Here's what James P. Johnson, author of the 50 Hikes for Eastern Washington's Highest Mountains, says on pages 9-10 of his book:
"DETERMINING THE HIGHEST 50 MOUNTAINS"
"Before a list of the highest peaks on this side of the state could be compiled, the boundaries of Eastern Washington first had to be defined. Looking at almost any map of Washington, there's an obvious natural division that cuts the state into two roughly equal halves and is also a low point from which the land rises going both east and west. This dividing line is the Columbia River valley, from its southernmost point where it forms the border with Oregon, upstream to its confluence with the Okanagan River, and northward along that river to the Canadian border. Thus the entire Cascade Range is considered to be in the western half of the state, and none of its peaks are included on the list.
"Because there exists no official list of the highest peaks in Eastern Washington, a thorough search of USGS topographic maps was undertaken. But the more difficult task was establishing the criteria in deciding what constitutes a mountain.
"As many hikers and climbers know, there's a big gray area when it comes to applying the term mountain. Land masses that rise far above the surrounding landscape standing alone, are easy to pick out and call a mountain. Often is the case, however, when a long, high ridge topped by several peaks makes this determination more difficult. Is every pinnacle or high point a mountain, even if some are separated by only a couple hundred feet? Or is the entire ridge one mountain, even if there are plunging valleys between peaks and the ridge is many miles long?
"A variety of standards have been devised to solve these questions, all of which have their shortcomings, and none of which have been adopted universally.
"One standard states there must be a certain mileage between peaks. Two peaks inside the mileage standard are considered one peak. However, the shortcoming with this method, besides being arbitrary, is that if all peaks along a ridge are in close proximity, each negates the neighboring peak, leaving only the highest point of the ridge considered a mountain.
"Another standard states that a peak must rise a certain distance above the ridge of which it is a part. In this case, only distinct and prominent peaks along a ridge are recognized. With this standard however, there could be a very high-elevation peak, even higher than any stand-alone mountain, but if it doesn't rise far enough above the ridge, it's not considered a mountain.
"A third standard, which seems to be the best method to deal with this problem, involves the elevation difference between peaks and saddles. If two peaks are connected by a ridge, the low point between the two (the saddle) must have a certain elevation difference between it and the lower-elevation peak. If this standard is met, the two peaks are separate and distinct. If it is not met, then the lower-elevation peak is considered part of the higher one.
"The problem with this method is determining how much of an elevation difference must exist. Should it be 200 feet? 500 feet? A thousand or more? Any amount seems arbitrary and would surely be a source of disagreement.
"After careful consideration of these standards, it was decided a system that already exists suffices quite nicely -- place-names established by the U.S. Geological Survey. Therefore, any named point, be it called a mountain, ridge, or hill, is on the list if it is one of the highest 50 places."
Now that you've told me where this supposed "South Fork (7,152 ft)" is (click here), I am surprised Mr. Johnson included it as a named summit. The labeling of South Fork on the map is for the geodetic marker (the benchmark that is represented by the triangle with dot at center, a triangulation point) and IS NOT the name of the peak at that location. It says "South Fork" because that is most likely what is stamped on the BM there. It is no doubt a reference to the South Fork Salmo River north of that point. Often, what is stamped on a BM is a reference to a far off placename or some other metaphysical entity/place. There are many such BMs in the U.S. with what's stamped on them labeled on the map.
dluders - Jun 11, 2005 11:21 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentI am snail-mailing Mr. Klenke's observations to Mr. Johnson here in Spokane, for comment and possible resolution.
dluders - Jun 10, 2005 9:19 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentHere's what James P. Johnson, author of the 50 Hikes for Eastern Washington's Highest Mountains, says on pages 9-10 of his book:
"DETERMINING THE HIGHEST 50 MOUNTAINS"
"Before a list of the highest peaks on this side of the state could be compiled, the boundaries of Eastern Washington first had to be defined. Looking at almost any map of Washington, there's an obvious natural division that cuts the state into two roughly equal halves and is also a low point from which the land rises going both east and west. This dividing line is the Columbia River valley, from its southernmost point where it forms the border with Oregon, upstream to its confluence with the Okanagan River, and northward along that river to the Canadian border. Thus the entire Cascade Range is considered to be in the western half of the state, and none of its peaks are included on the list.
"Because there exists no official list of the highest peaks in Eastern Washington, a thorough search of USGS topographic maps was undertaken. But the more difficult task was establishing the criteria in deciding what constitutes a mountain.
"As many hikers and climbers know, there's a big gray area when it comes to applying the term mountain. Land masses that rise far above the surrounding landscape standing alone, are easy to pick out and call a mountain. Often is the case, however, when a long, high ridge topped by several peaks makes this determination more difficult. Is every pinnacle or high point a mountain, even if some are separated by only a couple hundred feet? Or is the entire ridge one mountain, even if there are plunging valleys between peaks and the ridge is many miles long?
"A variety of standards have been devised to solve these questions, all of which have their shortcomings, and none of which have been adopted universally.
"One standard states there must be a certain mileage between peaks. Two peaks inside the mileage standard are considered one peak. However, the shortcoming with this method, besides being arbitrary, is that if all peaks along a ridge are in close proximity, each negates the neighboring peak, leaving only the highest point of the ridge considered a mountain.
"Another standard states that a peak must rise a certain distance above the ridge of which it is a part. In this case, only distinct and prominent peaks along a ridge are recognized. With this standard however, there could be a very high-elevation peak, even higher than any stand-alone mountain, but if it doesn't rise far enough above the ridge, it's not considered a mountain.
"A third standard, which seems to be the best method to deal with this problem, involves the elevation difference between peaks and saddles. If two peaks are connected by a ridge, the low point between the two (the saddle) must have a certain elevation difference between it and the lower-elevation peak. If this standard is met, the two peaks are separate and distinct. If it is not met, then the lower-elevation peak is considered part of the higher one.
"The problem with this method is determining how much of an elevation difference must exist. Should it be 200 feet? 500 feet? A thousand or more? Any amount seems arbitrary and would surely be a source of disagreement.
"After careful consideration of these standards, it was decided a system that already exists suffices quite nicely -- place-names established by the U.S. Geological Survey. Therefore, any named point, be it called a mountain, ridge, or hill, is on the list if it is one of the highest 50 places."
Klenke - Jun 10, 2005 5:14 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentNow that you've told me where this supposed "South Fork (7,152 ft)" is (click here), I am surprised Mr. Johnson included it as a named summit. The labeling of South Fork on the map is for the geodetic marker (the benchmark that is represented by the triangle with dot at center, a triangulation point) and IS NOT the name of the peak at that location. It says "South Fork" because that is most likely what is stamped on the BM there. It is no doubt a reference to the South Fork Salmo River north of that point. Often, what is stamped on a BM is a reference to a far off placename or some other metaphysical entity/place. There are many such BMs in the U.S. with what's stamped on them labeled on the map.
dluders - Jun 11, 2005 11:21 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentI am snail-mailing Mr. Klenke's observations to Mr. Johnson here in Spokane, for comment and possible resolution.