| Welcome to SP! - Sign-In | Register | ||
| | |
| MbPost.com -- It's SP for Mountain Biking! | ||
|
| truchas | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | I guess the general concensus is to leave the page even if it is unclimbable so I am upping my vote. Since you cannot add route information then the page is about as complete as it can get. | |
| Posted Mar 20, 2005 9:24 pm | ||
 | ||
| CharlesD | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Interesting! Sounds like you've been through the ringer on this one. However, I disagree about whether it should be on SP (though I can certainly see both sides of the issue). If we're trying to provide a clearing-house of information about mountain climbing, your beta seems like critically important information that people should be aware of. However, it's not my page and I can see going either way on it. Too bad, it looks like an interesting peak. CD | |
| Posted Mar 20, 2005 10:18 pm | ||
| ||
| Alan Ellis | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 8/10 | Also, ATTM checked into climbing it. He asked the rangers at the visitor center who told him it was absolutely forbidden to enter that part of the refuge. Believe me, if it was possible to legally climb this mountain, ATTM and I would have found a way. | |
| Posted Mar 21, 2005 8:23 am | ||
| ||
| splandswest | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Although the Mt Sheridan page is still under construction... I have emphasized CAUTION regarding trespassing. Thanks for you imput. | |
| Posted Mar 21, 2005 2:33 pm | ||
| ||
| truchas | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Be sure and add this to the Wichita Mountains group. | |
| Posted Mar 24, 2005 11:46 am | ||
| hgrapid | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | It is nice to idenitfy an unclimbable peak, but if I can't climb it, than I can't summit it. | |
| Posted Mar 20, 2005 9:51 pm | ||
| ||
| hgrapid | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | The maintainer e-mailed me wanting to get rid of this page. | |
| Posted Mar 23, 2005 1:38 pm | ||
| ||
| truchas | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Hey, could you take another look at this page and re-evaluate? He's made some updates and the concensus is a peak on private property has its place on SummitPost. | |
| Posted Oct 30, 2005 12:00 pm | ||
| Alan Ellis | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 8/10 | I'm upping my vote per consensus. However, you lose a star for not having a detailed route description to the summit (because you haven't climbed it). Also, the page needs contact info for the Refuge and a better description on how to get to the Wildlife Refuge. | |
| Posted Mar 20, 2005 9:57 pm | ||
| CharlesD | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | I disagree. If climbing Sheridan will get you shot or imprisoned, it seems like this information is vital for people who might want to climb it. Under SP's mission as an mountain information clearing-house, this seems very important. You can't climb Culebra or Jerimoth Hill (except under very controlled conditions), but they're still on SP. (edit: this page has improved quite a lot since the original votes were cast. I agree with attm; this page is about as complete as it's going to get. Thanks for spurring such an interesting bit of discussion.) Just my two cents. | |
| Posted Mar 20, 2005 10:16 pm | ||
| ||
| truchas | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Culebra is climbable with permission. This peak is not. It's pretty obvious that this peak cannot be climbed without having a SummitPost page. There is a 10 ft. high game fence with no trespassing signs. | |
| Posted Mar 20, 2005 10:57 pm | ||
| ||
| CharlesD | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | I think this is a very interesting discussion and something that should reach a wider audience. I've started a thread on Site Feedback. | |
| Posted Mar 21, 2005 12:49 pm | ||
| ||
| splandswest | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Although the Mt Sheridan page is still under construction... I believe I have now emphasized CAUTION regarding trespassing. Thanks for you imput. | |
| Posted Mar 21, 2005 2:33 pm | ||
| Kane | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 5/10 | The page has improved and props for editing the page for the better. Ditto Lower Marmot's comments. | |
| Posted Mar 20, 2005 10:35 pm | ||
| ||
| truchas | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | The mountain has a 10 ft. high game fence with no trespassing signs. I doubt anyone would mistake this peak for one that is climbable. | |
| Posted Mar 20, 2005 10:56 pm | ||
| ||
| CharlesD | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | I think this is a very interesting discussion and something that should reach a wider audience. I've started a thread on Site Feedback. | |
| Posted Mar 21, 2005 12:50 pm | ||
| ||
| splandswest | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Although the Mt Sheridan page is still under construction... I have emphasized CAUTION regarding trespassing. Thanks for you imput. | |
| Posted Mar 21, 2005 2:32 pm | ||
| mtwashingtonmonroe | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | OK! | |
| Posted Mar 21, 2005 10:12 am | ||
| ||
| CharlesD | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Yo Britt, I don't know if you've been following the discussion on this one, but the general consensus has shifted from attms original vote. The page has improved a lot and you might want to revisit this one. | |
| Posted Mar 23, 2005 12:17 pm | ||
| ||
| mtwashingtonmonroe | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Thanks Charles for the heads up. I'll check it out! Have a good one Charles! -Britt | |
| Posted Mar 23, 2005 12:52 pm | ||
|
