Sorry I didn't mean to leave you out. Didn't realize you had completed them all as well.
Muir is ranked, at least if you use the 300' rule.
That's "clean prominence", which no one but peakbagger uses. Eveyone else uses prominence or interpolated prominence.
You clearly are very passionate about prominence and clean prominence and interpolated prominence and prominence. Can you please explain the difference for dummies like me?Scott P wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:51 pmThat's "clean prominence", which no one but peakbagger uses. Eveyone else uses prominence or interpolated prominence.
Notice how peakbagger had to change it to 280 feet for Colorado:
This is because Bross and Challenger aren't ranked using 300' clean prominence (but are using 300' of prominence/interpolated prominence) . Peakbagger used to use 300' feet of clean prominence for Colorado, making a list of 51 peaks. Since no one else used the 51 list on Peakbagger, and because of the flack they got, they changed it to 280' feet of clen prominence so Bross and Challenger Point would be ranked. So they changed it to 280 to include those peaks. Everyone else just uses 300 feet of prominence (interpolated prominence)
As far as I know, literally everyone else uses prominence, not "clean prominence". See here for example:
https://listsofjohn.com/searchres?Elev= ... =&State=CA
Muir has 331 feet of prominence and is a ranked peak under every single list.
If you want to use only clean prominence (which is the stupidest criteria possible), you have to apply it to all states, not just California. Therefore Colorado would only have 51 ranked peaks.
Peakbagger is still a nice site, but they use clean prominence, not prominence or interpolated prominence.
I don't know why they do this. I used to go back and forth (firendly) with the owner about him using clean prominence instead of prominence, but he wouldn't budge. I am also the person that put together or helped with several of those peakbagger lists, but the owner insisted that clean prominence be used rather than just prominence. This was several years ago.
I'll use Peakbagger and Mt. Muir as an example.
It also gives you absolute certainty that you will miss peaks that should be ranked and will have a lot of lists incomplete.
I understand the reasoning behind the method(I already talked to the peakbagger website owner about this several years ago), but not the reasoning for choosing that method. It is flawed because it eliminates too many peaks that should be ranked or that have more prominence than peakbagger indicates. There is a reason no other source in the world that I know of uses it.