[pct-l] New PCT Website!

[Rob Rathmann]

One thing to remember when looking at elevation profiles drawn from
data in the data book is that they are actually 'xy scatter' plots.
Each (well, almost each...) point is an accurate measurement of
mileage & elevation.  The trouble lies in the pesky lines connecting
those points...

bearcan't

On 3/5/07, jeff.singewald at comcast.net <jeff.singewald at comcast.net> wrote:
> Pea,
>
> I would definitely agree with you on this.  I think BearCan't did a wonderful job with the website.  It's awesome for a visual perspective.  However, to use this as an on-trail guide should be done with the understanding that many false summits and hidden climbs are not represented by the data book.
>
> While passing through the detour on my northbound this past year I came across one of the guidebook authors on the eastern side of Little Giant.  We stopped and chatted and I learned that he was out doing re-con work on the official detour for the upcoming editions.  When I learned who I had encountered on the trail I asked if he would like some feedback.  He grinned and encouraged me to share.
>
> First, I reminded him that the guidebook was in fact the PCT Guidebook and not the Alternative Route Thru Oregon guidebook.  I enjoyed the work that went into the alternative routes that were offered, however, I would rather see these outside of the guidebook.   No doubt, others will disagree, but I wasn't speaking for others.
>
> Second, I addressed the issue of that numerous "false summits" and "hidden climbs" were not evident in the data book.  Again, he smiled and simply saiid, it was not by fault.  The data points are there primarily to identify key points of interest along the trail.  While we may think a climb or a summit is a key point of interest, the authors would tend to disagree a bit on this.  I found the data book to be good for quick-look reference points, but rarely used it for planning out the day.  Heck, I'm not sure if I ever had a plan for the day other than to put one foot in front of the other and Walk On.
>
> Elevator
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: Pea Hicks <phix at optigan.com>
>
> >
> >
> > Paul Mitchell wrote:
> > > Great work! That's a really effective visualization tool.
> > >
> > > I'm inclined to think it'd be a good idea to print out each section and
> > > bring it along!
> >
> > while i agree that this is a wonderful visualization, the only thing
> > that's still ultimately frustrating is that, since this graph is based
> > on the data book points, there's still plenty of instances where there
> > are hidden climbs not represented in the data. i love the data book for
> > its conciseness, but every single day on the pct i had situations where
> > i'd look at the data and think "oh yay, i've got an easy grade for the
> > next 3 miles" only to find one or more hidden climbs embedded within
> > that 3 miles with no data points to represent those elevation changes.
> > now, you would be right to point out that it's my own fault for relying
> > too heavily on the data book, especially after having learned this
> > lesson every day for months on the trail, but somehow i STILL managed to
> > be fooled by this up to the very last day.
> >
> > just to pull one random example out of countless possible examples, have
> > a look at oregon section e on bearcant's page. in between "horse lake
> > trail" and "camelot lake," there's a very significant climb to koosah
> > peak which takes you much higher before descending to camelot lake. for
> > some reason this peak is not included in the data book- why, i have no
> > clue. at any rate, if you just look at the graph generated by the data,
> > you see a direct climb to camelot lake. but in reality, you're climbing
> > up and over a significant mountain here.
> >
> > here's a snip from my trailjournal:
> >
> > ********
> > There's definitely an art to reading between the lines of the data.
> > Basically, the higher the gradient (positive or negative) and/or the
> > shorter the distance between two landmarks, the more reliable the
> > gradient info will be. For instance, if you have two landmarks that are
> > .2 miles apart, and the gradient is –5.4, it's a pretty safe bet that
> > you'll have a moderately steep descent for .2 miles. BUT on the other
> > hand, if the landmarks are 3.5 miles apart, and the gradient is listed
> > as 1.2, this almost certainly DOES NOT mean you've got 3.5 miles of
> > easy, smooth ascent! Such a thing is pretty rare on the PCT. Most likely
> > there are one or more hidden climbs or descents in that 3.5 miles. The
> > gradient column only reflects the net ascent between the two points.
> > ********
> >
> > what would be really great would be to have a truly continuous elevation
> > graph of the entire trail, with the data points placed along it, so that
> > you can see all the climbs/descents accurately. ideally it would be best
> > to have such a graph at the bottom of every data book page, which would
> > encompass all the data points on that page. i actually requested this
> > for the next data book revision, but it's highly doubtful it will come
> > to pass. it might have to be a diy project, using elevation profiles
> > generated by topo mapping software...
> >
> > girlscout
> > _______________________________________________
> > pct-l mailing list
> > pct-l at backcountry.net
> > unsubscribe or change options:
> > http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> _______________________________________________
> pct-l mailing list
> pct-l at backcountry.net
> unsubscribe or change options:
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
>


-- 
my 2005 walk from mexico to canada: http://bearcant.org/
my photos: http://www.pbase.com/carcinomad/