Interesting! Sounds like you've been through the ringer on this one. However, I disagree about whether it should be on SP (though I can certainly see both sides of the issue). If we're trying to provide a clearing-house of information about mountain climbing, your beta seems like critically important information that people should be aware of. However, it's not my page and I can see going either way on it.
Also, ATTM checked into climbing it. He asked the rangers at the visitor center who told him it was absolutely forbidden to enter that part of the refuge. Believe me, if it was possible to legally climb this mountain, ATTM and I would have found a way.
I'm upping my vote per consensus. However, you lose a star for not having a detailed route description to the summit (because you haven't climbed it). Also, the page needs contact info for the Refuge and a better description on how to get to the Wildlife Refuge.
I disagree. If climbing Sheridan will get you shot or imprisoned, it seems like this information is vital for people who might want to climb it. Under SP's mission as an mountain information clearing-house, this seems very important.
You can't climb Culebra or Jerimoth Hill (except under very controlled conditions), but they're still on SP.
(edit: this page has improved quite a lot since the original votes were cast. I agree with attm; this page is about as complete as it's going to get. Thanks for spurring such an interesting bit of discussion.)
I don't know if you've been following the discussion on this one, but the general consensus has shifted from attms original vote. The page has improved a lot and you might want to revisit this one.
4 stars with a suggestion. Perhaps bold text at the beginning expaining why this peak is off limits. It still exists and perhaps in the future will be open to the public in some way. This perhaps will please the gods.
There are peaks in Nepal that are off limits to summit but are SP as well.
It should just be clear that no trespassing is allowed.
I do not agree that because of some possesive dickheads say that this mountain can not be climbed it should deserve a zero vote. But contents of this page are rather scant, that is the reason for the 2. Let me know if you improve the page and I will beef up the vote. I do not think this page should be deleted.
You'll need a LOT more emphasis on the unclimbable nature of this peak, and you'll need to demonstrate at least some personal knowledge of the mountain that shows that you are capable of representing it well. It would be interesting to see if if enough interest is demonstrated in some of these mountains there would be a possibility of getting possibly one day a year to climb them or something of that sort, and that sort of interest could potentially be stirred up from a page here, but other than that, this page doesn't seem to add very much. Maybe I'm wrong. If you can present some good, solid, information, I would be very appreciative!
[edit] This page looks a lot better! Thanks for your work!
I think the page should stay. It's a bit on the short side, though some of that may be inevitable due to restrictions.
It may seem silly, but I'd go ahead and add a "Camping" section, and have it say something like "no camping within northern section of refuge. Nearest spot is ___ ; call/ write/ websurf ___ for info."
It's certainly more than one or two stars, but it's no Baldy Point either. I give it three stars.
CharlesD - Mar 20, 2005 10:18 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentInteresting! Sounds like you've been through the ringer on this one. However, I disagree about whether it should be on SP (though I can certainly see both sides of the issue). If we're trying to provide a clearing-house of information about mountain climbing, your beta seems like critically important information that people should be aware of. However, it's not my page and I can see going either way on it.
Too bad, it looks like an interesting peak.
CD
Alan Ellis - Mar 21, 2005 8:23 am - Voted 8/10
Untitled CommentAlso, ATTM checked into climbing it. He asked the rangers at the visitor center who told him it was absolutely forbidden to enter that part of the refuge. Believe me, if it was possible to legally climb this mountain, ATTM and I would have found a way.
splandswest - Mar 21, 2005 2:33 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentAlthough the Mt Sheridan page is still under construction... I have emphasized CAUTION regarding trespassing.
Thanks for you imput.
hgrapid - Mar 20, 2005 9:51 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentIt is nice to idenitfy an unclimbable peak, but if I can't climb it, than I can't summit it.
hgrapid - Mar 23, 2005 1:38 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentThe maintainer e-mailed me wanting to get rid of this page.
Alan Ellis - Mar 20, 2005 9:57 pm - Voted 8/10
Untitled CommentI'm upping my vote per consensus. However, you lose a star for not having a detailed route description to the summit (because you haven't climbed it). Also, the page needs contact info for the Refuge and a better description on how to get to the Wildlife Refuge.
CharlesD - Mar 20, 2005 10:16 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentI disagree. If climbing Sheridan will get you shot or imprisoned, it seems like this information is vital for people who might want to climb it. Under SP's mission as an mountain information clearing-house, this seems very important.
You can't climb Culebra or Jerimoth Hill (except under very controlled conditions), but they're still on SP.
(edit: this page has improved quite a lot since the original votes were cast. I agree with attm; this page is about as complete as it's going to get. Thanks for spurring such an interesting bit of discussion.)
Just my two cents.
CharlesD - Mar 21, 2005 12:49 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentI think this is a very interesting discussion and something that should reach a wider audience. I've started a thread on Site Feedback.
splandswest - Mar 21, 2005 2:33 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentAlthough the Mt Sheridan page is still under construction... I believe I have now emphasized CAUTION regarding trespassing.
Thanks for you imput.
Kane - Mar 20, 2005 10:35 pm - Voted 5/10
Untitled CommentThe page has improved and props for editing the page for the better. Ditto Lower Marmot's comments.
CharlesD - Mar 21, 2005 12:50 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentI think this is a very interesting discussion and something that should reach a wider audience. I've started a thread on Site Feedback.
splandswest - Mar 21, 2005 2:32 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentAlthough the Mt Sheridan page is still under construction... I have emphasized CAUTION regarding trespassing.
Thanks for you imput.
mtwashingtonmonroe - Mar 21, 2005 10:12 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentOK!
CharlesD - Mar 23, 2005 12:17 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentYo Britt,
I don't know if you've been following the discussion on this one, but the general consensus has shifted from attms original vote. The page has improved a lot and you might want to revisit this one.
mtwashingtonmonroe - Mar 23, 2005 12:52 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentThanks Charles for the heads up. I'll check it out! Have a good one Charles!
-Britt
William Marler - Mar 21, 2005 12:30 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled Comment4 stars with a suggestion. Perhaps bold text at the beginning expaining why this peak is off limits. It still exists and perhaps in the future will be open to the public in some way. This perhaps will please the gods.
There are peaks in Nepal that are off limits to summit but are SP as well.
It should just be clear that no trespassing is allowed.
Johan Heersink - Mar 21, 2005 1:08 pm - Voted 5/10
Untitled CommentI do not agree that because of some possesive dickheads say that this mountain can not be climbed it should deserve a zero vote. But contents of this page are rather scant, that is the reason for the 2. Let me know if you improve the page and I will beef up the vote. I do not think this page should be deleted.
The Lower Marmot - Mar 21, 2005 3:30 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentHere's my conditional vote--
You'll need a LOT more emphasis on the unclimbable nature of this peak, and you'll need to demonstrate at least some personal knowledge of the mountain that shows that you are capable of representing it well. It would be interesting to see if if enough interest is demonstrated in some of these mountains there would be a possibility of getting possibly one day a year to climb them or something of that sort, and that sort of interest could potentially be stirred up from a page here, but other than that, this page doesn't seem to add very much. Maybe I'm wrong. If you can present some good, solid, information, I would be very appreciative!
[edit] This page looks a lot better! Thanks for your work!
nartreb - Mar 22, 2005 5:55 pm - Voted 8/10
Untitled CommentI think the page should stay. It's a bit on the short side, though some of that may be inevitable due to restrictions.
It may seem silly, but I'd go ahead and add a "Camping" section, and have it say something like "no camping within northern section of refuge. Nearest spot is ___ ; call/ write/ websurf ___ for info."
It's certainly more than one or two stars, but it's no Baldy Point either. I give it three stars.
Rob A - Mar 28, 2005 12:48 pm - Voted 8/10
Untitled CommentGood Page. But if i can't climb it why is it here?