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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
Charlie - Feb 8, 2002 1:10 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentYou 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.
Thanks
Scott - Apr 15, 2004 7:31 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentBetter.
Haliku - Jun 26, 2005 11:59 pm - Voted 8/10
Untitled CommentEdit: Adjusted vote while page is being updated.
Corax - Oct 11, 2005 4:44 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentAbandoned page.
Helping adoption with a low vote.
Please tell me when updates are made and I'll up the vote.
**********
Wow!
That's what I call a facelift!
Great looking page now!
Cheers, Corax.
sshankle - Feb 22, 2006 7:49 pm - Hasn't voted
Another TragedyAnother Tragedy
osatrik - Sep 1, 2006 5:59 am - Voted 7/10
format of first sectionYour 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.
gimpilator - Sep 1, 2006 2:29 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: format of first sectionThanks 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?
osatrik - Sep 2, 2006 5:57 am - Voted 7/10
Re: format of first sectionYUP!!
gimpilator - Nov 8, 2006 3:13 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Nice page!Thank you kindly! Dickerman was my first SP page and my favorite hike for several years.
Klenke - Feb 25, 2010 2:57 pm - Hasn't voted
Elevation 5760+, not 5723Dickerman'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.
gimpilator - Feb 26, 2010 8:05 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Elevation 5760+, not 5723Every map and source of information I have claims 5723. How can I verify your claim and / or where did you get your information?
Klenke - Feb 26, 2010 10:08 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Elevation 5760+, not 5723Uh, 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).