I really enjoyed this! Great work. I think that you would get a kick out of David Metzler's work on Omnidirectional Relief and Steepness - I have a link on my website.
Matt
http://www.100summits.com
This was very intertaining, got my brain thinking not only about "summits" I've climbed in Washington (I'd forgotten about Liberty Bell) but elsewhere and how it seems the native people had no such distinctions and what many of their words for what we renamed our mounts and peaks meant to them.
As a former science teacher, I'd have given you an A for this work. How would you like to "work" for us? sugarshot.org
who runs regressions all the time, I found this project very interesting and well presented. It shows in all the good comments you got from a non-technical audience.
Thanks. I got so interested in the study I lost track it was for a class project, and actually was writing the html for my website before I realized I hadn't yet put together the report to hand into my prof! It was my goal to make it understandable to other climbers, so the positive feedback has been encouraging. But climbers are a savy bunch, anyway!
...but I never thought that it could be applied to Summitpost until I read this article! This is a very interesting study. I'm not sure whether the results that you obtained would be applicable to mountains west of the Mississippi. The tallest mountain that we have is less than 7,000 feet, so the variations in elevation would be less than out west. To make things more complicated, we have a considerable number of "balds" (especially in North Carolina and Tennessee) and "knobs". There are also a few wild cards like Devils Tanyard that don't fit into any group.
Kind of curious as to what number you used for isolation on Mount Rainier? If you are considering just the State of Washington (as if the rest of the world did not exist), wouldn't isolation of Rainier be zero, rather than the 732.70 miles listed on listsofjohn.com? And if the case, would that significantly change any of the results?
You bring up a good point about just considering WA data, but on the other hand I don't think it would be correct to use an isolation of zero. Isolated summits have higher values of isolation, so rather than zero, Rainier would have "undetermined" large value of isolation if only WA data were considered. Easier to just use a real number of 732 than to try to figure out what number might better represent a weighted average isolation considering nearby states, etc.
I like your rules. While I can think of several exceptions to Rules 1-3, I cannot think of any exceptions when Rule 4 is considered. Mind if I post this Alternative View on my webpage?
See bottom of page:
https://sites.google.com/site/stephabegg/home/projects/regression
Writers love words. How does one communicate a concept, a fact, a sensation, or anything else, in such a way as to give a precise and accurate sense of intent or substance? This is a worthwhile topic. Because of the ambiguities of many words, plus differences of opinions, maybe this whole subject will never be exactly defined and agreed on. Still, the presentation is great and thought-provoking. Thanks for sharing!
Interesting stuff. Thanks for taking the time to turn this into an article on SP. Stats + Mountains FTW.
Here is a little FAQ page posted by USGS about their standards for terms used in their database: http://www.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9799/2973
The article mentions streams, creeks, and rivers too - to answer Bubba Suess's question. It's very similar in that there is a broad definitions but too many exceptions to call it a rule (Rivers that drain into creeks, etc.).
I'm interested to take more statistics so I can delve deeper into your equations!
So lets start a petition to rename Mt. Whitney to Whitney Peak.
...Even though it may "mathematically" have the prominence and isolation, based on the model you presented, it fits the "intuitive" definition of a peak, in this case. Unless viewed from the west. Then one might call it Whitney Mountain...
Thanks, now I'm going to be debating the names of the mountains I climb. Maybe I'll just go summit things like Cloudripper, and its neighbor Sugarloaf to avoid the issue for a little bit ;P
I don't think Mt. Baker has 132 mi of isolation, it's only 5-10 miles from Mount Shuksan which is also over 10,000 ft.
I also think there is another category, those mountains so awesome that they are only refered to by name with no prefix, although technically they are "mount". Denali, The Eiger, The Matterhorn, K2 and most of the rest of the 8000m peaks. And it depends on context, like the previous sentence which calls mountains "peaks".
You are correct about Shuksan being that close, but the definition of isolation is "Isolation: the distance from a given summit to the nearest higher land or summit." Shuksan is a lower elevation than Baker.
I would have to go back and check my spreadsheet analysis, but I'm guessing that Mt. Shuksan was just as close to being "statistically qualified" (by my study at least) as a Peak as a Mount. Indeed, when climbing Shuksan, it does have a steeper more rugged "peak-like" feel than other Mounts such as Baker or Rainier....
mattpayne11 - Apr 3, 2010 11:08 pm - Hasn't voted
Great jobI really enjoyed this! Great work. I think that you would get a kick out of David Metzler's work on Omnidirectional Relief and Steepness - I have a link on my website.
Matt
http://www.100summits.com
Snidely Whiplash - Apr 4, 2010 11:19 am - Voted 10/10
Fascinating subjectYou're obviously a deep and introspective soul. Nicely done. And good job on outing Glacier "Peak." An obvious poser!
TripoliRick - Apr 5, 2010 12:05 pm - Hasn't voted
How CoolThis was very intertaining, got my brain thinking not only about "summits" I've climbed in Washington (I'd forgotten about Liberty Bell) but elsewhere and how it seems the native people had no such distinctions and what many of their words for what we renamed our mounts and peaks meant to them.
As a former science teacher, I'd have given you an A for this work. How would you like to "work" for us? sugarshot.org
jeinloth - Apr 7, 2010 8:11 pm - Hasn't voted
As an economist . . .who runs regressions all the time, I found this project very interesting and well presented. It shows in all the good comments you got from a non-technical audience.
StephAbegg - Apr 7, 2010 10:46 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: As an economist . . .Thanks. I got so interested in the study I lost track it was for a class project, and actually was writing the html for my website before I realized I hadn't yet put together the report to hand into my prof! It was my goal to make it understandable to other climbers, so the positive feedback has been encouraging. But climbers are a savy bunch, anyway!
ericd - Apr 8, 2010 12:07 am - Hasn't voted
Awesome job!Always wanted to know the difference, thanks for posting.
Cedar - Apr 9, 2010 8:17 pm - Voted 10/10
Someone Messed up on the Southwest!Seems like the people who named the mountains in the southwest region didn't really think about the titles they gave them. Like:
White Mountain Peak (CA)
Telescope Peak (CA)
San Jacinto Peak (CA)
San Gorgonio Mountain (CA)
Wheeler Peak (both NV and NM)
Charleston Peak (NV)
Lassen Peak (CA)
Humphreys Peak (AZ)
Kings Peak (UT)
+ a ton of others
Perhaps the "Mounts" have to stand significantly higher than other near summits?
Very interesting article by the way.
CheesySciFi - May 29, 2010 9:28 pm - Voted 10/10
I love this kind of stuff......but I never thought that it could be applied to Summitpost until I read this article! This is a very interesting study. I'm not sure whether the results that you obtained would be applicable to mountains west of the Mississippi. The tallest mountain that we have is less than 7,000 feet, so the variations in elevation would be less than out west. To make things more complicated, we have a considerable number of "balds" (especially in North Carolina and Tennessee) and "knobs". There are also a few wild cards like Devils Tanyard that don't fit into any group.
argothor - Jul 18, 2010 10:12 pm - Voted 10/10
question on isolationKind of curious as to what number you used for isolation on Mount Rainier? If you are considering just the State of Washington (as if the rest of the world did not exist), wouldn't isolation of Rainier be zero, rather than the 732.70 miles listed on listsofjohn.com? And if the case, would that significantly change any of the results?
StephAbegg - Jul 19, 2010 12:02 am - Hasn't voted
Re: question on isolationYou bring up a good point about just considering WA data, but on the other hand I don't think it would be correct to use an isolation of zero. Isolated summits have higher values of isolation, so rather than zero, Rainier would have "undetermined" large value of isolation if only WA data were considered. Easier to just use a real number of 732 than to try to figure out what number might better represent a weighted average isolation considering nearby states, etc.
JScoles - Feb 11, 2011 2:21 pm - Hasn't voted
Well that is one viewIf it was ever so easy to math it out like that.
In reality in English it follows four very simple rules
1) It is a Mount when the mountian is named after a Person or proper noun
2) It is a Peak when the mountian is named after an animal or thing
3) It is a Mountian when the when the above two do not sound right or it is named after a feature of the mountain itself.
4) Ignore all the rules above
StephAbegg - Feb 11, 2011 2:53 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Well that is one viewI like your rules. While I can think of several exceptions to Rules 1-3, I cannot think of any exceptions when Rule 4 is considered. Mind if I post this Alternative View on my webpage?
See bottom of page:
https://sites.google.com/site/stephabegg/home/projects/regression
-Steph
scramblingbadger - Jul 13, 2012 11:28 pm - Voted 10/10
A great read for any writerWriters love words. How does one communicate a concept, a fact, a sensation, or anything else, in such a way as to give a precise and accurate sense of intent or substance? This is a worthwhile topic. Because of the ambiguities of many words, plus differences of opinions, maybe this whole subject will never be exactly defined and agreed on. Still, the presentation is great and thought-provoking. Thanks for sharing!
Huckleberry-Hiker - Mar 1, 2016 3:54 pm - Hasn't voted
Good article!Good article!
harbor - Mar 3, 2016 4:28 pm - Voted 10/10
Fun.Interesting stuff. Thanks for taking the time to turn this into an article on SP. Stats + Mountains FTW.
Here is a little FAQ page posted by USGS about their standards for terms used in their database: http://www.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9799/2973
The article mentions streams, creeks, and rivers too - to answer Bubba Suess's question. It's very similar in that there is a broad definitions but too many exceptions to call it a rule (Rivers that drain into creeks, etc.).
RenoGregory - Apr 12, 2016 1:22 am - Hasn't voted
Dude.So Rad.
I'm interested to take more statistics so I can delve deeper into your equations!
So lets start a petition to rename Mt. Whitney to Whitney Peak.
...Even though it may "mathematically" have the prominence and isolation, based on the model you presented, it fits the "intuitive" definition of a peak, in this case. Unless viewed from the west. Then one might call it Whitney Mountain...
Thanks, now I'm going to be debating the names of the mountains I climb. Maybe I'll just go summit things like Cloudripper, and its neighbor Sugarloaf to avoid the issue for a little bit ;P
Buckaroo - Apr 14, 2016 9:45 pm - Hasn't voted
BakerI don't think Mt. Baker has 132 mi of isolation, it's only 5-10 miles from Mount Shuksan which is also over 10,000 ft.
I also think there is another category, those mountains so awesome that they are only refered to by name with no prefix, although technically they are "mount". Denali, The Eiger, The Matterhorn, K2 and most of the rest of the 8000m peaks. And it depends on context, like the previous sentence which calls mountains "peaks".
StephAbegg - Apr 14, 2016 9:50 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: BakerYou are correct about Shuksan being that close, but the definition of isolation is "Isolation: the distance from a given summit to the nearest higher land or summit." Shuksan is a lower elevation than Baker.
Buckaroo - Apr 14, 2016 10:01 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: BakerThen Mount Shuksan doesn't have much isolation and it's still a mt.
Nice study though, I think you've analyzed this more than most people thought was possible.
StephAbegg - Apr 14, 2016 10:09 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: BakerI would have to go back and check my spreadsheet analysis, but I'm guessing that Mt. Shuksan was just as close to being "statistically qualified" (by my study at least) as a Peak as a Mount. Indeed, when climbing Shuksan, it does have a steeper more rugged "peak-like" feel than other Mounts such as Baker or Rainier....