I have a bunch of prominence friends who have done this one. They all complained about the bushwhack and devil's club. Glad to see the peak represented here. Nice work!
I really don't remember it being that brushy - could be a selective memory kind of thing. I do remember it being slightly more technical than I expected.
Big Gee and Gee Point are two different locations, separated by approximately 1.5 miles, and are approached from totally different directions from one another. One is semi-technical and the other is not.
If one summit was just a nearby sub-summit of another, then OK. But these definitely are not. In fact, there is even an actual (although unnamed) peak between them, proving that Big Gee and Gee Point are not immediate neighbors of each other (and, hence, should not have the same page).
They really need their own dedicated pages. Also, a lot of the details are glossed-over and/or assumed. I will be happy to change my page vote and sign the Climber's Log once each location has a dedicated page and some better details are provided.
I fully acknowledge the shortcomings of my Big Gee page - I feel this point was addressed plainly and completely in the 'disclaimer' section. However, I do feel that something is better than nothing, and in 13 years, no one has stepped up to the plate to create a Big Gee page on Summitpost. All of my pages are 'works in progress', and I am constantly looking for areas where I can make improvements - either with my own material, or with the contributions of other members. Also, as Adam and Josh will attest to, I am always willing to give up a page to a member who can do a better job. In fact, EastKing already has plans to create a unique Gee Point page this summer, and I am happy to let him have it. As far as the page scores are concerned - modern science has yet to produce a machine that can measure the size of my indifference. I do not contribute to Summitpost to collect 'Power Points' or 'Voting Strength'. I simply do my best to help my fellow climbers, and at the end of the day, that's good enough for me. As you will notice, virtually all of my mountain pages are on relatively obscure peaks - peaks that previously had little or no informational resources available online. If, over the next 10 years, 10 people have a slightly easier time climbing Big Gee because of my page, my mission has been accomplished.
Especially considering the reasons you just listed, why not just remove Gee Point from the page? Big Gee definitely deserves its own page. You might be willing to give up a page to someone else but some SP members are not so willing to give up pages they have created... so when someone notices a page already taken for a particular summit they tend to move along rather than ask to adopt it.
FWIW- I am not a fan of the SP voting system. But I gave a vote that still raised the page score, if only slightly so.
I like most of your SP pages, so there is certainly nothing personal meant by my comments. The same type of concerns have been mentioned for other pages that have totally different peaks sharing the same page, by myself and others. No sense making a page just for the sake of making a page, IMO. It's OK if we agree to disagree, with respect. To each their own.
My apologies if I was a little snarky in my first reply. As a form of compromise, I am removing Gee Point from the page title. As soon as EastKing creates a Gee Point page, I will remove the content. For now, I would like to leave the Gee Point information, since both high points can easily be accomplished in one day, and the USFS is not providing the trail information.
I think 'Gee Mountain' (or whatever one would want to call the collective whole) suffers from something of a nomenclature problem. All of the high points are contained within the 4320' contour (and are all within 1.5 miles of each other), which in my mind, makes it all the same mountain. Consider Green Mountain - its east and west summits are 4.6 miles apart, but nobody complained when I made a single page for the entire ridge.
Anyway, back to the issue of the weak content. If you have any pictures or route details for Big Gee, I would be happy to add anything you can provide to the page (or better yet, I'll give you the page). Klenke's trip report is pretty good, but unfortunately, no photos of the route are provided.
I think that is a fair compromise. And combining that with the suggestions below, I am also revising my vote a bit. ;-)
I have the following suggestions:
-> Attach the Big Gee page to the "Washington 2000-ft Prominence Peaks" list page: http://www.summitpost.org/washington-2000-ft-prominence-peaks/250418
It will be nice to see a new addition attached to it. Of the four "Logger's Island" P2Ks, this is the most technically difficult as well as the longest drive to reach a standard starting point.
-> FR-1705 is probably not like it was when you visited 3-4 years ago. High-water bars have been added all over the road; my 2WD passenger car bottomed-out several times and I nearly slid off the road several other times when trying to minimize the effects of the high-water bars. There are few turnaround spots. I barely made it even halfway with my vehicle, making for a very long road hike. The Forest Service nows says that FR-1705 is for high-clearance vehicles only; 4WD is probably recommended, too. I believe the high-water bars were added to try to limit visitors, as a result of a year-round wildlife gate nearly eight miles up FR-1705.
-> On the flip side, the first six miles of FR-17 (Finney Creek Road) are paved. The remaining 1.9 miles to the intersection with FR-1705 are half-paved/half-gravel and drivable by any street-legal vehicle.
-> There are multiple pinnacles along the ridgetop. At the final pinnacle it might be best to drop down off the north side approximately 50'-60' to bypass below cliffs before heading back up to the ridge for the final summit ascent. Of course, people have done this route using different variations, depending on conditions, experience, and comfort level.
-> Big Gee should never be attempted when wet. There are a lot of steep, exposed areas along the ridgetop which would be very dangerous when wet.
gimpilator - Mar 17, 2014 6:44 pm - Voted 10/10
Nice AdditionI have a bunch of prominence friends who have done this one. They all complained about the bushwhack and devil's club. Glad to see the peak represented here. Nice work!
kevinsa - Mar 18, 2014 10:13 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Nice AdditionI really don't remember it being that brushy - could be a selective memory kind of thing. I do remember it being slightly more technical than I expected.
Redwic - Mar 18, 2014 8:27 pm - Voted 8/10
These really need to be two different pagesBig Gee and Gee Point are two different locations, separated by approximately 1.5 miles, and are approached from totally different directions from one another. One is semi-technical and the other is not.
If one summit was just a nearby sub-summit of another, then OK. But these definitely are not. In fact, there is even an actual (although unnamed) peak between them, proving that Big Gee and Gee Point are not immediate neighbors of each other (and, hence, should not have the same page).
They really need their own dedicated pages. Also, a lot of the details are glossed-over and/or assumed. I will be happy to change my page vote and sign the Climber's Log once each location has a dedicated page and some better details are provided.
kevinsa - Mar 19, 2014 2:44 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: These really need to be two different pagesI fully acknowledge the shortcomings of my Big Gee page - I feel this point was addressed plainly and completely in the 'disclaimer' section. However, I do feel that something is better than nothing, and in 13 years, no one has stepped up to the plate to create a Big Gee page on Summitpost. All of my pages are 'works in progress', and I am constantly looking for areas where I can make improvements - either with my own material, or with the contributions of other members. Also, as Adam and Josh will attest to, I am always willing to give up a page to a member who can do a better job. In fact, EastKing already has plans to create a unique Gee Point page this summer, and I am happy to let him have it. As far as the page scores are concerned - modern science has yet to produce a machine that can measure the size of my indifference. I do not contribute to Summitpost to collect 'Power Points' or 'Voting Strength'. I simply do my best to help my fellow climbers, and at the end of the day, that's good enough for me. As you will notice, virtually all of my mountain pages are on relatively obscure peaks - peaks that previously had little or no informational resources available online. If, over the next 10 years, 10 people have a slightly easier time climbing Big Gee because of my page, my mission has been accomplished.
Redwic - Mar 19, 2014 6:01 pm - Voted 8/10
Re: These really need to be two different pagesEspecially considering the reasons you just listed, why not just remove Gee Point from the page? Big Gee definitely deserves its own page. You might be willing to give up a page to someone else but some SP members are not so willing to give up pages they have created... so when someone notices a page already taken for a particular summit they tend to move along rather than ask to adopt it.
FWIW- I am not a fan of the SP voting system. But I gave a vote that still raised the page score, if only slightly so.
I like most of your SP pages, so there is certainly nothing personal meant by my comments. The same type of concerns have been mentioned for other pages that have totally different peaks sharing the same page, by myself and others. No sense making a page just for the sake of making a page, IMO. It's OK if we agree to disagree, with respect. To each their own.
kevinsa - Mar 19, 2014 6:29 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: These really need to be two different pagesMy apologies if I was a little snarky in my first reply. As a form of compromise, I am removing Gee Point from the page title. As soon as EastKing creates a Gee Point page, I will remove the content. For now, I would like to leave the Gee Point information, since both high points can easily be accomplished in one day, and the USFS is not providing the trail information.
I think 'Gee Mountain' (or whatever one would want to call the collective whole) suffers from something of a nomenclature problem. All of the high points are contained within the 4320' contour (and are all within 1.5 miles of each other), which in my mind, makes it all the same mountain. Consider Green Mountain - its east and west summits are 4.6 miles apart, but nobody complained when I made a single page for the entire ridge.
Anyway, back to the issue of the weak content. If you have any pictures or route details for Big Gee, I would be happy to add anything you can provide to the page (or better yet, I'll give you the page). Klenke's trip report is pretty good, but unfortunately, no photos of the route are provided.
Redwic - Mar 19, 2014 8:09 pm - Voted 8/10
Re: These really need to be two different pagesI think that is a fair compromise. And combining that with the suggestions below, I am also revising my vote a bit. ;-)
I have the following suggestions:
-> Attach the Big Gee page to the "Washington 2000-ft Prominence Peaks" list page: http://www.summitpost.org/washington-2000-ft-prominence-peaks/250418
It will be nice to see a new addition attached to it. Of the four "Logger's Island" P2Ks, this is the most technically difficult as well as the longest drive to reach a standard starting point.
-> FR-1705 is probably not like it was when you visited 3-4 years ago. High-water bars have been added all over the road; my 2WD passenger car bottomed-out several times and I nearly slid off the road several other times when trying to minimize the effects of the high-water bars. There are few turnaround spots. I barely made it even halfway with my vehicle, making for a very long road hike. The Forest Service nows says that FR-1705 is for high-clearance vehicles only; 4WD is probably recommended, too. I believe the high-water bars were added to try to limit visitors, as a result of a year-round wildlife gate nearly eight miles up FR-1705.
-> On the flip side, the first six miles of FR-17 (Finney Creek Road) are paved. The remaining 1.9 miles to the intersection with FR-1705 are half-paved/half-gravel and drivable by any street-legal vehicle.
-> There are multiple pinnacles along the ridgetop. At the final pinnacle it might be best to drop down off the north side approximately 50'-60' to bypass below cliffs before heading back up to the ridge for the final summit ascent. Of course, people have done this route using different variations, depending on conditions, experience, and comfort level.
-> Big Gee should never be attempted when wet. There are a lot of steep, exposed areas along the ridgetop which would be very dangerous when wet.