the Nadelgrat really does not fit to the Dom, since the Dom is not one mountain of the Nadelgrat.
But I think, it is better to have the Nadelgrat as independent page because of 4 reasons:
1. The first reason is the same like the argument for the Monte Rosa page: people simply look for such a page. They do not want to look for every part of the ridge separately.
2. People look for this ridge because they find it in books descibed like a massif or a mountain.
3. If you want to add it as route to the mountains, you have to devide the description in many parts, because the Nadelgrat simply does not belong to one mountain but includes many mountains. So people, how are looking for the Nadelgrat, had to combine many little infos of the part of the Nadelgrat (like the part (Stecknadelhorn-Hohberghorn and Hohberghorn-Dürrenhorn etc.). Such a division would not be user-friendly at all.
4. We had to create mountain-pages on each "little" mountains of this ridge (like Stecknadelhorn or Dürrenhorn). But the tendency of the discussions of this forum is just the opposite: rather to make a mountain-page on a group of mountains instead of every single mountain (compare the discussion of the "Engelhörner": there especially alpenkalb stresses the method not to make too many single pages on each mountain). It would be the same here: we had to create pages on the Stecknadelhorn and the Dürrenhorn, which are not interesting for climbers at all except if they want to climb the Nadelgrat.
Yes, for the most part I agree with you. Just a couple of minor points.
Some consider (maybe very few) the "Nadelgrat" to include Dom. Specifically, read the description of the Nadelgrat at the end of the Lenzspitze page.
Regardless, the route description for the NE face of the Lenzspitze should probably not be placed on the Nadelgrat page, when a Lenzspitze page exists and the NE face is not part of the Nadelgrat (although one could arguably start it that way....).
I think that for many people (myself included) the climb of the beautiful NE face of the Lenzspitze is a primary objective, not necessarily the ridge connecting it to the Nadelhorn (or connecting it to the Stecknadelhorn, Hohberghorn or Dürrenhorn).
It would be great to return and do it though!
Maybe there should just be a page for the Mischabel peaks and include the Nadelhorn, Lenzspitze, Ulrichshorn, and the Nadelgrat there?
I have read the Lenzspitze page and could not find any passage which says that the Dom is part of the Nadelgrat. Have I missed anything?
But besides this, the Dom is in no way a summit of the Nadelgrat.
The route discription of the Lenzspitze northface should, of course, remain on the Lenzspitze page, since the northface is also not part of the Nadelgrat. Only if we had no page on the Lenzspitze this would be a question. But because we have one, the northface route belongs to that page.
And your last point: Yes, we could think about creating a massif page on the Mischabel massif (as we have one page about the Monte Rosa massif) in addition to the single mountain pages (not as replacement as the Monte Rosa page also does not replace the other pages on the different Monte Rosa peaks).
Well, yes, the NE face of the Lenzspitze as well as the Nadelgrat are great. I wanted to climb the face last summer. But the conditions of the rigde between Lenzspitze and Nadelhorn were not so good (too much snow). So instead we did the Fletschhorn northface - maybe this is even more beautiful than the Lenzspitze NE face.
I am really confused now: A few weeks ago, I read the Lenzspitze page. And if I remember correctly, the NE-face route of the Lenzspitze was attached to that page. Therefore, when I wrote the statement above, I had this in mind. But now, I have just seen, that the route discription is attached to the Nadelgrat page. Alpenkalb, have you changed it? I think it is better, if the route discription is attached to the Lenzspitze page, because people look for this route on that page, not on the Nadelgrat page. Maybe, you could move it!
The info on this page is great, but should be incorporated into existing pages - the Lenzspitze (the NE face route) and the Nadelhorn (for the Nadelgrat information under routes). It seems like the elevation given to "Nadelgrat" is that of the Nadelhorn, so I would suggest putting the information on that page. Another alternative would be on the Dom page as a route.
the Nadelgrat really does not fit to the Dom, since the Dom is not one mountain of the Nadelgrat.
But I think, it is better to have the Nadelgrat as independent page because of 4 reasons:
1. The first reason is the same like the argument for the Monte Rosa page: people simply look for such a page. They do not want to look for every part of the ridge separately.
2. People look for this ridge because they find it in books descibed like a massif or a mountain.
3. If you want to add it as route to the mountains, you have to devide the description in many parts, because the Nadelgrat simply does not belong to one mountain but includes many mountains. So people, how are looking for the Nadelgrat, had to combine many little infos of the part of the Nadelgrat (like the part (Stecknadelhorn-Hohberghorn and Hohberghorn-Dürrenhorn etc.). Such a division would not be user-friendly at all.
4. We had to create mountain-pages on each "little" mountains of this ridge (like Stecknadelhorn or Dürrenhorn). But the tendency of the discussions of this forum is just the opposite: rather to make a mountain-page on a group of mountains instead of every single mountain (compare the discussion of the "Engelhörner": there especially alpenkalb stresses the method not to make too many single pages on each mountain). It would be the same here: we had to create pages on the Stecknadelhorn and the Dürrenhorn, which are not interesting for climbers at all except if they want to climb the Nadelgrat.
Yes, for the most part I agree with you. Just a couple of minor points.
Some consider (maybe very few) the "Nadelgrat" to include Dom. Specifically, read the description of the Nadelgrat at the end of the Lenzspitze page.
Regardless, the route description for the NE face of the Lenzspitze should probably not be placed on the Nadelgrat page, when a Lenzspitze page exists and the NE face is not part of the Nadelgrat (although one could arguably start it that way....).
I think that for many people (myself included) the climb of the beautiful NE face of the Lenzspitze is a primary objective, not necessarily the ridge connecting it to the Nadelhorn (or connecting it to the Stecknadelhorn, Hohberghorn or Dürrenhorn).
It would be great to return and do it though!
Maybe there should just be a page for the Mischabel peaks and include the Nadelhorn, Lenzspitze, Ulrichshorn, and the Nadelgrat there?
I have read the Lenzspitze page and could not find any passage which says that the Dom is part of the Nadelgrat. Have I missed anything?
But besides this, the Dom is in no way a summit of the Nadelgrat.
The route discription of the Lenzspitze northface should, of course, remain on the Lenzspitze page, since the northface is also not part of the Nadelgrat. Only if we had no page on the Lenzspitze this would be a question. But because we have one, the northface route belongs to that page.
And your last point: Yes, we could think about creating a massif page on the Mischabel massif (as we have one page about the Monte Rosa massif) in addition to the single mountain pages (not as replacement as the Monte Rosa page also does not replace the other pages on the different Monte Rosa peaks).
Well, yes, the NE face of the Lenzspitze as well as the Nadelgrat are great. I wanted to climb the face last summer. But the conditions of the rigde between Lenzspitze and Nadelhorn were not so good (too much snow). So instead we did the Fletschhorn northface - maybe this is even more beautiful than the Lenzspitze NE face.
I am really confused now: A few weeks ago, I read the Lenzspitze page. And if I remember correctly, the NE-face route of the Lenzspitze was attached to that page. Therefore, when I wrote the statement above, I had this in mind. But now, I have just seen, that the route discription is attached to the Nadelgrat page. Alpenkalb, have you changed it? I think it is better, if the route discription is attached to the Lenzspitze page, because people look for this route on that page, not on the Nadelgrat page. Maybe, you could move it!
Last summer we did the integral version of the nadelgrat. Starting at the windjoch going all the way to the Galenjoch (at the other site of the Durrenhorn). I think this route also deserves attention on this page. It is signifficantly different from the routes described. Further, since the Durrenhorn couloir gets worse every summer, this might be more and more the safest and best route in the future.
If the editor wishes, I can provide information. Nice page by the way!
Rahel Maria Liu - Jan 9, 2002 12:51 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentHi David,
the Nadelgrat really does not fit to the Dom, since the Dom is not one mountain of the Nadelgrat.
But I think, it is better to have the Nadelgrat as independent page because of 4 reasons:
1. The first reason is the same like the argument for the Monte Rosa page: people simply look for such a page. They do not want to look for every part of the ridge separately.
2. People look for this ridge because they find it in books descibed like a massif or a mountain.
3. If you want to add it as route to the mountains, you have to devide the description in many parts, because the Nadelgrat simply does not belong to one mountain but includes many mountains. So people, how are looking for the Nadelgrat, had to combine many little infos of the part of the Nadelgrat (like the part (Stecknadelhorn-Hohberghorn and Hohberghorn-Dürrenhorn etc.). Such a division would not be user-friendly at all.
4. We had to create mountain-pages on each "little" mountains of this ridge (like Stecknadelhorn or Dürrenhorn). But the tendency of the discussions of this forum is just the opposite: rather to make a mountain-page on a group of mountains instead of every single mountain (compare the discussion of the "Engelhörner": there especially alpenkalb stresses the method not to make too many single pages on each mountain). It would be the same here: we had to create pages on the Stecknadelhorn and the Dürrenhorn, which are not interesting for climbers at all except if they want to climb the Nadelgrat.
Regards, Rahel
David P. - Jan 10, 2002 9:02 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentHi Rahel,
Yes, for the most part I agree with you. Just a couple of minor points.
Some consider (maybe very few) the "Nadelgrat" to include Dom. Specifically, read the description of the Nadelgrat at the end of the Lenzspitze page.
Regardless, the route description for the NE face of the Lenzspitze should probably not be placed on the Nadelgrat page, when a Lenzspitze page exists and the NE face is not part of the Nadelgrat (although one could arguably start it that way....).
I think that for many people (myself included) the climb of the beautiful NE face of the Lenzspitze is a primary objective, not necessarily the ridge connecting it to the Nadelhorn (or connecting it to the Stecknadelhorn, Hohberghorn or Dürrenhorn).
It would be great to return and do it though!
Maybe there should just be a page for the Mischabel peaks and include the Nadelhorn, Lenzspitze, Ulrichshorn, and the Nadelgrat there?
It's fun just thinking about those nice places.
All the best,
David
Rahel Maria Liu - Jan 11, 2002 12:07 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentHi David,
I have read the Lenzspitze page and could not find any passage which says that the Dom is part of the Nadelgrat. Have I missed anything?
But besides this, the Dom is in no way a summit of the Nadelgrat.
The route discription of the Lenzspitze northface should, of course, remain on the Lenzspitze page, since the northface is also not part of the Nadelgrat. Only if we had no page on the Lenzspitze this would be a question. But because we have one, the northface route belongs to that page.
And your last point: Yes, we could think about creating a massif page on the Mischabel massif (as we have one page about the Monte Rosa massif) in addition to the single mountain pages (not as replacement as the Monte Rosa page also does not replace the other pages on the different Monte Rosa peaks).
Well, yes, the NE face of the Lenzspitze as well as the Nadelgrat are great. I wanted to climb the face last summer. But the conditions of the rigde between Lenzspitze and Nadelhorn were not so good (too much snow). So instead we did the Fletschhorn northface - maybe this is even more beautiful than the Lenzspitze NE face.
Regards, Rahel
Rahel Maria Liu - Jan 11, 2002 12:13 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentI am really confused now: A few weeks ago, I read the Lenzspitze page. And if I remember correctly, the NE-face route of the Lenzspitze was attached to that page. Therefore, when I wrote the statement above, I had this in mind. But now, I have just seen, that the route discription is attached to the Nadelgrat page. Alpenkalb, have you changed it? I think it is better, if the route discription is attached to the Lenzspitze page, because people look for this route on that page, not on the Nadelgrat page. Maybe, you could move it!
Regards, Rahel
David P. - Jan 9, 2002 8:02 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentThe info on this page is great, but should be incorporated into existing pages - the Lenzspitze (the NE face route) and the Nadelhorn (for the Nadelgrat information under routes). It seems like the elevation given to "Nadelgrat" is that of the Nadelhorn, so I would suggest putting the information on that page. Another alternative would be on the Dom page as a route.
All the best from the flat Midwest,
David P.
Rahel Maria Liu - Jan 9, 2002 12:51 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentHi David,
the Nadelgrat really does not fit to the Dom, since the Dom is not one mountain of the Nadelgrat.
But I think, it is better to have the Nadelgrat as independent page because of 4 reasons:
1. The first reason is the same like the argument for the Monte Rosa page: people simply look for such a page. They do not want to look for every part of the ridge separately.
2. People look for this ridge because they find it in books descibed like a massif or a mountain.
3. If you want to add it as route to the mountains, you have to devide the description in many parts, because the Nadelgrat simply does not belong to one mountain but includes many mountains. So people, how are looking for the Nadelgrat, had to combine many little infos of the part of the Nadelgrat (like the part (Stecknadelhorn-Hohberghorn and Hohberghorn-Dürrenhorn etc.). Such a division would not be user-friendly at all.
4. We had to create mountain-pages on each "little" mountains of this ridge (like Stecknadelhorn or Dürrenhorn). But the tendency of the discussions of this forum is just the opposite: rather to make a mountain-page on a group of mountains instead of every single mountain (compare the discussion of the "Engelhörner": there especially alpenkalb stresses the method not to make too many single pages on each mountain). It would be the same here: we had to create pages on the Stecknadelhorn and the Dürrenhorn, which are not interesting for climbers at all except if they want to climb the Nadelgrat.
Regards, Rahel
David P. - Jan 10, 2002 9:02 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentHi Rahel,
Yes, for the most part I agree with you. Just a couple of minor points.
Some consider (maybe very few) the "Nadelgrat" to include Dom. Specifically, read the description of the Nadelgrat at the end of the Lenzspitze page.
Regardless, the route description for the NE face of the Lenzspitze should probably not be placed on the Nadelgrat page, when a Lenzspitze page exists and the NE face is not part of the Nadelgrat (although one could arguably start it that way....).
I think that for many people (myself included) the climb of the beautiful NE face of the Lenzspitze is a primary objective, not necessarily the ridge connecting it to the Nadelhorn (or connecting it to the Stecknadelhorn, Hohberghorn or Dürrenhorn).
It would be great to return and do it though!
Maybe there should just be a page for the Mischabel peaks and include the Nadelhorn, Lenzspitze, Ulrichshorn, and the Nadelgrat there?
It's fun just thinking about those nice places.
All the best,
David
Rahel Maria Liu - Jan 11, 2002 12:07 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentHi David,
I have read the Lenzspitze page and could not find any passage which says that the Dom is part of the Nadelgrat. Have I missed anything?
But besides this, the Dom is in no way a summit of the Nadelgrat.
The route discription of the Lenzspitze northface should, of course, remain on the Lenzspitze page, since the northface is also not part of the Nadelgrat. Only if we had no page on the Lenzspitze this would be a question. But because we have one, the northface route belongs to that page.
And your last point: Yes, we could think about creating a massif page on the Mischabel massif (as we have one page about the Monte Rosa massif) in addition to the single mountain pages (not as replacement as the Monte Rosa page also does not replace the other pages on the different Monte Rosa peaks).
Well, yes, the NE face of the Lenzspitze as well as the Nadelgrat are great. I wanted to climb the face last summer. But the conditions of the rigde between Lenzspitze and Nadelhorn were not so good (too much snow). So instead we did the Fletschhorn northface - maybe this is even more beautiful than the Lenzspitze NE face.
Regards, Rahel
Rahel Maria Liu - Jan 11, 2002 12:13 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentI am really confused now: A few weeks ago, I read the Lenzspitze page. And if I remember correctly, the NE-face route of the Lenzspitze was attached to that page. Therefore, when I wrote the statement above, I had this in mind. But now, I have just seen, that the route discription is attached to the Nadelgrat page. Alpenkalb, have you changed it? I think it is better, if the route discription is attached to the Lenzspitze page, because people look for this route on that page, not on the Nadelgrat page. Maybe, you could move it!
Regards, Rahel
wouterdev - Mar 31, 2009 4:38 pm - Hasn't voted
integral nadelgratHello,
Last summer we did the integral version of the nadelgrat. Starting at the windjoch going all the way to the Galenjoch (at the other site of the Durrenhorn). I think this route also deserves attention on this page. It is signifficantly different from the routes described. Further, since the Durrenhorn couloir gets worse every summer, this might be more and more the safest and best route in the future.
If the editor wishes, I can provide information. Nice page by the way!
Regards,
Wouter