Forum of Lists

Finally got around to cranking out more summit steepness numbers. Main page is here.

I moved the lists to a new server and finished analysis for Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Left out the eastern plains of CO for now. Montana is almost done, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and Washington will be looked at eventually.

Angle based measurements have been added, which I prefer to the formula based rating. An explanation can be found here. If you're looking for sharp peaks, check out the min at 100m and the average at 100m listings - available for CO, WY, and NM.

Some well-known peaks show up high on these lists, but many obscure summits also score well. Apart from academic interest, this data might be of use to technical climbers looking to find steep, overlooked peaks to tackle.

-Tim W

Thanks for your work on this awesome page! I'll be using it to identify some fun scrambles.

Your welcome Joe - with my peakbagging activities on the shelf for a bit, its been a good time to revisit this project.

TWorth wrote:Your welcome Joe - with my peakbagging activities on the shelf for a bit, its been a good time to revisit this project.

Hope it's not due to an injury or health that you're not able to get out.

Tim,

that is all very interesting, nice job on the web site.

It got me to thinking that you should look for the steepest quarter of the mountains. Most mountains have steep faces in one direction only. Maybe you could have it calculate the steepest quarter for each peak and then have a list for peaks with steepest quarters. Yes, I know, a lot more work.

Thanks for the compliment, Dwight!

That "steepest quarter" idea is a good one. I'll see what I can do. Look for it around 2013. No, actually it might not be too difficult to produce, with the main engine already built, it may just take few adjustments here and there.

Another idea for maximum angles is to find the exact direction of the steepest terrrain. For example Pyramid Peak has a max angle from 0- 800m of around 45 degrees. It would be interesting to know what direction that is, and plot it on a map. This would give sort of a "hardest line" for any peak.

Hope it's not due to an injury or health that you're not able to get out.

Fortunately, no. Work and automotive related. I'll just have to demand more time off this summer.

OK, got the steepest faces section up. I'm happy with the results. This checks every 90 degree angle combination per peak(0-90,1-91...359-89) to find the steepest aspect. aStart and aEnd denote the horizontal angle and avg angle is the average vertical angle within the 90° span.

Some of the summit locations don't match up with the maps, but that's Google's fault.

For a representation on a map, click the peak name. Here is an example.


CO at 100m
CO at 800m

WY at 100m
WY at 800m

NM at 100m
NM at 800m

Yes, nice job, Tim! So what do the negative numbers mean? I was surprised to see Two Buttes in that part of the list. Is it simply that it can't be evaluated?

10012 achieves some at least temporary distinction for being the ranked peak with the lowest positive steepness rating.

wow, thanks. I'll take a closer look when I have more time, looks quite interesting.

Thanks Ryan. A rating of -2880 or similar means either the peak wasn't evaluated or that there was an unknown error in the digital data(rare). I haven't run the eastern plains of CO yet, so that's why Two Buttes and all those other plains peaks show up at the bottom for now.

In the angle lists, a negative number within the 0-20° range indicates terrain higher than the summit is within the analyzed distance. Curecanti Needle is a good example. It has steep drops right near the summit, but since it's near the bottom of Black Canyon, the slope from the summit to a distance of 800m in any given direction is often positive, since the target points are usually somewhere along the canyon rim, higher than the summit itself.

I actually set out to do 10012 a few years back. Couldn't get near it, deep snow on the Uncompagre Plateau, even in May. Guess I didn't miss much.

More peak-geek calcs, this time for MT(western half). Below is the summary for the numerical rankings.

http://ned-files.com/mt/mt.html

----Summary-------------------------------------------------------------------

-95 of the top 100 peaks, and 161 out of the top 200, are in the Glacier NP region.

The other 5 peaks rounding out the top 100:

*Catherdral Point(#27, Beartooths)
*A Peak(#32,Cabinets)
*Whitetail Peak(#53,Beartooths)
*Glacier Peak(#96, Beartooths)
*Ibex Peak(#100, Cabinets)

-69 peaks grade out higher than the top summit in Colorado(Animas Peak).

-Kaiser Point(#2, P=436) qualifies as a seperare summit with this criteria, but it is considered locally to be a sub peak of Mt Cleveland.

-Mt Cleveland is the highest ranking peak in the rockies analyzed so far, edging out Grand Teton.

-The top 6 peaks within the 10000-10999 elevation range are the 6 "Teners" of Glacier NP.

-Highest named unranked peak is Dusty Star Mtn, in Glacier NP.

-Conrad Butte gets the prize as the flattest ranked peak analyzed at 800m.

-600+ ranked and unranked buttes and hills on the Montana plains have not yet been analyzed.

-The Granite Peak in the Crazies(#149) rates as steeper at 800m than the state highpoint Grainte Peak(#159).

-Whitetail Peak(#53) is the highest graded MT 12er.

-Torrey Mtn(#181) is the highest rated peak over 11000' that is not in the Beartooths.

thanks for the info, maybe I should move back to Montana.

Using minimum angle at 100m shows CO has 5 summits that are steeper than anything in Montana. Goes to show results will vary when using different fixed distances. It would be nice to remove distance as a variable and calculate the angles using the "base of angle to the summit" where the minimum angle is at its possible maximum. Independence Monument comes to mind, where changing the distance to 90m or 80m probably improves the steepness considerably.
...
This introduces another problematic variable: how much rise does a pitch need to qualify (i.e. we wouldn't want to count a single contour in the same class as a sheer 700' spire). Maybe applying a factor for angle x rise (in such a way that steepness has exponentially more weight over rise as the angle increments) so that spires are measured favorably over mountains that are just big and somewhat steep?

Yes, MT is a good state for Mtns, not so good for jobs.

John - Not sure I follow you exactly, but one way to eliminate fixed distances would be to find the maximum angle in a given direction at whatever distance that may be. Start from, say, 10m out and check angles at 10m intervals up to 800m or 1600m. Each direction would have a different distance at which the maximum angle occurs depending how steep a given side is. Get a max angle for all 360 degrees and average to come up with an overall figure. Might yield some wierd results...

I don't mind using fixed distances though - 100m works on the micro level, and 800m is good for measuring larger mtns. Original spire measure coveres the widest area/largest mtns, since distance is not capped.

What I'm interested in is a way to measure the lowest angle pitch on a peak and factoring it by the rise of the pitch at a point where the rise x angle is at its highest possible value.

A provisional formula:
(angle^4 x rise) / (90^4)

With this, a 500' rise of 60 degrees is roughly equivalent to a 100' rise of 90 degrees (not that this is the standard to go by). Changing the exponent obviously will change the importance of angle in the calculation.