| Welcome to SP! - Sign-In | Register | ||
| | |
| MbPost.com -- It's SP for Mountain Biking! | ||
|
| vvujisic | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Good and informative page! | |
| Posted Nov 30, 2005 10:37 pm | ||
| McCannster | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | cool | |
| Posted Nov 30, 2005 10:51 pm | ||
| Dean | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Is there a Sherlock Holmes Peak nearby? | |
| Posted Nov 30, 2005 11:25 pm | ||
 | ||
| Klenke | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | There ought to be a Holmes Peak, I do think. I think Roper and Myers chose not to call their Elementary Peak Sherlock or Holmes Peak because it is lower than Watson and Holmes was always the more prominent figure in the Doyle stories. Nearby Anderson Butte would make for a good page and so would/will Bacon Peak when I finally get around to climbing it. That was our main objective that weekend but the crusty/icy conditions on the north side of Watson nixed that. | |
| Posted Dec 1, 2005 12:01 pm | ||
| EastKing | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Great page!!!!! Look like you have had a ton more snow than last year. | |
| Posted Dec 1, 2005 4:04 am | ||
| saintgrizzly | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | I couldn't possibly vote less than 4 stars on any page containing "...strew of mountains." Besides, Holmes, it's a nice page! | |
| Posted Dec 1, 2005 4:09 am | ||
| ||
| Klenke | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Cool words are cool 'n stuff. Here's a cool weather-related one I stumbled on the other day: pogonip. Go grab your dictionary. | |
| Posted Dec 1, 2005 12:02 pm | ||
| ||
| saintgrizzly | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Hey, neat! So with about a foot of snow on the ground (which I assume is relevant to the condition), I looked out this morning to see the sun reflecting off the pogonip, couldn't see the town, but the nearby mountains rising above the fog were nicely lit. Pogonip, indeed! I'll spread the word--my work comrades will no doubt be quite impressed with my erudite verbosity. | |
| Posted Dec 1, 2005 2:33 pm | ||
| Gangolf Haub | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Good, Dr. Watson! Too bad about that boundary in the sig pic. Why don't you send me the originals and get the pano in return? Sherlock | |
| Posted Dec 1, 2005 6:10 am | ||
| ||
| Klenke | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | I usually don't care enough to worry about the merge lines on pano shots. But since this is a signature shot and you care, I'll send the two photos to you tonight. Maybe you can return them to me at two sizes: whatever the pixel width is after merging and then the 650 pixel width reduced version uploadable to SP. Tak. | |
| Posted Dec 1, 2005 11:58 am | ||
| mtwashingtonmonroe | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Nice page! -Britt | |
| Posted Dec 1, 2005 9:16 am | ||
| desainme | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Good page with further sluething possible. I think the highest point is the east peak at 48.656217 N -121.571090 W | |
| Posted Dec 1, 2005 10:29 am | ||
| ||
| Klenke | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Thanks for stopping by. I deleted your reply comment for the Overview section concerning the east summit's height because you missed the point. I want people to give their opinion on interpreting map anomalies. In terms of the three major summit points I do believe and agree with you that the east summit is probably the heighest but not by more than 50 feet. | |
| Posted Dec 1, 2005 11:55 am | ||
| Lee Stamm | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | Good job, Paul. | |
| Posted Dec 1, 2005 10:50 am | ||
| Scott | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | I already have a Mt. Watson page. Copycat. | |
| Posted Dec 1, 2005 10:53 am | ||
| ||
| Klenke | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Flattery is the sincerest form of imitation. | |
| Posted Dec 1, 2005 11:56 am | ||
| tazz | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | This Holmes is going to have to investigate! very well done thankyou. | |
| Posted Dec 2, 2005 2:13 am | ||
| Martin Cash | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | A great read. Nice job. | |
| Posted Dec 2, 2005 11:25 am | ||
| ||
| Klenke | Untitled Comment | |
Hasn't voted | Thanks for the vote, Martin. Please remember to upgrade your vote on Pugh page now that I have taken the stink out of it. I will be deleting your post addition to my height query because I don't want what you've said to bias others' opinion. But I agree you could be right. More than likely the arc is the 6240+ contour which disappears under the overlaying 6280+ contour because of the near verticality of the terrain. This is within plotting limitations (resolution limitations on screen) for the map. | |
| Posted Dec 2, 2005 12:22 pm | ||
| Don Nelsen | Untitled Comment | |
Voted 10/10 | You've outdone yourself with this great read. Well done. - Don | |
| Posted Dec 4, 2005 2:04 pm | ||
|
