Thanks for the input. Does that mean I should go back and attach all photos? If so would I need to delete their embedded counter-parts? Appreciate any guidence as I'm tech-challenged on this one.
Oh no, nothing that bad! All it amounts to is this:
1. When you're signed in and looking at your area/range page, you'll see a yellow editing bar at the top. Click "Attach/detach" on that bar.
2. On the next screen, use the pull-down to set a search for "images" (NOT "all except images"). Check the box for "My submissions only." Don't enter anything in the "For" blank. Now click "Find objects."
3. Your pictures will pop up. Check the box by each one that's related to this page. Click "attach objects" at the bottom.
Hi Dean, thanks for checking out my new (and only) page. Yes, seems like it would fit. Not sure I understand how the attaching works. In this case would you do it or I?
Foster
Either one of you can. Foster, if you want to do it, follow the same steps except on step 2, search "Mountains and Rocks" "For" Copper Butte, and DON'T check "My submissions only."
What this will accomplish is make cross-references between your pages that appear on the left margin (among other things).
Foster, I took the liberty of attaching Copper Butte to your page. There are three other mountains on SP that you could attach:
Wapaloosie Mtn 154199
Sherman Peak 516885
Snow Peak 516891
By using the attach/detach mechanism, attach these as a child to your range page. CMB has the info on this but let me know if
you need more help on how to do this. You have a nice page and
by adding the mountain pages that exist for this range, it'll be
even nicer.
Dean, I haven't been able to attach Wapaloosie Mtn 154199, Sherman Peak 516885, or Snow Peak 516891. When I try to do so the search engine simply doesn't find anything. Most likely pilot error on my part. Suggestions?
Hi Foster, I've put together a step by step that should work:
1. Go to the Orange Editor Options bar near the top of the page and click on the attach/detach option.
2. When you click on that, it'll bring up another page that offers a "find objects to attach to Kettle Range"
3. Under search, leave it on "all except images" and put the number of the mountain, which for Wapaloosie Mtn would be 154199 and click on the find object button.
4. This will bring up a line for Wapaloosie Mtn. Find the attach as a child button and click the attach object button. This should put Wapaloosie on your front page on the left side.
Repeat this step for Sherman Peak and Snow Peak using the numbers as listed prior. Again, if you have a problem, let me know.
One thing that looked a little bit funny is that some of the peak elevations are different than those shown on the USGS quads. I'm seeing Copper Butte as 7140 and Snow Peak as 7103. Not sure what the source of the difference is?
You might also wish to mention the push to make this area a federal wilderness area. I don't have any links off the top of my head but I know that I have read some articles about conservation groups who are campaigning to make this a wilderness.
Appreciate the comment on the KRR page. Will look onto the differing elevation notes and see if I can solve the question. Yes, there are a number of pages on the inter-net addressing the various campaigns regarding the Kettle River Range. Intent for this page is to present the Kettle River Range as it is, but not necessarily make it a platform for my politics. Thank you.
My thought is that in an ideal world it would be nice to present the wilderness proposals as a current issue and try to be neutral about it while at the same time informing people so that they can make up their mind one way or another. But I can certainly understand the reluctance to get into the politics as once you go down that road it almost inevitably gets into haggling and outright squabbling.
Thanks for the comment. The KRR page is really a work in progress. I'm collaborating with the Stonerose Interpretive Center to add a geological component to this page and the local historical society to include some historical data as well. Hope to have those components up before the years end.
Bubba Suess - Dec 1, 2010 11:34 pm - Voted 10/10
Other picturesYou ought to attach all the images you used for this page to the gallery.
foster fanning - Dec 1, 2010 11:52 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Other picturesThanks Bubba, I'll change out that one pic of the cabin I lifted from on-line. Foster
chugach mtn boy - Dec 2, 2010 11:53 am - Voted 10/10
Nice addition to the site... breaks some good new ground!
I think Bubba means "attach" the pictures as "children" to the main page. Right now they are just embedded, but not attached.
foster fanning - Dec 2, 2010 12:18 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Nice addition to the siteThanks for the input. Does that mean I should go back and attach all photos? If so would I need to delete their embedded counter-parts? Appreciate any guidence as I'm tech-challenged on this one.
chugach mtn boy - Dec 2, 2010 2:28 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Nice addition to the siteOh no, nothing that bad! All it amounts to is this:
1. When you're signed in and looking at your area/range page, you'll see a yellow editing bar at the top. Click "Attach/detach" on that bar.
2. On the next screen, use the pull-down to set a search for "images" (NOT "all except images"). Check the box for "My submissions only." Don't enter anything in the "For" blank. Now click "Find objects."
3. Your pictures will pop up. Check the box by each one that's related to this page. Click "attach objects" at the bottom.
foster fanning - Dec 2, 2010 3:20 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Nice addition to the siteThat helped ~ thanks. Think I have it now...
Dean - Dec 2, 2010 11:12 pm - Voted 10/10
Copper ButteJust in case you haven't seen this one, this could be attached to your range page:
Copper Butte
foster fanning - Dec 2, 2010 11:19 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Copper ButteHi Dean, thanks for checking out my new (and only) page. Yes, seems like it would fit. Not sure I understand how the attaching works. In this case would you do it or I?
Foster
chugach mtn boy - Dec 3, 2010 2:45 am - Voted 10/10
Re: Copper ButteEither one of you can. Foster, if you want to do it, follow the same steps except on step 2, search "Mountains and Rocks" "For" Copper Butte, and DON'T check "My submissions only."
What this will accomplish is make cross-references between your pages that appear on the left margin (among other things).
Dean - Dec 3, 2010 8:21 am - Voted 10/10
Re: Copper ButteFoster, I took the liberty of attaching Copper Butte to your page. There are three other mountains on SP that you could attach:
Wapaloosie Mtn 154199
Sherman Peak 516885
Snow Peak 516891
By using the attach/detach mechanism, attach these as a child to your range page. CMB has the info on this but let me know if
you need more help on how to do this. You have a nice page and
by adding the mountain pages that exist for this range, it'll be
even nicer.
Dean
foster fanning - Dec 7, 2010 8:02 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Copper ButteDean, I haven't been able to attach Wapaloosie Mtn 154199, Sherman Peak 516885, or Snow Peak 516891. When I try to do so the search engine simply doesn't find anything. Most likely pilot error on my part. Suggestions?
Dean - Dec 13, 2010 7:35 am - Voted 10/10
Re: Copper ButteHi Foster, I've put together a step by step that should work:
1. Go to the Orange Editor Options bar near the top of the page and click on the attach/detach option.
2. When you click on that, it'll bring up another page that offers a "find objects to attach to Kettle Range"
3. Under search, leave it on "all except images" and put the number of the mountain, which for Wapaloosie Mtn would be 154199 and click on the find object button.
4. This will bring up a line for Wapaloosie Mtn. Find the attach as a child button and click the attach object button. This should put Wapaloosie on your front page on the left side.
Repeat this step for Sherman Peak and Snow Peak using the numbers as listed prior. Again, if you have a problem, let me know.
ericnoel - Dec 6, 2010 5:13 pm - Voted 10/10
Kettle RangeThis is a good thorough page.
One thing that looked a little bit funny is that some of the peak elevations are different than those shown on the USGS quads. I'm seeing Copper Butte as 7140 and Snow Peak as 7103. Not sure what the source of the difference is?
You might also wish to mention the push to make this area a federal wilderness area. I don't have any links off the top of my head but I know that I have read some articles about conservation groups who are campaigning to make this a wilderness.
foster fanning - Dec 7, 2010 7:59 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Kettle RangeAppreciate the comment on the KRR page. Will look onto the differing elevation notes and see if I can solve the question. Yes, there are a number of pages on the inter-net addressing the various campaigns regarding the Kettle River Range. Intent for this page is to present the Kettle River Range as it is, but not necessarily make it a platform for my politics. Thank you.
ericnoel - Dec 8, 2010 1:06 am - Voted 10/10
Re: Kettle RangeMy thought is that in an ideal world it would be nice to present the wilderness proposals as a current issue and try to be neutral about it while at the same time informing people so that they can make up their mind one way or another. But I can certainly understand the reluctance to get into the politics as once you go down that road it almost inevitably gets into haggling and outright squabbling.
mrh - Dec 9, 2010 4:19 pm - Voted 10/10
Good PageI like it. Thanks for the thorough effort.
foster fanning - Dec 9, 2010 7:45 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Good PageThanks for the comment. The KRR page is really a work in progress. I'm collaborating with the Stonerose Interpretive Center to add a geological component to this page and the local historical society to include some historical data as well. Hope to have those components up before the years end.
Wandering Sole Images - Dec 17, 2010 2:42 am - Voted 10/10
Looks greatNice efforts on the page! A great addition to Summitpost's growing library of information :)
foster fanning - Dec 17, 2010 8:39 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Looks greatThank you. Took a look at your profile, hadn't seen such use of videos on SP. Very nice...
bigbuilder - Jan 9, 2011 1:39 pm - Hasn't voted
Nice page, a range I hadn't heard ofBeautiful pictures here. Looks really idyllic.