Also, you should rename it Pk 4755 (or Peak 4755) instead of Point 4755 in parentheses as "Cub" has more than 400P (595P to be exact) so is its own mountain, at least in my book. You would satisfy me and my peakbagging soul.
Where did the name "Cub Peak" come from, per chance?
Canoe Peak (Pk 5706) so you are perfectly justified just calling it Cub Peak.
Basically, I reserve Points (Pts) for topographic summits with less than 400 feet of prominence and Peaks (Pks) as those with greater than or equal to 400 feet of prominence. 400 feet is the standard cut-off, or should be the standard, for Washington state. When I do my annotated images, I usually write identifiers like this:
5 -- "Cheops" (Pk 8270)
if the peak has an unofficial name that is not known by very many people
or
7 -- Frostbite Peak (Pk 5240+)
(no quotations) for peaks with a more commonly accepted name even if it does not appear on maps.
Obviously, which of the two foregoing example types apply to any given mountain is often a judgment call.
Nice work. I added NPS website to the links section. You might consider putting the link into the text for info on Red tape and stuff. I like checking websites before I start calling phone numbers.
Klenke - Jun 7, 2005 12:54 am - Voted 8/10
Untitled CommentNeeds Topozone coords.
Here they are: 47.5378 -123.2930
Also, you should rename it Pk 4755 (or Peak 4755) instead of Point 4755 in parentheses as "Cub" has more than 400P (595P to be exact) so is its own mountain, at least in my book. You would satisfy me and my peakbagging soul.
Where did the name "Cub Peak" come from, per chance?
Klenke - Jun 7, 2005 9:18 pm - Voted 8/10
Untitled CommentI was recommending this as the name:
Cub Peak (Peak 4755)
or
Cub Peak (Pk 4755)
to be slightly shorter.
But my Canoe Peak page is not written as
Canoe Peak (Pk 5706) so you are perfectly justified just calling it Cub Peak.
Basically, I reserve Points (Pts) for topographic summits with less than 400 feet of prominence and Peaks (Pks) as those with greater than or equal to 400 feet of prominence. 400 feet is the standard cut-off, or should be the standard, for Washington state. When I do my annotated images, I usually write identifiers like this:
5 -- "Cheops" (Pk 8270)
if the peak has an unofficial name that is not known by very many people
or
7 -- Frostbite Peak (Pk 5240+)
(no quotations) for peaks with a more commonly accepted name even if it does not appear on maps.
Obviously, which of the two foregoing example types apply to any given mountain is often a judgment call.
Gangolf Haub - Jun 7, 2005 11:37 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentGood page, whether point or peak. I'd like to know about the cub, too.
Corax - Jun 7, 2005 1:46 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentGood page.
Nice photos from a beautiful area.
vvujisic - Jun 7, 2005 3:42 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentCongratulations to your nice page!
Rob - Jun 7, 2005 8:08 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNice work. I added NPS website to the links section. You might consider putting the link into the text for info on Red tape and stuff. I like checking websites before I start calling phone numbers.
wildstar - Jun 8, 2005 4:23 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNice work.
paule - Jun 8, 2005 6:33 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNice page with very good descriptions.
2skinners - Jan 6, 2006 7:47 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentGood page for there not being much info available on this peak. Thanks.