Welcome to SP!  -

[ Post a Comment ]
Viewing: 1-12 of 12    

CharlieUntitled Comment


Voted 10/10

You even included the USGS quad! I wish everyone would do this on US pages. I find it much more common for the EU pages to have maps listed than US pages.

Posted Feb 8, 2002 1:10 pm

ScottUntitled Comment


Voted 10/10

Posted Apr 15, 2004 7:31 pm

HalikuUntitled Comment


Voted 8/10

Edit: Adjusted vote while page is being updated.
Posted Jun 26, 2005 11:59 pm

CoraxUntitled Comment


Voted 10/10

Abandoned page.

Helping adoption with a low vote.

Please tell me when updates are made and I'll up the vote.



That's what I call a facelift!

Great looking page now!

Cheers, Corax.
Posted Oct 11, 2005 4:44 am

sshankleAnother Tragedy


Hasn't voted

Another Tragedy
Posted Feb 22, 2006 7:49 pm

osatrikformat of first section


Voted 7/10

Your Dickerman page seems to have a formatting problem. You might try playing around with the options for the first photo, so the description doesn't end up in a huge, long narrow column that is hard to read.
Posted Sep 1, 2006 5:59 am

gimpilatorRe: format of first section


Hasn't voted

Thanks Rik. That's good to know. In my internet browser everything looked great but there was some funky html involved. I took it out. Does it look better now?
Posted Sep 1, 2006 2:29 pm

osatrikRe: format of first section


Voted 7/10

Posted Sep 2, 2006 5:57 am

gimpilatorRe: Nice page!


Hasn't voted

Thank you kindly! Dickerman was my first SP page and my favorite hike for several years.
Posted Nov 8, 2006 3:13 pm

KlenkeElevation 5760+, not 5723


Hasn't voted

Dickerman's highest point is a 5760+ contour. The 5723 spot mark must refer to (be inside of) the small oblong 5720+ contour immediately west of the HP.
Posted Feb 25, 2010 2:57 pm

gimpilatorRe: Elevation 5760+, not 5723


Hasn't voted

Every map and source of information I have claims 5723. How can I verify your claim and / or where did you get your information?
Posted Feb 26, 2010 8:05 pm

KlenkeRe: Elevation 5760+, not 5723


Hasn't voted

Uh, the map. There is an obvious 5760+ contour at the summit. This kind of thing happens all of the time.

Note also that it's Dickerman Mountain on the map, not Mt. Dickerman. But most people refer to it as Mt. Dickerman so your choice is acceptable.

Is the point of the elevation setting on SP to denote the highest point as seen on a map (in which case 5760+) or the highest point by some convention, which may be based on an error propagated throughout time? I tend to let the map do the talking...unless it is a known fact that the map is in error (like Cadet Peak).
Posted Feb 26, 2010 10:08 pm

Viewing: 1-12 of 12    
[ Return to 'Dickerman Mountain' main page ]