Contiguous US 14ers

14ers in California and Washington state or any other peak in the USA
Forum rules
Please do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website. For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
nunns
Posts: 1113
Joined: 8/17/2018
14ers: 41
13ers: 4

Re: Contiguous US 14ers

Post by nunns » Sun Aug 16, 2020 7:19 pm

asansone wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:29 am
Andrew and I completed the 74 in the last couple years. As did Kyle Knutson - We were debating if liberty cap Counted- But seems the consensus is no.
asansone,

Sorry I didn't mean to leave you out. Didn't realize you had completed them all as well.

Sean Nunn
"Thy righteousness is like the great mountains." --Psalms 36:6
User avatar
Scott P
Posts: 8311
Joined: 5/4/2005
14ers: 51 16
13ers: 41 13
Trip Reports (16)
Contact:

Re: Contiguous US 14ers

Post by Scott P » Sun Aug 16, 2020 8:37 pm

brichardsson wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 12:57 pm
just for the lists purists, there are 11 ranked. muir is traditionally done, but it is not ranked.
Muir is ranked, at least if you use the 300' rule.

https://listsofjohn.com/peak/17717
I'm slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
User avatar
brichardsson
Posts: 419
Joined: 7/19/2016
14ers: List not added
13ers: 3

Re: Contiguous US 14ers

Post by brichardsson » Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 pm

bdloftin77 wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:20 pm

Muir is ranked - https://listsofjohn.com/peak/17717
Muir has less than 300' prominence and is not ranked - https://www.peakbagger.com/List.aspx?lid=21319
User avatar
Scott P
Posts: 8311
Joined: 5/4/2005
14ers: 51 16
13ers: 41 13
Trip Reports (16)
Contact:

Re: Contiguous US 14ers

Post by Scott P » Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:51 pm

brichardsson wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 pm
bdloftin77 wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:20 pm

Muir is ranked - https://listsofjohn.com/peak/17717
Muir has less than 300' prominence and is not ranked - https://www.peakbagger.com/List.aspx?lid=21319
That'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:

https://peakbagger.com/list.aspx?lid=21360

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'm slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
User avatar
douglas
Posts: 312
Joined: 6/13/2010
14ers: 46
13ers: 1
Trip Reports (2)

Re: Contiguous US 14ers

Post by douglas » Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:05 pm

Scott P wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:51 pm
brichardsson wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 pm
bdloftin77 wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:20 pm

Muir is ranked - https://listsofjohn.com/peak/17717
Muir has less than 300' prominence and is not ranked - https://www.peakbagger.com/List.aspx?lid=21319
That'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:

https://peakbagger.com/list.aspx?lid=21360

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.
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?
gore galore
Posts: 68
Joined: 6/2/2012
14ers: List not added
Trip Reports (36)

Re: Contiguous US 14ers

Post by gore galore » Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:19 pm

I have quite a lot of information from years of research and correspondence on this subject of contiguous US 14ers. While most will be wrapped up into what peaks belong on the list which is part of the interest, I find the most fascinating aspects of "the game of 'High Spots' in which is found the lively sport of climbing all the 14,000-foot peaks in the United States" are its origins and the climbers particularly the early completers who are largely unknown. Between Carl and Bob Melzer's completion of the then 64 peaks in 1939 and the Climbing Smiths twice completions in 1969 and 1974 of 67 peaks there are an additional fourteen completers which I believe is quite accurate. I refer to this era as the pioneer period as there were no 14er guidebooks and the maps of the time were of the 15M and 30M quads or earlier. Between 1974 and 2008 I have a list which I believe is fairly accurate of 24 completers. Five of these completers climbed Liberty Cap. As to the question of whether Liberty Cap belongs on the list, the Melzer party of 1939 settled this question from the outset. "At that time there were 50 known 14,000's in Colorado, 13 in California and 1 in Washington. Our first count had shown three in Washington (Rainier, Liberty Cap and Success), but some one enlightened us they counted as only one mountain." Someday I should write the history of the Contiguous US 14ers or as they knew it in the beginning as "the game of 'High Spots'."
I also have much historical information and a fairly accurate list of those who climbed the California 14ers and the Pacific Coast 14ers prior to the World War II years. The post war years into the 1950's are quite murky as there was no reporting entity keeping track.
User avatar
Scott P
Posts: 8311
Joined: 5/4/2005
14ers: 51 16
13ers: 41 13
Trip Reports (16)
Contact:

Re: Contiguous US 14ers

Post by Scott P » Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:35 pm

douglas wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:05 pm
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?
I'll use Peakbagger and Mt. Muir as an example.

Saddle elevations usually aren't marked on topo maps (but in a few cases they are). Most saddle elevations also don't fall exactly on a contour line either.

What everyone (I know of) world-wide, except for Peak Bagger does is to use the average of the two contours; the one above and the one below the saddle. This is known as prominence or interpolated prominence. Statistically, this is the most accurate way to do things.

Peakbagger doesn't do this. They use only the contour above the saddle. This is known as clean prominence since there is no averaging involved. Peak bagger still does list the avearge (interpolated) prominece, but they use only the highest saddle contour (and/or highest peak contour for peaks that don't have a listed elevation) for their lists.

See here for the Peakbagger page on Mt Muir and the box I outlined:

Peakbagger.JPG
Peakbagger.JPG (50.96 KiB) Viewed 785 times
Only Peakbagger uses clean prominence on their lists, everyone else (I know of) world wide uses the average (which is usually known as just prominence or interpolated prominence), which is also in the box and which is the last number in that box. This is what everyone else uses. See listsofjohn for example:
listsofjohn.JPG
listsofjohn.JPG (22.74 KiB) Viewed 765 times
Average is the most accurate way to do it, even if it isn't perfect.

What the topo map of Mt Muir actually says is that Mt Muir rises somewhere between 298 and 364 feet above the saddle (it doesn't give an exact elevation of the saddle; only contour lines).

That means there is a 2.9% chance that Mt Muir has less than 300 feet prominence and a 97.1% chance that Mt Muir has more than 300 feet prominence and thus is a ranked peak.

Even though the there is only a 2.9% chance that the peak has less than 300 feet prominece, that is what Peakbagger uses because clean prominence would say that a peak has to have a 0% chance of not being ranked to be included. This is why I consider using clean promince to be flawed. A lot of peaks that really do have 300' prominece are eliminated.

Using prominence (or interpolated prominence) is much better to use, but it isn't perfect.

Let's say a peak has 270-310 feet of prominence using the countour lines. Using prominence/interpolated prominence, the peak would have 290 feet of prominence. The prominence would be listed as 290 feet, but since there is still a 25% chance (in this example) that the peak has over 300 feet of prominence, the peak would be given a soft rank. If you see a soft ranked peak in a guidebook (such as Roach's) or on an online list, this is what it means. Any soft ranked peak has less than a 50% chance of having more than 300 feet of prominence, but still has some chance that it would be ranked had an exact elevation been available.

Hopefully that made sense.
I'm slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
User avatar
brichardsson
Posts: 419
Joined: 7/19/2016
14ers: List not added
13ers: 3

Re: Contiguous US 14ers

Post by brichardsson » Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:15 am

Scott P wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:51 pm
I don't know why they do this.
Because it's the only way that gives you absolute certainty. Which, like you pointed out, is like, totally the stupidest. For reals.
User avatar
Scott P
Posts: 8311
Joined: 5/4/2005
14ers: 51 16
13ers: 41 13
Trip Reports (16)
Contact:

Re: Contiguous US 14ers

Post by Scott P » Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:29 am

brichardsson wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:15 am
Scott P wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:51 pm
I don't know why they do this.
Because it's the only way that gives you absolute certainty. Which, like you pointed out, is like, totally the stupidest. For reals.
It also gives you absolute certainty that you will miss peaks that should be ranked and will have a lot of lists incomplete.

If you like certainty, the only way to be certain that you have completed a list is to complete the ranked and soft ranked peaks.

And yes it is silly to claim that Mt Muir is an unranked peak when there is a 97.1% chance that it has over 300 feet of prominence.

PS, here are some of the people/groups/organizations/sources I am aware of that use interpolated prominence for lists of ranked peaks (though some use different criteria for ranked peaks:

Gerry Roach's books and website
Mike Garrat/Bob Martin's books
14ers.com (see the note in the list about ranked peaks)
Scott Patterson guidebooks
Wasatch Mountain Club
All Wasatch Mountain Club guidebooks
ListsofJohn
UIAA
Alaska Alpine Club
John Biggar's books and online lists on the Andes
OEAV (Austria)
China Mountaineering Association
CAF (France)
DAV (Germany)
BMC (UK)
EOOA (Greece)
IMF (India)
AVS (Italy)
FMEM (Mexico)
NZAC (New Zealand)
NTK (Norway)
ACP (Pakistan)
PZA (Poland)
UMCR (Russia)
FEDME (Spain)
SKF (Sweden)
Swiss Alpine Club

Here are all the sources in the world I know of that use only clean prominence:

Peakbagger

That is all.

As mentioned before, peakbagger is still a nice site for many reasons, but they are the only ones in the entire world I know of who use clean prominence for their lists and there are many reasons that it isn't the best system to use, mainly because it elimanates peaks which even have a 99%+ chance of being ranked.

PS, nothing personal; I just have a strong opinion against using clean prominence as the only criteria to determine ranked peaks, especially since other much better methods are available.
I'm slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
User avatar
brichardsson
Posts: 419
Joined: 7/19/2016
14ers: List not added
13ers: 3

Re: Contiguous US 14ers

Post by brichardsson » Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:07 am

Scott P wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:29 am
brichardsson wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:15 am
Scott P wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:51 pm
I don't know why they do this.
Because it's the only way that gives you absolute certainty. Which, like you pointed out, is like, totally the stupidest. For reals.
...wall of text
i'm already on record saying i will do the "15" in CA, and the "58" in CO.

i have my own gripes with peakbagger - which aren't really germane to the discussion at hand - but at least i understand the reason behind peakbagger's decision, rather than just dismissing it as "stupid". but hey, that's the world we live in today, someone who has a different view couldn't possibly have a rational reason for it, they're just stupid.
User avatar
Scott P
Posts: 8311
Joined: 5/4/2005
14ers: 51 16
13ers: 41 13
Trip Reports (16)
Contact:

Re: Contiguous US 14ers

Post by Scott P » Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:22 am

brichardsson wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:07 am
i have my own gripes with peakbagger - which aren't really germane to the discussion at hand - but at least i understand the reason behind peakbagger's decision
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.

PS, maybe the reasoning behind using clean prominence isn't stupid, but it is flawed. Many peaks which certainly do have more than 300 feet of prominence are eliminated off lists if only clean prominence is used. None are elimated using just prominence/interpolated prominence as long as a soft ranking is given.

That said, although I don't agree with peakbaggers owner about using clean prominence, I don't think he is stupid and the website still has a lot to offer and I respect the owner.

PS, it is you who made this statement and agreed on the almost universally accepted 12 ranked 14ers (using 300 feet cutoff) in California:

just for the lists purists, there are 11 ranked. muir is traditionally done, but it is not ranked.

You did so without even giving a source (others weren't aware that Muir was "unranked" using clean prominence).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS, I'll give you a chance to express your own (meaning don't just cut and paste or summarize something from peakbagger) opinion on why you think Muir has less than 300 feet of prominence and why you think it should be unranked even though there is a 97.1% chance that it has over 300 feet of prominence.

Here are the exact questions:

Since Muir has a 97.1% chance of having more than 300 feet of prominence, why do you think that it doesn't and thus shouldn't be ranked? There is only a 2.9% chance that the peak has less than 300 feet of prominence. Why focus on only the 2.9% chance?

I admit that the certainty is "only" 97.1% rather than 100%, so you don't have to elaborate on this part.

I'll be happy to give you my reasoning that it is a ranked peak. My reasoning is that since there is a 97.1% chance that the peak has more than 300 feet of prominence that it should be ranked.

I'll listen to you answer and reasoning as to why it shouldn't be a ranked peak.
Last edited by Scott P on Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
User avatar
douglas
Posts: 312
Joined: 6/13/2010
14ers: 46
13ers: 1
Trip Reports (2)

Re: Contiguous US 14ers

Post by douglas » Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:39 am

I've never really checked out peakbagger until now. Where do they get their ascent numbers? Bierstadt at 1,005? Are they just counting a summer weekend?
Post Reply