Thanks for the comment. I am personally proud of this List page, although I have yet to make a major dent in it with my own endeavors. This isn't a prototypical peakbagging list. No "dumpster dives" on this list (in theory). Some skill required. I would imagine this list appeals more to people who love rock climbing than general hiking, so in essence I am taking SummitPost back to its roots!
I would be curious to hear how far some of the prominent peakbaggers are on this list, yourself included!
You guys crack me up. Didn't you know? I don't climb cool peaks, anymore, like the kind that might appear on this list.
I counted up the Master List (~52) and 100m List (~33). I'll forego the other two until Craig makes some improvements...
1. You need to explain the criteria for inclusion/non-inclusion on the lists better. I am confused on what they are. For instance, no prominence cut-off is provided, therefore it may be hard to rule out or in summits that are close to other summits that are higher. "Garfield Mountain West" (note: it should have quotes around it since it's not an official/separate name over and above Garfield Mountain for the entire massif), for instance, is close to Garfield Mountain yet no explanation as to why it was included [346 mean P] is provided.
2. There are a lot of unnamed peaks that got included, and even some unoffically named ones that I've never heard of ("Cocked Hat"). I strongly urge you to provide lat./long. coordinates for every peak on the list--and hopefully as a map link.
3. You are obviously using the mean summit elevation (6980 versus 6960+) in the list, but w/o map links or coords, it is even harder to figure out where these peaks might be. Someone looking for a spot mark of 6980 won't find one [unless there *is* one]. As an aside, this is why I don't like the use of mean elevation to describe a peak's height. I have always preferred using the "+" because that way a summit with no triangulated height can't be confused with one that is triangulated.
4. Qualifiers or special notes should be given where appropriate. For instance, if "X Mountain" isn't higher than Trappers Mountain, then Trappers would replace X Mountain. Or would it? Since the criteria is confusing to me, I don't know if it would.
5. Where would Tumtum Mountain fit on these lists? Just curious. It has an angle of about 35 degrees by my calculation.
It is a work in progress... with so many peaks, how could it not be? My ultimate goal was always to provide Lat/Lon coordinates (or at least links to such coordinates). I might even include the USGS Quad. The one I plan to clean-up the most is the Master List. Your Trappers vs. "X Mountain" comment reminds me of Edward Earl. But this isn't like prominence... the neighboring higher peak doesn't automatically gain the advantage. I agree with the prominence cutoff specification; do you think I should use 300P or 400P criteria to define what is a "peak"? The current "peak" criteria used on the lists is 300P. Some peaks are on the same massif. There is no "killed Lincoln" criteria here... lol
As for Tumtum Mountain (Clark County), using 300P criteria as a "peak" it is #1677 for steepness on the Master List with 21.4° overall, and #1481 for steepness on the 100m List with 30.39°.
Thinking thoroughly about this List page, I decided to create two Master Lists. One Master List shows peaks that are defined as having a minimum 300' of prominence. Another Master List only shows peaks that are defined as having a minimum 400' of prominence. A 400P type of peak list tends to be most agreeable amongst peakbaggers, especially those in/around Washington. I will leave it to the individuals to decide which Master List to use; there are only six different peaks on each list.
Nice job on this page. The text is well written. Good to see some photos.
While I used a P300 cutoff for peak inclusion, this can be adjusted to whatever standards are regionally accepted, like 400P in Washington or, say, 1000P in AK. Nearness to other higher summits has no effect. The dual listing here works fine. Without a minimum prominence, every point on the grid would have to be run for steepness - not practical as the software is currently designed.
Craig - For peak location links, if you'd like I can email you links to maps showing the radius area. Example Mt Thomson 100m:
I would have sent you the link to the page sooner, but I have been consistently revising it and cleaning it up (based upon suggestions and my own ideas). I wanted it to look better & better before sending you the link.
Links would be most beneficial for the Master List stuff. If you have any other ideas for the page, feel free to let me know.
gimpilator - Jan 27, 2011 1:40 am - Voted 10/10
Very ImpressiveI can tell you put a lot of work into adding this list to Summit Post. It's a very interesting data set. Great job putting it together.
Redwic - Jan 27, 2011 11:48 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Just what weThanks for the comment. I am personally proud of this List page, although I have yet to make a major dent in it with my own endeavors. This isn't a prototypical peakbagging list. No "dumpster dives" on this list (in theory). Some skill required. I would imagine this list appeals more to people who love rock climbing than general hiking, so in essence I am taking SummitPost back to its roots!
I would be curious to hear how far some of the prominent peakbaggers are on this list, yourself included!
Redwic - Jan 28, 2011 8:22 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Just what weActually, surprisingly he has not. (I already asked.)
Redwic - Jan 28, 2011 12:17 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Just what weMy guess is/was that Tom would have more than Paul.
Is that even possible, for a Washington peakbagging list? lol
Klenke - Jan 31, 2011 3:20 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Just what weYou guys crack me up. Didn't you know? I don't climb cool peaks, anymore, like the kind that might appear on this list.
I counted up the Master List (~52) and 100m List (~33). I'll forego the other two until Craig makes some improvements...
1. You need to explain the criteria for inclusion/non-inclusion on the lists better. I am confused on what they are. For instance, no prominence cut-off is provided, therefore it may be hard to rule out or in summits that are close to other summits that are higher. "Garfield Mountain West" (note: it should have quotes around it since it's not an official/separate name over and above Garfield Mountain for the entire massif), for instance, is close to Garfield Mountain yet no explanation as to why it was included [346 mean P] is provided.
2. There are a lot of unnamed peaks that got included, and even some unoffically named ones that I've never heard of ("Cocked Hat"). I strongly urge you to provide lat./long. coordinates for every peak on the list--and hopefully as a map link.
3. You are obviously using the mean summit elevation (6980 versus 6960+) in the list, but w/o map links or coords, it is even harder to figure out where these peaks might be. Someone looking for a spot mark of 6980 won't find one [unless there *is* one]. As an aside, this is why I don't like the use of mean elevation to describe a peak's height. I have always preferred using the "+" because that way a summit with no triangulated height can't be confused with one that is triangulated.
4. Qualifiers or special notes should be given where appropriate. For instance, if "X Mountain" isn't higher than Trappers Mountain, then Trappers would replace X Mountain. Or would it? Since the criteria is confusing to me, I don't know if it would.
5. Where would Tumtum Mountain fit on these lists? Just curious. It has an angle of about 35 degrees by my calculation.
Klenke - Jan 31, 2011 3:55 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Just what weSurprisingly, or perhaps not, for the Master List, many of the peaks are Top 100s and 2000Ps.
Redwic - Jan 31, 2011 5:00 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Just what weIt is a work in progress... with so many peaks, how could it not be? My ultimate goal was always to provide Lat/Lon coordinates (or at least links to such coordinates). I might even include the USGS Quad. The one I plan to clean-up the most is the Master List. Your Trappers vs. "X Mountain" comment reminds me of Edward Earl. But this isn't like prominence... the neighboring higher peak doesn't automatically gain the advantage. I agree with the prominence cutoff specification; do you think I should use 300P or 400P criteria to define what is a "peak"? The current "peak" criteria used on the lists is 300P. Some peaks are on the same massif. There is no "killed Lincoln" criteria here... lol
As for Tumtum Mountain (Clark County), using 300P criteria as a "peak" it is #1677 for steepness on the Master List with 21.4° overall, and #1481 for steepness on the 100m List with 30.39°.
Redwic - Jan 31, 2011 11:37 pm - Hasn't voted
List Revisions...Thinking thoroughly about this List page, I decided to create two Master Lists. One Master List shows peaks that are defined as having a minimum 300' of prominence. Another Master List only shows peaks that are defined as having a minimum 400' of prominence. A 400P type of peak list tends to be most agreeable amongst peakbaggers, especially those in/around Washington. I will leave it to the individuals to decide which Master List to use; there are only six different peaks on each list.
TimW - Feb 1, 2011 6:02 pm - Hasn't voted
Well DoneNice job on this page. The text is well written. Good to see some photos.
While I used a P300 cutoff for peak inclusion, this can be adjusted to whatever standards are regionally accepted, like 400P in Washington or, say, 1000P in AK. Nearness to other higher summits has no effect. The dual listing here works fine. Without a minimum prominence, every point on the grid would have to be run for steepness - not practical as the software is currently designed.
Craig - For peak location links, if you'd like I can email you links to maps showing the radius area. Example Mt Thomson 100m:
http://ned-files.com/map9.cgi?st=wa&id=49932&ln=1
Redwic - Feb 1, 2011 11:06 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Well DoneI appreciate the kind words!
I would have sent you the link to the page sooner, but I have been consistently revising it and cleaning it up (based upon suggestions and my own ideas). I wanted it to look better & better before sending you the link.
Links would be most beneficial for the Master List stuff. If you have any other ideas for the page, feel free to let me know.