Lately in the Europe forum, ranges were discussed, and few questions raised like why do not we have range pages for the Ands, the Himalayas, the Rockies.
Well according to the SP rules, the author of a range must not have climbed all summits but have a significant amount of experience about the concerned area. We understand easily why no one can apply for such page. Especially for the Ands, the Himalayas and other big ranges scarcely explored by SP members.
But for the rockies, given the number of member based in US I'm sure there are the ressources for it. The problem is that several people would need to make a team job. But the Americans have the reputation to be good in this When will we see the Rockies page on SP ?

In the past, I wondered why there did not appear to be a "Rockies" page. I think the main reason is the size of the chain. The range runs from well in Canada to Mexico. Also, there are many different pages for sub-ranges of the chain that seem to get the job done. When searching in South America I noted pages for sub-ranges, but no page for the Andes Mountains.

In my opinion, the range is too large for a useful area page. It runs, by most definitions, from New Mexico well into Canada, and by some definitions runs into Alaska and Mexico as well.

What might be useful would be a list page, subdivided by country and then state, so that those unfamiliar with the range could get a sense of what it includes.

Yep, I thought there was still quite a bit of debate about what was or wasn't part of the rockies. On the other hand, you'll never have pages for all the areas on even the shortest list of candidates. What kind of information would you want from that monster, geology, geography, logistics? It would be very general.

In my opinion, the range is too large for a useful area page.

I agree.

I wonder what percentage of SP pages would be attached? 15%?

Bob Sihler wrote:In my opinion, the range is too large for a useful area page. It runs, by most definitions, from New Mexico well into Canada, and by some definitions runs into Alaska and Mexico as well.

What might be useful would be a list page, subdivided by country and then state, so that those unfamiliar with the range could get a sense of what it includes.

I like this option. I know a lot of Europeans (not mountaineers necessarily) who don't have a sense of the size of the country. One who was visiting Seattle wanted to drive to San Francisco for dinner because they're so close on the map.

A list page that organized them -- if you're going to Colorado, ye Poles, you'll see the Front Range! -- would be helpful.

Arthur Digbee wrote:
I like this option. I know a lot of Europeans (not mountaineers necessarily) who don't have a sense of the size of the country. One who was visiting Seattle wanted to drive to San Francisco for dinner because they're so close on the map.

Well, when you've already flown 6000 miles to get to Seattle, whats another 600 miles in driving to get somewhere for dinner?

Bob Sihler wrote:What might be useful would be a list page, subdivided by country and then state, so that those unfamiliar with the range could get a sense of what it includes.

That's in my opinion what could be the best starting point. The rest would come after.
No need to build a large page, the subpages are made for that. I reckon that for example the Grampians page doesn't give the best example (however explained by the lack of peak pages for many areas) neither the Sudetes page Yatsek and me made recently.
When the Rockies pages comes up, the Ands and Hymalayas can follow. I imagine a list of subranges, in which the existing ones on SP would appear as links, and the rest just as text. This would give an idea of "what's remaining" and potential ideas of pages to pick for volunteers.
And.. a question that seems taboo.. I always wondered why the Alps were cut in 2 ! I believe in some political choice... german/slavic organisation against french/italian mess... am I right ?

Arthur Digbee wrote:I know a lot of Europeans (not mountaineers necessarily) who don't have a sense of the size of the country.

I'd say tourists in general, whatever is the continent they come from. How many tourists from Quebec I have seen, who planned to visit all France in one week using the TGV and planes... There are people like that...

BorutKantuser wrote:strange connaissances. one doesn't "sense" a size size is size, and one measures it BK

For sure in Slovenia you must have a sense of sizes. Go cycling and you must take your passport along, in case of getting by mistake into Austria, Italy, Croatia or Hungary !

BorutKantuser wrote:one doesn't "sense" a size

There's a naughty response here.

But for geography: I am here at the eastern edge of one of the world's great grasslands. I feel it, I sense the size, the enormity of these grasslands. When I thought of how to explain it, I thought of movies -- the snow-covered steppe in "Doctor Zhivago" or the desert in "Lawrence of Arabia" or perhaps the African grasslands in "Out of Africa."

One senses a much smaller space in, say, Innsbruck.

You don't need to "show" your documents while crossing a Schengen border but you "must" have them.
As for cycling after drinking, better not having them and pretending not owning having a driving licence if caught !

There is a joke.
The perfect world : The Germans are managing the organisation, the French are cooking, the English are welcoming guests while the Italian make humour to entertain them
The worse world : The English are cooking, the Germans make the fun, the French are welcoming, and the organisation is made by the Italians

I would agree with visentin that such a page is needed. Just because the range is huge doesn't have to mean that it's page would have to be. Overview, section by state/province, list the main sub-ranges with links to SP ranges, a little geology, history and what-not and it's on it's way. Throw in some pictures and it's a done deal!
I think it would take several people's efforts to do the Rockies justice, but it certainly could be done.

Just my 2 cents.