Thanks. Hopefully the Gore Range people will see it the same way because I'm totally lost there. Perhaps I'll put up a group for the Tenmile Range at some point, but it's a lot of information to compile and post in a hurry.
Warmly supporting your experiment! Putting up group pages will give us, those not so aquinted with the North American mountains, a much more comprehensive view.
Being one of the European colleagues I certainly appreciate this page since it gives me a sense of direction which I would otherwise lack. Thanks for posting.
I was intrigued by the name Nebel Horn, since my first mountain (the summit of which I never reached) was Nebelhorn in the Bavarian Alps
The page is well done right now, but it would be good to observe Kane's comments on the Rockies Message Board. Try to add local rock climbing areas, and you may want to add a slightly more in depth overview of each mountain (although the one you have now is probably fine--just watch the other member's opinions on the issue). Maybe a thumbnail in the chart of each that is linked to a picture would be nice. For mountains like Flagstaff, Nebel Horn, and Shirttail, until a page is added for them, maybe you could add a picture from town or from a nearby mountain. Your page looks good, and I just thought I would contribute my .02 on some ways to possibly improve on it.
Thanks for the ideas, Sam. I'm ashamed to admit that, until today, I didn't even know SP did message boards. Or maybe I knew but didn't want to get sucked into them. It's not like SP isn't enough of a timesink already!
Adding rock climbing information will be easy enough and definitely a good idea. Especially for the Boulder group, the wealth of flatirons which don't really correspond to one mountain or another might be best listed on a groups page.
I have another group I'm working on for the Tenmile Range. This would probably be more useful since it's more than just half a dozen closely-related peaks. I'm still waiting for someone to do the Gores; this is a region that I know very little about but am intrigued. Most of the peaks are far from roads and it makes sense to combine them into larger expeditions.
This page is a great Idea. I move to Denver not to long ago and these mountains are the closest to me. I have no clue how to get to the tops of these mountains or what their names are. This page is a very helpful piece of information that is going to help me out extensivly. Thanks so much for this page, it's well needed.
Great idea. Maybe we can take this as a start and add some similar pages for the various Colorado ranges. I like the general idea of group pages, but have noticed one issue with some of the European pages. Often times they seem extremely cluttered, since over time, more and more mountains have been added to them. This could also happen here for places with large #s of mountains like RMNP, Indian Peaks, etc. . I would really enjoy seeing group pages for these places, but maybe someone should start a post on the colorado message board, asking for some input on some general guidelines to keep them from becoming too cluttered.
Thanks George. I agree that some of the Euro pages get a little disorganized. In that vein, I made sure to list all the peaks in the (admittedly small and limitted) Boulder Group whether or not they have SP pages or not. I suppose there are outlying hills that could get added at a later date, but it would be pretty well scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I've been working on a similar and hopefully more useful page on the Tenmile Range (Breckenridge, Quandary, etc). It's a linear range with a few side-peaks. Anything else that gets added can pretty easily be editted into the group page. The key, I suspect, is to keep the group small and managable, not like the Julian Alps, say, which is a huge area.
Anyway, thanks for your votes and ideas. Perhaps I'll sink more time into the project this weekend.
hgrapid - Nov 11, 2004 9:45 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentI wish you luck....here's my vote for starters!
mtwashingtonmonroe - Nov 11, 2004 10:21 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentI couldn't agree with you more! Excellent job and if they can do it so can we! Great vision though and I'm sure it will be a success!
-Britt
CharlesD - Nov 11, 2004 10:26 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentThanks. Hopefully the Gore Range people will see it the same way because I'm totally lost there. Perhaps I'll put up a group for the Tenmile Range at some point, but it's a lot of information to compile and post in a hurry.
Rob - Nov 12, 2004 12:43 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled Comment"Sorry, no camping is allowed in the park"
No need to apologize, you didn't make the rule : )
CharlesD - Nov 12, 2004 8:53 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentHeh! True. People are welcome to camp in my yard, however... ;-) Thanks for the vote.
Johan Heersink - Nov 12, 2004 2:38 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentWarmly supporting your experiment! Putting up group pages will give us, those not so aquinted with the North American mountains, a much more comprehensive view.
Gangolf Haub - Nov 12, 2004 2:40 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentBeing one of the European colleagues I certainly appreciate this page since it gives me a sense of direction which I would otherwise lack. Thanks for posting.
I was intrigued by the name Nebel Horn, since my first mountain (the summit of which I never reached) was Nebelhorn in the Bavarian Alps
Don Nelsen - Nov 12, 2004 11:05 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNice idea for this type of formation and nicely done. Great work.
Don
Bor - Nov 13, 2004 2:57 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNice page of your first group!! Keep posting what you have in plan!
Cheers!
Alan Ellis - Nov 13, 2004 8:26 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentLooks good. If you added the rock climbing areas around Boulder, the page would be complete......and more justified.
The Lower Marmot - Nov 13, 2004 10:15 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentThe page is well done right now, but it would be good to observe Kane's comments on the Rockies Message Board. Try to add local rock climbing areas, and you may want to add a slightly more in depth overview of each mountain (although the one you have now is probably fine--just watch the other member's opinions on the issue). Maybe a thumbnail in the chart of each that is linked to a picture would be nice. For mountains like Flagstaff, Nebel Horn, and Shirttail, until a page is added for them, maybe you could add a picture from town or from a nearby mountain. Your page looks good, and I just thought I would contribute my .02 on some ways to possibly improve on it.
Sam
CharlesD - Nov 20, 2004 10:18 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentThanks for the ideas, Sam. I'm ashamed to admit that, until today, I didn't even know SP did message boards. Or maybe I knew but didn't want to get sucked into them. It's not like SP isn't enough of a timesink already!
Adding rock climbing information will be easy enough and definitely a good idea. Especially for the Boulder group, the wealth of flatirons which don't really correspond to one mountain or another might be best listed on a groups page.
I have another group I'm working on for the Tenmile Range. This would probably be more useful since it's more than just half a dozen closely-related peaks. I'm still waiting for someone to do the Gores; this is a region that I know very little about but am intrigued. Most of the peaks are far from roads and it makes sense to combine them into larger expeditions.
Charles
Steven Cross - Nov 13, 2004 5:45 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentThis page is a great Idea. I move to Denver not to long ago and these mountains are the closest to me. I have no clue how to get to the tops of these mountains or what their names are. This page is a very helpful piece of information that is going to help me out extensivly. Thanks so much for this page, it's well needed.
pksander - Nov 13, 2004 9:32 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentExcellent page, and very useful for one new to Boulder. Thanks for posting this!
Cheers,
Peter
georgbetsy - Nov 20, 2004 2:14 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentGreat idea. Maybe we can take this as a start and add some similar pages for the various Colorado ranges. I like the general idea of group pages, but have noticed one issue with some of the European pages. Often times they seem extremely cluttered, since over time, more and more mountains have been added to them. This could also happen here for places with large #s of mountains like RMNP, Indian Peaks, etc. . I would really enjoy seeing group pages for these places, but maybe someone should start a post on the colorado message board, asking for some input on some general guidelines to keep them from becoming too cluttered.
CharlesD - Nov 20, 2004 10:14 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentThanks George. I agree that some of the Euro pages get a little disorganized. In that vein, I made sure to list all the peaks in the (admittedly small and limitted) Boulder Group whether or not they have SP pages or not. I suppose there are outlying hills that could get added at a later date, but it would be pretty well scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I've been working on a similar and hopefully more useful page on the Tenmile Range (Breckenridge, Quandary, etc). It's a linear range with a few side-peaks. Anything else that gets added can pretty easily be editted into the group page. The key, I suspect, is to keep the group small and managable, not like the Julian Alps, say, which is a huge area.
Anyway, thanks for your votes and ideas. Perhaps I'll sink more time into the project this weekend.
Charles
Nelson - Nov 20, 2004 11:02 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentExcellent job on this page, and courage to jump into the fire with it!
CharlesD - Nov 21, 2004 1:05 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentThanks! I figure I've paid my SP dues and proven my worth. Time to start directing the ship where I want it to go. Thanks for you support.
nartreb - Dec 1, 2004 1:08 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentKeep it!!!
BobSmith - Dec 2, 2004 7:24 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentKeep the page. Nice work!