Welcome to SP!  -

[ Post a Comment ]
Viewing: 1-10 of 10    

KlenkeUntitled Comment

Klenke

Voted 10/10

A good addition.

Rather sparse in the Overview. When you get that geologic data, you might add it in. I don't have my book with me that says something about it.

You could and should mention something about the features of the peak: that there is more than one 'summit', that it is largely forested, where good views can be had, and things of that nature. It is the sparseness that reduces the star number in my vote.
Posted Jun 3, 2005 10:33 pm

DuseksUntitled Comment

Duseks

Hasn't voted

Thanks for the advice Klenke, you always keep me in check. I am in the process of updating this page, I know its a bit sparce at the moment considering how much there is the Chukanut. Bear with me for a little while I continually be upgrading. Thanks again your advice is always appreciated.



-Scotty
Posted Jun 4, 2005 11:20 am

DuseksUntitled Comment

Duseks

Hasn't voted

Klenke,



I think I've succesfully met your demands :) actually it's been done for quite a while I just forgot to reply. Check it out if you get the chance.



-Scotty
Posted Nov 27, 2005 8:31 pm

KlenkeUntitled Comment

Klenke

Voted 10/10

The page is very nice now.

Typo in overview, paragraph 1: two commas in a row without info between them. Delete spurious comma.

Typo in overview, paragraph 3: "it's" should be "its"

Typo in overview, paragraph 4: i before e except after c...receive

Typo in overview, paragraph 4: "pare" should be "part"

Typo in geology section, para 1: "preassure" should be "pressure." Same error occurs in first paragraph of Ecosystem section

Typo in geology section, para 1: in parentheses, "chuckanut mountain" should be "Chuckanut Mountain." Always capitalize proper names.

Geology section suggestion: I had never heard of stilpnomelane before (what a word!). Perhaps you could link to a page on this mineral. Here is one you can use. There are several others online.

Geology section, last paragraph: Chuckanut Mountain does not constitute a "range" so instead of saying "the chuckanut range is..." say "the Chuckanut mountains are...." Note lower case "mountains" since they aren't considered a "Mountains" as in a range/subrange, etc.

Typo in last paragraph: "destabilized" should be "destabilizes"

Ecosystem section, para 1: "19th century" should be "19th Century"

Ecosystem section, para 1, 2nd sentence: use "mountain" in lieu of "range"

Next sentence: "hault" should be "halt"

Next sentence: "Blanchard Hill" should be "Blanchard Mountain"

Ecosytem, para 2: "Chuckanut and Blanchard Mountains" should be "Chuckanut and Blanchard mountains." You don't capitalize when the inclusive noun applies to both proper nouns.



And now a nitpick or two:

Blanchard Mountain is part of the Chuckanut Mountains though I agree tenuously. The map confirms as much. So I think "Blanchard" is a provisional/local name only. That is, I don't think the USGS recognizes it. You could make some mention that Blanchard is a part of the Chuckanut Mountain massif. After all, it is the highest point.

Which brings me to my second nit:

Blanchard's summit is 2,300+ ft, not 2,286 ft. The latter may be some old value based on an old map. Topozone clearly shows a 2300 contour. Since Blanchard is 2,300+ ft and since I believe it is part of Chuckanut Mountain, that is the elevation value you should put in for the page.



Cheers. Hope you don't freeze up there in the 'ham this weekend.



Posted Nov 28, 2005 3:26 pm

DuseksUntitled Comment

Duseks

Hasn't voted

Thanks for the feedback, lot's of typos, thanks for catching them. All corrections made (i think). I guess I'd like to see what you think, I know the map shows the 2,300 contour which would higher than the stated height. The reason I have 2,286 is because that was the balance of my Altimeter and GPS, neither of which showed over 2,300. I'm inclined to say they just rounded up and my measure is more precise. I also try to favor first hand info, thoughts?



-Scotty
Posted Nov 28, 2005 5:27 pm

KlenkeUntitled Comment

Klenke

Voted 10/10

Go with what the map says: 2300+ ft.
Posted Nov 28, 2005 11:59 pm

DuseksUntitled Comment

Duseks

Hasn't voted

Thanks for the vote Rad.



-Scotty
Posted Dec 8, 2005 9:40 pm

gimpilatorFragrance Lake

gimpilator

Voted 10/10

I was up at fragrance lake the other day. I'm no rock climbing expert but it looked like there were some nice walls on the north side of the lake. Have you done any climbing up there?
Posted May 17, 2007 11:20 am

DuseksRe: Fragrance Lake

Duseks

Hasn't voted

Yeah I topped roped that cliff early in my college career, but never went back. My friend Andrew used to practice aid climbing there. It's definitely a known spot. Take some pics, throw a top rope over that thing, and gather a little more beta from the locals (try AAI) and put up a page. Also if you could grab some Sehome Hill pics it would fill my pace out nicely, (it's a bit of journey for me these days). If you're interested in some of the "secret spots" PM or just explore.

-Scotty
Posted May 17, 2007 3:57 pm

ericnoelReal Good Page

ericnoel

Voted 10/10

Very nice page. One minor correction- the state park no longer has any parking fee as this has been dropped just like it has at all WA State Parks.
Posted Mar 9, 2008 10:47 pm

Viewing: 1-10 of 10    
[ Return to 'Chuckanut Mountain (B'ham Crags)' main page ]