A description of elevation gain is given. Armed with it, logical arguments are presented for how the current elevation gain rules might be modified. Although the arguments are just the author's, he feels that given the insight provided by the current description, any reasonable person would be led to the same conclusions regarding modification of the current elevation gain rules.⁴

The chief proposed modification is a climbing route-dependent evaluation of elevation gain for the purposes of maintaining the FRL (Front Runner List) elevation gain categories. To expedite this change, there follows a list of 5,000+ foot elevation gain routes for county highpoints. This list stands alone, providing valuable route information independently of its use in the corresponding 5,000+ foot FRL elevation gain category.

Elevation gain is central to assessing the effort of climbing a mountain. Since the chief obstacle in reaching a summit is often the physical labor required, it is reasonable to use elevation gain as a yardstick for personal climbing achievement.

The physical effort attached with elevation gain is correlated with the extent of uphill travel, including possible uphill travel on return from the summit. This so-called TOTAL elevation gain is unquestionably the metric used when elevation gain is invoked as a measure of human climbing effort.

If anybody doubts the close association of effort with TOTAL elevation gain, let them climb the same flight of stairs one hundred times. The NET gain will be zero (see below), yet the total gain is substantial.

Elevation gain is also a measure of the "change in viewshed" afforded the climber as he proceeds from trailhead to summit. Here, changes in NET elevation are responsible for a sense of pleasure attached with the knowledge than one has traveled high in pursuit of a grand and often spectacular vista.

When elevation gain is used as a measure of change in viewshed, it is NET elevation gain that is the appropriate metric.

Elevation Gain Definitions and Examples

TOTAL elevation gain is the sum of ALL uphill travel for a given route. A trail that weaves up and down without gaining net elevation will nevertheless have a substantial total elevation gain. This definition is not to be confused with the narrow, constrained definition provided in the current elevation gain rules.

The physical effort of traversing this route is greater than the effort required to traverse a perfectly level route. If fact, additional effort is applied by the hiker for even the shortest of uphill sections. This observation is used below in the discussion of proposed changes to the current elevation gain rules.

NET elevation gain is the difference in elevation between the highest and lowest point on a route. The lowest point may not be the trailhead, and, although unusual, the highest point may be not even be the summit. Said elevation difference is the appropriate yardstick for assessing elevation gain in terms of the corresponding change in viewshed; ecological lifezones; and overall sense of personal accomplishment.

Net elevation gain poses certain advantages over total elevation gain in certain peculiar scenarios that do (example 1) or might (example 2) arise in practice. In both examples, the use of net elevation gain (appropriately) excludes recognition of the two hikes in the corresponding records categories.

Example 1 - A backpacking trip of several weeks duration, e.g. hiking the Appalachian Trail. During the journey a hiker passes over innumerable little hills, descends into several valleys, and generally never reaches a substantial mountaintop ... until near the very end. Said mountain supports a trail system that, were it to be climbed for its own sake, would require just 3,000 feet of elevation gain. However the hiker has accumulated over 20,000 feet of TOTAL elevation gain during his soujourns, even though the net elevation is far less.

A NET elevation gain criterion (appropriately) precludes counting this hike as a "5,000+ foot" effort for said mountain. An exception arises if the net elevation gain for the entire backpack exceeds 5,000 feet, such as would occur in walking from the Hudson River Valley (160 feet) to the summit of either Mount Washington or Mount Mitchell. In that case one would appropriately count the backpack as constituting a 5,000+ foot effort on said mountain.

Example 2 - A person decides to "pad" his 5,000+ foot elevation gain statistic in the FRL by repeatedly walking up and down the same sixty-foot high slope one hundred times. The total elevation gain is 6,000 feet, while the net elevation gain is just sixty feet. Appropriately, said effort is excluded from consideration in the relevant elevation gain category if said category is based upon NET elevation gain.

Relationship between Net and Total Elevation Gain

The total elevation gain of a route equals the net elevation gain plus twice the sum of all elevation differences encountered during downhill travel.

Suppose a route begins at 9,000 feet and summits at 13,000 feet. The net elevation gain is 4,000 feet. A section at 12,000 feet descends to 11,500 feet prior to resuming the uphill direction. Twice the elevation difference for this downhill segment equals 1,000 feet. Adding, the total elevation gain is 5,000 feet, i.e. the total amount of UPHILL travel is 5,000 feet.

Elevation Gain is a Route-Dependent Construct

There are often multiple routes to climb a given mountain, each route demanding a specific degree of physicality that is DIFFERENT from the remaining routes. Although the mountain's presence ensures the existence of multiple routes in the first place, the degree of effort is determined by the route selected. In particular, the required effort is NOT ascertained solely by the mountain's identity.

Numerous examples may be cited, and logical arguments provided, for why the elevation gain, be it either the net or total flavor thereof, is a property of the route and not of the mountain.

I repeat:

Elevation Gain is a Property of the Route

The current elevation gain rules define the elevation gain for climbing a mountain, REGARDLESS OF THE ROUTE EMPLOYED, based upon the elevation gain for a specific route, namely, that unique route with the lowest total elevation gain from a trailhead which is accessible by a high-clearance, two-wheel-drive motor vehicle (henceforth this route shall be referred to as simply the "2WD route").

What a stilted and biased rule!! It is "stilted" because one has to "jump through hoops" to define the specific trail through convoluted and arbitrary rules based on vehicle type. It is "biased" because the specific trail must have the LEAST total elevation gain - rather than say, the most popular; or the most conveniently located.

We MUST do away with a single-valued elevation gain for a given mountain, based in turn on the current 2WD route prescription. Such a stilted, unsupportable (and unpopular) rule is the result of trying to straightjacket what is inherently a route-dependent entity, elevation gain, into a single value for all routes on a given mountain. Frankly, it is nonsensical and I am surprised that the current rule has survived so long without being seriously contended.

In late August 2004 I initiated a discussion group thread on revamping the 5,000+ foot elevation gain categories, based in turn upon route-dependent gain criteria. My original, detailed message is provided here as a parody between a climber who ascended more than 5,000 feet and yet did not receive credit in the FRL because a higher starting point exists from a different trailhead. You are encouraged to read that original message.

In response to my post, counterarguments were made that maintaining a list of climbing routes would be difficult, tedious, time consuming. Therefore, the argument went, we should retain the status quo and insist that every route on a mountain be accorded the same elevation gain value insofar as determining credit for the corresponding FRL category.

I base my arguments upon logic, not on how much work is involved to generate a route list! The amount of work to produce a list of climbing routes along with their respectively elevation gains is definitely NOT excessive. Indeed, this web page includes below just such a list.

During that discussion thread I also detected that the majority of county highpointers did not understand the issues involved, to the point that were a vote for change be made, the votes would come largely from people without a sound grasp of the relevant arguments provided here.

This web page largely exists so that highpointers can understand the issues and therefore cast their votes wisely.

The first four categories are distinguished by whether the 2WD route requires 5,000+ feet of total elevation gain, and possibly of net elevation gain as well. Of these four categories, The first two correspond to highpoints that constitute valid 5,000+ foot ascents under the current elevation gain rules. The third and fourth categories correspond to the ADDITIONAL highpoints on which credit for a 5,000+ foot ascent MAY be forthcoming should the suggested, route-dependent elevation gain rules be instituted.

The final, fifth category is not defined in terms of the 2WD route.
Therefore a mountain in this fifth category could also be listed on exactly ONE
of the first four categories.

I have labored to rewrite these descriptions as simply as the topic will allow - but no simpler.

1. The highpoint requires at least 5,000 feet of total elevation gain
   and at least 5,000 feet of net elevation gain using the 2WD route
   (cf total elevation gain rules).
   Any alternate routes also require at least 5,000 feet of total elevation gain,
   and although likely, not necessarily at least 5,000 feet of net elevation gain.
   An example is Mount Rainier in Washington state.
   These highpoints are colored red on the elevation gain map.

2. The highpoint requires at least 5,000 feet of total elevation gain
   but less than 5,000 feet of net elevation gain using the 2WD route
   (cf total elevation gain rules).
   Any alternate routes also require at least 5,000 feet of total elevation gain,
   and although unlikely, might require at least 5,000 feet of net elevation gain.
   An example is Mount of the Holy Cross in Eagle County, Colorado.
   These highpoints are colored red on the elevation gain map.

3. The highpoint requires less than 5,000 feet of both total elevation gain
   and net elevation gain using the 2WD route (cf total elevation gain rules).
   The highpoint requires at least 5,000 feet of both total elevation gain
   and net elevation gain by at least one documented, popularly traveled route.
   An example is climbing San Gorgonio of San Bernardino County, California,
   using the Vivian Creek Trail.

4. The highpoint requires less than 5,000 feet of both total elevation gain
   and net elevation gain using the 2WD route (cf total elevation gain rules).
   The highpoint requires at least 5,000 feet of total elevation gain
   but less than 5,000 feet of net elevation gain by at least one documented,
   popularly traveled route. Few highpoints will belong in this category.
   This category includes the "problem scenario", described above, of an
   Appalachian Trail hiker who serendipitously climbs a mountain but without 5,000 feet
   of net elevation gain. Since this scenario is not in the spirit of the
   elevation gain FRL categories, it is reasonable to CONSIDER exclusion of highpoints
   in this category.
   This fourth category concludes the four possible permutations of net and total
   elevation gain (over and under 5,000 feet) for the 2WD route.
   Thereby, these four categories necessarily include all possible cases.

5. The highpoint requires at least 5,000 feet of total elevation gain
   using any other route that has been both described and successfully employed
   to attain the highpoint. An example is climbing Mauna Kea from sea level.
   In theory any highpoint could belong in this category - the highpointer merely
   has to repeat the same length of trail a sufficient number of times to yield
   a total elevation gain of at least 5,000 feet - a scenario alluded to above.
   Upon description of his route, A DESIGNATED ARBITER shall decide if said
   route is in the spirit of highpointing as distinct from simply an attempt to "pad"
   one's 5,000 foot front runner list (FRL) statistic.
   Some would argue that the highpoint should require at least 5,000 feet of NET
   elevation gain, thereby eliminating the possibility of repeated up-and-down activity
   to pad one's count. However the probability of padding by this means is low, and is
   certainly lower than the probability of attaining a highpoint with more than
   5,000 feet of total elevation gain yet less than 5,000 feet of net elevation gain.
   To accomodate the latter, more likely scenario while eliminating the former,
   the use of A DESIGNATED ARBITER appears preferred
   to disallowing counting sub-5,000 foot net elevation gain efforts entirely.
   The use of a designated arbiter is largely obviated if the group as a whole
   were to vote upon requiring 5,000 feet of NET elevation gain.
   Unfortunately said decision excludes a small number of VALID efforts,
   e.g. climbing Mount Wilson, the Dolores County, Colorado highpoint,
   from the Woods Lake Trailhead - a 5,766 foot total elevation gain and yet with
   only 4,846 feet of net elevation gain.⁵
   (This concludes the description of each elevation gain category.)

For a given state, highpoints falling in the same category as
defined above are listed in descending order of their summit elevations.

For a given highpoint, routes are listed in descending order of their total elevation gains.

Colors on the elevation gain map correspond to the total elevation gain using the 2WD route
(cf total elevation gain rules).

Note: These rules described below are a suggestion for how to govern the 5,000+ foot FRL category, and are subject to discussion, deliberation and eventual agreement by the county highpointing group. In a nutshell, these rules are tentative only!!

Any route successfully employed to climb a highpoint with at least 5,000 feet of total elevation gain will fall into one of the first four categories above, and as such is listed there. Provided a highpointer used that route, his 5,000+ foot FRL statistic may be incremented by one.

Should NET elevation gain become tracked as an FRL category distinct from TOTAL elevation gain, the above 5,000+ foot lists can be used to ascertain when credit is accorded in said NET elevation gain category.

Should a vote come that results in no separation of the FRL into NET and TOTAL gain categories, I maintain that the resulting single category be based upon TOTAL elevation gain. I recommend that TOTAL elevation gain be the criterion for FRL value incrementation because it, and not NET elevation gain, corresponds most closely to the physical effort of climbing a mountain.

NET elevation gain falls short of TOTAL elevation gain, seeing as it measures items that in my (singular) opinion, are of secondary importance - change in viewshed, life zones, and overall sense of accomplishment upon realizing the summit. That said, and as noted above, both Edward Earl and myself prefer tracking both types of elevation gain in the Front Runner List. Edward's opinion here is essential because HE is the individual who would have to do the paperwork required to maintain multiple elevation gain FRL categories.

In reference to TOTAL elevation gain, the following rules are proposed -

• If a highpoint is attained but without 5,000 feet of total elevation gain
  as set down in the elevation gain rules, the highpointer cannot increment
  his 5,000 FRL value even though the highpoint is listed here.
  An example is driving up Pikes Peak to the summit parking lot.

• A hike of at least 5,000 feet total elevation gain in-and-of-itself has no value
  insofar as incrementing one's 5,000+ foot elevation gain FRL value.
  An example is a cross-country traverse of hilly terrain without any of the hills
  comprising a 5,000+ foot ascent if climbed by itself. In ambiguous cases
  A DESIGNATED ARBITER shall render judgement.

• Multiple ascents of at least 5,000 feet total elevation gain of the SAME highpoint,
  even if performed by different routes each time,
  do not allow the highpointer to further increment his 5,000+ foot FRL value.

• On a hike wherein multiple highpoints are reached, at least two of which support
  5,000 feet of elevation gain if climbed by itself, the highpointer is allowed to
  increment by ONE his 5,000 foot FRL value IF the corresponding highpoint was not
  previously used to increment his 5,000+ foot FRL value.
  However if the total elevation gain for
  the hike is at least 10,000 feet, the highpointer is allowed to increment by TWO
  his 5,000+ foot FRL value ... and so on for higher multiples of 5,000 feet,
  provided, again, that the corresponding (pair, triplet etc...) had not been
  previously used to increment his 5,000+ foot FRL value.