Re: 100 Highest Peaks in North America
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 2:06 pm
Perhaps the definition of "North America" should come from an official geology or geography organization.
Climbing, hiking, mountaineering forum
Sierra Ledge Rat wrote:Perhaps the definition of "North America" should come from an official geology or geography organization.
Scott wrote:Some consider Central America not a part of North America."
Who? I've never heard of anyone or any source that considers Central America as not a part of North America.
Scott wrote:If not North America, which continent would it belong to?
Scott wrote:It is not a seperate continent nor belongs to South America, but only north?
davehart wrote:The last three arctic fourteeners may take a while, and Popo may never settle down enough for me to visit. But only time will tell.
The North Summit of Denali is not a distinct peak, so one must use a large enough prominence 1,350' to exclude it
Scott wrote:The North Summit of Denali is not a distinct peak, so one must use a large enough prominence 1,350' to exclude it
And yet the little bump Challenger Point is? You include bumps and little sub-peaks such as Challenger Point as separate while at the same time excluding many of the Alaska/Canada peaks. Kinda lame if you ask me, but it does make you endeavor a lot easier since you can beef up the numbers with easy bumps as separate peaks.
I know the Alaska Mountaineering Club uses 500', but other list use a much greater prominence for separate peaks. Still, if peaks such as North Denali and Churchill are excluded, so should peaks such as Challenger Point.
There is nothing wrong with counting Challenger Point, but to do so, Peaks such as North Denali and Churchill should also be included to make any list meaningful (unless other subpeaks such as Challenger are also excluded). Of course we all have to climb our own list, but for elevation list, there should be at least some consistency.
Since Dave has climbed almost all of them, it's probably best to defer to him for guidance on the 'rules' of the list.
one should use the local customs
Scott wrote:Since Dave has climbed almost all of them, it's probably best to defer to him for guidance on the 'rules' of the list.
Even if he did climb every single one, it wouldn't change the fact that including Challenger Point while eliminating Churchill on a single list would make a list lame.
I think i know what you are saying - you want a pure, consistent list. 300, 500, 1,400 whatever - just be consistent (so as to be comparable). Right?
My only thought to that (and I respect that --- agree with it on many levels too) is that if you are the first guy to climb the list (and by all indications, I think Dave is as close as anyone will ever get --- unless he himself completes the list), then you get to call the shots.
14,000 ft elevation (or 8,000m) is as arbitrary as 500 ft prominence or lines on a map. Lists are not perfect. Neither are the guys measuring them (and the guys measuring the elevations and prominence for that matter!).
That's why I sort of feel better using as my barometer the following: a) the local custom and b) the guys that have been there and done that.
Everything else is just speculation. Everybody needs to do what's best for them.
There are no endorsements or trophies or cash prizes or girl groupies for finishing a list (as far as I know, they show up for different reasons). It's personal from start to finish...