Dean - Oct 10, 2004 5:55 pm - Voted 10/10
Mohair MtnIsn't that the one John Roper did last year? So many mountains, so little time since I still have to go get Duffer mountain in Nevada.
Klenke - Oct 10, 2004 6:16 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Mohair MtnRoper has probably been up it, but he probably did it ages ago. "Mohair Mountain" was wholly my appellation, my "Roperism" as it were. It doesn't have enough prominence (279P) to be a real peak but it looks like it could be from certain vantages.
Dean - Oct 10, 2004 9:01 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Mohair MtnIt doesn't have to be a real peak to interest John. After spending a day with him and Jeff Howbert climbing the local bumps around the tri-cities, all a bump needs is 200 feet of prominence or to have a geographic name.
Excuse me for using the word "climbing" in this case. Several of those bumps had roads to the top so John drove them in his Subie. Actually kind of a fun time.
Klenke - Oct 18, 2004 9:11 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Mohair MtnVertical (from start point or from valley below face, I assume you mean), prominence, and elevation all have their place and all are relevant. For any given peak, it might be defined by one or more of these facets.
Some peaks (e.g., Round Mountain) have lots of prominence in their locality but aren't very high compared to other peaks in the state such as Glacier Peak. Some peaks (e.g., Whitehorse Mountain) have astonishing local relief above nearby valleys but aren't the most prominent peak in the area (for Whitehorse, Three Fingers has more prominence and is relatively nearby).
Orography afficionados such as myself need to think more broadly to appreciate all of the various types of mountainous terrain around us.
Comments
Post a Comment