New Peak Index on my Web Site

[Papa Bear]

I have put together something I have been thinking about for a while and which may be of use to peakbaggers seeking information.

I already have many trip reports on the site, but they are ordered generally by date and by the type of trip. For example I have a backpacking section with accounts of my AT section hikes, and a Peakbagging section with accounts of various peakbagging trips (1 or more day hikes). They are all in reverse chronological order: i.e. the most recent are at the top of the list.

My new page is an index of the reports ordered by the peaks on a list (in this case the New England Fifty Finest) and it will link to the relevent report, and also link the Topozone map of the area. It will give other information, such as rank order in the list, DeLorme Atlas page and grid, and whatever else seemed appropriate. Thus the entry for White Cap Mountain (the one on the AT) will link to a particular day of hiking on my recent 100 mile Wilderness trek. You get the idea.

Although the Fifty Finest is my first attempt to put this together, I will also do a similar list for the NH 48 4Ks, NE 67 4Ks, NE Hundred Highest, etc., etc. Thus if anyone is interested in how I did Mendon for example, he/she wouldn't have to dig through a bunch of old reports and hope to find the one which includes Mendon, but could just go to my NE HH list and look down the list for #85, Mendon Peak, click on the report to see that or click on the location to get the Topozon map.

Here's the new list: Papa Bear's New England Fifty Finest List. When I get the kinks out of this and perhaps tweak the format, I'll put together the other lists I'm working on.

Keep in mind my web site is as much for my non-hiking friends and family as it is for my hiking friends, so some of the text may seem a little simple minded for an audience such as VFTT.

I would welcome any comments and suggestions for improvements or even typos you might find. Either post it here, or PM or email me.

Thanks
Pb

 

[adamiata]

I like the new format, especially if you're maintaining the page for informational purposes for other people to use. I've come to your page several times looking for information on upcoming hikes and found it very useful. This will make seeking out a particular mountain easier. I want to thank you for all your hard work, it is appreciated.

 

[Artex]

Cool idea, Papa Bear. It's always neat to hear about individual opinions on mountains. Your 50 finest list does it nicely.

 

[bigmoose]

Hey, now maybe some of the baggers will get hip to the prominence game.
Nice resource and layout!
BTW, I see you have 14 NEFF left (if you count Caribou).
Coincidentally, so do I. We share 6 unclimbed (if you count Caribou).
We should join forces at some point....
JT

 

[bigmoose]

PB-
BTW, I know you're the man and all, but I was astonished to discover you could move mountains, i.e. your #43. Your legacy only grows.

 

[kc2eus]

Nice list, Does anyone know of a list of P500 peaks in NY/NJ ? I'm involved with setting up S.O.T.A (summits on the air) in NY & NJ States.
Simply put it combines Hiking and Ham Radio.You climb a P500 peak or higher and make at least 4 contacts via ham radio to gain points.

Andrew
http://www.kc2eus.org/sota/
http://www.sota.org.uk

 

[Papa Bear]

We share 6 unclimbed (if you count Caribou).
We should join forces at some point....

It's a deal. let me know when you go somewhere and I'll let you know. Give me a week or two notice if you can.

PB-
BTW, I know you're the man and all, but I was astonished to discover you could move mountains, i.e. your #43. Your legacy only grows.

Thanks for catching that. I also had Old Speck in New Hampshire for a while..

Pb

 

[jd scout]

Thank you, this summer will be my frist at Baxter so your report on the park was not only informative but fun to read. Thanks for taking the time and I'm looking forward to reading more.

 

[nartreb]

That's an impressive list Papabear. The index is quite useful, and it reminds me to add more map links to my own pages. I do have a minor criticism: the photos on the trip reports take a long time to load. It's particularly disconcerting if you've followed a link from the index down to the bottom of a long page (try Moosilauke - clear your browser's cache first).
You might consider breaking your trip reports into multiple pages, or making thumbnails for your photos.

Just to enable fair criticism in the reverse direction, and not to put my work forward as a model (your trip reports are much more informative, my site is basically just a photo gallery), here's my alphabetical index

 

[Papa Bear]

Hundred Highest List done

After a fair amount of work, I have a possibly more useful list ready, the New England Hundred Highest: Hundred Highest List

It's twice as long but I automated the list generation using the excel spreadsheet I use to keep track of my peaks. The thing that took the longest was the thumbnails, since this was done basically manually.

Since there is twice the opportunity for mistakes, I would appreciate it if anyone checks it out.

As far as nastreb's observation of the slow loading time, I don't see it since my browser loads from the top down and doesn't wait till all the photos are loaded. I use Mozilla Firefox. If you are reading from the top down this is fine. If you want to read the bottom first, well ... But of course some of my links go to the middle sections of my reports, so that may show up as a problem. But I prefer the linear approach. I hate having to keep clicking for the next section. Sorry, that's just me, opinions will vary.

Someone also suggested that clicking on a thumbnail usually brings up a bigger version of the photo - clicking on the thumbs on this list brings up the report. That's how I do it, what can I say. In any case the big version of the photo is generally prominantly displayed in the report.

Pb

 

[nartreb]

2 quick spelling fixes:

1) missing the A(?) in the first Wildcat peak listed
2) "Carrigian" in name of map for Vose Spur

You might also mention what prominence criterion the list uses (looks like it matches the NH 48, so I assume 200 feet)

 

[Tramper Al]

Hey Pb,

I am getting vaguely interested in hiking your 50 most prominent New England peaks, or at least the ones I haven't hiked already. Is there a FF patch? There's gotta be a patch, yes?

I also received a notice yesterday via the cohp mail list about a prominence book project that is coming to publication soon. The author is selling a few copies direct, so that may be of interest to those prominence people out there.

You might also mention what prominence criterion the list uses (looks like it matches the NH 48, so I assume 200 feet)

If I understand prominence correctly (and I clearly DO NOT), then there is no 'col rule' for an adjacent peak. It comes down to the low point (way down in the valley or notch typically) between the peak in question and all other higher peaks. So when Baxter Peak is considered, it is Washington that is relevant rather than Hamlin. Is that right?

 

[Papa Bear]

Hey Pb,
...
If I understand prominence correctly (and I clearly DO NOT), then there is no 'col rule' for an adjacent peak. It comes down to the low point (way down in the valley or notch typically) between the peak in question and all other higher peaks. So when Baxter Peak is considered, it is Washington that is relevant rather than Hamlin. Is that right?

Prominence always refers to the next higher peak. In cases where the next higher peak is not local (Katahdin is a good example) the col becomes unobvious. In Katahdin's case, the col is somewhere in northern Main between the headwaters of the East and West branches of the Penobscot. There are worse cases: Washington's col in in New york State (next higher peak is in southern Appalachians), Mitchell's col is near Chicago (next higher peak is in the Rockies), Denali's col is in Nicragua, etc.

The links in the blurb at the top of my Fifty Finest List make good reading. Also check out the prominence map. It's interestimng to follow the devide line from peak to peak. When yopu really understand prominence, you understand watershed and devides. Cool stuff.

Pb

 

[Papa Bear]

2 quick spelling fixes:

1) missing the A(?) in the first Wildcat peak listed
2) "Carrigian" in name of map for Vose Spur

You might also mention what prominence criterion the list uses (looks like it matches the NH 48, so I assume 200 feet)

Thanks natreb.

I decided not to put the "A" in for "Wildcat A" since the USGS defines that peak as "Wildcat Mountain" and I wanted to stick with their nomenclature as much as possible. Maybe I'll put and "A" in parentheses - I'll think about it. But I refuse to follow their names in the case of Katahdin and Monadnock, I'm sure you can figure out why.

I also want to give a better response to your observation about the loading of certain reports. The reports were written over the years to document my trips, starting with my Appalachian Trail section hikes. As I said, I like the linear day by day format without a lot of clicking. Just read it like a book. I know the web is intrinsically a richer medium than the simple linear model of a book, but for these reports that was my choice. Loading these top down and reading them top down was a resonbable choice, IMHO.

Now by indexing certain peaks, I will occasionally link you to the bottom of a report. For example I hiked Redington and the Crockers on the last day of a two week section hike. So now on certain peaks you get the delay in loading the pictures which you mentioned.

But one thing I did not want to do for my index list effort was to rewrite all the old reports. So for now I'm going to leave it as is and I appologize for this problem. Maybe technology will fix it for me by giving us cheap higher bandwidth connections or huge caches on our PCs (so you can load all my pictures one for the life of the PC )

Thanks again for checking them out.

Pb

 

[Tramper Al]

Prominence always refers to the next higher peak. In cases where the next higher peak is not local (Katahdin is a good example) the col becomes unobvious. In Katahdin's case, the col is somewhere in northern Main between the headwaters of the East and West branches of the Penobscot.

OK, I think I'm finally getting it.

Roy's flood/island explanation is one I can grasp easily, even if we are unlikely to get that much rain anytime soon. If I may paraphrase. As the great flood recedes, our peak becomes a tiny island, and remains the highpoint of that increasingly larger island (waters still receding), until such time (level) as a strip of land connecting this island to an island with a higher peak is revealed. That strip is the headwaters of the Penobscot, and the prominence of Katahdin's Baxter Peak is defined.

I'm not sure I agree Pb that it is the 'next higher peak' that matters, however, so much as the highest low point between our peak and ANY higher peak. For instance, Madison (5367) is the 'next higher ?' peak than Baxter Peak (5268), but only so if you restrict your consideration to New England, say. If Mt. Madison did not exist or were moved to New Jersey and increased to 7000 feet, then I think Baxter Peak's prominence would be unchanged, yes? Is is the fact that there are ANY peaks higher than 5268 on the other side of those Penobscot headwaters that determine its prominence, yes?

I also like the explanation considering a hiker descending the peak in question. What is the minimum drop in elevation that has to be made en route (any route) to any higher mountain. The prominence is set when that hiker walks his highest low point, if you will, at the Penobscot headwaters. It does not matter which higher (than 5367) mountain he is walking to, only that it is higher.

Am I getting closer???

 

[Papa Bear]

Sound like you are getting it.

And you are right, it's the col, not the higher peak that defines the numerical value of the prominence. But it's the peak in question and the next higher peak (and the connectinq watershed devide line) that determines which col is the appropriate col (sometimes called the "key saddle") for your peak. Key saddles are sometimes devilishly hard to find.

Pb

 

[nartreb]

You can't please everybody with naming, but one way to handle Wildcat is to follow the same convention as for Katahdin, Bigelow, etc: "Wildcat Mountain - 'A' Peak" and "Wildcat Mountain - 'D' Peak". You could also apply it to Vose Spur: "Mount Carrigain - Vose Spur".
PS As long as we're being picky with names, you skipped the "Mount" on #77.

 

[nartreb]

Al, all those explanations are equivalent. I like the flooding one, that's new to me & I like visual metaphors.

The simplest way to phrase it is from the point of view of a hiker who will do anything to avoid descending:

Prominence is the minimum amount you'd have to descend before you start climbing to a higher peak.

In the simplest case, you have the peak you're on (Peak A), and a ridge connecting it to a higher peak (Peak B). The prominence number (of Peak A) is the difference in height between Peak A and the lowest point along the top of the ridge.

In the flooding metaphor, keep draining until you have a single dry path from Peak A to Peak B. The prominence of Peak A is the difference between Peak A and (flooded) sea level.

In harder cases, you have to consider several possible choices for Peak B, and all the possible routes to each of them. You're bound to find the smallest number (least-descending route) that meets the definition (think of the paranoid descent-fearing hiker).

Here's how it works for Mt Washington in the flooding metaphor. Start with sea level at the summit of Mt Washington. Anything poking above the water is a candidate for Peak B: most of the Rockies, a few Appalachians in places like Tennessee and Virginia. (We don't need to consider mountains on other continents since we know we'd have to descend to true sea level to reach these.) Now start draining. You'll see dry land gradually extending from the higher Appalachians, broken up by river valleys (Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware). The incomplete paths that start emerging will mark the boundaries between river drainages. My guess is that most of the Great Plains (Mississippi River valley) stays flooded much longer, so you never get close to having a path to the Rockies. Stop draining the minute you've got a continuous dry path from Mt Washington to any one of your candidate Peak Bs. The spot that last emerged is the "key saddle"for which Mt Washington's prominence must be measured. Papabear says this will be in New York State.

Edit: I found this on the Web, so it must be true:

[Mt] Washington: The Key Saddle is on the Champlain Canal near Hudson Falls, New York, 43º18'59"N, 73º31'46"W.

 

[Papa Bear]

You can't please everybody with naming, but one way to handle Wildcat is to follow the same convention as for Katahdin, Bigelow, etc: "Wildcat Mountain - 'A' Peak" and "Wildcat Mountain - 'D' Peak". You could also apply it to Vose Spur: "Mount Carrigain - Vose Spur".
PS As long as we're being picky with names, you skipped the "Mount" on #77.

Thanks, good suggestions. But I'll keep "Vose Spur" as is since it's a recognized USGS name.

Incidently, I use Topozone to check for names. For example if I can't find "Mount Snow" I then try "Snow Mountain" and it will find it. The names on the maps also agree with their search function so I asssume they use the USGS database.

Pb

 

[nartreb]

You can also check the USGS database directly using GNIS

It's worth noting that they list Vose Spur as a "ridge", not a "summit".