Secor lists Shepherd Crest el. as 12,000 (newest) and 12,015 (old) in the 2nd addition of his guidebook. You have it listed as 12,020 on this page. I have it at 12,000 on the Shep Crest page. I assume that is correct unless you know better.
I think they are both correct. As we are both aware the standard convention for naming/referring to peaks without a name or spot elevation is to use the highest contour, but obviously the summit is somewhat higher than that. For the purposes of ranking the peaks I think a better estimate is to use the midpoint of the highest contour and what the next one would be... this is likely closer to the true elevation. Similarly I use mean rather than clean prominences whenever I list peak prominence. I mentioned the way I came up with the elevations listed in the writeup, though only briefly.
Noondueler - Jul 20, 2012 12:02 am - Voted 10/10
technical noteSecor lists Shepherd Crest el. as 12,000 (newest) and 12,015 (old) in the 2nd addition of his guidebook. You have it listed as 12,020 on this page. I have it at 12,000 on the Shep Crest page. I assume that is correct unless you know better.
mrchad9 - Jul 23, 2012 3:53 am - Hasn't voted
Re: technical noteI think they are both correct. As we are both aware the standard convention for naming/referring to peaks without a name or spot elevation is to use the highest contour, but obviously the summit is somewhat higher than that. For the purposes of ranking the peaks I think a better estimate is to use the midpoint of the highest contour and what the next one would be... this is likely closer to the true elevation. Similarly I use mean rather than clean prominences whenever I list peak prominence. I mentioned the way I came up with the elevations listed in the writeup, though only briefly.