I really like this addition, adds something for the # chasers. One question, what exactly is meant by "Parent"?
Brian Kalet - Aug 28, 2006 11:50 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Good Addition
Also reffered to as the nearest topographic highest peak, is the closest peak higher than the peak of interest along a connecting ridge. The col between the two peaks is the key col and used to determine the prominence of the peak. Should I add the following link to the table or define the terms in my page?Parent
Thanks for adding this to SP, along with your CA 14ers list. Accurate and consistent with what is actually ranked and what is simply named (using the 300 foot rule). Good reference for future climbs. By the way, I enjoyed the Little Bear trip w/ you--sorry I couldn't join you on Ellingwood/Blanca.
have the parent/miles from parent column? Seems to me to make your table more confusing. Otherwise great page! Cheers!
Brian Kalet - Sep 21, 2007 11:37 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Why
The saddle between the peak and parent determines the prominence, which dictates whether a peak is ranked. The miles from parent is also referred to as isolation. This is a parameter that is of interest to many peak baggers.
whose parent is Longs, appears to be 14, 056 feet over the notch of 13,920 giving it a prominence of 136 feet should be included I think. Figures are from Google Earth.
RyanS - Aug 25, 2006 6:22 pm - Voted 10/10
to make the blank cells look nicerinclude this code in the cell:
Brian Kalet - Aug 26, 2006 7:23 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: to make the blank cells look nicerThanks!
thebeave7 - Aug 28, 2006 10:33 pm - Hasn't voted
Good AdditionI really like this addition, adds something for the # chasers. One question, what exactly is meant by "Parent"?
Brian Kalet - Aug 28, 2006 11:50 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Good AdditionAlso reffered to as the nearest topographic highest peak, is the closest peak higher than the peak of interest along a connecting ridge. The col between the two peaks is the key col and used to determine the prominence of the peak. Should I add the following link to the table or define the terms in my page?Parent
thebeave7 - Aug 29, 2006 3:01 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Good AdditionIt might be nice for some of us who don't know all these terms.
Brian Kalet - Aug 29, 2006 5:25 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Good AdditionI've added a link from the table.
Brad Snider - Sep 4, 2006 3:57 pm - Voted 10/10
Great List!Thanks for adding this to SP, along with your CA 14ers list. Accurate and consistent with what is actually ranked and what is simply named (using the 300 foot rule). Good reference for future climbs. By the way, I enjoyed the Little Bear trip w/ you--sorry I couldn't join you on Ellingwood/Blanca.
-Brad
Brian Kalet - Sep 5, 2006 3:53 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Great List!Thanks!
The Little Bear trip was definitely an experience.
Hope all is well in VA.
Haliku - Sep 21, 2007 10:34 am - Hasn't voted
Whyhave the parent/miles from parent column? Seems to me to make your table more confusing. Otherwise great page! Cheers!
Brian Kalet - Sep 21, 2007 11:37 am - Hasn't voted
Re: WhyThe saddle between the peak and parent determines the prominence, which dictates whether a peak is ranked. The miles from parent is also referred to as isolation. This is a parameter that is of interest to many peak baggers.
desainme - Sep 21, 2007 1:10 pm - Voted 10/10
The Beaverwhose parent is Longs, appears to be 14, 056 feet over the notch of 13,920 giving it a prominence of 136 feet should be included I think. Figures are from Google Earth.
Brian Kalet - Sep 21, 2007 2:29 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: The BeaverI've added it. It appears that the most widely accepted name is "Southeast Longs" and the route that travels over it is called The Beaver. Thanks.
Klenke - Mar 24, 2008 8:51 pm - Hasn't voted
Mt. Rainier not attachedMt. Rainier appears to not be attached to this page for some reason.
Brian Kalet - Mar 25, 2008 2:02 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Mt. Rainier not attachedIt is now. Thanks.
Jeremy Hakes - Jan 28, 2009 5:44 pm - Voted 10/10
Great page.Good job, Brian. This is a great page!