| Welcome to SP! - Sign-In | Register | ||
| | |
| MbPost.com -- It's SP for Mountain Biking! | ||
|
| mpbro | Elbert can't be right! | |
Hasn't voted | The "saddle" posted for Elbert is in California! Certainly Elbert couldn't have more than 5000 feet of prominence(?). Morgan | |
| Posted Apr 5, 2006 3:02 am | ||
 | ||
| RyanS | Re: Elbert can't be right! | |
Hasn't voted | This is actually correct, though perhaps counterintuitive if you're just looking at Elbert from the Arkansas River valley. Prominence by definition favors range highpoints. Since Elbert is the highest point in all the Rocky Mountains, you have to follow divide lines through WY's Wind Rivers, UT's Uintahs, & NV's Great Basin ranges all the way to California to find Elbert's key saddle with Mount Whitney & the Sierra Nevada. Elbert, of course, has a saddle with the high peaks of Mexico, as well, but this saddle is lower than Elbert's saddle with Whitney, so that's the one that defines Elbert's prominence. For more information, please refer to Bob's "Ultras" page (http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=174556), peaklist.org, and specifically to this map: http://peaklist.org/USPcells/P5000s/P5000cells.jpg | |
| Posted Apr 5, 2006 3:56 am | ||
| ||
| mpbro | Re: Elbert can't be right! | |
Hasn't voted | Ah, I see. I guess I like area of visbility as a definition of prominence, but this measure favors lone peaks in flat areas, like Mount Diablo in CA, which is not a great peak of the world by anyone's definition, but something like the 3rd most visible peak in the world. | |
| Posted Apr 6, 2006 1:06 am | ||
| ||
| RyanS | Re: Elbert can't be right! | |
Hasn't voted | Yes, to be most accurate, this is called "topographic prominence", which can vary from one's own idea of prominence :) How is area of visibility calculated? | |
| Posted Apr 12, 2006 4:23 am | ||
| ||
| mpbro | Re: Elbert can't be right! | |
Hasn't voted | Not sure how others do it. I once tried something where I traced straight rays from the earth's surface on a digital elevation model...like this. You can see that it's not rigorous, and doesn't account for geometric bugaboos like earth's curvature, varying ray density (on the earth) as a function of angle, etc. But it was a comical diversion and kept me daydreaming about the mountains in grad school. ;-) | |
| Posted Apr 12, 2006 7:28 pm | ||
| ||
| RyanS | Re: Sleepy Cat Peak | |
Hasn't voted | Oops, thanks for the heads-up, Scott! | |
| Posted Aug 29, 2006 12:52 am | ||
|
