Inconsistency with prominence on peak lists?
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:54 am
I will preface this by saying that the only list I have completed is the Adirondack 46 and that list is a total mess. Nominally it represents the 46 highest peaks (over 4000') in the Adirondacks, however at least four of the peaks are under 4K', at least one 4K' is omitted and many of the peaks are not actually ranked (have insufficient prominence). However, this is a great list, with a great history and because there is an "official" 46er club, the list is not really disputed, that is just the list of peaks to climb to become a registered "46er"
I live in Oregon now and even before I moved out here I was doing a lot of trips around the country and working on other lists. The list I am furthest along is the CO 14ers and/or Centennials (41 down, mostly 14ers). The 14er list is mostly official, 53 if you are doing "ranked" and 58 if you go for all the "named" peaks. Gerry Roach's excellent guide books (13ers and 14ers) sets pretty consistent rules and applies the 300 feet of prominence rule, which I understand to be the USGS standard.
Now OR and WA top 100 lists seem a little inconsistent. The Washington list is based on 400' of prominence, but at least the list seems pretty comprehensive and not really disputed, beyond minor differences between the "Bulger" list (which includes a few unranked, but significant peaks like Mt. Sahale) and the official ranked list. I feel like since WA has a lot of "mountaineering" peaks and a pretty rich climbing history (via Fred Beckey and others) things are pretty squared away.
The most official OR list I can find is based on 500' of prominence, however this excludes a number of significant peaks that make the 300' prominence (Matterhorn, Glacier Peak). Likewise, the OR list doesn't seem as official and includes some unnamed peaks. I'm pretty sure only one person even claims to have done all of the OR 100.
Just curious what your thoughts are on this. Anyone have any idea why the OR and WA lists don't use the 300' rule and then don't even use the same alternate standard (400 vs. 500 feet)? Does OR needs a real guide book or something more definitive for it's list, or is the OR list not even worth the bother because the quality of a number of the peaks is just not up to the standards of WA and CA. Obviously you could make a top 100 for any state (even Missouri) but it wouldn't be worth the trip and nobody would be interested.
Part of the reason I ask these questions is I was thinking of trying to develop a new "hybrid" OR list based on elevation, prominence, importance (county, NP, state highpoint) that was more in the range of 50 peaks. I feel like the ADK46 and CO 14ers are great lists, around the optimum number of peaks to make it challenging, but not a life commitment. Even the CO centennials is not too bad. WA 100 is a good list, but it is very difficult and is not realistic for anyone who does not live in state and is not committed to being a serious climber. But that's fine, like a dozen people have done it, so its not impossible and the list has lots of quality peaks so there is nothing to critique in my mind.
I live in Oregon now and even before I moved out here I was doing a lot of trips around the country and working on other lists. The list I am furthest along is the CO 14ers and/or Centennials (41 down, mostly 14ers). The 14er list is mostly official, 53 if you are doing "ranked" and 58 if you go for all the "named" peaks. Gerry Roach's excellent guide books (13ers and 14ers) sets pretty consistent rules and applies the 300 feet of prominence rule, which I understand to be the USGS standard.
Now OR and WA top 100 lists seem a little inconsistent. The Washington list is based on 400' of prominence, but at least the list seems pretty comprehensive and not really disputed, beyond minor differences between the "Bulger" list (which includes a few unranked, but significant peaks like Mt. Sahale) and the official ranked list. I feel like since WA has a lot of "mountaineering" peaks and a pretty rich climbing history (via Fred Beckey and others) things are pretty squared away.
The most official OR list I can find is based on 500' of prominence, however this excludes a number of significant peaks that make the 300' prominence (Matterhorn, Glacier Peak). Likewise, the OR list doesn't seem as official and includes some unnamed peaks. I'm pretty sure only one person even claims to have done all of the OR 100.
Just curious what your thoughts are on this. Anyone have any idea why the OR and WA lists don't use the 300' rule and then don't even use the same alternate standard (400 vs. 500 feet)? Does OR needs a real guide book or something more definitive for it's list, or is the OR list not even worth the bother because the quality of a number of the peaks is just not up to the standards of WA and CA. Obviously you could make a top 100 for any state (even Missouri) but it wouldn't be worth the trip and nobody would be interested.
Part of the reason I ask these questions is I was thinking of trying to develop a new "hybrid" OR list based on elevation, prominence, importance (county, NP, state highpoint) that was more in the range of 50 peaks. I feel like the ADK46 and CO 14ers are great lists, around the optimum number of peaks to make it challenging, but not a life commitment. Even the CO centennials is not too bad. WA 100 is a good list, but it is very difficult and is not realistic for anyone who does not live in state and is not committed to being a serious climber. But that's fine, like a dozen people have done it, so its not impossible and the list has lots of quality peaks so there is nothing to critique in my mind.