This is a good start Josh. Some possible suggestions:
History? What is the origin of the name? I don't know but I am curious. Beckey might state the answer.
There are two 7400+ contours. Which one is the summit?
A mention of the P2000 status might be something to consider.
You mention Trailhead in the route info without having stated which trailhead. You probably want to specify that at this point. This one has a lot of possible THs and route. Also, the traverse from Saul is purportedly an interesting route that might be worth mentioning. See Big Steve at NWHikers for my info on that one perhaps.
Thanks Eric! I posted it this morning and then had a big trip I had to go on. Now I'm quite tired, but should add more to this page. Tomorrow I sadly have tons of homework.
Josh: it's quite a stretch to place Indian Head Peak as part of the Mountain Loop Highway parent page. It's not at all close to the MLH, even if the peak can be accessed from that side (Stefan and I climbed it in a long day, along with Kodak and Bryant, from the Little Wenatchee River Trailhead). Furthermore, the summit lies wholly outside of the drainage that goes that way (Sauk River). I think you should remove it from the MLH page.
Eric: I suppose the name Indian Head comes from the fact the mountain lies at the head of Indian Creek. But that's just conjecture. I don't think it's a reference to a head shape.
By the way, the main summit is the southwest 7400+ contour. The northeast 7400+ contour is just a little lower, but not by much. Do them both if you don't trust me.
Yeah, I guess that makes sense as it is the peak at the head of Indian Creek.
I used the White River approach so I guess that makes unique 3 approaches from 3 different THs between us.
Josh, Klenke is correct in that the SW summit is the probable HP. That was a semi-rhetorical question because my suspicion is that you might not have thought about what might be the highest point. I touched both summits but I was pretty confident that the SW one is the HP. This is also where the register is located. I leave it to you to determine whether it is worth mentioning on the page.
Actually I have been on the true summit, I also signed the register if you don't believe me on this. So I'll have to make a careful mentioning that the SW Summit is the real one which has the register. As for the trail head deal, I can go more into details about what side this one is on. What I considered when writing this was what side would most commonly be approached, and so I figured well some people on the way back from Glacier Peak might want to go up this peak. The White River Trailhead seems to have a little more distance when it comes to driving as well, while the Sauk River Trailhead seems a little less distance. As for the history and original name stuff I'll add this to the page as well as the prominence.
@Klenke: I have dis-attached this page from the Mountain Loop Highway page. But I do personally want it to be, because the MLH seems to be the easiest access to the mountain. So I figured a range page's purpose was not just to see what mountains are in it, but also give one an idea of what is accessible from the main road. But I can go either way. I saw Glacier Peak in that range and Glacier Peak has even more travel from the road than Indian Head.
As for the many different ways, isn't that what route pages are for? If you guys want I can say all the different routes but that would leave no to little room for route pages. The reason I mentioned any route info on this page was because I figured that the main route would be mentioned and any other way would have a route page. Just saying my thoughts on how I thought SP was set up to be. Cheers Josh Lewis.
I like this page. Good descriptions, and (as always) you have great photos.
I agree with Josh that somebody can always feel free to create a Route page for an eastern approach of this peak. However, I agree with PK that this mountain should not be a part of the Mountain Loop Highway area due to its drainage and location. Yes, the MLH is one of the major access roads for this peak, but it is not directly adjacent to the MLH or have any drainages for the MLH area.
As for summit registers, I have personally found several summit registers incorrectly placed on false summits rather than true summits. I cannot speak from personal experience for this specific peak, as I have yet to summit it. Summit registers are found on correct peaks most of the time, but not all of the time.
I think if he wants to use the North Fork Sauk as the standard approach route then that's cool. My suggestion though would be to alter the description of the route a bit. As it stands now Josh you have:
"Standard Route Information
From the Trailhead hike the trail which is about 9 miles to White Pass. "
Not only have you not told your readers how to get to the trailhead, you haven't even told them which trailhead they are starting from. Just "the Trailhead". Now, you mention how to get to the TH lower down and from that we can infer the trail. But a reader reading your page from top to bottom will not know what you are talking about at that point since you have yet to state the trail or trailhead. So maybe change it to something like:
"North Fork Sauk Approach (Standard Route)
...from the trailhead (see Getting There) hike the North Fork Sauk Trail #649..."
Also, the old cabin is called the Mackinaw Shelter FWIW. Just my opinion but the more specifics and proper names you have the better the page will be and the easier it will be for readers to follow your descriptions and match them to a map.
The N Fork Sauk Road is currently washed out (again). This might be temporary but even still it would probably be good to mention it since this adds 10 miles RT to the hike.
You have the elevation is 7467. You might change this to 7400 or 7420 interpolated as this is what shows on the current 24K map.
Ok I made those changes to the page. I originally had it say 7400, then 7410 and then today I updated it to 7467 because that's what I saw a few internet sources say, I guess it's best I estimate on this one. So the page seem accurate enough for now, but I'll give it another update within the next few days, last night I had no sleep from homework and today I had school, so I been busy. But I know I know, I should still have the page decent. What I posted so far was almost completely out of sheer memory, I'll end up having to do some research on this peak. Also I had tons of photos of this mountain but sadly they were lost when my brother lost my camera on Mount Baker. So sad, well at least I have some pics, more photos should also be coming later. So don't think I'll just leave this page as it is.
BTW Thanks eric and redwic!
Cheers Josh Lewis.
Maybe I missed it, but is this a hike? Class 3? Technical? All I could see about the difficulty is that you said there is one spot not to fall. Can you let me know the rating on this one?
Thanks,
Brian
My bad, this page needs a lot of work. I made it when I first joined. Personally I say it's class 1. Right now I need to fix up my Mount Shuksan page which is getting close to ready but needs some additions. Also working on the actual site has been keeping me busy.
ericnoel - Jan 24, 2011 12:42 am - Voted 10/10
Indian HeadThis is a good start Josh. Some possible suggestions:
History? What is the origin of the name? I don't know but I am curious. Beckey might state the answer.
There are two 7400+ contours. Which one is the summit?
A mention of the P2000 status might be something to consider.
You mention Trailhead in the route info without having stated which trailhead. You probably want to specify that at this point. This one has a lot of possible THs and route. Also, the traverse from Saul is purportedly an interesting route that might be worth mentioning. See Big Steve at NWHikers for my info on that one perhaps.
-Eric
Josh Lewis - Jan 24, 2011 1:15 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Indian HeadThanks Eric! I posted it this morning and then had a big trip I had to go on. Now I'm quite tired, but should add more to this page. Tomorrow I sadly have tons of homework.
Klenke - Jan 24, 2011 2:14 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Indian HeadJosh: it's quite a stretch to place Indian Head Peak as part of the Mountain Loop Highway parent page. It's not at all close to the MLH, even if the peak can be accessed from that side (Stefan and I climbed it in a long day, along with Kodak and Bryant, from the Little Wenatchee River Trailhead). Furthermore, the summit lies wholly outside of the drainage that goes that way (Sauk River). I think you should remove it from the MLH page.
Eric: I suppose the name Indian Head comes from the fact the mountain lies at the head of Indian Creek. But that's just conjecture. I don't think it's a reference to a head shape.
By the way, the main summit is the southwest 7400+ contour. The northeast 7400+ contour is just a little lower, but not by much. Do them both if you don't trust me.
ericnoel - Jan 24, 2011 11:29 am - Voted 10/10
Re: Indian HeadYeah, I guess that makes sense as it is the peak at the head of Indian Creek.
I used the White River approach so I guess that makes unique 3 approaches from 3 different THs between us.
Josh, Klenke is correct in that the SW summit is the probable HP. That was a semi-rhetorical question because my suspicion is that you might not have thought about what might be the highest point. I touched both summits but I was pretty confident that the SW one is the HP. This is also where the register is located. I leave it to you to determine whether it is worth mentioning on the page.
Josh Lewis - Jan 24, 2011 6:33 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Indian HeadActually I have been on the true summit, I also signed the register if you don't believe me on this. So I'll have to make a careful mentioning that the SW Summit is the real one which has the register. As for the trail head deal, I can go more into details about what side this one is on. What I considered when writing this was what side would most commonly be approached, and so I figured well some people on the way back from Glacier Peak might want to go up this peak. The White River Trailhead seems to have a little more distance when it comes to driving as well, while the Sauk River Trailhead seems a little less distance. As for the history and original name stuff I'll add this to the page as well as the prominence.
@Klenke: I have dis-attached this page from the Mountain Loop Highway page. But I do personally want it to be, because the MLH seems to be the easiest access to the mountain. So I figured a range page's purpose was not just to see what mountains are in it, but also give one an idea of what is accessible from the main road. But I can go either way. I saw Glacier Peak in that range and Glacier Peak has even more travel from the road than Indian Head.
As for the many different ways, isn't that what route pages are for? If you guys want I can say all the different routes but that would leave no to little room for route pages. The reason I mentioned any route info on this page was because I figured that the main route would be mentioned and any other way would have a route page. Just saying my thoughts on how I thought SP was set up to be. Cheers Josh Lewis.
Redwic - Jan 25, 2011 12:14 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Indian HeadMy two cents.
I like this page. Good descriptions, and (as always) you have great photos.
I agree with Josh that somebody can always feel free to create a Route page for an eastern approach of this peak. However, I agree with PK that this mountain should not be a part of the Mountain Loop Highway area due to its drainage and location. Yes, the MLH is one of the major access roads for this peak, but it is not directly adjacent to the MLH or have any drainages for the MLH area.
As for summit registers, I have personally found several summit registers incorrectly placed on false summits rather than true summits. I cannot speak from personal experience for this specific peak, as I have yet to summit it. Summit registers are found on correct peaks most of the time, but not all of the time.
ericnoel - Jan 25, 2011 1:33 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Indian HeadI think if he wants to use the North Fork Sauk as the standard approach route then that's cool. My suggestion though would be to alter the description of the route a bit. As it stands now Josh you have:
"Standard Route Information
From the Trailhead hike the trail which is about 9 miles to White Pass. "
Not only have you not told your readers how to get to the trailhead, you haven't even told them which trailhead they are starting from. Just "the Trailhead". Now, you mention how to get to the TH lower down and from that we can infer the trail. But a reader reading your page from top to bottom will not know what you are talking about at that point since you have yet to state the trail or trailhead. So maybe change it to something like:
"North Fork Sauk Approach (Standard Route)
...from the trailhead (see Getting There) hike the North Fork Sauk Trail #649..."
Also, the old cabin is called the Mackinaw Shelter FWIW. Just my opinion but the more specifics and proper names you have the better the page will be and the easier it will be for readers to follow your descriptions and match them to a map.
I'm sure your page will be great in due time.
ericnoel - Jan 25, 2011 1:38 pm - Voted 10/10
Indian HeadTwo other thoughts:
The N Fork Sauk Road is currently washed out (again). This might be temporary but even still it would probably be good to mention it since this adds 10 miles RT to the hike.
You have the elevation is 7467. You might change this to 7400 or 7420 interpolated as this is what shows on the current 24K map.
Josh Lewis - Jan 25, 2011 5:35 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Indian HeadOk I made those changes to the page. I originally had it say 7400, then 7410 and then today I updated it to 7467 because that's what I saw a few internet sources say, I guess it's best I estimate on this one. So the page seem accurate enough for now, but I'll give it another update within the next few days, last night I had no sleep from homework and today I had school, so I been busy. But I know I know, I should still have the page decent. What I posted so far was almost completely out of sheer memory, I'll end up having to do some research on this peak. Also I had tons of photos of this mountain but sadly they were lost when my brother lost my camera on Mount Baker. So sad, well at least I have some pics, more photos should also be coming later. So don't think I'll just leave this page as it is.
BTW Thanks eric and redwic!
Cheers Josh Lewis.
Brian Jenkins - Jan 13, 2014 9:25 pm - Hasn't voted
DifficultyMaybe I missed it, but is this a hike? Class 3? Technical? All I could see about the difficulty is that you said there is one spot not to fall. Can you let me know the rating on this one?
Thanks,
Brian
Josh Lewis - Jan 14, 2014 2:53 am - Hasn't voted
Re: DifficultyMy bad, this page needs a lot of work. I made it when I first joined. Personally I say it's class 1. Right now I need to fix up my Mount Shuksan page which is getting close to ready but needs some additions. Also working on the actual site has been keeping me busy.