[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[pct-l] Re: PCT Elevation Gains
- Subject: [pct-l] Re: PCT Elevation Gains
- From: aandg at telusplanet.net (Alistair & Gail Des Moulins)
- Date: Tue Feb 24 00:34:02 2004
- References: <20040223210927.1F5763C490@edina.hack.net>
Dave and all
Prior to hiking the PCT last year I spent many bus journeys to and from work
calculating the elevation gain and loss for each approximately 20 mile
segment of the PCT using the data book.
>From my data, elevation gains are as follows:
Section A - 9058 feet
KM to TM - 38,350 feet
Mexican Border to Highway 3 in Manning Park: 313,718 feet.
I may be out a bit as I did all the stuff manually without a calculator on
the bus but used a spreadsheet to add all the 20 mile segments up.
While on the PCT I realized that the data book does not include all the high
and low points on the trail so I estimate the total elevation gain may be
nearer 350,000 feet. I'm gradually getting my journal up on the internet and
for each day I'm calculating the elevation gain from the map by counting
contours so I will eventually (in about 3 months time!) come up with a more
true number that the 313,718. Even that is not likely to be 100% correct as
I remember an extra 200' up and down on the east side of Mt Jenkins which
was not indicated on the map and there are likely other places like that.
If anyone is interested in having a copy of my PCT 20 mile sections
spreadsheet, please let me know and I'll forward it.
Alistair
> Message: 25
> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:42:59 EST
> From: CMountainDave@aol.com
> Subject: [pct-l] PCT elevation gains
> To: pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> Message-ID: <102.3f729f99.2d6b95a3@aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> There seems to be a wide disparity when estimating elevation gains on the
PCT.
> For example, using only California section A, Campo to Warner Springs.
> One person says 5485' another says 17,845'. I added up all the
elevation
> GAINS in the PCT Data Book by Benidict Go (1997) and came up with 9258'.
> What gives?
> David C
>