| Welcome to SP! - Sign-In | Register | ||
| | |
| MbPost.com -- It's SP for Mountain Biking! | ||
Longfellow Mountains > Northeast Alpine Peaks > Comments
|
| tioga | Camel's Hump | |
Hasn't voted | I think Camel's Hump in Vermont definitely is considered an Alpine Peak, especially if Killington Peak is included also. Camel's Hump has a lot more open area than Killington. Also, I added a picture to your list of Mt Mansfield and it's Alpine vegetation. Thanks for the list. -tioga | |
| Posted Jul 14, 2008 12:55 pm | ||
 | ||
| cbucker | Re: Camel's Hump | |
Hasn't voted | WOW..... mistake, so sorry. I had always intended on including Camels hump (it holds 2nd most alpine acreage in VT). I must have just forgot to put it in. Thanks for the catch. | |
| Posted Jul 14, 2008 2:50 pm | ||
| birdny | links | |
Voted 10/10 | Nice page and good info. Most of those peaks listed have summit post pages, it would be nice to have them linked in the article. Otherwise good work! | |
| Posted Jul 25, 2008 6:50 pm | ||
| ||
| cbucker | Re: links | |
Hasn't voted | Thanks for the kudos, I know, I should have made all the links but there are about 70 links to put in. So it may take a while haha. | |
| Posted Jul 29, 2008 11:18 am | ||
| nartreb | could be a lot more useful | |
Voted 7/10 | 1. Why are peaks listed in the given order? It's not by altitude and it doesn't seem to be by area of tundra. 2. Are you using a prominence criterion? (Why is moosilauke listed but not moosilauke's south peak?) 3. In addition to providing links to mountain pages, and maybe small photos of each mountain, it would be useful to "show your work" - state, in a sentence or two, why it qualifies. For example, why is Cannon listed? If having cliffs or slides is sufficient, then Webster, Lowell, and many more belong on the list. And if viewing platforms count for providing 360 degree views, then Carrigain belongs on the list too (has krummholz zones on Signal Ridge). PS what about Monadnock? | |
| Posted Feb 17, 2009 11:41 pm | ||
| ||
| cbucker | Re: could be a lot more useful | |
Hasn't voted | There is not specific order given, I suppose ordered by height would be easy enough, so that may change soon. I have very, very few, If any at all sub- peaks listed. It is contained within the overall mountain. Cannon I debated over for a while, and decided to add it, there will always be 'fringe' qualifiers for any list and I explicitly wrote my criteria for deciding who stays and who goes. Also, Dumb overlook, Monadnock is added. Thanks, Buck | |
| Posted Mar 26, 2009 9:17 am | ||
| ||
| nartreb | Re: could be a lot more useful | |
Voted 7/10 | You might be interested in this list. I'm still not sure I understand your criteria, but I suspect that most of the peaks on that list would qualify for yours. Also, it seems your primary interest is ecological. If the goal is educational, why not give links to more info about the various ecosystems and species? | |
| Posted Mar 26, 2009 10:03 am | ||
|
