LoJ unranked 13ers not on 14ers.com

[HikerGuy]

Has anyone created a list of unranked 13ers that are listed on LoJ but not listed on 14ers.com?

Here are some examples:

"The Butterknife" 13,479 Tenmile
"North Conejos Peak" 13,048 San Juan
"Little Wasatch Mountain" 13,037 San Juan
"Gibraltar Mountain" 13,293 Front
"Ski Hayden Peak" 13,324 Elk
"Captain Bivwacko Tower" 13,698 Sangre de Cristo

[backcountrybrodes]

Lol, this is the exact reason I'm not going for the unranked 13ers with the ranked 13ers. The unranked list is too convoluted from too many sources. And besides, you could stand on a rock pile with 20ft of prominence attached to something like Pikes Peak at some amount above 13k (13,106ft for example) and call it an unranked 13er and tell everyone they have to climb it.

The ones unranked at ~285ft to ~299ft of prominence are a slightly different story, but I still find the whole thing incredibly trivial to keep track of.

[cougar]

That would need to get a custom list on LoJ.

Also, the Sawtooth is on both sites, but with a different location. LoJ has it as a gendarme mid ridge, .13ers has it as the highpoint above the ridge on Blue sky side.

[Boggy B]

Lol, this is the exact reason I'm not going for the unranked 13ers with the ranked 13ers. The unranked list is too convoluted from too many sources. And besides, you could stand on a rock pile with 20ft of prominence attached to something like Pikes Peak at some amount above 13k (13,106ft for example) and call it an unranked 13er and tell everyone they have to climb it.

The ones unranked at ~285ft to ~299ft of prominence are a slightly different story, but I still find the whole thing incredibly trivial to keep track of.

Yeah, unfortunately "unranked" is not a useful classification, especially post lidar when most of the map soft-ranked peaks became unranked.

In order of normal list precedence (there is overlap between ranked/named statuses)
1 - Ranked (LiDAR P300+) - this is "The 13ers"
2 - Soft-ranked (LiDAR P299.x+) - not commonly done before lidar update, now it's just West Eolus and people are dong it
3 - Named - Officially (by the US gov't) - not commonly done before 2020, now gaining popularity
4 - Historically ranked/soft-ranked demoted by LiDAR (Map P280+) - not commonly done before lidar update, now gaining popularity, ironically
5 - Bonus - Unranked, unofficially named (in any published text or map, as prescribed by LoJ) - not completed by anyone*, the ones listed on 14ers.com are gaining popularity

*14ers.com has never included all the bonus peaks, or even a logical subset of them. Yahoo, Crossfire, Black Mtn are a few that popped up after I did the ones that were listed on 14ers.com. There are many more worthy bonus 13ers on LoJ that haven't been carried over here--Purgatory Point, The Hand, North Summit to name a few. In terms of historical significance, for example, Purgatory Point is on equal footing with the likes of Kismet and Sunlight Spire, whereas Crossfire, Captain Bivwacko, etc. are, as they say, of no consequence whatsoever.

I would guess Alex Henes is the closest to finishing all of the bonus 13ers currently known.

[Garrett]

Hi Troy, I’m not on LoJ but last I checked there are 31 unranked on LoJ that are not on 14ers.com. Of those 26 or so really aren’t peaks. They’re named ridges, towers/climbing objectives, or historic points of interest. 14ers.com includes 10-12 that aren’t peaks either - like Dickers Peck, a short tower in a saddle or “The Prow”. Summits maybe but not peaks.

For LoJ Fort Peabody is an example, historic but not really a peak. Many of the towers around Sneffels are historic and interesting climbs but not really peaks. And there are ones like “Yellow Boy” that who knows why it’s on there. Most unranked that fall below 165’ or so of prominence are well within the normal variation of a colorado ridgeline and very likely not a peak. There are a few low prominence peaks that distinctly are peaks however below that mark are other mtn landforms more so than peaks. Above that 165 it’s a grey zone until you get into the 200 ft prominence range. In my opinion at least.

There’s also several on Peakbagger that are not on either LoJ or 14ers. Maybe 25 that are legitimate peaks. Three that come to mind are “The Billboard” by Silverton with 290ish ft of prominence. Then Vista Point and South Thumb which were removed from 14ers for some reason.

Also many, many others that aren’t on any of those lists. An example here, I recently posted about Lost Needle which is yet to be determined if it’s ranked. Likely with 299’ of prominence and very much a peak. Or ones like peak 13041 - “ Little Goose Mountain” which is separated from South River peak by over a mile with 250’ of prominence. And a last example - Peak Four and One Half as listed on it’s 1988 Bob Rosebrough register, between Peak Four and Peak Five.

I can share some data with you after the weekend if you’re interested. Just shoot me a message.

[BillMiddlebrook]

[alexhenes]

Categorizing an unranked point as a "peak" in its own right is kinda like porn... you'll know it when you see it.

Boggy's categories are spot on. Unfortunately (IMO) LoJ's published text condition is too low of a bar to categorize a point as a peak. "The Butterknife" is just one example. It is mentioned in one of the "Making Turns" ski guide books most likely because it is located at a nice place to transition or a reference point for a ski line. Not something worthy of climbing on it's own.

Authors often need to name features to make their directions clear. I don't believe the intention is always to promote a point to peak in its own right.

However, when a book is published, and a point all of a sudden becomes a "peak" on 14ers, LoJ, Peakbagger etc. it creates interest (and confusion) and people want to go see what all the fuss is about. Guilty... hahaha!

In addition, with guide books being outdated by websites, the text requirement is being blurred.

Many people in this community who don't publish books are just as (if not more) qualified to determine if a point is an actual peak than some of the book authors.

It is relatively easy to publish a book these days. If one of us published a book and referenced 100 new points on ridges across the state would we have 100 new unranked peaks on 14ers, LoJ, Peakbagger?

For me historical significance is one of the more enticing reasons to include a point on the unranked Bonus List. If the OG's climbed it and thought it was cool enough to write about back in the 1930s... I want to go there.

IMO the unranked list needs to be relatively stable. New additions should be added over time with community consensus... not when a single person puts it in physical print.

Oh... LoJ has a 'Source' link for each unranked peak that references why the point has been included. Yellow Boy's source says "Name appears on USFS signage at Ashcroft Townsite."

[Boggy B]

"what is a peak" has been debated ad nauseam, and to wit the original CO peakbaggers did not agree with this take.

Anyway here's a visual I threw together, accuracy not guaranteed:

co13ers.jpg

[9patrickmurphy]

Anyway here's a visual I threw together, accuracy not guaranteed:
co13ers.jpg

This is gold. Also thanks to Garrett for taking a look at the number of peaks not shared between sites, would love to see that custom list on LoJ.

I’ve always felt the unranked peaks far too arbitrary of a definition to actually chase that “list”. I know a couple people who are doing them but specifically only as they appear on 14ers.com, which again, feels far too arbitrary. Of course, 300’ of prominence is arbitrary too, but it’s a line in the sand that won’t (shouldn’t) move.

[Garrett]

That's interesting to hear about the reason for "The Butterknife" and "Yellow Boy" being included. Yellow Boy is likely a case of a ridge shoulder as seen or mapped from a valley below being named. There are several instances of that occurring, like Thunder Mountain or Middle Peak, but doesn't mean that point as seen from below is a peak or summit. I agree that the conditions for what is included in LOJ lead to the inclusion of points that don't fit on a peak list. There is a ton of really great data on LOJ but the CO unranked peaks listed on the site introduce several points that are not peaks. Unranked peak lists are simply peaks with less than 300 feet of prominence which seems to draw in the notion that anything can be added. There are thousands of things with history and worth climbing in Colorado but very few that are peaks. The unranked 13er list is definable and it's a good point that it should be stable and I'll add it should be a list of peaks.

The list on 14ers.com is currently the best compiled list we have. That's no knock on LOJ either. Not perfect and doesn't have everything but barring a very small number the 14ers.com list a good, solid list of legitimate peaks.

I can't agree that it's easier to publish a book than a website. It's probably easy to quickly publish a bad book but it's also pretty easy to make a bad website. Really depends on what the author of either type brings to that effort. Anyway. Guidebooks have their place and every list we currently have is a product of someone publishing a book defining peaks. The information in those guidebooks needs to be interpreted correctly though and the towers on the west side of Sneffels are a good example. Those five points are historic and worth climbing but they're towers. Let's just call them what they are. The San Juan Mountaineers specifically state each one as an Aiguille, spire, or Needle in their 1933 guidebook, picture below, which is the source for those. They may have considered Blue Needle as a peak but that's not clear in the various ways they speak to it, they are pretty clear as to what is a peak in the rest of the guide. Two of those were further stated as needles in a Trail & Timberline 1934 issue 192. The SJM didn't consider them seperate peaks, they considered them as towers, needles, aiguilles, whatever word you prefer. How should we consider them today? and why are they now on a list of unranked peaks? I don't know but I think it's a pretty tough case to make that there are 5 peaks on the west face of Sneffels. "The Hand" maybe, if any.

There are many peaks that aren't on any of the lists as well that have been long forgotten or unrecognized by the broader climbing community. After the 1980's Mike Garratt/Bob Martin guidebook using 300 feet, and later the Roach's 2001 13er guidebook - people stopped looking and started following. Another example is Blue River Peak in the Gore. Never heard of it? It's one that is actually on Peakbagger as "East Eagle Nest" at 13,099' but not on a list. Despite being named and officially mapped by the Hayden Survey in 1874 and published in Roger Tolls 1923 CMC Mountain Peaks of Colorado with an elevation at 13,000 feet as Blue River Peak it hasn't garnered much atteniton. It has history, it's named, and it's in print but missing from the lists. As I said before there are others but not an infinite amount. To date Heather has climbed 34 of these unrecognized peaks and I've climbed 49 so far, she has a few I haven't done and I have a few she hasn't done. Not towers, ridge bumps, or shoulders but peaks and many are exceptionally fun. All of these peaks except Lost Needle have had summit cairns or other indications of previous climbers at their summits. Just yesterday we climbed peak 13,160 (13,163 spot) from Rustler Gulch in the Elks. If you don’t think there are more 13ers, climb that one or any of the others I mentioned. Worst case you’ll spend a day in the mountains, best case you’ll have a few more to do.

Back to Troy's original question about 13er peaks that are on List of John but not 14ers. By my count there are 5. These are Punta Serpiente, East Babcock, Ski Hayden Peak, Spencer Peak, and North Summit. I think the actual difference is 34 peaks/points so I gave the wrong number in my first post of 31. I believe those other 3 are on LOJ and Peakbagger but not 14ers. Debatably you may consider West Babcock, East North Star, and Little Wasatch as peaks.

[Monster5]

I generally agree with most points above, but are you suggesting a tower, needle, aiguille, etc cannot be a peak, or simply might be a subset of peaks?

Folks have found arbitrary reasons to diminish challenging peaks to skirt around the hiccups in their goals, examples including pre-Lidar El Diente and North Maroon. Diminishing a peak because it's a "tower" seems like another arbitrary distinction in light of the Devil's Towers and Castletons of the country. It also isn't a scaleable criteria once looking toward more rugged ranges.

[masonzastrow]

Unranked peak lists are simply peaks with less than 300 feet of prominence which seems to draw in the notion that anything can be added. There are thousands of things with history and worth climbing in Colorado but very few that are peaks. The unranked 13er list is definable and it's a good point that it should be stable and I'll add it should be a list of peaks.

The list on 14ers.com is currently the best compiled list we have. That's no knock on LOJ either. Not perfect and doesn't have everything but barring a very small number the 14ers.com list a good, solid list of legitimate peaks.

I would disagree that the unranked 13er list is definable at all. Plenty of unranked peaks have merit, but that doesn't mean they need to be part of a list. 14ers is widely used, but so are peakbagger, LoJ, Roach's books, other guidebooks, etc. And which resources are the most used will change with time too.

If you want there to be an objective list, there needs to either be objective criteria or you need someone to be the sole decision maker. Aside from being named by USGIS, there's no agreeable criteria for what would and wouldn't count. And if the list is made by one authority picking based on a vibe check of whether a peak is distinct but without following any objective criteria (like 14ers or LoJ or ...), then any list you make isn't based in reality, it's based on your preference of which resource or list you like more. If you yourself want to make a list of which peaks you think are worth including on the unranked 13ers list, go for it! But that doesn't mean that the list you made is definable, it means you made a list.

Alex mentioned community consensus as a way to build the list, but I don't know if there's a way to measure that in a meaningful way. 14ers.com is a sizable portion of people who climb 13ers, but the number who use the website for routes and GPX files is probably far more than those who use the forum or would engage with polls. To the extent that community consensus can be measured, maybe that's what USGIS is doing when it decides peaks are worth naming (that said, I don't know how this process works and I don't know if peak-ness-vibes or community consensus is the kind of thing considered by USGIS).

You can't make an objective list of peaks without objective criteria. 300 feet of prominence is the standard in CO, and that list is settling, although not settled. Anyone is welcome to use a different criteria if they like, but I think trying to create a defined list of unranked 13er is trying to define the undefinable.