Oregon Complete

[Layne Bracy]

Typically, when we speak of 'ranked' peaks, we're ranking by height using a minimum prominence threshold. However, there is another way to view such a list: it is also a list of the most prominent peaks in a region.

For example, instead of saying that John has ranked the 62,000 P300's in the west by height, we could also see it as a list of the 62,000 most prominent peaks(points) in the west.

Mike is right that the lists of Utah 12ers, e.g., on the site do endorse a P300' system. Ryan's concept is interesting - let people designate their own prominence cut in the way one can often chose their own time zone. Of course, this could get a bit more complicated if I decide I want different cuts in different states or fancier methods like Al suggests(prominence/height ratios).

Also, if someone wants P200 lists, or to the extreme - lists of every measured elevation and every closed contour, then there is a lot more work that needs to be done!

The English vs metric issue is tough - eventually we have to yield to metric, but it's tough when the maps are mostly English. As discussed before, Bross, Challenger and "Thunder Pyramid" come off the high 100 if we convert from 300' to 100m.

[Mike Garratt]

A good approach for the unranked peaks is given on the CO 14er page.

The ranked are tallied on the left and the ranked plus unranked are tallied on the right.
It is easy to go and see a climbers unranked 14ers completed and uncompleted.

The downside is ‘how’ unrankeds get included on the list.
Wow! How did we ever get 14 unranked CO 14ers with names no less?
There sure are al lot more named 14er peaks since I climbed the 14ers in the 1970’s
Just wait till we get to CA!

The lists put into quotes all the names that are spurious.
Stats could be compiled omitting the unranked peak names in quotes appears gets beyond most of the problem. We get down to 7 unranked CO 14ers when there are really only 5. Close.

As John says, “I don't have a problem with unranked peaks not counting toward my minimum standard totals, and in a way I'd be ashamed to intentionally bolster my totals by adding for the most part a bunch of tiny bumps that someone arbitrarily decided to name.”

And the naming standards (actually the lack there of) for the lists is the heart of the problem.
It is particularly pronounced for CO as that is where most of the site members reside.

A ranked peak is determined by the map contours and elevations.
Good consistent defendable criteria.

A ranked or unranked peak can be an official name approved by the USGS Board of Geographic Names.
Then all hell breaks loose with names.
Or on the other extreme, an unranked can be determined by somebody looking at a closed contour and dreaming up a name.
(Actually the dreaming applies to the ranked peaks as well. How did Gerry Roach’s marriage proposal to Jennifer on ranked unnamed 13300 on the CO Handies Peak quad make it into the list as Proposal Peak? Beats me?)

This makes the unranked peak list totally arbitrary with consequences to utility and credibility.
Having consistent criteria for name inclusion would really help the list authenticity.
And applying the same naming criteria to the ranked peaks as well.

The USGS contours and elevation are standards. But the USGS names are not standards?
The names in quotes are inappropriate.

Ryan S suggested that the cut off be something a user could set.
But with all the spuriously named peaks you still have a problem with unranked peak proliferation regardless whether the cut off is above or below 300’.

The true value of the site is the analysis of the contours and the ground-truthing to support the map accuracy.

The major site inconsistency and detraction to credibility is the conflict between the rigorous adherence to contour and elevation mapping standards but a disregard for mapping naming standards.

[RyanSchilling]

The major site inconsistency and detraction to credibility is the conflict between the rigorous adherence to contour and elevation mapping standards but a disregard for mapping naming standards.

I say this statement is unfounded. The lists at this site adhere to the principle -- almost doggedly so -- that a named peak is worthy of analysis and examination regardless of its insignificance. How is any bias demonstrated??

A site that's just as likely to list Mt Whitney, CA as it is Lake Point, UT has already cleared this hurdle that you maintain hasn't even been contemplated.

[TWorth]

As far as naming inconsistency, I think what Mike is referring to is that ANY unofficial names are included in the lists here at LOJ. Certain ranked peaks get an unoffical name, other ones don't. Why is that? Its arbitrary. Whereas the ranked criteria is an objective standard, at least as objective as possible within the framework of 7.5' USGS quads. The disregard for mapping naming standards is represented by the mere presence of these names which, however interesting or colorful, may not have any significance at all outside of those individuals, and don't appear on USGS maps or in GNIS. This applies to ranked peaks.

Sure, unofficial names can be fun. When Corinne Konrad and I hiked 6975 in Larimer county a few years ago, we called it "The Dunce Cap". Myself, since it looked like a dunce cap to me, for her because the bushwack along the SE side reminded her of some sort of past school field trip punishment. So whenever I drive by there I laugh and think of that Dunce Cap hike. But I sure don't expect others to refer to it as such. It wouldn't mean anything to anyone else.

As I've seen more unoffical names getting added to the database I've become less of a fan of including unoffical names at all, or would rather see them relegated to "alternate names". I don't know how it all comes about, climbers must write John and say, "hey, this peak is really named such and such, why don't you change it, blah blah blah" then John is put in position of arbitrator as far as which unoffical names get added. Personally I have no problem with unnamed ranked peaks. Let 'em be, I say. But since these unoffical names have taken hold its probably too late to turn the tide, and popular opinion is probably for unoffical names in general, for those that care.

As to unranked peaks, it would be nice for folks to get "credit" for them on the various list counts, like in the elevation ranges, etc. Could do a dual count, 115 ranked 12 offically named unranked 11ers, for example. Simple idea.

[John Kirk]

I actually tried to get rid of the unranked unnamed at one point. They don't figure into tallies for the most part (prominence average and sum stats compile all peaks, and there are most unranked peaks totals), so I don't really care anymore. IMO they add some color, but are often clutter. Usually these are suggested because they are overlooked in terms of USGS map treatment - i.e. the map doesn't show you the full story you might get in person. USGS naming is not something that I view as necessarily relevant to climbing pursuits. In other words, would all those unranked named bumps still be climb-worthy if they didn't have a name? Having a name vs. not should not influence a decision to climb something; if so you're not doing it due to intrinsic properties of the thing you are climbing, you're climbing it out of blind acceptance of what got named and what didn't.

[RyanSchilling]

As far as naming inconsistency, I think what Mike is referring to is that ANY unofficial names are included in the lists here at LOJ. Certain ranked peaks get an unoffical name, other ones don't. Why is that? Its arbitrary.

...

Could do a dual count, 115 ranked 12 offically named unranked 11ers, for example. Simple idea.

Good point, and thanks for the clarification. I wasn't seeing MG's argument that way when I posted, and I must have glossed over his line about omitting unranked peaks that have quote marks.