http://listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/stmain.php?s=NY
1995 P300s
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.
EricNoel wrote: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 Sounds like the shortcoming here is with the NY 46ers club sticking by outdated info.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.
John Kirk wrote: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.
royswkr wrote: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?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests