Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^Being near Mountain scenery is probably a weak point for Minneapolis, and for that matter Chicago and Detroit.
Minnesota does have mountains in the Lake Superior area. They are gently sloped and not much to look at (NYC probably has more dramatic mountains in its suburbs alone), although Eagle Mountain way up north is over 2,000 feet.
Chicago and Detroit each have some glacial hills (terminal moraine) in their suburbs. I guess they would be similar to the small hills here on Long Island. In addition, the terminal moraine continues into Wisconsin where there are more hiking trails in spitting distance from Chicago.
Also, a poster was talking about Adirondacks distance compared to White Mountains in Boston. Doesn't NYC hit Hudson Highlights, Taconics, Poconos, Catskills, Berkshires all before Adirondacks?
Height can be misleading, base to height is more important. None are taller as Eagle Mountain in Minnesota, but in base to top change they are. The Hudson Highlands are cliffier and rise more in a short distance
Also, a poster was talking about Adirondacks distance compared to White Mountains in Boston. Doesn't NYC hit Hudson Highlights, Taconics, Poconos, Catskills, Berkshires all before Adirondacks?
Also, a poster was talking about Adirondacks distance compared to White Mountains in Boston. Doesn't NYC hit Hudson Highlights, Taconics, Poconos, Catskills, Berkshires all before Adirondacks?
But Nei is correct, I was talking about dramatic scenery. I could be wrong but I do not think Minneapolis has anything like the Hudson Highlands, the Delaware Water Gap or the Catskill Escarpment on its doorstep.
As for your second question, all those mountains are indeed a huge asset for NYC. There is a huge amount of public land available for New Yorkers. The White Mountains are taller then the Adirondacks but you can fit the entire state of New Hampshire into the Adirondack Park alone. Not to mention other extensive public lands in the Catskills, the Berkshires, the Poconos and in the NYC suburbs in New York and New Jersey.
I'll add that the highest peaks of the Adirondacks are about the same distance from Boston as NYC, so they count for both.
You do see Massachusetts license plates in the Adirondacks, although they are dwarfed by amount of Canadian plates (Montreal is very close). And New Yorkers of course go to the White Mountains and the New Hampshire Lake region. New Yorkers also go to Cape Cod and the islands.
By road I would say Boston is 35 to 40 miles further out from the Adirondacks. I am estimating this by distance from NYC and Boston to Albany, which you need to pass by first. It looks like Bostonians could also take I-89 to get to the Adirondacks but then you would have to cross on a ferry across Lake Champlain so I have no idea if that way is common. It is however, a very scenic road trip through New Hampshire and Vermont.
I do not think anyone mentioned the Green Mountains of Vermont, which are available to Bostonians and New Yorkers as well. Big for skiing in the winter.
Height can be misleading, base to height is more important. None are taller as Eagle Mountain in Minnesota, but in base to top change they are. The Hudson Highlands are cliffier and rise more in a short distance
I need to extend my knowledge in mountains so I'm asking to make sure, basically what you are saying is the Hudson is taller in prominence correct?
I need to extend my knowledge in mountains so I'm asking to make sure, basically what you are saying is the Hudson is taller in prominence correct?
Not really sure about prominence so I would let Nei speak for himself. But I will say the Hudson Highlands rise dramatically from near sea level at the Hudson River. To put matters in perspective, Storm King Mountain rises up about the same distance as Devil's Tower rises in Wyoming (famous for Close Encounters of the Third Kind).
Not really sure about prominence so I would let Nei speak for himself. But I will say the Hudson Highlands rise dramatically from near sea level at the Hudson River. To put matters in perspective, Storm King Mountain rises up about the same distance as Devil's Tower rises in Wyoming (famous for Close Encounters of the Third Kind).
Well whenever I hear people say the height figures are misleading regarding mountains it's usually something one the line of elevation figures being flawed and that prominence is what should be looked at. But I don't know, don't have that much knowledge on the topic.
I need to extend my knowledge in mountains so I'm asking to make sure, basically what you are saying is the Hudson is taller in prominence correct?
Not quite, because prominence measures from the summit to the furthest contour line it doesn't share with a taller peak. Could be a few miles in a valley, or hundreds of miles away. So it's not always the best measure. Rise from base to peak within a short distance is the best way to put it, but it's a hard to quantify number.
Not quite, because prominence measures from the summit to the furthest contour line it doesn't share with a taller peak. Could be a few miles in a valley, or hundreds of miles away. So it's not always the best measure. Rise from base to peak within a short distance is the best way to put it, but it's a hard to quantify number.
so what is the best way to measure a mountain: rise from base to peak, elevation, or prominence?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.