Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Highest 1000 Contiguous US List

Expand Messages
  • Robert W. Packard
    ... Hi John, I claim the highest 161 in lower 49 which translates into highest 160 in contiguous US. I just went through updating all lists involved in the
    Message 1 of 20 , Oct 17, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      >I believe Bob Packard has completed the highest 150, but is shown on the
      >site as completing 135 since the CA 13ers haven't until now been available
      >on the site for updating.


      Hi John,

      I claim the highest 161 in lower 49 which translates into highest 160 in
      contiguous US. I just went through
      updating all lists involved in the highest 150, but your site gives me
      credit for only 149 of the 150. Can you find the
      one I'm supposed to me missing?

      Bob
    • Adam Helman
      Change the cutoff - say, 500 feet instead of 300 feet. The list will have a broader geographic distribution. Change the cutoff even MORE - say 2,000 feet, so
      Message 2 of 20 , Oct 17, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Change the cutoff - say, 500 feet instead of 300 feet.
        The list will have a broader geographic distribution.

        Change the cutoff even MORE - say 2,000 feet,
        so corresponding to the 1,000 highest of 1,234
        P2000 summits in the forty-eight states.

        The list will no longer favor Colorado in-the-LEAST.

        ***********************************

        Now do the reverse - select a smaller cutoff, such as 100 feet.
        The list will concentrate on successively smaller-sized and
        higher elevation regions in Colorado and the Sierra Nevada.

        Finally, choose an (absurdly) small cutoff, perhaps 5 feet.
        Now the "top 1000" features boulders and crags on but a few select
        peaks at the exclusion of most 14ers - Colorado and elsewhere.

        **********************************

        Gosh, these lists all seem SO very arbitrary!

        A true, prominence-based list has no such problem.

        Adam Helman
      • Robert W. Packard
        ... It appears to be the 88th ranked summit, but I can t seem to find out what it is.
        Message 3 of 20 , Oct 17, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          At 03:20 PM 10/17/2007, Robert W. Packard wrote:
          >>I believe Bob Packard has completed the highest 150, but is shown on the
          >>site as completing 135 since the CA 13ers haven't until now been
          >>available on the site for updating.
          >
          >
          >Hi John,
          >
          >I claim the highest 161 in lower 49 which translates into highest 160 in
          >contiguous US. I just went through
          >updating all lists involved in the highest 150, but your site gives me
          >credit for only 149 of the 150. Can you find the
          >one I'm supposed to me missing?
          >
          >Bob

          It appears to be the 88th ranked summit, but I can't seem to find out what
          it is.
        • JOHN D KIRK
          It is unofficially named Mount Randy Morgenson - 13927 . I updated for you. ... _________________________________________________________________ Windows
          Message 4 of 20 , Oct 17, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            It is unofficially named "Mount Randy Morgenson" - 13927'. I updated for you.


            >Bob>It appears to be the 88th ranked summit, but I can't seem to find out what >it is.
            _________________________________________________________________
            Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook � together at last. �Get it now.
            http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • JOHN D KIRK
            Isn t a 300 prominence list a prominence-based list? Don t be mad because you come in second ;) ...
            Message 5 of 20 , Oct 17, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Isn't a 300' prominence list a prominence-based list? Don't be mad because you come in second ;)


              >Gosh, these lists all seem SO very arbitrary!

              >A true, prominence-based list has no such problem.

              >Adam Helman


              _________________________________________________________________
              Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today.
              http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline
            • Adam Helman
              Hello John K, Don t be mad because you come in second ;) California and Colorado are ALSO arbitrarily selected regions, John. [Here I assume that second
              Message 6 of 20 , Oct 17, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello John K,

                Don't be mad because you come in second ;)

                "California" and "Colorado" are ALSO arbitrarily selected regions, John.

                [Here I assume that "second" refers to the state with 2nd most number of
                prominences
                in your Top 100 list.]

                Nineteenth Century politicians could easily have arrived at different
                boundaries -
                and with them the number of prominences per "state" would again change.

                Please note that the "300 foot rule" is not generally applied nationwide -


                http://www.cohp.org/prominence/maps/cutoff_value_map/state_cutoff_values.gif

                So, again, the generality of a single Highest 1000 list based on any
                single cutoff value is wanting. It is a good list - but changing the
                cutoff value
                in either direction, above or below 300 feet,
                MARKEDLY alters the geographic distribution of the resulting
                highest 1000 summits.

                ************************************************

                It would be interesting to estimate the geographic extent of a Highest
                1000 list
                where the only criterion for a highpoint be that it supports a single
                contour -
                typically 40 feet. I guess (?) that the list is restricted to bumps on
                assorted fourteeners.

                Bye bye, Adam

                JOHN D KIRK wrote:

                >
                > Isn't a 300' prominence list a prominence-based list? Don't be mad
                > because you come in second ;)
                >
                > >Gosh, these lists all seem SO very arbitrary!
                >
                > >A true, prominence-based list has no such problem.
                >
                > >Adam Helman
                >
                > __________________________________________________________
                > Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café.
                > Stop by today.
                > http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline
                > <http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline>
                >
                >




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Roy Schweiker
                I think Adam means that a true prominence-based list would be the 1000 most prominent Lists such as the 1000 highest p300 and 1000 highest p500 are hybrid
                Message 7 of 20 , Oct 17, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  I think Adam means that a true prominence-based list would be the 1000
                  most prominent

                  Lists such as the 1000 highest p300 and 1000 highest p500 are hybrid
                  lists

                  You can't make a true height-based list or you would just have atoms
                  grouped around the highest point

                  -rs

                  On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:53:31 -0600 JOHN D KIRK <jkirk_14@...> writes:
                  >
                  >Isn't a 300' prominence list a prominence-based list? Don't be mad
                  >because=
                  > you come in second ;)
                  >
                  >
                  >>Gosh, these lists all seem SO very arbitrary!
                  >
                  >>A true, prominence-based list has no such problem.
                  >
                  >>Adam Helman
                  >
                  >
                  >_________________________________________________________________
                  >Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf=E9.
                  >Stop =
                  >by today.
                  >http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=3DTXT_TAGLM_Oc=
                  >tWLtagline
                  >
                  >=20
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • JOHN D KIRK
                  Yes, CA and CO are arbitrary, almost as arbitrary as the county boundaries within them. Do you wear a different hat when highpointing (given that you don t
                  Message 8 of 20 , Oct 17, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yes, CA and CO are arbitrary, almost as arbitrary as the county boundaries within them. Do you wear a different hat when highpointing (given that you don't seem deterred from the counties lists that contain several zero prominences, but are based stricly on height and political boundaries)?


                    To: prominence@yahoogroups.comFrom: helman@...: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:23:36 -0700Subject: Re: [prominence] Highest 1000 Contiguous US List



                    Hello John K,Don't be mad because you come in second ;)"California" and "Colorado" are ALSO arbitrarily selected regions, John.[Here I assume that "second" refers to the state with 2nd most number of prominencesin your Top 100 list.]Nineteenth Century politicians could easily have arrived at different boundaries -and with them the number of prominences per "state" would again change.Please note that the "300 foot rule" is not generally applied nationwide -http://www.cohp.org/prominence/maps/cutoff_value_map/state_cutoff_values.gifSo, again, the generality of a single Highest 1000 list based on anysingle cutoff value is wanting. It is a good list - but changing the cutoff valuein either direction, above or below 300 feet,MARKEDLY alters the geographic distribution of the resultinghighest 1000 summits. ************************************************It would be interesting to estimate the geographic extent of a Highest 1000 listwhere the only criterion for a highpoint be that it supports a single contour -typically 40 feet. I guess (?) that the list is restricted to bumps onassorted fourteeners.Bye bye, AdamJOHN D KIRK wrote:>> Isn't a 300' prominence list a prominence-based list? Don't be mad > because you come in second ;)>> >Gosh, these lists all seem SO very arbitrary!>> >A true, prominence-based list has no such problem.>> >Adam Helman>> __________________________________________________________> Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. > Stop by today.> http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline > <http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                    _________________________________________________________________
                    Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today.
                    http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Layne Bracy
                    ... Highest 1000 list where the only criterion for a highpoint be that it supports a single contour - typically 40 feet. I guess (?) that the list is
                    Message 9 of 20 , Oct 17, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > It would be interesting to estimate the geographic extent of a
                      Highest 1000 list where the only criterion for a highpoint be that
                      it supports a single contour - typically 40 feet. I guess (?) that
                      the list is restricted to bumps on assorted fourteeners.
                      >
                      > Bye bye, Adam

                      Surprisingly, extra bumps with 40' contours above 14000' are not
                      common. While Colorado has 53 14ers at P300, there are only 20 other
                      Colorado 14er summits with at least 40' of interpolated prominence.
                      See Roach's list here:

                      http://www.climb.mountains.com/Project_Island_files/CO_14ers.shtml

                      As John continues to fill in his database, custom lists will be
                      possible to suit people who prefer to use P300, P500, P1000, pure
                      prominence, etc. Of course, P200, P100 or single contour lists may
                      require someone obsessed enough to revise the lists with the
                      addition of lower prominence peaks. Personally, I enjoy it all -
                      county hp's, prominent peaks, high peaks, or whatever I can get my
                      feet on!
                    • Adam Helman
                      Hello John K, The single highest point of a political region is UNAMBIGUOUS. THAT is why I have no problem county highpointing - even though California and
                      Message 10 of 20 , Oct 17, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello John K,

                        The single highest point of a political region is UNAMBIGUOUS.
                        THAT is why I have no problem county highpointing - even though
                        California and Colorado are arbitrarily defined.

                        All successive highpoints ARE ambiguous, which is why I don't care to
                        pursue peaklists that cover the N > 1 highest in a given region.

                        Hence there is NO controversy between my desire to go county highpointing
                        and my desire to climb the N most prominent peaks in a given region.

                        The latter, being a true, prominence-based list is also UNAMBIGUOUS.

                        In contrast, any elevation-based list, such as the Top 1000 list,
                        AND WITH N > 1, is highly dependent on the selected,
                        prominence-based shoulder cutoff value. Here, N = 1000.

                        Other folks can certainly do the "N highest" - look at Bob Packard
                        for instance. I find the dependence of such a list on the cutoff chosen
                        to be HIGHLY disconcerting; and would rather avoid pursuing such
                        a list, in a life where choices must be made, in favor of lists that
                        are completely unambiguous and as described above.

                        *************************************

                        I should have made these peak list distinctions clear in my book, The
                        Finest Peaks.

                        Sincerely, Adam H.


                        JOHN D KIRK wrote:

                        >
                        > Yes, CA and CO are arbitrary, almost as arbitrary as the county
                        > boundaries within them. Do you wear a different hat when highpointing
                        > (given that you don't seem deterred from the counties lists that
                        > contain several zero prominences, but are based stricly on height and
                        > political boundaries)?
                        >
                        > 2007 Oct 18:23:36 -0700Subject: Re: [prominence] Highest 1000
                        > Contiguous US List
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Adam Helman
                        I would enjoy greatly seeing such a SET of lists based on NUMEROUS, prominence-based cutoff values. (They) would be analogous to what John Roper has published
                        Message 11 of 20 , Oct 17, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I would enjoy greatly seeing such a SET of lists
                          based on NUMEROUS, prominence-based cutoff values.

                          (They) would be analogous to what John Roper
                          has published for Washington state :

                          http://www.rhinoclimbs.com/documents/ListofPromLists.rc_000.swf

                          Adam H.

                          Layne Bracy wrote:

                          >
                          >
                          > As John continues to fill in his database, custom lists will be
                          > possible to suit people who prefer to use P300, P500, P1000, pure
                          > prominence, etc. Of course, P200, P100 or single contour lists may
                          > require someone obsessed enough to revise the lists with the
                          > addition of lower prominence peaks. Personally, I enjoy it all -
                          > county hp's, prominent peaks, high peaks, or whatever I can get my
                          > feet on!
                          >
                          >




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Bob Bolton
                          Do you wear a different hat when highpointing (given that you don t seem deterred from the counties lists that contain several zero prominences, but
                          Message 12 of 20 , Oct 17, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            <John K>
                            Do you wear a different hat when highpointing (given that you don't seem
                            deterred from the counties lists that contain several zero prominences, but
                            are based strictly on height and political boundaries)?

                            I for one wear a very different hat when highpointing than I wear when
                            prominence bagging. Highpointing includes such beauts as Mt. Sunflower and
                            Jerimoth Hill, but if we were to ignore political boundaries, Mt. Whitney
                            would have little meaning either, outside of prominence. Seen in that light,
                            political highpointing actually seems like a pretty good idea to me. My
                            guess is that interest in highpointing partly stems from the fact that most
                            of us have neither the skills, the strengths, nor the finances to travel to
                            Nepal or Pakistan every time we get the urge to get to the top of some
                            entity. So by dividing a landmass up by political boundaries and searching
                            for the highest points in each, we can much more readily scratch our
                            get-to-the-top-of-something itches, whether they be mountains, states,
                            counties, you name it.

                            When I'm prominence bagging the hat is very different. I want to summit a
                            real mountain. The 5000-foot and 2000-foot prominence thresholds are
                            arbitrary, but the mountains themselves generally make pretty good sense.
                            And for me, prominence is FAR more interesting than elevation. The best
                            examples of why this is come from experiences in Colorado. I found it
                            oh-so-slightly interesting to summit Sunshine Peak only because it was on a
                            triply arbitrary list. Same goes for Ellingwood Point. The Colorado 14ers
                            not only are (1) confined to Colorado, they are mainly (2) defined by the
                            300-foot prominence threshold, and of course they are (3) above 14,000 feet,
                            all arbitrary. Coming from prominence-rich Washington causes Sunshine Peak
                            to seem very unnecessary - it's all part of the same mountain with Redcloud
                            in my book. I feel the same about Rainier's Liberty Cap, BTW, so I'm not
                            applying this thinking only to Colorado. Liberty Cap has 472 to 512 feet of
                            prominence, about the same as Sunshine Peak. BLAHHH!! I realize I'm stepping
                            on the toes of both elevation baggers and x00-foot prominence baggers here,
                            but I'm just expressing my personal preference.

                            Working on the Ultra-prominences has taken me to a wide variety of regions
                            in 13 states. There were desert peaks, rain forests, alpine splendor,
                            glaciers, stand-alone behemoths, range highpoints, volcanoes, 14ers, you
                            name it. Every Ultra is a REAL mountain, unlike Sunshine Peak and Liberty
                            Cap. And instead of at least THREE arbitrary aspects, there are only two -
                            the P5000-foot threshold and the 48-state boundary. There's a hidden
                            advantage here too - while doing the 5000-foot prominences, I also completed
                            the 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000, 10000, and 13000-foot prominence lists within
                            that boundary. My next objective will be the P4K list, as that has captured
                            my imagination FAR more than finishing my 36 remaining CO 14ers. This P4K
                            fascination is admittedly heightened by the fact that hundreds of folks have
                            done the CO 14ers, while nobody has yet completed all of the 58 Ultras (not
                            that we haven't tried!), much less the 4000-foot prominences. To complete
                            the P4Ks I've gotta get around a bit - and what a great variety of places to
                            go: 6 in AZ, 5 in CA, 5 in CO, 3 in ID, 9 in MT, 3 in NM, 15 in NV, 1 each
                            in TN and TX, 8 in UT, 5 even in WA, and 1 in WY. That's 62 peaks in 12
                            states if I counted right! As opposed to spending my entire life chasing
                            14ers and 13ers and never getting out of CO, CA, UT, NM, and NV (except for
                            good old Liberty Cap)! No Washington, with those fantastic North Cascades
                            and Olympics and volcanoes, no Montana with Glacier National Park and the
                            Beartooths and the Crazies and the Missions and the Cabinets, etc., no
                            Idaho, no Oregon, no Arizona --- you get my point. As I've said elsewhere:
                            (http://www.summitpost.org/list/174556/Ultra-prominence-Peaks-of-the-48-Stat
                            es.html)
                            prominence allows all peaks to be measured on a level playing field. I'm FAR
                            more interested in a 6000-foot prominence peak that's 10,000 feet high (i.e.
                            Oregon's Sacajawea, the HP of a great range - the Wallowas) than I am in a
                            500-foot prominence peak that's 14,001 feet high and from which I'm looking
                            UP the ridge at a peak that is 33 feet higher and 1.25 miles away. Handies
                            and Redcloud were fine, but Sunshine???

                            FWIW

                            Bob :-)



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Edward "7.389056099" Earl
                            ... A few years ago I thought of an interesting project that John Roper might want to try. Climb some carefully determined peak list such that it includes the
                            Message 13 of 20 , Oct 18, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > I would enjoy greatly seeing such a SET of lists
                              > based on NUMEROUS, prominence-based cutoff values.
                              >
                              > (They) would be analogous to what John Roper
                              > has published for Washington state :
                              >
                              A few years ago I thought of an interesting project that John Roper might want
                              to try. Climb some carefully determined peak list such that it includes the 100
                              highest in WA for ANY prominence cutoff. Apart from one problem which I will
                              describe in a moment, such a list would be finite and quite doable.

                              The algorithm for constructing such a list would go like this: start by making a
                              list of the 100 most prominent peaks in WA. The cutoff would be about 2294'.
                              Thus, there's no such thing as the 100 highest in WA with a prominence cutoff
                              greater than 2294', because WA doesn't even have 100 peaks with that much
                              prominence. Record said list.

                              Then, delete the lowest peak on the list and replace it with the most prominent
                              peak in the state that is _higher_ than the peak just deleted. Record the new
                              peak. Repeat this process many times and watch the list evolve to gradually
                              higher and less prominence peaks.

                              The only problem with this "WA 100 highest for any prominence cutoff" list
                              concept is that its low prominence limit is ill-defined. It is not clear at what
                              point the list begins to push its way into the realm of meaninglessly
                              low-prominence peaks, since it happens little by little.

                              Still, though, I do feel that a list of this nature is more meaningful than a
                              list of the n highest with a static prominence cutoff. Though one could still
                              not say, "I've climbed the 100 highest peaks in WA" with a totally straight
                              face, it would be a straighter face than if it were done to an arbitrary fixed
                              prominence cutoff.

                              Edward "7.389056099" Earl
                              esquared@...
                              http://home.earthlink.net/~esquared
                            • Robert W. Packard
                              But somebody HAS completed all the 57 currently EXISTING ultras. Completing the 58 will not top that except by accident of timing. Bob
                              Message 14 of 20 , Oct 18, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                But somebody HAS completed all the 57 currently EXISTING ultras.
                                Completing the 58 will not top that except by accident of timing.
                                Bob
                              • Roy Schweiker
                                ... A problem with implementing the concept is if maps have different contour intervals but perhaps p
                                Message 15 of 20 , Oct 18, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  >The only problem with this "WA 100 highest for any prominence cutoff"
                                  >list
                                  >concept is that its low prominence limit is ill-defined. It is not
                                  >clear at what
                                  >point the list begins to push its way into the realm of meaninglessly
                                  >low-prominence peaks, since it happens little by little.

                                  A problem with implementing the concept is if maps have different contour
                                  intervals but perhaps p < 80 may get to what you consider meaningless
                                  anyway

                                  I don't have access to the WA data in any usable form but may try it with
                                  Aaron's ME spreadsheet using a reduced # of peaks

                                  -rs
                                • Eric Noel
                                  I actually created such a list a year or so ago back around when John Roper put up his cutoff page although I did not work it down to the nubs. As I recall it
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Oct 18, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I actually created such a list a year or so ago back around when John Roper put up his
                                    cutoff page although I did not work it down to the nubs. As I recall it went just down to
                                    P400C because that was as far as the peak info available went. I believe John does actually
                                    have P300M lists on his sits so it could be augmented down to that level or even if
                                    someone were interested I guess it could go down to a closed contour or whatever
                                    minimum cutoff were desired. I wanna say that the T100 from P400 to ~P2300 list had
                                    about 300 or so peaks but that is just a wild guess; I may have to dig that spreadsheet up

                                    -Eric

                                    --- In prominence@yahoogroups.com, "Edward \"7.389056099\" Earl" <esquared@...>
                                    wrote:
                                    >
                                    > A few years ago I thought of an interesting project that John Roper might want
                                    > to try. Climb some carefully determined peak list such that it includes the 100
                                    > highest in WA for ANY prominence cutoff. Apart from one problem which I will
                                    > describe in a moment, such a list would be finite and quite doable.
                                    >
                                    > The algorithm for constructing such a list would go like this: start by making a
                                    > list of the 100 most prominent peaks in WA. The cutoff would be about 2294'.
                                    > Thus, there's no such thing as the 100 highest in WA with a prominence cutoff
                                    > greater than 2294', because WA doesn't even have 100 peaks with that much
                                    > prominence. Record said list.
                                    >
                                    > Then, delete the lowest peak on the list and replace it with the most prominent
                                    > peak in the state that is _higher_ than the peak just deleted. Record the new
                                    > peak. Repeat this process many times and watch the list evolve to gradually
                                    > higher and less prominence peaks.
                                    >
                                    > The only problem with this "WA 100 highest for any prominence cutoff" list
                                    > concept is that its low prominence limit is ill-defined. It is not clear at what
                                    > point the list begins to push its way into the realm of meaninglessly
                                    > low-prominence peaks, since it happens little by little.
                                    >
                                    > Still, though, I do feel that a list of this nature is more meaningful than a
                                    > list of the n highest with a static prominence cutoff. Though one could still
                                    > not say, "I've climbed the 100 highest peaks in WA" with a totally straight
                                    > face, it would be a straighter face than if it were done to an arbitrary fixed
                                    > prominence cutoff.
                                    >
                                    > Edward "7.389056099" Earl
                                    > esquared@...
                                    > http://home.earthlink.net/~esquared
                                    >
                                  • Bob Bolton
                                    But somebody HAS completed all the 57 currently EXISTING ultras. Completing the 58 will not top that except by accident of timing. ... the pioneer
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Oct 18, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      <Bob P>
                                      But somebody HAS completed all the 57 currently EXISTING ultras. Completing
                                      the 58 will not top that except by accident of timing.

                                      :-) Which is why I explicitly said that nobody has done the 58. Bob, you're
                                      the pioneer here, and most of the rest of us are following at a great
                                      distance. I for one will never "top" your incredible accomplishments even if
                                      I'm lucky enough to be first to do the 58! And I would still greatly enjoy
                                      chasing the 58 even if you HAD been so fortunate as to have climbed
                                      pre-eruption St. Helens. Frankly, I for one wish you had been able to do so.

                                      You da man, Bob, there's no doubt about it...

                                      Having said all that, however, the same can be said in reverse. You've
                                      accomplished many firsts in peakbagging, but those too were all, to some
                                      extent, accidents of timing. To illustrate, John Roper was first to complete
                                      the Washington P2Ks, but a much younger Paul Klenke is poised to follow in
                                      his footsteps with only a handful remaining. John is about 30 years older
                                      than Paul, and did many of those climbs before Paul was born or was old
                                      enough to have "competed" with him. This too is an accident of timing. :-)

                                      Bob



                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • JOHN D KIRK
                                      http://listsofjohn.com/Alaska/AK10.php Completed the validation/conversion from TOPO! to excel to mysql resulting in 6 additional 10k peaks from my last post
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Nov 14, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        http://listsofjohn.com/Alaska/AK10.php
                                        Completed the validation/conversion from TOPO! to excel to mysql resulting in 6 additional 10k peaks from my last post to bring the total count to 512.
                                        I'll be adding the AK section to the index page (http://listsofjohn.com) soon. This state section will certainly possess the smallest conglomeration of logged peaks.

                                        For Canadian topozone saddle hyperlinks (Saint Elias, for example), clicking on the '1:50 NRCan Topos' button to the left of the topozone map area will display the Canadian map.
                                        _________________________________________________________________
                                        Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble challenge with star power.
                                        http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct

                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.