Gardiner Basin Trip Report September 2017

If you've been searching for the best source of information and stimulating discussion related to Spring/Summer/Fall backpacking, hiking and camping in the Sierra Nevada...look no further!
User avatar
richlong8
Topix Expert
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:02 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: Gardiner Basin Trip Report September 2017

Post by richlong8 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:26 pm

Your trip reports are some of the best resources out there, and I am sure I referenced them in my planning. Much appreciated, I hope you get lots of traffic on your site. It is one of the best out there.








User avatar
richlong8
Topix Expert
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:02 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: Gardiner Basin Trip Report September 2017

Post by richlong8 » Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:14 am

CAMERONM wrote:The USGS 7.5' on Caltopo shows an "approximate" trail; it looks pretty obvious:
Screen Shot 2018-03-03 at 9.49.05 PM copy.jpg
I followed mainly the route shown on the old Mt. Pinchot map that came with the Wilderness Press Hiking Guide to Mt. Pinchot(OOP). The map shows the trail crossing the outlet of Charlotte Lake, then recrossing the creek, and staying on the right side all the way to the area where you head up to Gardiner Pass, and that trail is still easy to follow. I stayed somewhat to the left of the trail going up to the pass. This map shows the route not fording the main branch of Gardiner Ck 2x, which is the route I followed. At 60 Lakes Col, I zigzagged straight down instead of going left as shown on the map. Amazing that that old map is still pretty accurate, but many of these high elevation trails don't change that much.

Image

Remaining Photos:

Image
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
Shhsgirl
Topix Regular
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:44 am
Experience: N/A

Re: Gardiner Basin Trip Report September 2017

Post by Shhsgirl » Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:05 pm

I've been through Gardiner Basin a number of times, and never managed to find the cabin. Our party was a few days behind RichLong8, also camped at Charlotte, and the big spot opposite Charlotte Dome, but got caught in the snowstorm on our first night in the basin. We had to backtrack out over Gardiner Pass.

User avatar
nature calls
Topix Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:13 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

Re: Gardiner Basin Trip Report September 2017

Post by nature calls » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:16 pm

Hi - I have seen references to Lake numbers for Kings Canyon. (i.e. lake 10544). I can't seem to find a map or link that has these lake numbers on them....any tips on a map that has these 'lake numbers' would be appreciated!

thanks!

User avatar
wildhiker
Topix Expert
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:44 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Contact:

Re: Gardiner Basin Trip Report September 2017

Post by wildhiker » Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:12 am

A lake reference like "Lake 10544" refers to a lake with no name, but an elevation listed on the U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps (also viewable on many websites such as caltopo.com). Obviously, it is possible for more than one unnamed lake in the Sierra to have the same elevation, so generally you should provide some context, such as "Lake 10664 in the 20 lakes basin north of Saddlebag Lake".

There are also many unnamed lakes that do not have a precise elevation shown on the topo map. Generally, you can refer to them by estimating the elevation from the topo contour lines. Common practice is to use the closest contour line elevation that is at or below lake level, and then add a plus sign to indicate that the real elevation is a bit higher, for example, "Lake 10440+ above Lower McCabe Lake".

-Phil

User avatar
wsp_scott
Topix Acquainted
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:55 am
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker

Re: Gardiner Basin Trip Report September 2017

Post by wsp_scott » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:50 pm

If you look on Caltopo for Gardiner Basin, all the elevations are in meters. Hold your cursor over the actual lake and you can see the elevation in feet which makes it pretty easy to follow a trip report like this. I have no idea why some USGS maps are in meters and some in feet.

Really enjoyed the original trip report and also the one from 1991
My trip reports: backpackandbeer.blogspot.com

User avatar
Wandering Daisy
Topix Docent
Posts: 5075
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:19 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Fair Oaks CA (Sacramento area)
Contact:

Re: Gardiner Basin Trip Report September 2017

Post by Wandering Daisy » Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm

Those more knowledgeable can correct me if I am off base here. There was a big push in the late 1960's and 1970's for the USA to go metric. During a short period in that time, the USGS was finishing the 7.5 minute series maps, and the paper maps printed were in metric. I believe it was Regan that squelched the idea of going metric. USGS budget was also cut drastically, and fewer new 7.5 minute maps were made. I believe most paper maps have a metric grid and an overlying grid of T/R/Sec, where sections have been surveyed. Each "section" is roughly a square mile. Whether a paper map has metric or English elevation contours, has a lot to do with when it was made. I am not real fond of the 60 meter contour interval, since over years of backpacking when all maps were English units, I can visualize terrain with 40-foot contour lines much better than 60 meter lines.

Nowadays, remote sensing has developed to the point where map contours are drawn from DEM's (digital elevation models) derived from satellite data. With DEM's you can go either metric or English. Computerized map programs can easily convert from one to the other. I believe the maps you see on a program, like the old TOPO, are simply scanned off of the original USGS maps but calculations done when drawing a route line use the underlying DEM so can be reported either in metric or English. On my old TOPO programs I can specify which units I want.

User avatar
Lumbergh21
Topix Expert
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:11 pm
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker

Re: Gardiner Basin Trip Report September 2017

Post by Lumbergh21 » Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:22 pm

WD is spot on correct as usual. At least that's what I have read and experienced. And, I hate the metric contours as well. Not because I hate the metric system, as an engineer, I use it all the time. I prefer the contour lines in feet because they offer smaller gradations than the metric contour lines. What I really dislike is the alternating back and forth from one quad to the next. Also, I think CalTopo works the same way as the TOPO program that WD refers to.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: awesome, Harlen, steiny98 and 9 guests