Wallowa Mountains > Aneroid Mountain > CommentsAneroid Mountain Comments
[ Post a Comment ]
|
| bigwally | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Great page, with good photos. Thank you sooo much for putting your efforts into this one !!!!!!! | |
| Posted Dec 25, 2002 3:15 pm | ||
![]() | ||
| rpc | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Thank you for the excellent vote!!! The Wallowas of eastern Oregon are a spectacular place. Though not kknown so much for technical rock climbing, they offer some of the best backpacking and scrambling opportunities in the state (our humble opinion). I believe they have the densest cluster of 9000' peaks in the state. radek | |
| Posted Dec 26, 2002 9:47 am | ||
| dsnell | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Good work! I'll have to check out this mountain on my next trek out west. | |
| Posted Jan 9, 2003 9:06 pm | ||
![]() | ||
| rpc | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Thank you for the good vote! | |
| Posted Jan 10, 2003 9:20 am | ||
| rpc | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Thank you for the good vote. rpc | |
| Posted Jan 23, 2003 1:36 pm | ||
| Klenke | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | RPC, I am curious as to whether it should be Aneroid Peak or Aneroid Mountain, not that it really matters either way. My maps all say Aneroid Mountain. A search on the web brings up Aneroid Mountain the majority of the time, but Aneroid Peak some of the time too. I have always referred to it as Aneroid Mountain. --Paul | |
| Posted Jan 24, 2003 2:52 pm | ||
![]() | ||
| rpc | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Paul, thanks for the vote. I think it was the OR snowshoe book that referred to it as Aneroid "Peak". Not sure what the USGS maps say. I'll make a note of it on the page. Radek | |
| Posted Feb 10, 2003 4:35 pm | ||
![]() | ||
| Klenke | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Radek, The mountain is indeed called Aneroid Mountain, not Aneroid Peak. See the Topozone link (USGS map). You really should change the name (and other textual references to it). The snowshoeing book is wrong. Also, on the Main Page in the first paragraph you list the other 9,000-ft Wallowa peaks in parentheses. You should note that many new peaks have since been added to SP. You could include those new ones too...unless it looks like clutter. --Paul | |
| Posted Nov 9, 2004 11:57 pm | ||
![]() | ||
| rpc | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Paul, I've made the suggested modifications....I agree that the page needed some updating (it was my first SP submission many many years ago ;) Let me know if you see anything else that might need an update/correction. thnx. radek | |
| Posted Nov 10, 2004 2:39 pm | ||
| peakbagger4 | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Nice!! | |
| Posted Sep 24, 2003 8:54 am | ||
![]() | ||
| rpc | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | thanks Jay! | |
| Posted Sep 24, 2003 5:27 pm | ||
| rpc | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Thank you for the vote. | |
| Posted Mar 29, 2004 4:20 pm | ||
| tlogan | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Great page... very thorough and informative as always. | |
| Posted Apr 29, 2004 5:23 pm | ||
![]() | ||
| rpc | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Thank you for the good vote. | |
| Posted Apr 29, 2004 5:55 pm | ||
| rpc | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Thanks for the good vote. | |
| Posted Oct 25, 2004 12:30 pm | ||
| rpc | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Thanks for the good vote. | |
| Posted Nov 19, 2004 1:42 pm | ||
|
