Inconsistency with prominence on peak lists?

Post general questions and discuss issues related to climbing.
User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Thanked: 1880 times in 1398 posts

Re: Inconsistency with prominence on peak lists?

by lcarreau » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:26 pm

Teresa Gergen wrote: I'm afraid I have no knowledge of club lists in the Pacific NW or in the Eastern US.


Well... consider yourself lucky! The Pacific NW folks drink way too much Starbucks, while the Eastern US folks just drink way too much. -- :wink:
"Turkey Vultures always vomit when they get nervous."

User Avatar
spiderman

 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:47 am
Thanked: 16 times in 13 posts

Re: Inconsistency with prominence on peak lists?

by spiderman » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:28 pm

I do completely agree with Teresa's philosophy of all peaks are good peaks, even the low prominence ones, although I lack her ability to climb each and every one. The high prominence ones though do have a special place in my heart. Going after the 5,000' Ultra Prominence peak list has been an amazing quest. Almost every one has spectacular beauty, especially the ones in Montana.

If you look at the unnamed peaks in Oregon, you will immediately see why nobody has named most of the minor bumps in regions with far more notable mountains. Starbucks is way out of fashion in the Pacific NW now, and the people in the East don't drink anywhere near as much as the people stuck in North Dakota in winter.

User Avatar
Scott

 
Posts: 8296
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:03 pm
Thanked: 1132 times in 590 posts

Re: Inconsistency with prominence on peak lists?

by Scott » Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:17 am

Only being very familiar with CO, I'd guess it has more to do with elevation. The lower in elevation you go, the fewer named peaks, at least maybe as a percentage of the peaks in that elevation range. CO has some seriously difficult lower unnamed ranked peaks in the western half of the state.


One reason why the highest peaks in Colorado are named is because most of them are near historic mining areas and were named long ago. I believe that this is the #1 reason that most of the high Colorado peaks are named, though of course it isn't the only reason.

Using Colorado's neighboring state Utah, for example, most of the higher peaks aren't named, while most of them near populated areas are. In this case, elevation has no bearing on whether or not the peaks are named.

In Utah, the 26 of the highest mountains in Utah are in the Uinta Mountains. Only 9 have official names. The Uinta Mountains however, don't have any many historic mining areas (I only know of a few prospects on the far edge of the range) and many of the peaks aren't even visible from any roads. It isn't surprising that they never had official names.

The following user would like to thank Scott for this post
lcarreau, seano, Teresa Gergen

Previous

Return to General

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests