What makes an unranked 13er?

Items that do not fit the categories above.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
User avatar
Trotter
Posts: 1406
Joined: 6/5/2013
14ers: 58  5 
13ers: 220 2 8
Trip Reports (10)
 

What makes an unranked 13er?

Post by Trotter »

I understand the difference between a ranked and an unranked peak, but what makes an unranked 13er get on the "637 13er list". Why is one bump on a ridge considered an unranked 13er, and the next bump that is nearly identical doesn't get unranked status?

I thought maybe its because it had an official name, such as "Mt Spalding", but then I see unranked 13ers on the list with names like "Pt. 13,708", "Pt. 13,545" etc.

Why isn't every bump above 13k listed in the list?


Tried a search, but no luck.
After climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. -Nelson Mandela
Whenever I climb I am followed by a dog called Ego. -Nietzsche
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 778
Joined: 10/14/2009
14ers: 58  7 
13ers: 777 76
Trip Reports (40)
 

Re: What makes an unranked 13er?

Post by Boggy B »

The 13er list on this site includes 764 ranked, named, unofficially named, and soft-ranked peaks. Soft-ranked peaks are those whose prominence is less than 300' based on interpolation of contours, but whose real prominence could be greater than 300' were exact saddle/summit elevations available.
User avatar
TravelingMatt
Posts: 2204
Joined: 6/29/2005
14ers: 56 
13ers: 435
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: What makes an unranked 13er?

Post by TravelingMatt »

First, 637. That is 584 + 53, the total number of ranked peaks of at least 13,000 elevation including the 14ers. This number is most often encountered in summit registers on more obscure 13ers.

Separately, your original question. The canonical list of 13ers comes from Gerry Roach's 13ers book, which I have in front of me. This includes (1) all ranked 13ers, including unnamed ones; (2) all named peaks of at least 13,000 feet, including unranked ones; and (3) all soft-ranked 13ers regardless of whether they are named or ranked. Roach has a rather liberal view of what counts as "named"; for example, all the alphabet peaks in the Gore above 13,000' are included, and a few names of unranked peaks I believe he came up with himself.

A quick glance of Roach's list of 13ers ordered by elevation strongly suggests all his unnamed 13ers are soft-ranked. This is the case with 13708 and 13545.

Finally, "unranked 13er" is an oxymoron, just as "unranked 14er" is.
You never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough. -- William Blake
User avatar
DArcyS
Posts: 943
Joined: 5/11/2007
14ers: 58 
13ers: 544
Trip Reports (3)
 

Re: What makes an unranked 13er?

Post by DArcyS »

I was typing out a more long-winded explanation and then I saw Boggy B's explanation. If Boggy B's concise explanation doesn't take, imagine the case where the summit is enclosed by a contour of 13,760 and the saddle is above the 13,480' contour. It's tough to tell from the map whether the elevation between saddle and summit is 300' as required for ranked peaks. It could be, but maybe not. Here the interpolated prominence is 280 (13,780-13,500), but the actual prominence could approach a maximum of slightly less than 320 (13,800-13,480) or a minimum of slightly more than 240 (13,760-13,520). Gee, I hope I got the math right. [-o<
User avatar
TravelingMatt
Posts: 2204
Joined: 6/29/2005
14ers: 56 
13ers: 435
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: What makes an unranked 13er?

Post by TravelingMatt »

DArcyS wrote:I was typing out a more long-winded explanation and then I saw Boggy B's explanation. If Boggy B's concise explanation doesn't take, imagine the case where the summit is enclosed by a contour of 13,760 and the saddle is above the 13,480' contour. It's tough to tell from the map whether the elevation between saddle and summit is 300' as required for ranked peaks. It could be, but maybe not. Here the interpolated prominence is 280 (13,780-13,500), but the actual prominence could approach a maximum of slightly less than 320 (13,800-13,480) or a minimum of slightly more than 240 (13,760-13,520). Gee, I hope I got the math right. [-o<
Basically, if you don't have the exact elevations, you assume the col is X+1 and the summit is Y+39, with X and Y being the contours immediately below. Technically it should be X+infinitesimal and Y+39.9999[finite number of 9's], but everyone seems to truncate to integers.
You never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough. -- William Blake
User avatar
DArcyS
Posts: 943
Joined: 5/11/2007
14ers: 58 
13ers: 544
Trip Reports (3)
 

Re: What makes an unranked 13er?

Post by DArcyS »

TravelingMatt wrote:
DArcyS wrote:I was typing out a more long-winded explanation and then I saw Boggy B's explanation. If Boggy B's concise explanation doesn't take, imagine the case where the summit is enclosed by a contour of 13,760 and the saddle is above the 13,480' contour. It's tough to tell from the map whether the elevation between saddle and summit is 300' as required for ranked peaks. It could be, but maybe not. Here the interpolated prominence is 280 (13,780-13,500), but the actual prominence could approach a maximum of slightly less than 320 (13,800-13,480) or a minimum of slightly more than 240 (13,760-13,520). Gee, I hope I got the math right. [-o<
Basically, if you don't have the exact elevations, you assume the col is X+1 and the summit is Y+39, with X and Y being the contours immediately below. Technically it should be X+infinitesimal and Y+39.9999[finite number of 9's], but everyone seems to truncate to integers.
Except when somebody gets the messed-up idea that we should use the metric system (lol) :

https://www.listsofjohn.com/peak/16669

Mt Whitney has an elevation of 4416.9 meters? Huh, maybe the measurement of feet has the better resolution for determining elevations. Not too large (to avoid decimals), and not too small (to avoid big, cumbersome numbers).
User avatar
TallGrass
Posts: 2328
Joined: 6/29/2012
13ers: 26
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: What makes an unranked 13er?

Post by TallGrass »

TravelingMatt wrote:The canonical list of 13ers comes from Gerry Roach's 13ers book, which I have in front of me.
Does it list "Punta Serpiente" as found in his 14ers book? (p. 219, 221)
https://www.14ers.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0&p=634991
User avatar
TravelingMatt
Posts: 2204
Joined: 6/29/2005
14ers: 56 
13ers: 435
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: What makes an unranked 13er?

Post by TravelingMatt »

TallGrass wrote:Does it list "Punta Serpiente" as found in his 14ers book? (p. 219, 221)
No. Such a name does not appear in the second edition of his 14ers book either (1999, with "Updated for 2004" on the cover). My edition of the 13ers book is © 2001. Sounds like a Roachesque name, however.
You never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough. -- William Blake
User avatar
TallGrass
Posts: 2328
Joined: 6/29/2012
13ers: 26
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: What makes an unranked 13er?

Post by TallGrass »

TravelingMatt wrote:
TallGrass wrote:Does it list "Punta Serpiente" as found in his 14ers book? (p. 219, 221)
No. Such a name does not appear in the second edition of his 14ers book either (1999, with "Updated for 2004" on the cover). My edition of the 13ers book is © 2001. Sounds like a Roachesque name, however.
FYI, it's in the 3rd Edition 2011 version of his 14ers book, in addition the sites mentioned in that thread.
User avatar
Trotter
Posts: 1406
Joined: 6/5/2013
14ers: 58  5 
13ers: 220 2 8
Trip Reports (10)
 

Re: What makes an unranked 13er?

Post by Trotter »

thanks all
After climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. -Nelson Mandela
Whenever I climb I am followed by a dog called Ego. -Nietzsche
User avatar
alexhenes
Posts: 114
Joined: 7/5/2005
14ers: 58  18  5 
13ers: 719 59 5
Trip Reports (72)
 
Contact:

Re: What makes an unranked 13er?

Post by alexhenes »

After reading this I am still a bit confused as to why some high points are listed as unranked and others are not. Ski Hayden Peak, Hayden Peak and South Hayden are good examples. Can someone explain why Hayden is the only one of the three that is listed as an unranked 13er?

Here is the Caltopohttps://caltopo.com/m/GG7T3 with the peaks.
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 778
Joined: 10/14/2009
14ers: 58  7 
13ers: 777 76
Trip Reports (40)
 

Re: What makes an unranked 13er?

Post by Boggy B »

"Ski Hayden" is listed on LoJ because it's unofficially named (sourced from Dawson's ski guide). It is neither ranked, soft-ranked, nor named.
Hayden is listed here and on LoJ because it's officially named by the USGS. It is not ranked nor soft-ranked.
"South Hayden" is fake news. It is not ranked, soft-ranked, named, nor unofficially named.

Who knows why it's labeled on the CalTopo map? That seems to be crowd-sourced data so assign it the same weight as Wikipedia. Caltopo also says there's a parking lot on the summit of Animas Mountain.

Side note: There are a bunch of formerly soft-ranked peaks listed here and on LoJ which don't meet the LiDAR standard. I'm not sure what the plan is for the ones that are also not officially or unofficially named, since they no longer meet any criteria for listing on either site. I assume they'll be kept.
Post Reply