[pct-l] Re: PCT Elevation Gains

[kdpo at pacbell.net (Ken Powers)]

I remember this discussion about elevation gain back in 2001, I believe. At
that time Jim Owen was arguing that the elevation gain is really much more
than is indicated by the maps and/or guides. He wore an altimeter watch and
kept track of the readings. (The watch actually shows elevation gain and
loss separately.) When I stated the gain for the trail was 314,000 feet or
whatever that guide book says, Jim replied that amount of gain would barely
get us out of California.

The real problem seems to be the frequency of measuring the elevation gain.
If the trail rises a few feet over 10 yards should we measure those inches
of gain? It approaches absurdity if we really to that level. I remember the
frustrations of the guide book hiding a few hills from us. Since our 2000
we have become more philosophical about those hidden hills. We know we would
climb them whether or not the guides show them. Even when given a choice to
take a side route around the hills.

Ken

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alistair & Gail Des Moulins" <aandg@telusplanet.net>
To: <pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:29 PM
Subject: [pct-l] Re: PCT Elevation Gains


> 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pct-l mailing list
> pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> unsubscribe or change options:
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l