Welcome to SP!  -

South Sister Comments


[ Post a Comment ]
Viewing: 1-10 of 10    

Mountain JimDuplicate Page

Mountain Jim

Hasn't voted

Twin Sisters already has a page listed as Twin Sisters Peaks.
You probably should delete your page.
Peace, Jim
Posted Jun 28, 2008 10:21 pm

tomlaurenThis peak is a ranked peak independent of Twin Sisters Peaks

tomlauren

Hasn't voted

Jim, I definitely respect your opinion, as you are probably the most experienced RMNP hiker on this site.

This page is for the 11,376 foot south summit of Twin Sisters Mountain, not the 11,413 foot and 11,428 foot summits to the north. Due to the 356 feet of prominence between this peak and East Twin Sisters Peak, this summit has a hard ranking of its own, independent of the Twin Sisters Peaks. This goes back to the discussion of whether a summit is a ranked peak because it has a name or because it has at least 300 feet of prominence. When using the "300 foot prominence rule" as the definition of a ranked peak, this peak is the 68th highest point in the park, East Twin Sisters Peak is the 66th highest point in the park, and West Twin Sisters Peak is unranked because there is only 73 feet of prominence between it and East Twin Sisters Peak. Here is a list of the peaks in RMNP and their rankings when using the 300 foot prominence rule. All peak lists are fairly arbitrary, not everybody goes by this list, and I respect other's opinions.

Ultimately what motivates me is the sharing of information. Kruck's Climber's Log of his ascent of Twin Sisters Peaks highlights the need for this page: "The sisters offered a nice view of Longs, etc., but the downscramble to the saddle with the peak (unnamed?) to the south and the scramble up to its summit was more enjoyable, more hands-on (rock) and offered a better view." This page provides information about that "unnamed" peak to Kruck and anybody else who gets to one of the summits of Twin Sisters Peaks and wonders, "What's that peak to the south all about?"
Posted Jun 29, 2008 10:17 am

Mountain JimRe: This peak is a ranked peak independent of Twin Sisters Peaks

Mountain Jim

Hasn't voted

I can understand the confusion about this summit. The "South Sister" is the summit you refer to on your page. The true summit of Twin Sisters is the north summit. The summit above the stone hut, that used to have the fire lookout on top, is referred to by locals as the "Tower Summit." Twin Sisters got it's name from the two distinct north & south summits as they appear from the plains. The "Tower Summit" isn't prominently visible from the plains. In truth, there's another rock summit below the Tower Summit to the west northwest, so it could be said that Twin Sisters has 5 summits.
I agree that the "rules" used to define a summit are many and varied. I generally go with historical information first, then the 300 hundred foot rule and one half mile of separation. The "South Sister" is less than a half mile, as the crow flies, from the "True (North) Summit." Therefore, since the name came from the north & south summits, and the south summit doesn't meet the half mile separation rule, both summits are part of Twin Sisters.
One other thought, those of us who have climbed the 126 named summits in The Park consider the North Sister as the summit of Twin Sisters when we were checking off the summits off the list. I've done all "5 summits" and the 10,402 ft. sub summit that is a little over a mile and a half south southeast to the true summit.
I think your page has good value as a Twin Sisters trip report for those who want to do the South Sister, if you would consider that possibility. I agree it's a fun scramble and some of the trees in the saddle beetween the two summits tell a picturesque tale of the winds that rake the peak.
Peace, Jim
Posted Jun 29, 2008 7:10 pm

tomlaurenRe: This peak is a ranked peak independent of Twin Sisters Peaks

tomlauren

Hasn't voted

I made some changes to the page to hopefully clarify the confusion to others. Hopefully you also consider these changes to be an improvement:

1. I changed the name of the page from "Twin Sisters Mountain" to "South Sister".

2. I noted that Gerry Roach confusingly lists this peak under the name "Twin Sisters Mtn" on his RMNP peak list, although the highest point of Twin Sisters Mountain is the east summit of Twin Sisters Peaks to the north.

3. I noted that this summit is a ranked peak on Gerry Roach's RMNP peak list independent of Twin Sisters Peaks due to Gerry's use of the 300 foot prominence rule as the sole rule for a ranked summit. However, I also noted that this peak may not be a ranked summit on some other lists due to lack of a name, less than 0.5 mile distance to the higher East Twin Sisters Peak, etc.
Posted Jun 29, 2008 8:01 pm

Mountain JimRe: This peak is a ranked peak independent of Twin Sisters Peaks

Mountain Jim

Hasn't voted

In my opinion it should be a trip report attached to the official Twin Sisters page to avoid confusion, but you're obiviously going to do what you want to do.
Gerry Roach is a very good climber (I've climbed with him) but he's wrong about this being a separate summit.
Peace, Jim
Posted Jun 29, 2008 8:52 pm

Sarah SimonRe: This peak is a ranked peak independent of Twin Sisters Peaks

Sarah Simon

Hasn't voted

I need to stand by Tom Lauren that this mountain is a ranked peak, per the 300 ft. rule, and is "worthy" of it's own page.

His page is not a duplicate page; this is a unique mountain, standing alone from the Twin Sisters proper.
Posted Jun 30, 2008 2:03 pm

Sarah SimonRe: This peak is a ranked peak independent of Twin Sisters Peaks

Sarah Simon

Hasn't voted

It is up to debate whether this is a mountain or not. By some rules this is a mountain, but some rules it's not. Some people consider this a unique peak, others consider it a subpeak of the bigger "Twin Sisters mountain".

Dandy. This wouldn't be the first time this has happened in Colordo.

Since the issue is up to debate, then it's not clear that anyone owns the privelege of ordering this SPer to remove his work or religate it to TR status.

Happy Climbing,

Sarah
Posted Jun 30, 2008 2:39 pm

Mountain JimForum Site Feedback

Mountain Jim

Hasn't voted

You might want to check the forums inder "Site Feedback Duplicate."
And, give some thought to contacting the owner of the existing Twin Sisters page. Since it has a low vote because it lacks information, and your page is nicely laid out, maybe the two of you could agree to be co-owners and combine information. That might be a "win/win" for this nice mountain and for anyone looking for information.
There is precedent for co-ownership ... Nelson & I co-own the Rocky Mountain National Park Page.
Peace, Jim
Posted Jun 30, 2008 12:10 pm

tomlaurenRe: Forum Site Feedback

tomlauren

Hasn't voted

I sent ogonzoo an email as well as a private SummitPost message requesting that we merge the Twin Sisters Peaks page with the South Sister page and establish co-ownership. I'll post a reply when I hear back.
Posted Jul 25, 2008 11:19 am

Mountain JimRe: Forum Site Feedback

Mountain Jim

Hasn't voted

Thanks. I hope you get a positive reply.
Peace, Jim
Posted Jul 26, 2008 8:23 pm

Viewing: 1-10 of 10    
[ Return to 'South Sister' main page ]