Ski Summit Height Inflation

[xwhaler]

I posted about Saddelbacks overinflated numbers in the past and was shot down by using old GE photo.The one I just looked at is from 2012 and shows the new lower lift below the lodge.From that base to the top of the Kennabago is 1850 ft.Total bs on the 2000 ft claim.

Likely the additional vert they claim is for the hike to portion to the true summit which is fun to do every now and then.
Patrol will even recommend when folks don't go up there if its too windy or white out conditions. Not sure whether they actively patrol it however?

 

[thetrailboss]

Likely the additional vert they claim is for the hike to portion to the true summit which is fun to do every now and then.
Patrol will even recommend when folks don't go up there if its too windy or white out conditions. Not sure whether they actively patrol it however?

This gets back to my point: is it misleading if they include vertical feet for hiking above the lift? If not, what is the limit? With Saddleback, we're talking about 150' hike, which is significant, but not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

 

[dlague]

but not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

+1

 

[mbedle]

Actually, its not really possible to tell the true vertical of a ski resort using any published USGS topographic maps. They are historically known to not be accurate with both elevations and topography. This is especially true for the mountainous areas of the US. Revisions are routinely being made to the maps. However, these typically do not include topography or elevation changes (unless mountain cuts for highway development). Elevation and topographic changes are extremely difficult and expensive to complete for a map. As far as what elevation data is listed on the 7.5 minute quadrangles for Jay Peak, it has shown a peak elevation at 4,013 feet on the 1920 map, 3,861 feet on the 1925, 35, 43, 46, 54, 62 and 69 maps and 3,857.9 feet on the 1987 map. But as previously discussed, the tram does not reach the top of Jay Peak. The best way to ultimately determine the vertical rise would be using a modern GPS unit that has a good geolock and take a measurement from the top of the tram and the bottom of the village lift. With all that said, I think the best thing to look at is a ski areas true vertical. Which is basically the vertical rise that exists from a typical single lift ride. If interested in these, check out the website http://mountainvertical.com/best-skiing-in-new-england.php. An other thing that is important (in my humble 25 years of boarding) is a continuous pitch on a run. An 1,000 foot vertical advanced trail that has hundreds of feet in vertical on the lower end of the mountain and turns into a beginner runout, is worst than a 1,000 foot vertical continues pitched advanced trail. I'm in hardboots, so runout are about as painful as them come at the end of a good run.

 

[Quietman]

I really like Crotched but I really dislike their false advertising of a 1,000 vertical. On their trail map they list the elevation at the top of the detachable quad as 2,066, but that is the elevation for the true summit which is almost 1/2 mile east. Even when being generous, the top of the quad is no higher than 1,925 so the actual vertical is less than 900'.

A bunch of mountains fudge to get to that magic 1,000' number(like Wachusett), but over 10% is a bit much.

 

[AdironRider]

These arguments always amuse me, notably for one fact. Everyone places 100% faith in some old vertical number calculated way back in the day. When they were eyeballing elevation no's early this century, you guys do realize that little of it was 100% accurate. I feel like its trusting global warming data that is based on average temperatures from the mid 1800's, like those are accurate in any way shape or form.

 

[mbedle]

AdironRider - Very True. But, when you get down here in PA - trust me, the accuracy of the vertical is important. When you have a ski resort who's main advertisement is "Highest Vertical in PA" (Blue Mountain), I am sure other resorts have verified that number!!!! Especially when the difference is only a couple of feet when compared to Blue Knob.

 

[Ridge Racer]

AdironRider - Very True. But, when you get down here in PA - trust me, the accuracy of the vertical is important. When you have a ski resort who's main advertisement is "Highest Vertical in PA" (Blue Mountain), I am sure other resorts have verified that number!!!! Especially when the difference is only a couple of feet when compared to Blue Knob.

Or Elk Mt. It's no secret that blue extended the home stretch "trail" to surpass that magical 1,000 number and claim Pennsylvania's highest vert.

 

[ScottySkis]

AdironRider - Very True. But, when you get down here in PA - trust me, the accuracy of the vertical is important. When you have a ski resort who's main advertisement is "Highest Vertical in PA" (Blue Mountain), I am sure other resorts have verified that number!!!! Especially when the difference is only a couple of feet when compared to Blue Knob.

I been to both Blue and Elk, and Elk is much better verticals and the way it skis.

 

[ss20]

Actually, its not really possible to tell the true vertical of a ski resort using any published USGS topographic maps. They are historically known to not be accurate with both elevations and topography. This is especially true for the mountainous areas of the US. Revisions are routinely being made to the maps. However, these typically do not include topography or elevation changes (unless mountain cuts for highway development). Elevation and topographic changes are extremely difficult and expensive to complete for a map. As far as what elevation data is listed on the 7.5 minute quadrangles for Jay Peak, it has shown a peak elevation at 4,013 feet on the 1920 map, 3,861 feet on the 1925, 35, 43, 46, 54, 62 and 69 maps and 3,857.9 feet on the 1987 map. But as previously discussed, the tram does not reach the top of Jay Peak. The best way to ultimately determine the vertical rise would be using a modern GPS unit that has a good geolock and take a measurement from the top of the tram and the bottom of the village lift. With all that said, I think the best thing to look at is a ski areas true vertical. Which is basically the vertical rise that exists from a typical single lift ride. If interested in these, check out the website http://mountainvertical.com/best-skiing-in-new-england.php. An other thing that is important (in my humble 25 years of boarding) is a continuous pitch on a run. An 1,000 foot vertical advanced trail that has hundreds of feet in vertical on the lower end of the mountain and turns into a beginner runout, is worst than a 1,000 foot vertical continues pitched advanced trail. I'm in hardboots, so runout are about as painful as them come at the end of a good run.

That's why I started the thread (but that got blown over very quickly) to point out that it could be the topo maps that caused some resorts to accidentally inflate their numbers.

 

[ss20]

Want the truth for summit heights, bases, run lengths, and such? Google Earth.

 

[SIKSKIER]

Want the truth for summit heights, bases, run lengths, and such? Google Earth.

I posted about Saddelbacks overinflated numbers in the past and was shot down by using old GE photo.The one I just looked at is from 2012 and shows the new lower lift below the lodge.From that base to the top of the Kennabago is 1850 ft.Total bs on the 2000 ft claim.

Post 19

 

[SIKSKIER]

I just noticed something that looks strange on GE at Saddleback.The top of the mt is still 2002 imagery while the rest is updated 2012.2 trails (Frostbite and Back Beauty)start halfway from nowhere.

 

[bigbog]

Don't think I've said my "Welcome to the AZ zoo" ss20,
Post-Glacial Rebound....
Elevations change yearly...not at a constant rate though...sooo. May not be the answer here due to the
thing called marketing. We all know everything on the web is subjected to aggressive, scrutinized fact-finding.....LOL.

 

[ScottySkis]

Penis envy

 

[steamboat1]

Penis envy

Can you google that?

 

[ScottySkis]

Can you google that?

It came back alpine zone lol

 

[Mapnut]

Actually, its not really possible to tell the true vertical of a ski resort using any published USGS topographic maps. They are historically known to not be accurate with both elevations and topography. This is especially true for the mountainous areas of the US.

As is well known at Snowjournal, I'm a bit of a nut on the subject of vertical drops. I'm no authority on cartography (just a nut), but one thing I can tell you about vertical drop vs. map data, from looking at hundreds of ski areas: about half of all major ski areas exaggerate their drop, the others being in reasonable agreement. But I have never found even one ski area whose claimed vertical drop is less than what it appears to be on the map! So I don't think map inaccuracy is the problem.

Also, I find that little ski areas are much worse at exaggerating vertical drop than major ones.

 

[Quietman]

I care about this because if a ski area fibs about the vertical drop, are they also more prone to exagerate about conditions & inflate snowfall amounts?

 

[dlague]

I care about this because if a ski area fibs about the vertical drop, are they also more prone to exagerate about conditions & inflate snowfall amounts?

I think conditions are subjective at any resort! It is part of marketing! You could have 20 skiers/snowboarders that have four different levels of skill and they will tell you a different story of what the conditions were.

Example: We skied at Burke last year and got there at 10 AM and the snow report looked good. We met some friends who arrived around 8:30 and they said every thing was skied off. We were bummed but went out anyway. We did find a thin spot or two but my wife and I thought the conditions were great and with the snow falling they got better throughout the day. As more snow fell, we like the conditions even more yet people were complaining about no grooming. Long and short of it - we all have different opinions when it comes to that!

I cannot say I have ever really paid attention to summit height. May have seen it but never really thought about it!