is just over 3/4 mile from the summit of Tabletop.
        Is it in fact ~0.75 miles from Tabletop? seems to indicate it's only ~2600 lateral feet from TT, which is just shy of even 0.5 miles.

        From every mountainside, let freedom ring.


        • CatskillKev
          CatskillKev commented
          Editing a comment
          I'm looking at Acme, and my calculations come short of 2500 feet, but I don't care about prominence,
          Or... is it not accurate to go by the scale when on your computer screen?

      • #5
        Oops, I miscounted the contours on the peak that is 3/4 of a mile from the actual summit. You are right that the 4,305' peak is closer than 3/4 mile. And it does have just 300' of prominence. Still, I don't think it "deserves" to be on the list given it's short distance from the actual summit. Both Armstrong and Saddleback have over 400' of prominence and certainly look like separate peaks.


        • #6
          Oops, I wasn't using prominence correctly. What I meant to say was that the elevation rise is what I do care about. I think looking at the horizontal distance to other peak should not be terribly important.

          Armstrong has a "prominence" of about 100 feet, so should be just part of Gothics.
          I might be kidding...


          • #7
            The low point at the junction of the Beaver Meadow Trail is 4,220 and the summit of Armstrong is 4,400


            • #8
              Tony, I was looking at Acme, so I thought I would check Caltopo. and got the same result . Lines are at 40 foot intervals. So its 4200 plus 2 lines makes 80, so the low point by Beaver Meadow Trail is above 4280.
              I might be kidding...


              • #9
                From USGS topoView (historical maps), the 1953 USGS survey (1957 publication):

                Click image for larger version  Name:	Tabletop Mtn - 1953 USGS Survey.JPG Views:	1 Size:	145.7 KB ID:	483045
                Looking for Views!


                • #10
                  Barry-Boomer list of ADK-HH peaks. 300 foot col rule, no distance rule. It tosses a few of the 46 (Red, Wright, Iro etc.) and adds a few more at the low end. It never caught on. I suspect because it doesn't recognize the original 46. As for Tabletop East, it strikes me as more of a mountain that say, Couch. Been up it a couple of times, nothing special about the summit, some through the trees views towards the Grt. Range.
                  Project-100: 100 peaks, one winter.


                  • gebby
                    gebby commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Selective about history? I'm sure plenty of "modern hikers" would like to toss Blake and Coochie off the list. Those two definitely make their life harder!

                  • FlyFishingandBeer
                    FlyFishingandBeer commented
                    Editing a comment
                    gebby Yeah, I'd toss all four non-4ks off the list real quick if that were an option. Then I'd add MacNaughton, Yard, possibly Pyramid, and IIRC there's another remote peak that stands over 4k somewhere SW of the High Peaks region. I'm sure this is far from an original idea. "But heritage..." Yes, heritage says they stay.

                  • debmonster
                    debmonster commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Don't forget Green!

                • #11
                  Just hike them all!
                  Tom Rankin - 5444W "In the depths of Summer, I finally learned that there lay within me an invincible Winter"

                  Proud Member #0003 of ADKHP Foundation
                  Volunteer Balsam Lake Mountain
                  Past President Catskill 3500 Club
                  CEO Views And Brews!

                  Trail maintainer for the Dry Brook Ridge trail from Mill Brook Road to just past the Lean-to


                  • #12
                    Check your contour interval again. It's 20 feet.


                    • #13
                      Click image for larger version

Name:	Armstrong-Gothics Col - USGS.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	51.9 KB
ID:	483060
                      Looking for Views!


                      • #14
                        Trail Boss and CatskillKev: That's not the map I was referring to. The 1953 USGS topo has 20-foot intervals, and that is the one that gives Armstrong 300 feet of rise from the low point. In my work with maps, I am convinced that the 1950-era contouring is the most accurate. The cartographers had access to aerial photography and had many surveyed benchmark references throughout the High Peaks to assist in making the contouring more accurate. The more recent metric mapping effort had those same benchmarks for reference, but the interval was 10 meters (already less precise than 20'). Furthermore, that mapping effort, according to the USGS surveyor I worked with during the field checking in 1976, was rushed to get the metric maps out in time for the 1980 Olympics - a moment when the USGS wanted to "showcase" the fact that even America was "going metric". Unfortunately we didn't fully embrace he metric system. When the metric maps of most of the rest of the Adirondacks became available, I looked very carefully at the elevations for the Adirondack 100 Highest. After noting both the differences and the way in which those elevations were shown, I contacted the USGS to ask how many elevations that had been shown in brown in 1953 (i.e. an estimated elevation like the contour lines) had become black in 1978 (i.e. a checked elevation). From my work on the 1976 field check, I knew that no surveyor has visited those points, but I thought to check because maybe there was data that just hadn't been incorporated into the 1953 mapping effort. No definitive answer from the USGS and therefore my call to the USGS surveyor I had worked for. He said he might be have been able to find an answer if he himself could get into the USGS center in Rolla, Missouri (he then lived in Washington State), but otherwise he was the one who said I should trust the older elevations based on the rush job for that mapping effort. I therefore did not change the 100 Highest list in the ADK Guide.

                        The contours on the map above are clearly "generated" from some other available data. they definitely show the general shape of the land, but I would not trust them for establishing any exact elevation.


                        • Trail Boss
                          Trail Boss commented
                          Editing a comment
                          The 1953 map indicates the col is ~4280 feet (see next post).

                      • #15
                        From USGS topoView, here's a snippet from the 1953 USGS Mount Marcy quadrangle showing the area under discussion. The 1953 map shows the elevation of the Armstrong-Gothics col is ~ 4280 feet. The contour lines are 20-foot intervals and I marked (in red) the four contour lines above the 4200-foot level.

                        Click image for larger version  Name:	Armstrong-Gothics Col - 1953 USGS Topo.JPG Views:	1 Size:	96.9 KB ID:	483064

                        It's my understanding the latest generation of "USGS Topo" maps are produced exclusively from GIS (Geographic Information System). In other words, they're not based on the older paper versions (USGS Topo 7.5'). To create the contours, the elevation data comes from a DEM (Digital Elevation Model) which is (probably) based on a space-based survey like SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission).

                        This is how most modern maps get their contours, namely from a DEM. The contour lines you see in Google Maps Terrain are derived from Google's own DEM which is partly based on SRTM (plus their own 'secret sauce'). If you look at Google Maps Terrain, it shows the col lies between 4280 and 4320 feet (40' contour intervals).

                        The contour lines on these two, independent maps (Google Terrain and USGS National Map) aren't produced by converting from an old USGS paper map but from their respective DEMs. The two maps are in close agreement concerning the col's elevation (above 4280 feet).

                        Just for fun, the USGS 1902 map shows the col lying at 4380 feet and Armstrong topping out at 4455 feet. Interesting. Wouldn't that be the map used by the Marshall brothers? The 1953 survey was decades away. The 1902 map clearly shows Armstrong has very modest prominence (< 100'). I'm not sure how they went about choosing eligible peaks. It's not just any peak labeled 4000 feet and higher because the 1902 map shows Yard at 4038'. However, Yard has no name on the 1902 map so maybe they only chose named peaks labeled 4000+ feet? <shrug>
                        Last edited by Trail Boss; 01-13-2018, 10:52 PM.
                        Looking for Views!