I think Camel's Hump in Vermont definitely is considered an Alpine Peak, especially if Killington Peak is included also. Camel's Hump has a lot more open area than Killington. Also, I added a picture to your list of Mt Mansfield and it's Alpine vegetation. Thanks for the list.
-tioga
WOW..... mistake, so sorry. I had always intended on including Camels hump (it holds 2nd most alpine acreage in VT). I must have just forgot to put it in. Thanks for the catch.
1. Why are peaks listed in the given order? It's not by altitude and it doesn't seem to be by area of tundra.
2. Are you using a prominence criterion? (Why is moosilauke listed but not moosilauke's south peak?)
3. In addition to providing links to mountain pages, and maybe small photos of each mountain, it would be useful to "show your work" - state, in a sentence or two, why it qualifies.
For example, why is Cannon listed? If having cliffs or slides is sufficient, then Webster, Lowell, and many more belong on the list. And if viewing platforms count for providing 360 degree views, then Carrigain belongs on the list too (has krummholz zones on Signal Ridge).
There is not specific order given, I suppose ordered by height would be easy enough, so that may change soon. I have very, very few, If any at all sub- peaks listed. It is contained within the overall mountain. Cannon I debated over for a while, and decided to add it, there will always be 'fringe' qualifiers for any list and I explicitly wrote my criteria for deciding who stays and who goes. Also, Dumb overlook, Monadnock is added.
You might be interested in this list. I'm still not sure I understand your criteria, but I suspect that most of the peaks on that list would qualify for yours.
Also, it seems your primary interest is ecological. If the goal is educational, why not give links to more info about the various ecosystems and species?
tioga - Jul 14, 2008 12:55 pm - Hasn't voted
Camel's HumpI think Camel's Hump in Vermont definitely is considered an Alpine Peak, especially if Killington Peak is included also. Camel's Hump has a lot more open area than Killington. Also, I added a picture to your list of Mt Mansfield and it's Alpine vegetation. Thanks for the list.
-tioga
cbucker - Jul 14, 2008 2:50 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Camel's HumpWOW..... mistake, so sorry. I had always intended on including Camels hump (it holds 2nd most alpine acreage in VT). I must have just forgot to put it in. Thanks for the catch.
birdny - Jul 25, 2008 6:50 pm - Voted 10/10
linksNice page and good info. Most of those peaks listed have summit post pages, it would be nice to have them linked in the article. Otherwise good work!
cbucker - Jul 29, 2008 11:18 am - Hasn't voted
Re: linksThanks for the kudos, I know, I should have made all the links but there are about 70 links to put in. So it may take a while haha.
nartreb - Feb 17, 2009 11:41 pm - Voted 7/10
could be a lot more useful1. Why are peaks listed in the given order? It's not by altitude and it doesn't seem to be by area of tundra.
2. Are you using a prominence criterion? (Why is moosilauke listed but not moosilauke's south peak?)
3. In addition to providing links to mountain pages, and maybe small photos of each mountain, it would be useful to "show your work" - state, in a sentence or two, why it qualifies.
For example, why is Cannon listed? If having cliffs or slides is sufficient, then Webster, Lowell, and many more belong on the list. And if viewing platforms count for providing 360 degree views, then Carrigain belongs on the list too (has krummholz zones on Signal Ridge).
PS what about Monadnock?
cbucker - Mar 26, 2009 9:17 am - Hasn't voted
Re: could be a lot more usefulThere is not specific order given, I suppose ordered by height would be easy enough, so that may change soon. I have very, very few, If any at all sub- peaks listed. It is contained within the overall mountain. Cannon I debated over for a while, and decided to add it, there will always be 'fringe' qualifiers for any list and I explicitly wrote my criteria for deciding who stays and who goes. Also, Dumb overlook, Monadnock is added.
Thanks, Buck
nartreb - Mar 26, 2009 10:03 am - Voted 7/10
Re: could be a lot more usefulYou might be interested in this list. I'm still not sure I understand your criteria, but I suspect that most of the peaks on that list would qualify for yours.
Also, it seems your primary interest is ecological. If the goal is educational, why not give links to more info about the various ecosystems and species?