Peaks by State

Discuss general site topics

Peaks by State

Postby AaronIhinger » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:59 pm

Is it possible to simply look up a comprehensive list of peaks by state? Washington for example... I tried to find a list of the peaks in Washington but could only see peaks listed by County, Quad, Elevation (14k, 12k, etc.) etc.
Thanks!
AaronIhinger
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: Telluride, Co.

Re: Peaks by State

Postby KentonB » Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:12 pm

I don't know if this is "exactly" what you're after but it will achieve what you describe above:

1. Go to "Member Tools" on the Homepage.
2. Select "Export CSV, GPX, POI, TOPO! Files"
3. Select the State and Export Type (use "csv" to view in Excel).
4. On the next page, blank out the Minimum Prominence and leave the "Member" field blank.
5. Hit "Submit" and save or open the file on your PC.

The CSV File may be opened/viewed in Excel.
KentonB
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Peaks by State

Postby AaronIhinger » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:18 pm

Thanks for the help but I would apparently need to offer $20.00 to be able to do that. That would be an unwise move for me when I can hardly make my mortgage these days... I find it hard to believe that on a site as listful as this, there wouldn't be a simple list of Washington's peaks from top to bottom. I think I'm missing something here.
AaronIhinger
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: Telluride, Co.

Re: Peaks by State

Postby KentonB » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:42 pm

If you like, I could create a Custom List (I believe as a non-member you can view such a list, but wouldn't be able to edit/create it yourself).

It wouldn't take a whole lot to do. Would that be helpful? If so, do you want Ranked only? Or all peaks? And for which state?
KentonB
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Peaks by State

Postby AaronIhinger » Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:17 pm

that would be awesome and I really appreciate the offer! I am probably mostly interested in 9k+, highest to lowest, ranked + unranked. I don't even know what the foot rule (300',500'?) is for Washington. I just wanna get back up there and play amongst the glaciers again before too long. Thanks for your kindness!
Aaron
AaronIhinger
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: Telluride, Co.

Re: Peaks by State

Postby AaronIhinger » Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:38 am

sweet list !
thank you so much for putting that together for me. Looks like I've got my work cut out for me up that way. :wiz:
AaronIhinger
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: Telluride, Co.

Re: Peaks by State

Postby John Kirk » Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:29 am

Hey guys - just want to point out this is bad policy and abuse of custom lists. I want to make this clear now before anyone else uses custom lists as a means of bypassing filters constraining a non-donating login. I don't want to make custom lists "pay to play", but that's the direction this will go if I see too much abuse of the system. The list size in question here is small and not inherently an issue, however the principle is what I view as a problem that could be taken to another level.

In general, the reason I limit the size of lists through filters is to prevent strain on the server and database. The csv options and other full state export features are scaled appropriately with donations - I pay for the server memory on a private server on an as needed basis, meaning the higher the concurrent demand on the server the more it costs to keep up with it and keeping the site functioning. If it is a free-for-all where users circumnavigate the tools available, then all users will experience performance degradation, which is fair to no one, especially those who have offered monetary support (all of whom aren't handing out money because they don't need it).
User avatar
John Kirk
LoJ Architect
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Lakewood, CO

Re: Peaks by State

Postby KentonB » Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:26 pm

John Kirk wrote:Hey guys - just want to point out this is bad policy and abuse of custom lists. I want to make this clear now before anyone else uses custom lists as a means of bypassing filters constraining a non-donating login. I don't want to make custom lists "pay to play", but that's the direction this will go if I see too much abuse of the system. The list size in question here is small and not inherently an issue, however the principle is what I view as a problem that could be taken to another level.

In general, the reason I limit the size of lists through filters is to prevent strain on the server and database. The csv options and other full state export features are scaled appropriately with donations - I pay for the server memory on a private server on an as needed basis, meaning the higher the concurrent demand on the server the more it costs to keep up with it and keeping the site functioning. If it is a free-for-all where users circumnavigate the tools available, then all users will experience performance degradation, which is fair to no one, especially those who have offered monetary support (all of whom aren't handing out money because they don't need it).

My apologies John... I didn't think of it from that perspective. Is this one Ok to leave up? Or would you like me to take it down?
KentonB
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Peaks by State

Postby John Kirk » Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:08 pm

It's fine to leave up - consider unsharing it (it can still be referenced by its id), where the link below will work whether it is shared or not:
http://listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/Content/customlists.php?lid=290
User avatar
John Kirk
LoJ Architect
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Lakewood, CO


Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest