News | Summit Trip Reports | Partners | Low Point Reports | Dogs
Summary Topics: E-News Archive | Club News | Accidents | Obituaries | Books | Advisories | Site News
 

 Go to Forum Home  

what a coincidence

June 6 2006 at 2:19 AM
markv  (Login markvotapek)


Response to Highpoints that are not the most prominent

 

I read this thread while plotting my ill-fated attempt at Shasta for later this week...one of the "ultra-prominences" of the lower 48.

Your questions have all been answered i think. But i can add that Boundary's prominence is 220'.

I still hope to sometime generate and climb a list of all the states' highest peak, with "peak" defined in an objective way, either by prominence or some sort of prominence ratio. (e.g. to be a "peak" the prominence has to be at least 5% of the elevation of the summit...or e.g. to be a "peak" the prominence has to be at least 300'.) I know there are several state highpoints that aren't peaks by really ANYone's defintion, and it would be fun to have a separate list that recognizes Charleston Peak instead of Boundary, Bear Mtn. instead of SSoMFrissel, etc. But besides the time and skill necessary to make the list, i'm stuck on exactly what's the best objective definition of a "peak." Ideas?

Btw, if anyone is interested in some beta/ trip reportish info on the northern presidentials in New Hampshire, i was up there to get those 3 peaks last week. I meant to get back to Mt. Washington too, but we were too spent and never made it...so i didn't bother with a trip report on this site.

 
 Respond to this message   
Responses

 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  
RSS Feed For This Forum
Privacy Statement | Network54 Terms and Conditions