New York Complete

[John Kirk]

http://listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/stmain.php?s=NY
1995 P300s

[royswkr]

This is great, John

I'll bet this will get you a lot of East Coast members

[Mike Garratt]

This list really show the folly of using a 300 foot criteria where it was never used before.

The NY 46ers club have a list of 46 peaks in the Adirondacks which are above 4000 feet.
But they kept the same list even though later mapping showed some missed and some below 4000 feet. Of course the 300 foot business was never used as no map at that time had 40 foot contours.
PS I am a member completing the list in 1968.

Using LOJ it is pretty well impossible to track progress.

There is also a NY/New England list of the 111ers, the 111 peaks over 4000 feet.
Same discussion as per the 46ers applies here as well.

[John Kirk]

You're missing the point of this site - a consistent set of data and list criteria. No apples and oranges. If you don't like the approach of the site, find something else somewhere else. Better yet build your own...

[royswkr]

I agree with both Mike & John :-)

Because John is unfamiliar with every list worldwide and the criteria they use, some listed peaks are not on his site. We can help him by suggesting peaks to add and in the past he's been good about doing that.

Similarly, it could be possible to track your progress against such lists by adding those lists as special categories like "5th Class Peaks" or "county highpoints". Whether he chooses to do is up to him and may depend on demand for such lists.

[EricNoel]

But they kept the same list even though later mapping showed some missed and some below 4000 feet.

So their list is of 4000 foot peaks including some that are not 4000' peaks. And excluding some that are 4000's peaks. Sounds like the shortcoming here is with the NY 46ers club sticking by outdated info. The problem is not the 300' foot rule but the apparent choice to stick by the same list even when the list no longer exactly fits the original criteria used in making it.

Of course the 300 foot business was never used as no map at that time had 40 foot contours.

I'm not sure why the contour interval is relevant to the prom rule. There are plenty of other maps in the CONUS that use meters or different intervals of feet other than 40. Yet the same rules apply to those as apply to other maps in that geographic region. A little multiplication or division doesn't really hurt anything.

I can certainly see how in a theoretical sense it might be convenient to have a user specifiable prom cutoff like P200 or P400 that can be applied either across the set of data or on a per state basis. But asking for that sort of individualization is asking a lot of a site that is already providing reams of info for free.

[royswkr]

So their list is of 4000 foot peaks including some that are not 4000' peaks. And excluding some that are 4000's peaks. Sounds like the shortcoming here is with the NY 46ers club sticking by outdated info. The problem is not the 300' foot rule but the apparent choice to stick by the same list even when the list no longer exactly fits the original criteria used in making it.

The list was first climbed by Bob Marshall, and the club thought it more significant to climb the same peaks as him than to climb those according to some rule

Of course the 300 foot business was never used as no map at that time had 40 foot contours.

A confusing statement that I don't understand

If you look at NY today, there are both metric and English unit quads, with I believe 5', 10', 20', 40', 3m, 6m, and 10m contours if not more. I'm not sure what prominence rule will conform to all of them, and I'm sure it was a great task for John to make the list.

[John Kirk]

I'd like to raise the point that I created NY and many other states USING a P300 methodology for those states at the request of residents of those states.

Also, the p300 rule is not exclusive to CO. A 1990 book, Exploring Idaho's Mountains by Tom Lopez mentions the P300 rule. California also uses the P300 rule for its 14ers and 13ers going back to the 1990s. Finally, of course, Bob Martin popularized the use of 300' as the criterion for AZ pretty early on.

[royswkr]

I'd like to raise the point that I created NY and many other states USING a P300 methodology for those states at the request of residents of those states.

Here's a question for you, John. ME, NH, and VT all use a 200' criterion, would it be possible to use a 200' cutoff for ranked peaks in those states only or would that foul up the database but good?

As for NY, the original rule was 300' in the Adirondacks but only 200' in the Catskills and now the Adk46 uses an historic rather than objective rule.

[John Kirk]

Here's a question for you, John. ME, NH, and VT all use a 200' criterion, would it be possible to use a 200' cutoff for ranked peaks in those states only or would that foul up the database but good?

In terms of calculations involving rank and stats relating to "ranked" peaks, sub-p300s don't/won't enter the picture. P300+ is the standard of the site for ranked peaks anywhere. As to whether sub-p300s get listed here, if they have unofficial names in print, I can add the peaks (officially named peaks are already added regardless of prominence threshold). It is not important enough to me to research and accumulate the unofficially named sub-p300s myself, so if you have some in mind, let me know the names, location (lat/lon), and source of the name and I can add them.

[royswkr]

Here is a link to the Adk46 list in case you want to include it as a category or for peoples amusement:
http://www.adk46r.org/listf.html

I haven't done this list and probably never will so I personally don't care what you do about it.

[John Kirk]

That's a pretty non-descriptive list - at least in terms of actually finding them all on a map. It wouldn't be hard to build a custom list for this to track progress, but I'm not sure there is enough demand for it (donations could prove otherwise )

Similarly, it may be worth noting that the CO 14ers list as recognized by the CMC is not the one in use here, and the CMC includes peaks that do not meet the 300' rule, and excludes one that does. In fact, this is one of only a few sites that actually consistently use 300' rule. The traditional and still in widespread use CMC 14ers list is arithmetically inconsistent with the same list they themselves use for the highest 100, and 13ers. The 14ers list ends with a rank of 54 while the 13ers list begins with a rank of 53

[RyanSchilling]

While I disagree with Mike's rationale and the argument that this somehow proves the 300' criterion's inadequacy, the Adirondack 46 is pretty popular and would make a fine addition to LoJ. FWIW, all the people I met while hiking Marcy last month had either completed or were working on that list.

Wikipedia hosts a copy of the Adirondack 46 with links to individual mountain pages. Most (all?) of those individual pages include Lat/Long coordinates, which would make compiling the necessary data for LoJ an easier task.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adirondack_High_Peaks

[Mike Garratt]

Entered in my NY 46ers peaks.
Did them back in the 1960's.

I can appreciate the 46ers desire to keep the same list.
The first 46ers were George Marshall and Herb Clark way back before the environmental movement started.
Finished together on June 10, 1925.
Just think of the maps they had.
The 46ers have more than 6385 completers at last count.
I real tribute to history going back a long way.
Then again the 46ers are a real club with a song written in 1937 and semi annual meetings started with a prayer.

A real contrast to the 14ers as an adjunct to the CMC.

Turns out 32 are ranked and 14 are unranked.

The CMC realized the same things about precedent and history and froze the 14er list as well.
Though a little later after the first 15 minute maps came out.

The New England 111ers did the same thing and froze their list.
Those are the 111 peaks over 4000 feet in New England.
New Hampshire (as well as NY) is a big contributor with 46 peaks over 4000 feet.
New Hampshire has a lot of peaks without 300 foot drops as well as there are many bumps on long ridges in the White Mountains.

Shows that back east where the mountains are smaller and the bushwacking grueling, it does not take a 300 foot rise for people to think of a high point as a mountain.

The 300 foot rule ignores these traditions.

[John Kirk]

More importantly, 300' doesn't change with tradition. 200 years from now when the majority of peak names have changed, the prominences have not. It doesn't matter what you call something or what people think are points deserving of status as a summit when there is no science or consistent criteria behind those opinions. The physical properties speak for themselves. That is what the p300 rule is in use for here - a consistent minimum acceptance criteria. We've been over this enough times now.