| Welcome to SP! - Sign-In | Register | ||
| | |
| MbPost.com -- It's SP for Mountain Biking! | ||
Wasatch Range (Central) > Wasatch 11,000 foot peaks > Comments
|
| RyanS | quads, too! | |
Voted 7/10 | Quadrangles would be an excellent addition as well. | |
| Posted Feb 13, 2006 7:42 pm | ||
| Ammon Hatch | Prominence | |
Hasn't voted | I'm using the same 200 feet of prominence rule as the Wasatch Mountain club. North Timp and (do you mean North Nebo?) just slipped my mind. I'll get some figures in there as soon as I can. Ryan, By quads do you means just list the quad it is in or actually put up the quads? | |
| Posted Feb 13, 2006 8:16 pm | ||
 | ||
| Ammon Hatch | Re: Prominence | |
Hasn't voted | Thanks. I only have a list for the peaks in SL county and was just adding the others as I ran across them. I knew that the north peak of nebo was the highpoint, but I meant North Peak, which does belong on the list anyway. | |
| Posted Feb 14, 2006 1:27 am | ||
| MrWasatch | Another 11er? | |
Hasn't voted | If we're going off of 200 feet of prominence, where does un-named 11,040+ (maybe called 11,060) just west of Monte Cristo along Cottonwood Ridge rate? The saddle between it and Monte Cristo shows as 10,840+ (10,860)? Any thoughts? | |
| Posted Mar 3, 2006 6:12 pm | ||
| ||
| Ammon Hatch | Re: Another 11er? | |
Hasn't voted | I just assumed I wouldn't have to worry about any peaks inside salt lake county, as I have a list of peaks with 200 feet of prominance in my Hiking the Wasatch book. There are still some down south I haven't put in, and I'll look into this one as well. | |
| Posted Mar 7, 2006 5:36 pm | ||
| Scott | "South Timpanogos" | |
Hasn't voted | Minor error: I assume "South Timpanogos" should be elevation 11,722 instead of 11,750? PS, it's also known as the "Second Summit". | |
| Posted Sep 17, 2007 10:32 am | ||
| ||
| Ammon Hatch | Re: "South Timpanogos" | |
Hasn't voted | I'll trust you on that one. I don't remember where I got the 11750 figure, but the prominence figure for it is probably wrong too then.. | |
| Posted Sep 19, 2007 2:26 pm | ||
| ||
| Scott | Re: | |
Hasn't voted | Nope, the prominence is right. I think you repeated the main summit (#2 on the list) elevation twice (11,750 or on some maps 11,749). Map 11,750 is for the main summit and the south one or "Second Summit" is 11,722. Anyway, looks fixed. Nice list. | |
| Posted Sep 19, 2007 3:42 pm | ||
| seanpeckham | Chipman Peak | |
Hasn't voted | Does the unranked one under #15, "Unnamed 0.4 west of Pfeifferhorn" refer to Chipman Peak, or something else? It's not traditionally considered prominent enough to count, so the ~200 listed would likely be at least a slight overestimate. | |
| Posted May 30, 2008 2:47 pm | ||
| ||
| Ammon Hatch | Re: Chipman Peak | |
Hasn't voted | No, it refers to the peak centered in the topo here: http://www.mytopo.com/maps.cfm?mtlat=40.5326&mtlon=-111.7132&z=15 Chipman peak is neither an 11er, or prominent in any significant fashion. | |
| Posted May 31, 2008 7:22 pm | ||
| ||
| seanpeckham | Re: Chipman Peak | |
Hasn't voted | Ah, thanks. I had a view of the area yesterday and realized there are two minor peaks between Pfeifferhorn and S. Thunder, not one like I'd thought; the more prominent unnamed one must be the one I thought was Chipman. | |
| Posted Jun 1, 2008 1:31 pm | ||
|
