What makes an unranked 13er?

[CaptainSuburbia]

Maybe… I always figured it was just a clever playful sort of spin off of the name of the neighboring peak, Ogallala, while also sort of appreciating the cool view there with the St Vrain Glacier.

Thanks for sharing that song too.. I thought Rod Stewart wrote that one.

You're actually probably right and it's a spin off from Ogallala like Could Be and Canby.

It's a Wood/Lane song. Rod Stewart does have a solo version though.

[aholle88]

3A619CC3-434E-4D5C-9342-FD2EF9C725F0.jpeg

This seems like a thread for Gore galore. I’ve always been curious how all these random points don’t end up included in lists. For instance, 13055 and 13100 on this particular ridge. There’s *probably* thousands of these points that are on maps that don’t end up on lists. I get why they aren’t ranked, but why aren’t all of these points unranked? It would be nearly an impossible task to do all the 13ers this way, the 14ers would make sense. I haven’t checked the map to see if the list of 74 includes all of these points for 14ers, I only assume it does as that would be a much more realistic task to accomplish. But where do all these points come from and why aren’t they included is my main question?

Edit: maybe that was answered. 280ft rule? Seems ambiguous. But just to clarify, so all the UN13.whatevers are all those random points that have at least 280ft of prominence but not necessarily 300ft? Silly peak baggers and rules. I’d like to see someone finish the list of ALL those points! Boggy, you got it man!

[Gibson135]

When looking into the "Ooh La La" name, I learned it only has 285ft of prominence so I guess "they" stick with the 300ft rule.

What comes to mind is that while they might not technically be considered a new peak, some of these places are visited very often and have a reason to be referred to talking or writing about them so instead of using the numbers or a short description of the location, which for many may be harder to remember, they develop a nickname like "Kitty Kat Carson". Many others are just not talked about or hiked very often so they're just left unnamed.

[madmattd]

*snipped

This seems like a thread for Gore galore. I’ve always been curious how all these random points don’t end up included in lists. For instance, 13055 and 13100 on this particular ridge. There’s *probably* thousands of these points that are on maps that don’t end up on lists. I get why they aren’t ranked, but why aren’t all of these points unranked? It would be nearly an impossible task to do all the 13ers this way, the 14ers would make sense. I haven’t checked the map to see if the list of 74 includes all of these points for 14ers, I only assume it does as that would be a much more realistic task to accomplish. But where do all these points come from and why aren’t they included is my main question?

The point elevations shown on USGS maps are points that were actually surveyed for their elevation for any reason (for some of them I do wonder if the surveyor was just bored that day...). There's no direct correlation to those survey points and named features, etc.

[supranihilest]

3A619CC3-434E-4D5C-9342-FD2EF9C725F0.jpeg

This seems like a thread for Gore galore. I’ve always been curious how all these random points don’t end up included in lists. For instance, 13055 and 13100 on this particular ridge. There’s *probably* thousands of these points that are on maps that don’t end up on lists. I get why they aren’t ranked, but why aren’t all of these points unranked? It would be nearly an impossible task to do all the 13ers this way, the 14ers would make sense.

Unfortunately Peakbagger, which crowdsources most or all of its data, does this. For example, someone on PB added two Tijeras Peak "north peaks" and two Music Mountain "south peaks" that are really just short little ridge bumps I guarantee nobody gives a damn about. (Though in this case only one of those useless sub-peaks is labeled on maps.)

tij.jpg

As for why they aren't all included on lists, I think John says it clearly enough, or if you really want to get a deep answer, just whyyyy *groaning and eye rolling*.

But just to clarify, so all the UN13.whatevers are all those random points that have at least 280ft of prominence but not necessarily 300ft? Silly peak baggers and rules. I’d like to see someone finish the list of ALL those points! Boggy, you got it man!

At least 280 feet of interpolated prominence, yes. Top bound doesn't matter, only the bottom bound. And at least boggy and Mike Garratt have done all of those interpolated 280+ points, perhaps others, but it's harder to tell since Lists of John now counts interpolated soft-ranked peaks as ranked or unranked after LiDAR analysis with the exception of "West Eolus" since it has ~299.5 feet of prominence and is close enough that it might be ranked but not known for sure. The other interpolated soft-ranked peaks were analyzed and were far enough on either side of 300 feet of prominence that whether they are ranked or unranked is now known.

[HikerGuy]

I have come across very few (2, maybe 3?) map marked unranked points that I felt deserved "unranked" status. And the only one that comes to mind was from my last hike. There's a marked point above Lower Sand Creek Lake that is not on a ridgeline and has significant prominence (maybe relief is a better word) on three sides. You must ascend its slopes to reach other 13ers when approaching from the east. It is visually separate from the surrounding peaks as well. But I understand you have to draw the line somewhere and the publication mention requirement seems as good as any.

13369.png

[supranihilest]

I have come across very few (2, maybe 3?) map marked unranked points that I felt deserved "unranked" status. And the only one that comes to mind was from my last hike. There's a marked point above Lower Sand Creek Lake that is not on a ridgeline and has significant prominence on three sides. You must ascend its slopes to reach other 13ers when approaching from the east. It is visually separate from the surrounding peaks as well. But I understand you have to draw the line somewhere and the publication mention requirement seems as good as any.


13369.png

This might be of interest to you: https://peakjut.com/

[bdloftin77]

I’ve always been curious how all these random points don’t end up included in lists. For instance, 13055 and 13100 on this particular ridge. There’s *probably* thousands of these points that are on maps that don’t end up on lists. I get why they aren’t ranked, but why aren’t all of these points unranked? It would be nearly an impossible task to do all the 13ers this way, the 14ers would make sense.

Unfortunately Peakbagger, which crowdsources most or all of its data, does this. For example, someone on PB added two Tijeras Peak "north peaks" and two Music Mountain "south peaks" that are really just short little ridge bumps I guarantee nobody gives a damn about. (Though in this case only one of those useless sub-peaks is labeled on maps.)tij.jpgAs for why they aren't all included on lists, I think John says it clearly enough, or if you really want to get a deep answer, just whyyyy *groaning and eye rolling*.

But just to clarify, so all the UN13.whatevers are all those random points that have at least 280ft of prominence but not necessarily 300ft? Silly peak baggers and rules. I’d like to see someone finish the list of ALL those points! Boggy, you got it man!

I don't think there was a rhyme or reason for the spot elevations being included on maps. Seemed just up to the individual surveyor, and pretty subjective. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Of course anyone could create their own "13er spot elevation list" and be the first to complete it, but that would still be based subjectively on the whims of the surveyors. That would definitely be a very large list!

[aholle88]

I have come across very few (2, maybe 3?) map marked unranked points that I felt deserved "unranked" status. And the only one that comes to mind was from my last hike. There's a marked point above Lower Sand Creek Lake that is not on a ridgeline and has significant prominence on three sides. You must ascend its slopes to reach other 13ers when approaching from the east. It is visually separate from the surrounding peaks as well. But I understand you have to draw the line somewhere and the publication mention requirement seems as good as any.


13369.png

This might be of interest to you: https://peakjut.com/

Point success has more jut than Rainer. Fascinating. Sopris makes sense for Colorado. Thanks to all for the clarification on the USGS points. Makes more sense now. It is interesting how some unlisted "peaks" (more like bumps) feel more like ranked bumps than others. Running the ridge from Princeton to Poplar the other day, that 13299 definitely felt like something more than just a bump, as Ben made a point about in his report. But I guess that's just part of the game. Are we really peak baggers, or just bump baggers? Sometimes I question that...

[Boggy B]

However it seems you are right boggy... unranked peaks are ambiguous. If new guidebooks decide to give unofficial names to points above 13k that were not previously named the list could change.

Happens as well with new officially named peaks. This is why I drew a hard line a long time ago with only P300+ peaks being counted in completion totals/member stats on LoJ.

It seems unlikely to me that new official names would be assigned to points above 13k that don't already have historical significance. Someone pointed out recent examples alongside Fowler and Boskoff a while back, but I can't find the thread--maybe those contradict my position? In any case the barrier should be much higher than simply making up a name and publishing it (no offense to Mr. Dziezynski).

As for the nod to history, it's worth noting the SJM named peaks they never climbed. I believe Roach did the same ("West Eolus" for example).

But just to clarify, so all the UN13.whatevers are all those random points that have at least 280ft of prominence but not necessarily 300ft? Silly peak baggers and rules.

Without hard-and-fast rules how else can you measure yourself against others!?
But yeah, at some point you have to decide whether a hill is worth climbing. Speaking from my limited experience, I don't recommend using prominence alone.

[Chicago Transplant]

Unless they have a nickname, all of the unnamed unrankeds were "soft ranked" peaks. As noted by others above, those were peaks that maybe were ranked if there was a better survey and now LiDAR has subsequently promoted a few to have 300' prominence and others it confirmed they did not. There are lots of fun unranked peaks, generally the nicknamed ones are the interesting ones as they are usually some sort of scrambly or technical tower that caught someones attention. The adding every bump with a closed contour in peakbagger gets annoying though and most of those just seem to be something you pass over on the way to something else.