So I'm wondering what you guys think about unofficially naming UNs or Pt. #### in order to better remember them. I remember reading a tangent from a thread on 14ers.com where people were condoning the naming of say UN 11400 to say 'Timberline Peak', stating that unofficial names just cause confusion and a lot of the names were stupid...like 'Proposal Peak'.

I ask this because today I climbed Pt. 5773 (http://listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/Climbers.php?Id=6558) (just spontaneously, I hadn't planned to climb it that day and wasn't aware of its number, I just knew it was a point and climbed it) and thought who really remembers the UN number, for this one or the other 100 UNs across Larimer county? Seriously, I can only think of one or two off the top of my head, and dont ask me where they are on a map.

So would it really be such a tragedy if I gave Pt 5773 an unofficial name for the sake of remembrance? No, I wouldn't name it Chris Peak for my own glory, just something pertinent that people could remember. Write a quick trip report on LOJ, include my unofficial name. If they someday become official, cool...if not oh well.

Just so long as you are very clear that you personally just came up with the name and that nobody else would probably know it. Nothing wrong with having a personal name for something as long as it does not confuse people.

You could come up with any number of clever peak names to make it clear that it is unofficial.

- Unnamed peak
- No Name Peak
- Formerly unnamed peak
- Peak with no Name
- Peak that Wanted a Name
- Unworthy of a Name Peak
- My Personal Peak
- Peak Doe
- Anonymous Peak
- Etc...

Peak-a-Boo

I agree that names like "UN 5667" are too vague. Some have even committed the sin of citing peaks by their UTM coordinates alone .

You could append in parentheses the range and state, something minorly descriptive so we have some clue where the peak is. For example, "UN 5678 (Bagadonutz Range AZ)"

Giving it any old made-up name is no more helpful than giving it no name. People won't know to search for the peak by that name.

On the other hand, some peaks may be near a benchmark, a nearby named summit, or some other feature so that you can get away with naming it "West (name) Peak", for example, as long as you make it clear it's unofficial and you made it up.

Who knows. With how things work on the internet, other people may cite the peak by the name you gave it, then others cite that, and it grows legs and in 30 years, the GNIS people make it official.

I've made a number of pages for unnamed peaks. I usually call it Point --- and then put a nickname in quotes, also explaining on the page that the name is not even unofficial. I try to pull the name from a notable feature either on or near the peak.

Every once in a while, someone sees the page and tells you the local name for the peak.

surgent wrote:Giving it any old made-up name is no more helpful than giving it no name. People won't know to search for the peak by that name.

I wouldn't expect people to search for it, people would discover it via LOJ, the same way I did. Honestly, documenting the name is not the hard part, thinking of a name is more difficult.

I have decided to name UN 5773 'Aggie Peak', as the summit sits just above the big 'A' overlooking Ft Collins. The A is for Ag, and since CSU is pimping their old throwback colors, I thought it'd be fitting.

Here's a good example of how NOT to identify a peak:

http://www.summitpost.org/utm722049/743678

It's one thing to name a peak by its coordinates, but just giving it a name by one coordinate is absurd.

Marmaduke wrote:Peak-a-Boo

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsj4lmyWzk0[/youtube]