John Kirk - Oct 2, 2008 2:00 pm - Voted 10/10
Which contour is higher?From the picture, looks like you're showing the south of the two 8,400' contours is the higher of the two, right?
Thanks
Klenke - Oct 2, 2008 2:27 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Which is contour higher?Yes, the true summit is the south summit. Here is a view of the north summit from the south summit.
John Kirk - Oct 2, 2008 3:39 pm - Voted 10/10
ThanksI'm putting together a list of all 300' mean prominence WA peaks - this is helpful to know.
Klenke - Oct 3, 2008 12:22 am - Hasn't voted
Re: ThanksThat will be a big list. This will in no way diminish Howbert's work, which I view as not only seminal but institutional for Washington.
Serious peakbaggers in WA will have a hard time buying in to the 300-ft cut-off, especially for a "mean" prominence 300-ft cut off. So this list will be mostly only useful for WA outsiders whose own states use 300 ft.
This has presented me with a dilemma when I climb unnamed summits outside of Washington. If the summit has less than 400 ft of "clean" prominence (say 323P) and it is unnamed, can I count it? Or can I use that state's cut-off value (if 300P) and thereby count it (I'm talking about counting it in my personal log)?
In terms of quantity, someone who climbs 2500 400+ prominence peaks has worked a lot harder than someone who has done 2500 300+ prominence peaks.
John Kirk - Oct 3, 2008 10:40 am - Voted 10/10
Re: ThanksAgreed. Going deeper into detail can't hurt. I'm looking at 300' interpolated prominence primarily for consistency and the ability to compare "apples to apples", as I have completed listing seven other western states using 300' interpolated. No doubt the results will show impressive figures for WA. A clean 400 list/interface may be an add-on/option at some point to honor the local criteria.
Comments
Post a Comment