...I agree - Matterhorn certainly felt like a mountain in its own right when we climbed it. I think that the "stiff" rules when compiling the list are OK in a place where peaks have not been named (tons of those in Idaho for instance, a couple in OR) however one should look more carefully at an area that has a set of popular and named peaks and possibly relax the rules accordingly.
Thanks for the other links - I will incorporate them on the main page (I think many find these lists interesting).
I agree with you about the Oregon Top 100 list shortchanging The Matterhorn (9,845 ft +/-), which is considered by many (including my biased self, since I've climbed it and not Sacajewa Peak) to be the highest peak in the Wallowa Mountains. How can a list leave off the highest peak in such a wide region?
Here's another site which contains an Oregon Top 100 list (may be the same list): http://howbert.netherweb.com/mountains/
And here's another list:
http://www.americasroof.com/highest/or.shtml
On this one, I complained about 10 months ago that Steens Mountain (~9,730 ft) is not on this list. They said they would incorporate it. Well, it looks like all they've done is put it as an note at the top above the list!
...I agree - Matterhorn certainly felt like a mountain in its own right when we climbed it. I think that the "stiff" rules when compiling the list are OK in a place where peaks have not been named (tons of those in Idaho for instance, a couple in OR) however one should look more carefully at an area that has a set of popular and named peaks and possibly relax the rules accordingly.
Thanks for the other links - I will incorporate them on the main page (I think many find these lists interesting).
rpc - Sep 30, 2002 10:06 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled Commentyou're right - I've made the correction. thanks.
ps
still need to add that volcanic origin bit of information to the page.
rpc
rpc - Jan 24, 2003 3:34 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled Comment...I agree - Matterhorn certainly felt like a mountain in its own right when we climbed it. I think that the "stiff" rules when compiling the list are OK in a place where peaks have not been named (tons of those in Idaho for instance, a couple in OR) however one should look more carefully at an area that has a set of popular and named peaks and possibly relax the rules accordingly.
Thanks for the other links - I will incorporate them on the main page (I think many find these lists interesting).
Klenke - Sep 15, 2002 11:05 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentThe mountain is actually volcanic in origin.
Klenke - Sep 26, 2002 7:50 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentActually, RPC has stated it backwards...
In actuality, it is:
Steens Mountain is ~9,733 ft
Aneroid Mountain is 9,702 ft
Pete's Point is 9,675 ft
So, RPC meant to say Aneroid is 'ahead' of Pete's Point but 'behind' Steens Mountain.
Yadda yadda yadda.
rpc - Sep 30, 2002 10:06 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled Commentyou're right - I've made the correction. thanks.
ps
still need to add that volcanic origin bit of information to the page.
rpc
Klenke - Jan 24, 2003 3:07 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentI agree with you about the Oregon Top 100 list shortchanging The Matterhorn (9,845 ft +/-), which is considered by many (including my biased self, since I've climbed it and not Sacajewa Peak) to be the highest peak in the Wallowa Mountains. How can a list leave off the highest peak in such a wide region?
Here's another site which contains an Oregon Top 100 list (may be the same list): http://howbert.netherweb.com/mountains/
And here's another list:
http://www.americasroof.com/highest/or.shtml
On this one, I complained about 10 months ago that Steens Mountain (~9,730 ft) is not on this list. They said they would incorporate it. Well, it looks like all they've done is put it as an note at the top above the list!
rpc - Jan 24, 2003 3:34 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled Comment...I agree - Matterhorn certainly felt like a mountain in its own right when we climbed it. I think that the "stiff" rules when compiling the list are OK in a place where peaks have not been named (tons of those in Idaho for instance, a couple in OR) however one should look more carefully at an area that has a set of popular and named peaks and possibly relax the rules accordingly.
Thanks for the other links - I will incorporate them on the main page (I think many find these lists interesting).