[pct-l] (Guest Post) PCT Total Vertical Gain?

[spiritbear2k@hotmail.com (Ginny & Jim Owen)]

Brick wrote:
>After we met in Wrightwood, I posted your numbers to the list, and 
>basically got blown out of the water by several listers. Since I was not 
>privy to the methods used to collect the data, I made no defense.
>
>Could you please re post your  elevation numbers, since you have the first 
>hand knowledge to validate your measurements.
>


Brick -
I'm not sure what the fuss was about - anyone who's hiked the PCT with an 
altimeter and paid any attention to the numbers should know that Sly's idea 
is right on target.  The "high points" in the Data Book aren't high points 
-- and neither are the "low points".  As just one example, the Data Book 
claims a 0' elevation gain/loss from the McIver Spring cutoff to the next 
Data Book point (639.9 - 642.9).  Anyone else remember the 400' climb after 
that cutoff that doesn't show in the Data Book - or the guidebook?

Think about it -- the Data Book is based on the guidebooks - now go back and 
READ the guidebooks - carefully.  A lot of the extraneous elevation gain is 
vaguely 'indicated' in the guidebooks, but not specifically  "defined".  In 
other words, the book may say "ascend gently to (whatever)"  but doesn't 
specifically state an elevation gain number --- so it doesn't show up in the 
Data Book - or in Craig's planner.

Nearly every number in the Data Book that would be taken as a high or low 
point by someone who's not paying close attention ---- IS NOT. The guidebook 
(and therefore the Data Book) elevation numbers are for "waypoints" - 
specific identifiable points along the trail - but not necessarily high or 
low points. Often they would be road or trail junctions, with no mentione of 
the hills climbed or descended in between. It was one of the things that 
frustrated me until I realized that the fault was mine - that I'd 
misinterpreted what I was looking at.  It was one of the 'disadvantages' of 
hiking the PCT so soon after the CDT - I was still in "navigation mode" 
rather than the "mindless movement" mode that the PCT requires --- so I 
noticed (and was frustrated) by little things like this.  After a while I 
just stopped reading the guidebook and navigated by the Data Book for 
mileage and the map for elevation gain.  Not that the PCT required any great 
navigation skills - if you can follow your nose, you can follow the PCT.

Hmmm - enough whining - back to business here - the places in the Data Book 
that might be taken as high points are very often 400' to 1500' below the 
actual "high point" elevations.  When you cross anywhere from 2 to 12 of 
those "high points" each day, the "total elevation gain" numbers add up 
quickly.

In addition, some of the points in the Data Book are 5 or more miles apart - 
sometimes at the same elevation according to the guidebook.  Hey - what do 
you expect?  What experienced hiker would expect there would be no elevation 
gain/loss over that distance?  C'mon, gang - get real here.

One last point - the PCT has a lot of elevation gain, but Monte shouldn't 
get too proud about that. It says something about the trail when a 5000' 
elevation gain climb slows me down by less than 10%.  To repeat what others 
have said --- it's well graded.

Now - for Brick's request --- I will put at least some of those numbers out, 
but I'll have to find them first.  They're buried somewhere in a stack of 
paper and I'll have to get out the backhoe to exhume them.  It'll take a 
couple or 4 days because we'll be busy doing CDT slideshows for the next two 
nights - so don't expect them before next weekend at the earliest.

Walk softly,
Jim

PS - Brick - there's a package on the way for you.  Hope you enjoy it.



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com