Owl's Head Bushwhack

[Double Bow]

On the trip Eric and I did we went with the Black Pond bushwack on the way out at a bearing of 342, I think, and took the Fisherman's Herd Path on the way back to connect with Franconia Falls. This route was great because we avoided the crossings and it made both legs of the trip more interesting.

[RoySwkr]

Originally Posted by DougPaul

We didn't spend time hunting for a trail, sign, or cannister--we just took a compass bearing on one of the Bonds, determined ourselves to be on (or as close as we could resolve) the summit and headed down.

A good plan - the cairn was probably buried and the signs come & go. But did the bearing show you were on 4025 and not the next bump S :-)

Don't worry, I'll count it, even if PB finds the S bump is higher :-)

[DougPaul]

Originally Posted by RoySwkr

A good plan - the cairn was probably buried and the signs come & go. But did the bearing show you were on 4025 and not the next bump S :-)

As I recall, the compass bearing lay right across pt 4025 on the map. And, of course, the summit area is a fairly narrow ridge.

I used a mirror sighting compass so the bearing should be fairly accurate. 1 deg at 3 mi (approx distance to the Bonds) is about 300ft and, according to the topo, the S bump is 850 ft from pt 4025. So most likely we were on or near pt 4025.

Don't worry, I'll count it, even if PB finds the S bump is higher :-)

Thanks--what we did is good enough for me too.

If the cannister is at the S bump, then perhaps we reached the true summit and all the hikers who turn around at the cannister will have to go back and redo it. We all wait breathlessly for PB's decision...

Doug

[Papa Bear]

Originally Posted by DougPaul

As I recall, the compass bearing lay right across pt 4025 on the map. And, of course, the summit area is a fairly narrow ridge.

I used a mirror sighting compass so the bearing should be fairly accurate. 1 deg at 3 mi (approx distance to the Bonds) is about 300ft and, according to the topo, the S bump is 850 ft from pt 4025. So most likely we were on or near pt 4025.

The very fact that you could site on Bondcliff would imnply you were not where the cairn/sign are located. The view there is next to nil. Of course it could have been more open in 1981.

If the cannister is at the S bump, then perhaps we reached the true summit and all the hikers who turn around at the cannister will have to go back and redo it. We all wait breathlessly for PB's decision... Doug

Though I hate to admit it, I don't run this particular Circus McGurkis. I'll have a little fun, check a few readings and write the numbers down for those interested. Maybe we can get everyone with a GPS out there together and have a party!

Note that on another thread (Look Here), the Geocache folks have fixed the location of the cairn/sign at the south bump. Presumably they took a GPS reading when they hid their box there.

I think the evidence is accumulating that the cairn/sign are on the south bump. Whether it's higher or lower or the same elevation as the x4025 bump is of course unknown until someone can measure it. Present day hiker technology may preclude that unless the difference is say 15'-20' or more. However the FTFC may decide (or not) that a spot elevation trumps an open contour. Same argument goes for Scar Ridge (where the canister is not on the x3774 bump), no?

[Raymond]

I remember there was a bit of a view toward Bondcliff from a slightly open area just beyond the summit sign when I was there September 29, 2000. There was a big downed tree I tried to climb to get a better look, but I don't recall any significant rise, so the x-spot must have been farther north than what I went. How many feet from the sign is the x4025, anyway? Can you tell from that GPSed map somebody showed here last year?

[Eric Savage]

Originally Posted by Papa Bear

I think the evidence is accumulating that the cairn/sign are on the south bump. Whether it's higher or lower or the same elevation as the x4025 bump is of course unknown until someone can measure it. Present day hiker technology may preclude that unless the difference is say 15'-20' or more. However the FTFC may decide (or not) that a spot elevation trumps an open contour. Same argument goes for Scar Ridge (where the canister is not on the x3774 bump), no?

The Owls Head summit issue has not been discussed in the time that I have been on the FTFC but I can ask about it. Even if it turns out that the summit is farther north than the present sign, I'm almost certain that previous ascents will be grandfathered. There are many precedents. If someone does figure out a way to settle this question (a nighttime ascent with laser levels?), I'd love to be part of the "research team." At the very least I'm going to have to plan extra time to walk the ridge next time I go.

As for Scar Ridge, the x3774 bump is considered to be the true summit but is so flat that no one spot can be identified as the highest. As long as you make some reasonable effort to wander around over there, you can count it. The cannister was placed on the other peak only to make it easy to find (it would just be cruel, after having done a bushwhack like Scar Ridge, not to make it as easy as possible to find the cannister). I seem to recall a pretty good herd path leading from the cannister to the 3774 peak.

I also found myself wondering about the highest point on Katahdin but perhaps that's grist for another thread (or just too blasphemous to be discussed ).

[DougPaul]

Originally Posted by Papa Bear

The very fact that you could site on Bondcliff would imnply you were not where the cairn/sign are located. The view there is next to nil. Of course it could have been more open in 1981.

I recall the sight was through the trees, but not how open the view was. It is also possible that I was on the east side of the ridge to get a better view.

Though I hate to admit it, I don't run this particular Circus McGurkis.

I'll forgive you this time, just don't let it happen again.

Note that on another thread (Look Here), the Geocache folks have fixed the location of the cairn/sign at the south bump. Presumably they took a GPS reading when they hid their box there.

Interesting. I just checked the coord--it is the south bump.

(BTW, are geocaches legal in the WMNF? IIRC, they have been forbidden in national parks.)

I think the evidence is accumulating that the cairn/sign are on the south bump. Whether it's higher or lower or the same elevation as the x4025 bump is of course unknown until someone can measure it. Present day hiker technology may preclude that unless the difference is say 15'-20' or more. However the FTFC may decide (or not) that a spot elevation trumps an open contour. Same argument goes for Scar Ridge (where the canister is not on the x3774 bump), no?

I obviously don't know where the sign is since I haven't been there for 24yrs. However, there are some tricks that one can use to make a fairly accurate estimate of the height difference between two locations.

Aneroid altimeters are needed for 2 of the following methods. GPSes with barometric sensors and the auto-calibration turned off will do. Garmin specs 1 ft resolution on their units. (Accuracy of 10 ft with proper calibration (user and/or auto).)

Method 1. Requires 2 aneroid altimeters and 2-way radios. Synchronize the altimeters to the approximate altitude at pt A. Carry 1 altimeter to pt B and compare readings by radio. Might be worth doing twice, with the altimeters switched to minimize the effects of any differences between the altimeters.

Method 2. Requires 1 aneroid altimeter: measure at pt A, then pt B, then back at pt A. (Try to make the travel times equal). Compare altB to the average of altA-1 and altA-2. (The dual measurments at pt A allow you to remove the effects of changes in the atmospheric pressure.) You can do this as many times as you want (or with as many altimeters as you can muster) and use the multiple data points to compute an average and a standard deviation.

Method 3: take a hose long enough to reach between the two locations. Fill it with water (making sure you clear out any air bubbles). Hold both ends up and let the levels settle. The water levels in the ends will be the same and you can compare the local topography to the water levels. (You can drink the water when you are done if you used a clean hose. )

Of course, you could just trust the map and use the GPS to find pt 4025. Sounds too easy, but it would really be amusing if those coord are obviously not at the top.

My estimates of the location of pt 4025 (WGS-84 datum)
NG TOPO! DRG: ................................... N44 08.636, W071 36.303
Highest point from NG TOPO! DEM: .. N44 08.638, W071 36.305, 4009 ft
Garmin US Topo 24K (DLG): ............... N44 08.642, W071 36.298
(coordinate format: Ndd mm.mmm, Wddd mm.mmm)
(.001 min N = 6 ft, .001 min W = 4 ft)

USGS 24K topo DRGs have an accuracy spec of 90% of the points must be within 40 ft. The DEMs are on a 30m grid.

Just a note: if you are not familiar with the datum, make sure you get it correct. The default for GPSes is WGS-84, USGS topos are labeled--usually NAD-27. (It is settable in the GPS and most mapping software.) I have estimated the difference between the 2 datums in the Whites and came up with 226m.

Maybe we will have to form a VFTT mapping group and actually run an expedition to explore Owl's head summit area...

Doug

[Papa Bear]

Originally Posted by DougPaul

Method 3: take a hose long enough to reach between the two locations. Fill it with water (making sure you clear out any air bubbles). Hold both ends up and let the levels settle. The water levels in the ends will be the same and you can compare the local topography to the water levels. (You can drink the water when you are done if you used a clean hose. )

Clearly this would be the most fun - maybe use beer. The distance on the map is ~.15 miles = 800'

My estimates of the location of pt 4025 (WGS-84 datum)
NG TOPO! DRG: ................................... N44 08.636, W071 36.303
Highest point from NG TOPO! DEM: .. N44 08.638, W071 36.305, 4009 ft
(.001 deg N = 6 ft, .001 deg W = 4 ft)

Do you mean .001 degree or .001 minute? The location of x4025 and the highest point (NG TOPO) are stated as .002 minutes = .000033 degrees = ~1 inch. Did I miss something here?

Maybe we will have to form a VFTT mapping group and actually run an expedition to explore Owl's head summit area...
Doug

Now you're talking.

[Papa Bear]

Originally Posted by Eric Savage

The Owls Head summit issue has not been discussed in the time that I have been on the FTFC but I can ask about it. Even if it turns out that the summit is farther north than the present sign, I'm almost certain that previous ascents will be grandfathered. There are many precedents. If someone does figure out a way to settle this question (a nighttime ascent with laser levels?), I'd love to be part of the "research team." At the very least I'm going to have to plan extra time to walk the ridge next time I go.

Thanks for the response Eric. I'm of two minds 1) let's get it right and 2) does it really matter? But your interest and willingness to look into things and make things more transparent are very positive. Note from another post that I'm interested in going up there sometime this summer and see what can be determined. I'll try to coordinate that with other interested parties.

As for Scar Ridge, the x3774 bump is considered to be the true summit but is so flat that no one spot can be identified as the highest. As long as you make some reasonable effort to wander around over there, you can count it. The cannister was placed on the other peak only to make it easy to find (it would just be cruel, after having done a bushwhack like Scar Ridge, not to make it as easy as possible to find the cannister). I seem to recall a pretty good herd path leading from the cannister to the 3774 peak.

This is also nice and definitive. I think some folks don't really understand this - they think that it is just another ambiguity. Perhaps a note in the Scar Ridge canister stating "Sorry, you're not quite done yet" would clear that up. Haven't been there yet - I'm planning oin going July 10 with a few others.

Again thanks for being so responsive to us.

[DougPaul]

Originally Posted by Papa Bear

Clearly this would be the most fun - maybe use beer. The distance on the map is ~.15 miles = 800'

But the beer would have to be flat to avoid gas bubbles.

Do you mean .001 degree or .001 minute? The location of x4025 and the highest point (NG TOPO) are stated as .002 minutes = .000033 degrees = ~1 inch. Did I miss something here?

.001 minute. (Realized my error before I logged on this morning, but you caught it before I could fix it... Fixed.)

Nautical navigators rule of thumb: 1 min N-S = 1 nautical mile = 6076 ft.
So .001 min N-S = ~6 ft.
And .001 min E-W @ 44 deg N = ~(6 ft * cos(44)) = ~4 ft.

And the coordinate format was: Ndd mm.mmm, Wddd mm.mmm in case it wasn't clear to anyone.

Doug

[DougPaul]

Originally Posted by Eric Savage

The Owls Head summit issue <snip>

Originally Posted by Papa Bear

Thanks for the response Eric. I'm of two minds 1) let's get it right and 2) does it really matter?

I personally don't care from the standpoint deciding whether earlier ascents were vaild or not (I'm willing to accept them and I never even submitted my claim of having ascended all NH 4K peaks), but I'd be curious from the standpoint of figuring out the ground truth. It would be interesting to check the orignal survey notes used to make the topo, if they still exist. (It would probably require a professional mapmaker's skills.) Accurate surveying of relatively flat treed peaks such as Owl's head is probably difficult and time consuming and I doubt that most map makers care much about checking out all of the 2-3 ft high lumps. Radar maps might be useful (if such maps of sufficient accuracy exist).

Think we could get Washburn to map Owl's head for us?

Doug

[Papa Bear]

Originally Posted by DougPaul

... It would be interesting to check the orignal survey notes used to make the topo, if they still exist. (It would probably require a professional mapmaker's skills.) Accurate surveying of relatively flat treed peaks such as Owl's head is probably difficult and time consuming and I doubt that most map makers care much about checking out all of the 2-3 ft high lumps. ...
Doug

Look at the old 15' map of the area (surveyed 1929): Here. A couple of interesting points: 1) it has 20' contour intervals vs. 40' on the modern map; 2) there is a spot elevation of 4023', quite close to the more modern valus of 4025'; 3) the high point is roughly east between where the two streams coming off Mt. Lincoln join Lincoln Brook. This is also roughly where the more modern x4025 point lies. (Topozone) OTOH, the south bump on the modrern map (1995) is just south of the southern stream. On the old map this is just the end of the ridge, with no bump plotted.

I know the old maps should not be trusted for real detail, and that the newer maps have sattelite data to supplement photgrametric date, nevertheless it's probable that the cartographers used the old maps as prototypes when they were putting together the newer maps.

[DougPaul]

Originally Posted by Papa Bear

Look at the old 15' map of the area (surveyed 1929): Here. A couple of interesting points: 1) it has 20' contour intervals vs. 40' on the modern map;

Just because a map shows a smaller contour interval, doesn't mean it is more accurate. I've seen (and posted) accuracy specs on the modern topos, don't know what they are on the old topos. And I'm sure the technology has improved. IIRC, most of the US topos are based upon aerial photography plus ground surveying.

2) there is a spot elevation of 4023', quite close to the more modern valus of 4025'; 3) the high point is roughly east between where the two streams coming off Mt. Lincoln join Lincoln Brook. This is also roughly where the more modern x4025 point lies. (Topozone) OTOH, the south bump on the modrern map (1995) is just south of the southern stream. On the old map this is just the end of the ridge, with no bump plotted.

Looks to me like the S bump is just SE of the "O" in "Owl's head" on the 1929 map. Both the summit and the S bump look to be in about the same location re the streams on Franconia and Bond ridges to me (compared to a modern 24K topo).

I know the old maps should not be trusted for real detail, and that the newer maps have sattelite data to supplement photgrametric date, nevertheless it's probable that the cartographers used the old maps as prototypes when they were putting together the newer maps.

It would seem possible, but I don't know what the actual procedure was. Also don't know if satellite data were used. (FWIW, radar mapping can be done from either aircraft or satellite. There is a bunch of shuttle SAR (synthetic apature radar) data, but I don't know what it covers or how accurate it is. Of course there could be more radar data too.)

In any case, I doubt whether the summit of Owl's Head was a point of particular interest to the USGS. This issue only comes up now because
any jerk with a few hundred dollars can locate a point as or more accurately than most maps.

Doug

[Papa Bear]

Originally Posted by DougPaul

Looks to me like the S bump is just SE of the "O" in "Owl's head" on the 1929 map. Both the summit and the S bump look to be in about the same location re the streams on Franconia and Bond ridges to me (compared to a modern 24K topo)...
Doug

That's not what I'm calling the south bump. That's (the USGS version of) Owls Head. That's this: Topozone. It's opposite the 3rd stream (counting from the north). The so-called south bump (where the summit sign and cairn are located) is opposite the second stream: Here

[DougPaul]

Originally Posted by Papa Bear

That's not what I'm calling the south bump. That's (the USGS version of) Owls Head. That's this: Topozone. It's opposite the 3rd stream (counting from the north). The so-called south bump (where the summit sign and cairn are located) is opposite the second stream: Here

Oops. I measured the distance from pt 4025 to the S bump at 850 ft yesterday (reported in post #19) and at some point since then seem to have shifted my definition (possibly when looking at the old map).

Using the corrected definition of the S bump, I agree that it does not show on the old map.

And I still agree that Kevin's track looks like it ends at the S bump.

Doug