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

[prominence] Mountain measures

Expand Messages
  • Bob and Rhonda Bolton
    (Dave M) Here s something to measure how impressive a peak is: simply the greatest vertical relief that one can actually *see*. E.g. Rainier is visible from
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 31, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      (Dave M)
      Here's something to measure how impressive a peak is: simply
      the greatest vertical relief that one can actually *see*.
      E.g. Rainier is visible from Puget Sound, so it gets the
      full 14410 feet. But Elbert is visible from at best maybe 8500 feet,
      so it gets around 6000 feet. N Cascade peaks get most of their height
      since the valleys are so low.

      I'm not seriously suggesting this as an optimal mtn measure,
      but it would be a cool number to know! But wicked hard to calculate,
      I think. (Edward?) For example, is Mount Everest visible from
      under 1000m elevation? I don't know.

      (Bob B)
      Watch that Ctrl+Enter in Outlook Express. It sends the message! I was
      trying to use Shift+Enter to type in a new line character...

      You know I'm gonna like that one because of the North Cascades having so
      much local relief. This would make a 3000' cliff the same as a 3000' tower
      if the vantage points are similar relative to the "base" of the subject.

      I was thinking that there might already be a method of determining the
      "base" of a mountain. One may want to deterine a base line that surrounds
      the mountain. That base line could then be used for many calculations. But
      your idea ignores base and instead focuses on the maximum relief visible
      from any vantage point. I do think that because of the line of sight
      problem it would probably be very difficult to calculate this from topo
      data, and CERTAINLY it would be difficult by hand! It's very interesting

      I suppose another problem with this might be that it is sometimes possible
      to see the summit of a surrounded peak from a long way off when you're much
      lower than you would be when right next to the mountain. Because relief
      quickly seems less impressive as you move away from a mountain, the mountain
      wouldn't "feel" as impressive even if you're able to see greater relief than
      when you're up close. An example of this is the south approach to Gannett
      Peak in the Wind Rivers (Titcomb Basin and Dinwoody Pass approach). There
      are a number of places where you can see the summit of Gannett from some
      distance, when you're at a lower elevation than when you're up close. But
      the summit is only barely visible above closer ridges, so even though the
      relief is greater, the distance and the hiddenness conspire to make it less
      impressive. This shot sorta illustrates this. The summit is visible on the
      snowy ridge just right of the tall trees on the left side of this photo.


      Here the peak is visible from near it's base to the summit, as seen from
      Dinwoody Pass.


      To my eye this is a much more impressive sight, yet the visible relief is
      way less than in the first photo.

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