Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

What is worth a separate Mountain Page since SPv1?

Get HTML help, style input, and feedback on your pages from other SP members.
 

What is worth a separate Mountain Page since SPv1?

Postby PellucidWombat » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:13 am

So I'm FINALLY going back through and revising all of my mountain and route pages to make the formats more complete, standardized, and up-to-date, especially since the potentials and standards of SPv2 are much different than in SPv1.

In SPv1 people were much more 'stingy' about submitting excessive mountain pages when there were two close summits with little prominence, and in the Wasatch what was done was we lumped the peaks into one mountain page.

Of course this creates a problem for searching, stats, etc., which makes it tempting to split the pages. However, the mountain pages would be virtually identical.

What do people think about this? One page I was thinking of splitting is this one:

http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock ... arora.html
User Avatar
PellucidWombat

 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 6:50 pm
Location: Berkeley, California, United States
Thanked: 48 times in 34 posts

Postby MoapaPk » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:43 am

If you have both Wolverine and Tuscarora in the query name (you can put a long list of potential search terms there), the page will show up in a search for either Wolverine or Tuscarora.

I personally favor lumping peaks in one page -- where it makes sense -- rather than diluting SP with elaborate pages for every brown lump.

These look like worthy peaks, so it's up to you.

Some peaks with small prominences are a lot harder to reach than others. If it is just a short jaunt on a class 2 ridge line, that's one thing; but if the 2nd peak requires class 5 climbing, quite another.
User Avatar
MoapaPk

 
Posts: 7669
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
Thanked: 761 times in 494 posts

Postby Sarah Simon » Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:03 am

I am in the "one peak; one page" camp. No need to pile mountains/peaks in one page like a garage sale. Each page allows for only one elevation, one set of GPS coordinates, etc. Thus, only one peak should be on the page. Also, not all of us search by simple query. Some of us search by the dynamic maps, "what's close to THIS peak," sorted lists, etc., and these multiple types of searching are much better facilitated by the "one peak per page" rule.

If a peak isn't considered "worth" having it's own page, then don't bother putting it on SP. Maybe you don't think it's "worth" having its own page, but someone else down the road may wish to add the peak. Likewise, I see a lot of good peaks get the short shriff having to share billing with another mountain. I think of this as a form of cyber-squatting. I've seen many nice peaks on SP that are jammed into a page with 1 or 2 other peaks, and I think it's a shame. I'd be happy to build a nice, clean, readily queried page for the "red-headed step-child peak," but the mountain's already been spoken for.

A lot of folks think: Well, I did these 3 peaks together - therefore, everyone else will do them together, too. This is not always the case. In many instances, there are 3 or more sensible routes up a given peak that may or may not include "those other two" mountains. "One peak per page" allows for maximum flexibility and organization when it comes to attachments (routes, trip reports, images, etc.)

Finally, "one page per peak" is just good housekeeping. It keeps the attachments following a logical structure, it adheres to a nice database structure/heirarchy, (where one area/range has multiple mountains and where one mountain may have numerous routes and multiple trip reports etc.) Single-peak pages are less cluttered, easier to navigate, crisper.

A few other solutions to this dilema include:

1. Have the "Big Mountain" page with the "Little Named Rock Feature" as at attached child object.
2. Have only the "Big Mountain" page, but include a note on "Little Named Rock Feature" or "Other Little Mountain" in a section on the "Big Mountain" page covering other nearby mountain/peaks/crags/.

So, I say "Go for it." Go ahead and split out your mountains into seperate pages.

Cheers,

Sarah
User Avatar
Sarah Simon

 
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:01 am
Location: Black Forest, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 239 times in 108 posts

Postby MoapaPk » Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:28 am

Tuscarora is labeled on the USGS map, but is just 0.25 miles from Wolverine, and the prominence looks like about 70'. If you have a separate page for Tuscarora, it will probably be a copy of the Wolverine page, or will reference the Wolverine page, and will have a route like, "reach the top of Wolverine and walk 0.25 miles to the summit of Tuscarora." Or you could simply put this information in the Wolverine page, as you have done.

I don't think the world will degenerate into impure-database chaos, whatever you decide.
User Avatar
MoapaPk

 
Posts: 7669
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
Thanked: 761 times in 494 posts

Postby Bob Sihler » Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:25 am

I've pondered this myself and come to these conclusions:

1. If the peak has its own official name on a map, a page is justified.

2. If there is not enough prominence to qualify as a separate mountain but the character of the two peaks varies substantially, the peaks deserve separate pages.
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 7652
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Herndon, Virginia
Thanked: 2048 times in 1151 posts

Postby ZeeJay » Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:33 am

My vote would be to split Tuscarora and Wolverine. I climb Wolverine lots of times without climbing Tuscarora. When I do climb Tuscarora I've never been exactly sure which of several nearby bumps is the top. It would be nice if the lat long was that of the true summit and if peaks are lumped together, you can't do that except in the text.

I think it makes even more sense to split your Mt Aire, Church Fork Peak, and Millvue page. Tons of people climb Mt Aire, but almost nobody does the other two and even fewer do them together.

In general, I think whether to lump or split peaks depends upon the specific peaks. For the most part I agree with Sarah, but I think there are a few exceptions. For instance, I lumped two peaks together because they were very close to each other and had a very long and hard approach to get to, but once you got to either one it was trivial to get to the other. But, I had mixed feelings about it and wondered if I was doing the right thing.
User Avatar
ZeeJay

 
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:04 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
Thanked: 39 times in 28 posts

Postby PellucidWombat » Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:44 am

I like the idea of a "child" page for a situation like Tuscarora/Wolverine, so I think I'll go with that. It seems more in the spirit of the wider page classification in SP2 and keeps things more organized.

Church Fork, Aire, and Millvue are far enough away with different enough approaches that I think I'll split them into separate pages. They were originally combined when the 'bump' question for Wasatch Peaks was hotly debated - as were the accusation of point seekers - so I erred on the side of merging them, but that seems less of an issue now.
User Avatar
PellucidWombat

 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 6:50 pm
Location: Berkeley, California, United States
Thanked: 48 times in 34 posts


Return to Page Help

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.