(You couldn't have picked Mt Shaw or Black Snout for your first page??)
The question is not which is the true summit if you impose the AMC 200-ft col rule - everyone accepts that pt 2782 is higher than the southern bump(s) wich Roy and the USGS call "Faraway Mountain." The question is, which bump is called "Faraway Mountain"?
The AMC 200-ft col rule did not exist at the time Faraway Mountain was named, and I do not believe that the AMC 200-foot col rule grants anyone the power to rename a peak.
The USGS maps from 1930, 1965, and the latest map are all unequivocal: The name "Faraway Mountain" does not refer to 2782ft, it refers to (one of?) the two bumps half a kilometer due south of 2782ft (highest contours at 2700ft and 2720ft).
(The ca 1919 Colony Club map shows a lot of geography that is just plain wrong, so I can't draw any conclusions from it, even if you assume, as Roy does, that the Club named the peak and that therefore their map is authoritative with regard to the name.)
If someday the Ossipee Ten list gains popularity, then it may someday become common practice to refer to 2782 as "Faraway Mountain", analoguously to what has happened to Owl's Head because of the AMC's NH48 list. If that happens, this page can reflect that. But since the Ossipee Ten list was just invented a few months ago, I cannot support a page that attempts to rename a peak. The peak described on this page is Unnamed 2782, "Peak above Faraway Mountain."
One thing might make me change my mind:
" as a result of which some maps place "Faraway" down there."
Are there *any* maps, other than Trail Bandit's, that place "Faraway" at 2782?
On a strictly Summitpost-technicalities note, be sure to fill in the latitude and longitude (west longitude goes in as a negative number), and consider attaching this page to the Lakes Region. (Maybe the Ossipee ring should have its own Area/Range page, though.)
I remember well our hike to Eastman and the Baldfaces in June 2007. A bit of background: Over a year ago, RoySwkr, a pen pal and very accomplished New England hiker, tried to persuade me to join SummitPost so that I could "preempt" some other poster as to Green Mtn. in Effingham, NH, as to which Roy considered me to be an expert (because I've hiked it dozens of times). Flash forward: I hit a roadblock when I tried to register then and gave up, but I tried again today and all went smoothly. I may yet write up Green Mtn., but I was surprised to find the Ossipees - a more impressive set of mountains in that general vicinity - nearly a blank slate (but see my next paragraph, about "Lee Mtn."). Shaw would have made more sense, I suppose, but there happens to be a little dispute about Faraway, and I couldn't resist. (Black Snout is a useless 'whack - I'll get to a description of that in time, I expect.)
As to other maps that show x 2,782 as Faraway, look at any AMC map. Ditto the Trail Bandit (Bob G. - king of the Ossipees and of St. John, USVI) and his maps, Scudder's View Guide to the White Mountains and certain publications of the Lakes Region Conservation Trust, which owns the south end of the Ossipee Range and maintains the trails that take you to Faraway. Moreover, while I thought at first there were no previous posts on any Ossipee summit, on closer review, I discover that a fellow who calls himself "mtwashingtonmonroe" has posted a description of "Lee Mountain," which is the little-used name for the bump on which Tom Plant's "Castle in the Clouds" was built, 100 years ago. I quote from his description: "Also, if this mountain is not enough, there are plenty of other higher Ossipee Range peaks just to the northeast. They include Mount Shaw (highest in the range at 2,990 ft.), . . . . Faraway Mountain (2,782 ft.). . . ."
My Faraway account is a bit lame, I'll admit, esp. the crummy photos, but I'll do better. I've hiked all of the Ossipee summits with trails and a number of the trailless ones.
I have a couple editions of the AMC White Mountains maps, I'll check them tonight. (I'm hoping the Ossipees are included... I've never paid any attention to the Ossipees before.) Where can I find the Scudder and LRCT maps?
Britt (mtwashingtonmonroe) is a good guy but I doubt he did a whole lot of research on Faraway before writing that sentence.
Faraway only shows up on one of my AMC maps, but there it clearly refers to 2782. This at least creates a reasonable dispute. So far I still lean toward Roy's side, but I think I'm withdrawing my objection to the name of this page.
As for why I give less weight to the AMC than to the USGS on this point: I took a look at Owl's Head, which is probably the closest analogue. I found some fascinating inconsistencies in the AMC's treatment of Owl's Head, which I'll describe in more detail on RoT (if I can make a login quickly) or VftT.
Our group hike was some time ago, and I knew that your "real name" wasn't Nartreb, but couldn't quite recall what it was - thought it might be "Al" for some reason.
Scudder's View Guide to the White Mountains (2d Ed.) is a terrific resource for anyone who hikes in New Hampshire and likes to know just what they're looking at, when they reach a summit. I've had the pleasure of hiking with Brent Scudder a couple of times and he is a marvel. One of his 54 peaks is Red Hill in Moultonborough, and if you look at his diagram for the view east from Red Hill, you'll see that he too considers x2,782 to be "Faraway." His book is for sale at Steve Smith's Mountain Wanderer in Lincoln, NH or you can Google Scudder's High Top Press and buy from him direct.
As you know, the merits of this little dispute have been hashed and rehashed at great length elsewhere, and I don't intend to summarize in detail the various arguments here. If you look at my last post on that other website on this topic, you'll find the excerpt from the Lakes Region Conservation Trust Newsletter that refers to Faraway as 2,782 feet tall. Since you put so much weight on the USGS maps, I should point out that "Faraway" is not even included in the USGS/US Board on Geographic Names, unlike a number of other Ossipee summits, so I suspect they were quite a bit more casual about where they put that word than they would be for a standardized name. Witness the impossibility of telling which of those "bumps" (if either) they may have had in mind - neither has an "x" or elevation.
I find the arguments for x2,782 overwhelming, but it's a free country and everyone can make up his or her own mind.
Setting aside the argument about the name for a moment, I think this page would benefit from a bit more explanation about what makes this place worth visiting. I thought by "third summit" you meant "third highest", but that can't be right since Black Snout (number 2, you say) is lower than Faraway.
You mention views along one of the trails, but are those views from Roberts or from Faraway? You don't even mention the Ossipee Ten list.
1. I did transpose the order, by height, of two Ossipee summits, as Faraway is really #2 and Black Snout #3 (Shaw being #1). Still, it has been traditional to call Black Snout the "second summit" of the Ossipees at least since the 1870s Guide to the White Mountains by the great Moses Sweetser, who wrote:
"Black Snout is the second peak of the Ossipee Range, and is at the corners of the towns of Moultonborough, Sandwich, and Tamworth. It has received its present inelegant name from the adjacent rustics on account of its dark color, and also by reason of a supposed physical resemblance. As seen from the N. and N. W. this peak has a bold and symmetrical form, and is a tempting point for enthusiastic alpestrians, but the summit is so thickly wooded as to render the ascent useless."
Nothing has changed in 135 years, as I proved in a "useless ascent" to Black Snout a few weeks ago. Faraway is less dramatic from a distance, and also is a name that doesn't go back all that far - early 20th Century, it appears, and not to be found on all maps.
2. The Ossipee 10 list, devised a few months ago by my friend Jeremy (known as rocket21 here and on some New England hiking boards) with a little help from me and one or two others, may well be worth a mention, as working on it is a great way to see the best of the Ossipees and also a reason to hike to Faraway. I have just added a link to Jeremy's excellent page, in "External Links."
nartreb - Sep 28, 2008 6:13 pm - Hasn't voted
very confusing page(You couldn't have picked Mt Shaw or Black Snout for your first page??)
The question is not which is the true summit if you impose the AMC 200-ft col rule - everyone accepts that pt 2782 is higher than the southern bump(s) wich Roy and the USGS call "Faraway Mountain." The question is, which bump is called "Faraway Mountain"?
The AMC 200-ft col rule did not exist at the time Faraway Mountain was named, and I do not believe that the AMC 200-foot col rule grants anyone the power to rename a peak.
The USGS maps from 1930, 1965, and the latest map are all unequivocal: The name "Faraway Mountain" does not refer to 2782ft, it refers to (one of?) the two bumps half a kilometer due south of 2782ft (highest contours at 2700ft and 2720ft).
(The ca 1919 Colony Club map shows a lot of geography that is just plain wrong, so I can't draw any conclusions from it, even if you assume, as Roy does, that the Club named the peak and that therefore their map is authoritative with regard to the name.)
If someday the Ossipee Ten list gains popularity, then it may someday become common practice to refer to 2782 as "Faraway Mountain", analoguously to what has happened to Owl's Head because of the AMC's NH48 list. If that happens, this page can reflect that. But since the Ossipee Ten list was just invented a few months ago, I cannot support a page that attempts to rename a peak. The peak described on this page is Unnamed 2782, "Peak above Faraway Mountain."
One thing might make me change my mind:
" as a result of which some maps place "Faraway" down there."
Are there *any* maps, other than Trail Bandit's, that place "Faraway" at 2782?
On a strictly Summitpost-technicalities note, be sure to fill in the latitude and longitude (west longitude goes in as a negative number), and consider attaching this page to the Lakes Region. (Maybe the Ossipee ring should have its own Area/Range page, though.)
Amicus - Sep 28, 2008 11:59 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: very confusing pageHello Dave,
I remember well our hike to Eastman and the Baldfaces in June 2007. A bit of background: Over a year ago, RoySwkr, a pen pal and very accomplished New England hiker, tried to persuade me to join SummitPost so that I could "preempt" some other poster as to Green Mtn. in Effingham, NH, as to which Roy considered me to be an expert (because I've hiked it dozens of times). Flash forward: I hit a roadblock when I tried to register then and gave up, but I tried again today and all went smoothly. I may yet write up Green Mtn., but I was surprised to find the Ossipees - a more impressive set of mountains in that general vicinity - nearly a blank slate (but see my next paragraph, about "Lee Mtn."). Shaw would have made more sense, I suppose, but there happens to be a little dispute about Faraway, and I couldn't resist. (Black Snout is a useless 'whack - I'll get to a description of that in time, I expect.)
As to other maps that show x 2,782 as Faraway, look at any AMC map. Ditto the Trail Bandit (Bob G. - king of the Ossipees and of St. John, USVI) and his maps, Scudder's View Guide to the White Mountains and certain publications of the Lakes Region Conservation Trust, which owns the south end of the Ossipee Range and maintains the trails that take you to Faraway. Moreover, while I thought at first there were no previous posts on any Ossipee summit, on closer review, I discover that a fellow who calls himself "mtwashingtonmonroe" has posted a description of "Lee Mountain," which is the little-used name for the bump on which Tom Plant's "Castle in the Clouds" was built, 100 years ago. I quote from his description: "Also, if this mountain is not enough, there are plenty of other higher Ossipee Range peaks just to the northeast. They include Mount Shaw (highest in the range at 2,990 ft.), . . . . Faraway Mountain (2,782 ft.). . . ."
My Faraway account is a bit lame, I'll admit, esp. the crummy photos, but I'll do better. I've hiked all of the Ossipee summits with trails and a number of the trailless ones.
nartreb - Sep 29, 2008 4:32 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: very confusing pageIt's Dave... who is Al?
I have a couple editions of the AMC White Mountains maps, I'll check them tonight. (I'm hoping the Ossipees are included... I've never paid any attention to the Ossipees before.) Where can I find the Scudder and LRCT maps?
Britt (mtwashingtonmonroe) is a good guy but I doubt he did a whole lot of research on Faraway before writing that sentence.
nartreb - Sep 29, 2008 6:35 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: very confusing pageFaraway only shows up on one of my AMC maps, but there it clearly refers to 2782. This at least creates a reasonable dispute. So far I still lean toward Roy's side, but I think I'm withdrawing my objection to the name of this page.
As for why I give less weight to the AMC than to the USGS on this point: I took a look at Owl's Head, which is probably the closest analogue. I found some fascinating inconsistencies in the AMC's treatment of Owl's Head, which I'll describe in more detail on RoT (if I can make a login quickly) or VftT.
Amicus - Sep 29, 2008 7:11 pm - Hasn't voted
The real FarawayHello again Dave,
Our group hike was some time ago, and I knew that your "real name" wasn't Nartreb, but couldn't quite recall what it was - thought it might be "Al" for some reason.
Scudder's View Guide to the White Mountains (2d Ed.) is a terrific resource for anyone who hikes in New Hampshire and likes to know just what they're looking at, when they reach a summit. I've had the pleasure of hiking with Brent Scudder a couple of times and he is a marvel. One of his 54 peaks is Red Hill in Moultonborough, and if you look at his diagram for the view east from Red Hill, you'll see that he too considers x2,782 to be "Faraway." His book is for sale at Steve Smith's Mountain Wanderer in Lincoln, NH or you can Google Scudder's High Top Press and buy from him direct.
As you know, the merits of this little dispute have been hashed and rehashed at great length elsewhere, and I don't intend to summarize in detail the various arguments here. If you look at my last post on that other website on this topic, you'll find the excerpt from the Lakes Region Conservation Trust Newsletter that refers to Faraway as 2,782 feet tall. Since you put so much weight on the USGS maps, I should point out that "Faraway" is not even included in the USGS/US Board on Geographic Names, unlike a number of other Ossipee summits, so I suspect they were quite a bit more casual about where they put that word than they would be for a standardized name. Witness the impossibility of telling which of those "bumps" (if either) they may have had in mind - neither has an "x" or elevation.
I find the arguments for x2,782 overwhelming, but it's a free country and everyone can make up his or her own mind.
nartreb - Sep 30, 2008 4:11 pm - Hasn't voted
stepping backSetting aside the argument about the name for a moment, I think this page would benefit from a bit more explanation about what makes this place worth visiting. I thought by "third summit" you meant "third highest", but that can't be right since Black Snout (number 2, you say) is lower than Faraway.
You mention views along one of the trails, but are those views from Roberts or from Faraway? You don't even mention the Ossipee Ten list.
Amicus - Sep 30, 2008 5:12 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: stepping backYou make some good points.
1. I did transpose the order, by height, of two Ossipee summits, as Faraway is really #2 and Black Snout #3 (Shaw being #1). Still, it has been traditional to call Black Snout the "second summit" of the Ossipees at least since the 1870s Guide to the White Mountains by the great Moses Sweetser, who wrote:
"Black Snout is the second peak of the Ossipee Range, and is at the corners of the towns of Moultonborough, Sandwich, and Tamworth. It has received its present inelegant name from the adjacent rustics on account of its dark color, and also by reason of a supposed physical resemblance. As seen from the N. and N. W. this peak has a bold and symmetrical form, and is a tempting point for enthusiastic alpestrians, but the summit is so thickly wooded as to render the ascent useless."
Nothing has changed in 135 years, as I proved in a "useless ascent" to Black Snout a few weeks ago. Faraway is less dramatic from a distance, and also is a name that doesn't go back all that far - early 20th Century, it appears, and not to be found on all maps.
2. The Ossipee 10 list, devised a few months ago by my friend Jeremy (known as rocket21 here and on some New England hiking boards) with a little help from me and one or two others, may well be worth a mention, as working on it is a great way to see the best of the Ossipees and also a reason to hike to Faraway. I have just added a link to Jeremy's excellent page, in "External Links."
I've revised the page in light of your comments.