Tied 13ers and Bartlett Mtn

[Layne Bracy]

1)Is Bartlett the 13er that had its top mined off? I noticed that John's lists has it 155' lower than Gerry's!

2)The ranked 13er list is certainly an approximation - I doubt we can really know that Mount Buckskin of the Tenmile Range is one foot higher than Vestal Peak in the San Juans, for example. It's probably 50/50 that Vestal is actually higher. However, we use the best data available.

So, how about giving 13ers that we list as having the same elevation the same rank? Teresa Gergen refers to 202 bicentennials. This makes sense if we give all 5 peaks with height 13580 as rank 198, instead of 198-202. It seems that ties are currently broken by alphabetical order. In this method, that segment of the list would read:

196 13581 Mount Emma
196 13581 Pt 13581
198 13580 Clark Pk
198 13580 Pt 13580 A
198 13580 Pt 13580 B
198 13580 Mt Powell
198 13580 Twin Peaks A
203 13579 Chiefs Head Pk

Any thoughts?

[kirkmallory]

I've always felt that the rankings as we've seen them listed are probably off, but based on our limited understanding, the listing is as best as we can do until we get more data. And what complicates this is adding the 5-8 feet that the USGS added to all the summits a couple of years ago. But would that change the interpolated summit elevations? Only if that 5-8 feet moves the contours down enough that the summit pierces the next 40-foot level. But in most cases, it probably does not. Those summits with 13,580 foot elevations are only estimates anyway - using the interpolation method. I think only one of them actually has 13,580 listed on the map. I've always felt that UN 13,580 near Mt. Adams was much lower than its 13,580 foot elevation found on most lists. The contour line around its summit is a tiny 13,560-foot circle. If it was really 13,580 feet, the summit would have to shoot up very steeply above 13,560. And having been there, I can tell you it doesn't. Perhaps it's somewhere between 13,561 to 13,565. Chiefs Head, previously 13,579, maybe be more like 13,584 to 13,587 after adding that 5-8 feet. I've always felt it has a good chance of being a bicentennial.

I believe in Gerry Roach's thirteener book, he lists Bartlett with it's original 13,555 elevation. But on his Project Island website, he revised it to an new estimated elevation of 13,400 since much of it was mined off. It's still a ranked 13er.

[Layne Bracy]

Thanks, Kirk - that all makes sense to me. The USGS additions could also change the rank order of peaks if different ranges tend to have different changes(e.g. 4ft added to one range but 8ft to another).

Congrats on completing the Colorado counties!

[John Kirk]

Layne,

I think your suggestion is reasonable as to rank. I have added another field that has non-incrementing rank ( i.e. 198, 198, 198, 198, 198, 203) since serial numerical rank is the primary key to get checkbox selections to work. I will get around to using that field to display rank instead of the current field sometime later. Then, on to 12ers...

I also put together a page that shows everyone's recent additions and dates entered - I'll be posting a thread about it later when it gets to be adequate in size, but for now:

http://listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/MemberUpdates.php

[AaronIhinger]

HI Layne... I think I like the way the peaks rank on the present lists. At least that way every pk. has it's very own rank. If you had five pks. ranked 198, it would be tough for people to distinguish which pk you climbed (without a name). They may jump around the list as better measurement techniques develop, but I don't mind climbing 103 bicentennials, that's all the more fun! Somehow I've got 113 Centennials to climb. You don't hear to much talk of unranked Bis or Tris etc. further down the list. Oops! that's an entirely different subject.

[Layne Bracy]

Yeah, I admit it's not pretty to have 5 #198's, but I would still do it that way. Maybe call them 198A, 198B, etc., if it's necessary to distinguish them besides by their names/locations.

I do agree with your other point. Specifically, John, have you considered changing the list breakdown to:

102 bicentennials
98 tricentennials

Again, a little unsettling, but otherwise two 13580's are being unfairly picked on because of the alphabet.(Yes, I know the world has larger problems. gratuitous emoticon use)

The biggest logjam I see is with the 11 13ers that share rank 392-402, all at 13300'!

[John Kirk]

I do agree with your other point. Specifically, John, have you considered changing the list breakdown to:

102 bicentennials
98 tricentennials

I have made the revision, as I can see no way around it really. If we were to keep it to a count of 100 peaks completed for each list, there isn't really a way to distinguish which are being left out of the 102 in the elevation range of the 100 - 200 highest without establishing a preference for a particular set of 3 of the 5 13,580' peaks (alphabetical being the arbitrary standard some have adhered to). But I still have a concern - can a "tri" also be a "bi" (no pun intended)? Now, I bet that would be frustrating for anyone just wanting to complete the "tri's", since you have to do 5 "bi's" in order to do so :P. If someone were to complete only the 98 peaks between 13,579' and 13,432' and no other peaks, can they take credit for completing the 201st - 300th highest peaks range? It seems almost like we have to count these 5 peaks on each list, making 205 peaks in the 100 - 300 range, even though we're talking about 200 unique peaks. Why couldn't someone have enforced a law that all surveyed elevations must be unique?

[Layne Bracy]

Yes, a dilemma. To refer to the world of sports, when 2 runners tie for 2nd place, both are awarded silver medals and no bronze is given out. This is somewhat imprecise. In fact, they have tied for 2nd and 3rd place, and each should receive one half of a gold and one half of a silver.

In hockey(the NHL), a similar problem exists. Normally, the winner receives 2 points, the loser zero. In a tie, both receive one point. Fair enough. However, when a game is won in over-time, the winner receives 2 points, and the loser gets one point! Thus, the game's value has been inflated to 3 points. This should not be - it should be something like 1.5 to the winner, 0.5 to the loser, preserving 2 points per game allotted.

OK, back to the peaks. The five 13580's are tied for 3 bi rankings and 2 tri rankings. So, we could still keep 100 bi's and 100 tri's without unfair discrimination, if we consider each of these summits as 0.6 of a bi and 0.4 of a tri.

Let's look at Ryan Shilling's list:

He has done 21 of the 97 true bi's, 22 of the 98 true tri's, and 1 of the 5 bi/tri's.

For the one bi/tri, I would give him credit for 0.6 bi's and 0.4 tri's. His stat sheet would then read:

Ryan Schilling has completed
21.6 of the 100 bicentennial 13ers
22.4 of the 100 bicentennial 13ers

Voila! (This may be a tough system for the public to swallow.)

[RyanSchilling]

You guys are hysterical :)

The way I deal with the bis cutoff is like this. Of the peaks listed at 13,580', Twin Peaks A and Point 13,580 A are the only two with surveyed elevations, so I give those two priority and place them at 198 and 199 respectively (I always give named peaks priority over unnamed... it never made sense to me to alphabetize unnamed peaks??). Then comes the other three with interpolated elevations, Clark, Powell, and Point 13,580 B. I place Powell at 200 just because I like the idea of the Gores hosting a Bi, but if I wanted to be consistent with alphabetical order, Clark should be 200 and Powell 201.

[GerryRoach]

Yes, our 13er book lists Bartlett at 13,555 and my list on Project Island gives it at 13,400 - a much closer estimate of its new, lower elevation. The paper product lags years behind, and may never get updated in this case. I posted a long report on this on 14erWorld some time ago.

Regarding ties, I am guilty of foisting the alphabetization by peak name. That's a leftover from 7th grade English class! Time to move on.
How about breaking the tie by prominence? Clearly, a more prominent peak is more important, and should be higher on the list.
Then, when there are prominence ties, break that tie by the separation to the Parent - the more separation - the more importance. The separation (My Mile Column) could be computed to great accuracy, which would prevent any further ties.
This scheme would provide a continuous ranking - no more ties.

Thoughts?

[Layne Bracy]

How about breaking the tie by prominence?

I like it.

[RyanSchilling]

How about breaking the tie by prominence?

I like it.

Along these lines, I think we should break the ties on the prominence list with elevation. What do you think, John?