| Welcome to SP! - Sign-In | Register | ||
| | |
| MbPost.com -- It's SP for Mountain Biking! | ||
Sequoia/Kings Canyon NP > Mount Langley > Additions and Corrections
|
| Romain | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Morgan, Thanks. The benchmark on the summit of Langley is here. Not sure I can spot a date on it. Does it have special significance? Romain | |
| Posted Nov 5, 2002 11:02 pm | ||
| mpbro | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Sorry, I missed this post and didnt' reply earlier... If I read it correctly, I see "14042" on there, which would be the surveyed elevation in feet. Unless a more recent survey has been done, this answers the question! | |
| Posted Dec 15, 2002 2:16 pm | ||
| Romain | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Morgan, Those dual elevation data are annoying. I'm going with the USGS website, under the assumption that it reflects the most recent survey. The GNIS displays an elevation of 14026, I assume that the marker must reflect older data... Cheers, Romain | |
| Posted Dec 29, 2002 12:28 am | ||
| Romain | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Fixed. Thanks! | |
| Posted Jul 14, 2005 4:49 pm | ||
| Romain | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Fixed. Thanks. | |
| Posted Oct 17, 2005 11:20 pm | ||
| mpbro | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | The most recent USGS topographical map quotes an elevation of 4275 meters, or when multiplied by 3.281, 14026 feet. Did you note the date of the benchmark on the summit? | |
| Posted Jul 4, 2002 9:52 pm | ||
| Romain | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Morgan, Thanks. The benchmark on the summit of Langley is here. Not sure I can spot a date on it. Does it have special significance? Romain | |
| Posted Nov 5, 2002 11:02 pm | ||
| mpbro | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Sorry, I missed this post and didnt' reply earlier... If I read it correctly, I see "14042" on there, which would be the surveyed elevation in feet. Unless a more recent survey has been done, this answers the question! | |
| Posted Dec 15, 2002 2:16 pm | ||
| Romain | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Morgan, Those dual elevation data are annoying. I'm going with the USGS website, under the assumption that it reflects the most recent survey. The GNIS displays an elevation of 14026, I assume that the marker must reflect older data... Cheers, Romain | |
| Posted Dec 29, 2002 12:28 am | ||
| Shano | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Another option for approaching Mount Langley is via Tuttle Creek. From the Stone House, continue up-canyon (the low path seems to be the easier ascent route) past the Keyhole Wall and up another mile until you reach the pseudo-basin at the Northeastern foot of Mount Langley. Running water and level white sand "beaches" can be found with a great view of the NE side of the peak. A number of 2nd and 3rd class routes can be attempted from this side | |
| Posted Jun 9, 2004 11:51 am | ||
| Shano | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | I should also mention that there are certainly much more difficult AIx, 4th & 5th class routes as well; your imagination is the only limit here | |
| Posted Jun 9, 2004 11:57 am | ||
| Romain | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Fixed. Thanks! | |
| Posted Jul 14, 2005 4:49 pm | ||
| maj | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/inyo/recreation/wild/permitsres.shtml | |
| Posted Oct 16, 2005 3:05 am | ||
| Romain | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Fixed. Thanks. | |
| Posted Oct 17, 2005 11:20 pm | ||
|
