Prominence article

[DSunwall]

Jim Davies posted this article on 14W, I thought it should go here. Pretty good writing on the subject I thought, with quotes from John Kirk, Ryan Schilling and Jerry Roach.

http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1311829

I am kind of warming up to the prominence list myself. It is mentioned in the article that there are a few problems with prominence, like the one with Elbert where the next highest peak is in Ca.
There should be a rule like the 300' rule, where the saddle used to measure is the saddle to the highest other peak within 10 miles. I suppose no two could agree on what that distance should be. I'm sure all this has been discussed many times, fill me in.

Pikes Peak has zero 13K+ peaks within 55 miles, Mt. Elbert has 44 13k+ peaks within 10 miles, doesn't seem right. :D

[RyanSchilling]

Yes, but there's no higher peak than Elbert for hundreds of miles, so I'm not yet convinced that this is a problem with prominence, even though you can't see Whitney from Elbert. Have you looked at the Spire Measure lists before? You might like them because they take steepness into account.

[DSunwall]

Yes, but there's no higher peak than Elbert for hundreds of miles, so I'm not yet convinced that this is a problem with prominence, even though you can't see Whitney from Elbert. Have you looked at the Spire Measure lists before? You might like them because they take steepness into account.

But, if elevation is a criteria for prominence then all we need is the old elevation list. I still don't get it. I think of prominence as something that stands out more clearly (unobstructed) from a lower elevation such as a valley.

I will take a look at the spire measure.

[Layne Bracy]

The distance from a peak to its nearest higher neighbor has been called "Isolation".

World Peaks with greater than 1000km

Elbert makes this list. Several island highpoints are also on the list, the peak preceding Elbert being only 6 meters high! The list creator arbitrarily eliminated small islands from ranked status, which at first thought I don't like. If a rock in the ocean is the highest thing around for miles, then so be it.

After re-reading the explanation of Spire Measure, I think this probably is what Dwight (and myself) are looking for that prominence alone doesn't measure.

To calculate the Spire Measure for any specific point, all visible points from it are considered. The value increases when the angle of looking at other points is steeply downward. Points(or peaks) get rewarded for both sheer faces and for long distance views.

El Cap (SM=554) gets a huge contribution from the close-in terrain, since looking down from the brim of the cliff to the Valley floor is very steep indeed. But El Cap gets very little contribution from far-away terrain since it is not very high compared to that terrain (in fact it is lower than a lot of the surrounding high country). And of course if you look North from the brim you get very little contribution since you are looking up, not down.

Mauna Kea (SM=393) lies somewhat at the other extreme. If you stand atop Mauna Kea there is no point that forces you to look very steeply downward, since it has no cliffs or super-steep faces to speak of. But there is a huge area where you have to look moderately downward, since Mauna Kea rises so high above the surrounding terrain. This gives it the moderately high SM value that it has.

The site says that a pole of height H gets SM = H, while a 45 degree cone of height H gets a SM = H/2.

Now I want to see the Spire Measure for Two Buttes, highpoint of Prowers County!

[DSunwall]

thanks Layne. I can see a lot of time and effort has been put into this topic, I can't digest it all in a short period of time, spire measure sure becomes complicated but is pretty much the way I expected prominence to be measured.

[RyanSchilling]

But, if elevation is a criteria for prominence then all we need is the old elevation list.

Peak elevation is certainly a criterion, one of only two in the calculation (Peak Elevation - Key Saddle Elevation = Prominence), hence its tendency to favor range highpoints. Its simplicity is one of the things I like about it. I disagree, however, that just because elevation is a factor that prominence is therefore not useful.

Consider that the top 15 on the list includes peaks with the following ranks on the straight elevation list: #184, #845, #1104, #1107, #1206, and one peak so low that its elevation rank in the state has never been determined! If all people proceeded through the elevation list sequentially, only the Ken Nolans and Mike Garretts of the world would climb Mount Zirkel! Also consider that prominence is *the* statistic that defines a ranked peak on the elevation list. Hmm... since prominence is a factor in the elevation list, couldn't you just as easily say that "all we need is the prominence list"? :) Personally I think that both lists are indispensible and that they compliment each other well.

Basically what it comes down to is this: All lists have their faults. They're imperfect ways to try to catalogue mountains, and they all seem to include peaks that we won't necessarily enjoy. The elevation list ranks a peak like Mount Bross very highly, even though it's a far inferior peak to just about every 13er. The county highpoints list includes places like the intersection of SH-128 & Indiana or a small pile of boulders on the flanks of Pikes Peak. The prominence list buries Sopris at #181, a few places behind the unremarkable UN 10,614, which is just 6 miles away from Sopris.The Spire Measure list, which favors steep peaks, thinks that this unranked random ridgepoint is more worthy than Little Bear!

In conclusion, I say the more lists the better! It just gives you new ways to shuffle the mountains up so you can find the ones that interest you most. Speaking of more lists, I'm very curious about Hakan's work that he hinted at on FW. Maybe he's figured out a way to resolve some of SM's deficiencies! I'd bet right now, though, that we'll all be able to argue over the results once he's finished :wink:

[DSunwall]

Fair enough Ryan. :)
I considered making a list of mountain lists once, it has already been done and I am sure it is not near complete, they are as endless as the number of mountains multiplied by the number of climbers.

[RyanSchilling]

I considered making a list of mountain lists once

LOL