Couldn't this list page be consolidated with your US 14ers page? Just add a second section to that page with the remaining peaks that round out the top 100. What do you think?
I thought about the redundancy. My contiguous US 14ers page is also redundant in that it combines your CO 14ers page with my CA 14ers page + 2 WA peaks.
Okay, fair enough.
Nice idea for a page.
How about adding a column for the state? It would be interesting to see the break down.
Also, for ties such as 14,269-ft Antero and Torreys, you should list them both at 13 (no 14). There are a few other such cases.
I added a state column.
I took your suggestion for ties.
Thanks for the input.
I note you have 14410 for Rainier. Official is 14411 now (see note in Overview here).
I've changed Columbia Crest's elevation to 14411.
Nice page. You might wish to add Point Success on Rainier to the list as an unranked peak. At 14158' it is of sufficient height and while its mean prominence is only 138' that still matches Cameron's P# and exceeds the P120 of Starlight Peak.
Also, and this may just be me being anal but I might also suggest the page name as "Highest 100" rather than "Top 100". I think most people would figure top 100 to mean highest but it could also be interpreted to mean top 100 most prominent, top 100 most popular, top 100 subjectively, etc. Highest is not ambiguous at all in that regard.
I added Point Success.
I changed the name to "Highest 100".
Thanks for the input.
I'm curious why this page is attached to multiple ranges as parents of it. I can sort of see why but it presents awkwardly.
My opinion is this list has nothing to do with the ranges themselves but only individual peaks (across the U.S.) and thus all the ranges should be detached. But that's just me.
This page has more in commoon with this list. I can add it there.
I don't feel that having the associated ranges on the margin of the page presents awkwardly. Bob Burd's Emblem Peaks list is attached to the Sierra Nevada Range page also. I did attach the individual peaks. Thanks for the idea.
I'm with Klenke. I don't understand the parent relationship to the ranges.
The list is a child to the ranges because the peaks of the list belong to the ranges. Observe the lists belonging to the Sierra Nevada range.
If I am looking at this correctly, Crystal Peak should be #104 and the peaks after that should be one higher than the numbers you assigned them.
You are correct.
There are three other missing CA peaks - probably because the source is using the infamous 'clean prominence' measure, but this isn't the convention for your listed CO peaks.
13962|CA|13,962'|302'|North Palisade|37.0904°N, -118.5069°W|
13927|CA|13,927'|312'|Mount Whitney|36.5915°N, -118.2996°W|
Norman Clyde Peak|CA|13,855'|306'|Split Mountain|37.0741°N, -118.4734°W|
If you use these, please include me as a source. My page for the highest 1000 in the US is:
I've added the aforementioned peaks.
13927 is nicknamed "West Russell" due to its proximity to Mount Russell.
I'm looking forward to seeing the highest 1000 members area.