Under "Getting There" might add a comment that for technical routes up it, you actually follow the approach to just below Ice Lake (= Mounties Rotue up Whitney with a slightly different set of Nazi permit rules than Whit. trail).
Thanks for the note. I was surprised no one had started a page on Keeler yet. I'll update the tech/east climb info for Getting There (i.e. MR overnight permits). Next year I'll be specifically climbing the east faces/buttresses (Whitney, Keeler, Muir), so will have more info on the tech routes.
Nice page, but your Lat/Lon coordinates look like they're off a little. Check out the Topozone link and you'll see what I mean. Also, is there and Area/Range this could be added to make it easier to find? Thanks for posting this mountain.
Thanks for the lat/lon heads up. I realized I was looking at something else on Topo when I copied the coordinates. I'll attach the page to the Sequoia section, too. Thanks again.
GPS readings at Keeler's summit show the elevation to be somewhere around 14325 (+/-20) feet. These readings were stable, averaged readings, and were taken on two separate occasions.
Is the 14260 figure taken from a labeled elevation on a topo map, or is it an estimation based on contours? Or is it from some other source? I saw a similar (incorrect) figure of 14240 written on Keeler's summit log when I was there last week. If the figure is taken from contours on a map, I suspect the resolution of the map is such that the contours do not accurately depict Keeler's small, sharp summit.
The saddle between Keeler and Whitney is around 14120 feet, so Keeler, without 300 feet of prominence, is still counted as a sub-peak of Whitney (and not counted as California's 3rd highest mountain).
Anyone doubting my figure of ~14325 can of course verify it for him/herself with a GPS. Alternatively, a barometric altimeter, recently calibrated at Whitney's ~14495, could also be used to verify this figure.
As I noted in the overview, the elevation is an average based on the range of topo listings and GPS measurements. Since there's no USGS benchmark, there's a wide range. Until this gets a designation (if ever), it's going to be a +/- situation. (Whitney's a good example of the elevation battle---even with benchmarks people argue the height anywhere from 14,494 to 14,505...) Thanks for the note.
how much prominence does Keeler have. from the east side, it looks like it has several hundred feet of prominence (I'm judging from photos). should it be considered a seperate summit?
About 200 feet. The saddle between it and Whitney is maybe a bit over 14100, and the summit is a bit over 14300. These values were obtained several times, in measurements using both a GPS and a barometric altimeter calibrated on Whitney 30 minutes prior. From yesterday (11 August 2009), I have barometric-pressure measurements of the saddle and Keeler's summit. The two measurements were only 13 minutes apart. These direct measurements of Keeler's prominence indicated that it is right around 200 feet.
What is the arbitrary threshold value of prominence to make it a separate peak? 300 feet? If so, Mount Muir is cutting it pretty close. Muir's saddle with higher points to the north is right around 300 feet below its summit elevation. If the actual value is 290 feet, Muir would not be a separate peak and not one of California's fourteeners.
Google Earth TM shows the highest elevation of the land at Keeler Needle is 14,286', and the saddle between it and Whitney at 14,083', so 203' if you go by Google Earth TM, however accurate that is considered.