Has anyone ever bothered to figure out the total elevation gain?

[chasegru]

I would think it's probably operator error or maybe equipment problems.

I should clarify, as we're already past the point of getting too deep in the weeds.

The 629K is based off of two sources of data. 1) The AT centerline .gpx file (no elevation data) and 2) the USGS small scale DEM data (applied to the .gpx file).

No GPS receiver elevation data (as GPS receivers are prone to losing signal) was used in obtaining this number, only USGS DEM data.

[Pedaling Fool]

I should clarify, as we're already past the point of getting too deep in the weeds.

The 629K is based off of two sources of data. 1) The AT centerline .gpx file (no elevation data) and 2) the USGS small scale DEM data (applied to the .gpx file).

No GPS receiver elevation data (as GPS receivers are prone to losing signal) was used in obtaining this number, only USGS DEM data.

Yeah, some how I glazed over this, as well as other posts, despite posting right after it.

In my case, drawn on topo software, with sample points every 0.05 miles. This is going to best gps units data which will cut in and out due to blind spots and the canopy.

As for sample points approach infinity/ elevation gain approaches infinity: not following your logic there... more sample points results in higher degree of accuracy, but not indefinite increase.

[Captain Blue]

chasegru - Do you have this information broken down by state or section?

Your numbers are quite amazing. These numbers show much higher total elevation gain than previously reported numbers which were, perhaps, estimates.

[fredmugs]

What happens to the female geographers then?

Would you take directions from a girl?

[chasegru]

Do you have this information broken down by state or section?

A quick (NOBO) breakdown comes out to:
Springer to Damascus, VA- 177177' of Ascent; 177633' of Descent
Damascus, VA to Fayetteville, PA- 188136' of Ascent; 190381' of Descent
Fayetteville, PA to Bennington, VT- 109261' of Ascent; 108955' of Descent
Bennington, VT to Katahdin- 155325' of Ascent; 151654' of Descent

I've attached some screen shots with the profile, if anyone wants/needs a specific section's profile breakout, I'll be happy to oblige.

[LDog]

A quick (NOBO) breakdown comes out to:
Springer to Damascus, VA- 177177' of Ascent; 177633' of Descent

Interesting stats ... 3844 calories/day ...

[chasegru]

Interesting stats ... 3844 calories/day ...

Only for a moderate/slow pace, 195 day hike

[10-K]

Only for a moderate/slow pace, 195 day hike

Carrying a 40# pack....

[LDog]

Only for a moderate/slow pace, 195 day hike

Hope this simple spreadsheet holds up to formatting

Sec Cals Days Cal/day
1 153792 40 3844.8
2 187413 50 3748.26
3 160547 50 3210.94
4 182866 55 3324.84
195 3532.21 (Avg)

I see. The total days on the trail were 194. Average caloric requirement was 3532/day, and it looks like calorie requirements decreased? I would have expected greater calorie requirements thru the NE?

[Graywolf]

Ok we have discussed the AT. So what about the Pacific Crest Trail and Continental Divide Trail?

THEN...

Combine together and you have your elevation gain for the Triple Crown.

This is actually an interesting thread...

[Feral Bill]

Would you take directions from a girl?

I take it you're single.

[rickb]

As for sample points approach infinity/ elevation gain approaches infinity: not following your logic there... more sample points results in higher degree of accuracy, but not indefinite increase.

Imagine a ten foot cross cut saw blade held horizontally.

Now measure the elevation gain an ant would encounter were he to walk up and down the teeth.

Even over 10 feet his elevation gain would be substantial.

[chasegru]

Ok we have discussed the AT. So what about the Pacific Crest Trail and Continental Divide Trail?
THEN...
Combine together and you have your elevation gain for the Triple Crown.

Gotcha covered (see attachments)

NOBO CDT total elevation gain-457340 ft
NOBO CDT total elevation loss-457770 ft

NOBO PCT total elevation gain-753190 ft
NOBO PCT total elevation loss-752160 ft

and (once again)
NOBO AT total elevation gain-628900 ft
NOBO AT total elevation loss-628620 ft

So: NOBO Triple Crown gain-1,839,430 ft
NOBO Triple Crown loss- 1,838,550 ft

All number created using the same methodology-small scale DEM data applied to .gpx files

[The Old Fhart]

chasegru-"As for sample points approach infinity/ elevation gain approaches infinity: not following your logic there... more sample points results in higher degree of accuracy, but not indefinite increase."

Chasegru is correct. The theory behind integral calculus teaches that as the number of samples approaches infinity, the value of the integrated data approaches some finite asymptotic value, not infinity. The large the number of samples, the more accurate the answer will be.

Imagine a hiker going from Springer to Katahdin. Their hiking speed may go up or down over the entire distance but their speed never reaches infinity.

[garlic08]

Gotcha covered (see attachments)

NOBO CDT total elevation gain-457340 ft
NOBO CDT total elevation loss-457770 ft

NOBO PCT total elevation gain-753190 ft
NOBO PCT total elevation loss-752160 ft

and (once again)
NOBO AT total elevation gain-628900 ft
NOBO AT total elevation loss-628620 ft

So: NOBO Triple Crown gain-1,839,430 ft
NOBO Triple Crown loss- 1,838,550 ft

All number created using the same methodology-small scale DEM data applied to .gpx files

Well, this is very interesting news. The PCT is now nearly as steep as the AT! Until a few moments ago, I'd only heard that the AT had nearly twice as much climbing per mile as the PCT, something like 220 ft/mile for the AT vs 120 for the PCT. At least that's what all the AT hikers who thought the PCT was an easier trail always told me.

[Wise Old Owl]

Fair Question: the data comes from USGS Digital Elelvation Model data. NOBO calculated from a NOBO .gpx file. And SOBO calculated from a SOBO .gpx file.

So... you are correct NOBO descent should equal SOBO ascent and vice versa. You'll notice the numbers are within 100 feet of each other, and the difference reflects...oh we'll call it the tolerance (fudge factor). After all, we can't even agree on how long the damn thing is in miles...

I admit it's silly to provide this number down to the foot. Better stated:
NOBO Ascent/ SOBO Descent: approx. 629850 ft
NOBO Descent/ SOBO Ascent: approx. 628600 ft

I will agree with this as I have made numerous caculations on Google Earth and noticed an "error" of 30 to 90 feet in several directions including up and down.

[Wise Old Owl]

I take it you're single.

Spoken as a true knowledgeable Feral Man.

[azb]

The snow is the difference. Many SOBO hikers start early in the Spring and encounter snow on the peaks. Even a few inches of snow added up over many vertical miles of climbing add up. The NOBO hikers don't encounter the snow, so the overall elevation for them is lower.

Simple really.

Az

[Theosus]

I wonder... I keep hearing the total elevation gain from ascents being equivalent to X amount of Everest summits. Typically it is 14-17. However, having watched an Everest show the other day, I discovered most people fly up to base camp, around 9000', where they wait around a bit before hiking up to the 14,000' level, where they hang out for weeks to let their bodies adjust. So, a typical Everest summit is only 20,000', not the full 29,000 feet. This means we should up the number of "Everest summits" we can compare a successful AT completion... Since in reality climbers are only doing 2/3 of the mountain. Of course that's 2/3 more of Everest than I would want to do, I'm not diluting their accomplishments at all.

[Kookork]

That estimate was total hiking I've done--not just the AT.

Your estimate means you have hiked equal to six AT thru hike,right? about 13000 miles