Oregon 2,000 ft Prominence Peaks Comments
[ Post a Comment ]
|Dean||The first completion|
|of all the Oregon prominence peaks was accomplished by Dennis Poulin, the author of this list so he knows each peak/mountain |
better than anyone else. A few others have done 48 or more, myself, Bob Bolton and Ken Jones but only one has completed them all. Congrat's to Dennis for a notable accomplishment.
|Posted Sep 5, 2006 5:19 am|
|Klenke||"+" on Strawberry|
|Nice addition. I intend to make such a page for Washington but I'm a procrastinator. Maybe you could append a "+" after Strawberry's height as it's 9,040+ ft.|
|Posted Sep 5, 2006 6:51 pm|
|Dennis Poulin||Re: +|
|Thanks, the "+" has been added. This list is turning into a lot of work. What did Dean get me into here?|
|Posted Sep 5, 2006 8:59 pm|
|This thing is really coming along, I especially like the Pedro Mt entry! I'd be willing to bet whoever owns that land wouldnt mind you hiking on it at all if you could find out who it is. Once I get a few more of these P2K's I'll have to ask you to add me to the list. Dennis, I wondered why you were so persistent in fighting your way into Big Craggies, I guess this list explains that!|
BTW, since when is Strawberry Mt 9040+? This is the first time I have read that.
|Posted Sep 11, 2006 12:45 am|
|Dean||Re: Great page!|
|Dennis actually finished the list when "Sheepshead" mountain was the 73rd member of the list. Then the powers that be revamped the list, dropped Sheepshead (all the way in eastern Oregon between Burns and Burns Jct) and added Big Craggies. Rather than claim the "grandfather" clause, Dennis went out and got Big Crag. ato finish the list for a second time. Go ahead and let us know how many P2K's you've got, Dennis will add your total to the list. |
I don't know how you'd figure out who owns the land for Pedro, but hopefully I've given enuff info that you can figure out how to get it.
|Posted Sep 11, 2006 2:47 am|
|calebEOC||Re: Great page!|
|I am currently at a meager 12, hope to add at least a few this winter snowshoeing and of course a few more around Sisters here before the snow even hits.|
Any chance you can get an image up for Blue Mountain? Last time I was that far SE I was like 10, and have no idea what it looks like.
|Posted Sep 11, 2006 3:01 am|
|Dean||Re: Great page!|
|12 is a good start. I went through my pics and I have none for Blue. It is very obvious from Burns Junction but perhaps Dennis has a shot. Next time I go to Winnemucca, I'll get a shot of Blue from the road. I seem to hit that stretch in the dark.|
|Posted Sep 11, 2006 3:16 am|
|Lots of info!|
|Posted Sep 11, 2006 7:15 pm|
|Dean||Re: Awesome work|
|On behalf of Dennis and myself, thank you. More info will continue to be added to make this as helpful as we can to those who might be interested in chasing the Oregon list. Thanks to Greg Slayden and his helpful www.peakbagger.com website and to www.peaklist.com as well. Those guys made a big difference and helped make many of us aware of this stuff.|
|Posted Sep 12, 2006 4:38 am|
|MoapaPk||8 buck chuck|
|I went to the top of eight dollar mountain in 1979, to sample the nickel laterites. Followed a road to the top!|
|Posted Sep 12, 2006 4:48 am|
|What a page! Congrats. Looks like there are a lot of peaks you can add still to SP, Dennis? Nice job, this is quite comprehensive and a great source of beta, thanks!|
|Posted Sep 19, 2006 7:06 pm|
|Dennis Poulin||Re: Wow|
|Hey Brian, I enjoyed your last TR impressing your girlfriend. She sounds like a keeper to me. Dean and I made a judgment call that a lot of these peaks on this page are not really SP worthy. Driving to the summit on a paved road just doesn't earn a SP page in my book. I know that is your kind of mountain and you will find a difficult Class 5 route, but that isn't my thing. Stay in touch. Do you want to go to Denali next Spring?|
|Posted Sep 19, 2006 10:07 pm|
|A few very minor details, not ones that are worth worrying about, but still I'll point them out just as an FYI:|
Big Lookout is E=7080+
Pueblo is E=8632
Scott is E=8929
Washington is E=7794
Drake is E=8407
King is E=5264
Yainax is E=7222
You may have to change some prominence figures due to different elevation figures; I didn't check those as there are too many ways to figure prominence to make a comparison.
One other possible addition that I'll just throw out there is that you might want to add a note in your text that Carpenter is not necessarily the prominence peak in that area. Carpenter is 5349 and Lookout Mtn is 5320+ with a 40 ft contour so it could possibly be as high as 5360. Probably Carpenter is higher, but it could be helpful to note this so that those who worry about such details know about it and can pick off Lookout Mtn on the same trip.
All of the above though is small nitpicking. One thing that you really should do before all that is add Red Mtn and Mt. Tom. If a person only climbs the 73 peaks listed then there is about a 40% chance that he's climbed the P2000s in Oregon. If you climb the 73 plus those 2 more then you've increased the chances to 99%. Because of that, they really need to be listed here.
Don't wanna sound like it isn't a great page, because it already is. But those additions could potentially make it even better, an 11 out of 10.
|Posted Nov 24, 2006 7:14 am|
|Bob Bolton||Re: Minutae|
|Eric, good catch on the Lookout Mtn. near Carpenter. It would be easy to miss that because of the BM at the 5276' elevation that makes it look like the summit is measured. Dean, looks like we've got another trip to make into that region. I'll bring my wife and we should do it on a perfect day in the afternoon for the best light on the big volcanoes. I'd like to take her to the summit of Carpenter anyway. -Bob|
|Posted Nov 25, 2006 7:13 am|
|Gives 76 of the P2000 for Oregon. Are there some disputed ones?|
|Posted Dec 26, 2006 1:16 pm|
|There are two additional on that list that I am aware of but if you look at the column for "clean"prominence given they are under 2000 feet. Mt. Tom (1966) and Red Mountain (1960) are listed primarily as the actual elevation could change by a few feet at some future date and so a margin of error of 40 to 80 feet is factored in. That should be a bit confusing (it is to me)|
An example of a recent change occurred in 2005. Big Craggies wasn't one of the original 73 (now at #62) and one called Sheepshead (would be #76 now) in eastern Oregon both changed after close inspection of where the actual saddles were found. It was found that Big Craggies actually had more prominence than realized and Sheepshead had less. Now I had made a long trip along with Dennis Poulin to get Sheepshead but after they (the guys who have done all the research) discovered their errors, the list changed and our trip was for naught. Big Craggies jumped into the 73 that had 2000 feet of prominence and it may be one of the toughest to do on the list. See Dennis Poulin's description of his effort on that one.
Thanks for mentioning this as I'll notate on the overview that the first 73 on the list are the ones that count in our "tangled" little web of prominence chasing.
|Posted Dec 26, 2006 2:20 pm|
|Bob Bolton||Re: Peakslist.org|
|A bit more clarification may be in order. Note that the list of 76 is divided into two parts. Those in the first list of 73 have clean prominence as Dean mentioned. This simply means that their prominence is provably over 2000 feet (based on the USGS topographic maps). Bear in mind that many summits and many more key saddles have not been accurately measured. For an unmeasured summit the only thing we have to go on is the highest contour, and for an unmeasured saddle the only thing we have to go on is the lowest contour just above the saddle. Those peaks in the error range are ones that MAY have 2000 feet of prominence if you used the contour just above the highest one for the summit elevation and/or the contour just below the saddle for the saddle elevation. Most prominince baggers feel that the only way to ensure that we have done every 2000-foot prominence in a state is to get all of the peaks in the error range as well as those with proven prominence greater than 2000 feet.|
There are actually three different ways to compute prominence, even though prominence theory is the same in all cases. We've talked about "clean prominence". There is also average or mean prominence which splits the difference between two contours at unmeasured saddles and/or summits. Then there's optimistic prominence that is based on the first contour below the saddle and/or the lowest imaginary contour above the summit. You can see the effect of this in the Oregon P2K list at Peakbagger.com. Note that Aaron Maizlish's list at Peaklist.org has 76 peaks, while Greg Slayden's list on Peakbagger.com has 75 peaks. I haven't researched the extra one on Peaklist, but it is Bryant Mtn.
I personally prefer using clean prominence and then completing the error range peaks.
Hope this helps!
|Posted Dec 27, 2006 12:43 am|
|Just noticed this even though the discussion is a little old. Bob's explanation here is very good. The chief problem is that there are no saddle spot elevations in most cases so there is an error range for peaks prominence calculation. Image looking at a picture of someone. Almost all prominence lists are approximations of the true prominence of mountains to some extent. Of course, the same is true of elevations, which are inaccurate not that infrequently. |
In the case of Bryant Mtn, it was originally thought to be a contender for P2000. However, someone went and measured the key saddle to try to make a more accurate determination of the saddle height. They found the saddle was barely higher than a lake and the lake's elevation is known as it was shown on the map. Therefore adding the saddle height above the lake, it seemed that it was not low enough to afford P2000 status. But the margin is close, maybe 10-15 feet.
I also have one moderate difference on my OR spreadsheet from what Aaron has at peaklist and that is Grayback 4021. I show it as not a clean P2000. The saddle is 2040-40 rather than 2000. So Grayback is a maybe P2000.
I've said this before but will say it again, these list can be tricky to make and even if correct things can change. You can see changes because of:
1)Prominence calculation error. Like Dean mentioned with the Sheepshead error. This was a mistake someone else made that I caught. Likewise with Big Craggies. Bear in mind though that people who make these lists and publish them are doing it in their own time for free and giving it to others to use for free. So it is good to be forgiving even when they make mistakes. We all make mistakes.
2)Geologic changes can change prominence. See Bob's favorite, Mt. St. Helen's.
3)Map changes. This is the most likely to occur from here on out. Saddle elevations can change but that likely won't have a huge effect. If summit elevations change a little, where it can matter is if two peaks are close in elevation. The higher will get all of the prominence. But if a new map shows a different highpoint, then the prominence will shift to that peak. If peaks are very close in height, say ten feet or with an unmarked contour that is close, I would definitely want to knock them all off. I would consider insurance against future changes by a mapmaker forcing me to re-complete that peak. Otherwise, a map change may undo what you thought you had done. Note that a majority of the topos and thus summits in the US have not been corrected since the recalibration of NVD88. So most summit elevations are not reflective of our current estimation of the height. This stuff is going to get much more accurate over the next generation as GPS technology changes things.
I'm in agreement with Bob as well on prominence preference. I like clean prominence but I feel strongly that you have to do all error range peaks to complete a state. This is really not even very debateable. You have to do 75 to complete OR, 148 for WA, 178 for NV etc.
|Posted Jan 8, 2007 7:39 am|
|desainme||Thanks for the explanation|
|Odell Butte seems quite a bit easier to reach than Abercrombie Mtn. Not such a tangled skein of backwoods roads.|
|Posted Dec 27, 2006 2:46 am|
|What is sheepshead? I dont see it on my topo or on your list, but it is on the map that is the signature photo for this page.|
|Posted Aug 25, 2007 4:04 pm|