Getting there. The overview could be improved, a little more description, type of rock etc. There are routes up the west and south ridges also. All my maps show the elevation as 12,773 ft. Check out Bob Burd's site for the etymology of the name.
RJ Secor lists two elevations, 12773 and 12764. I then consulted National Geographic's Topo, which listed it as 12764 as well. However, the SierraClub has it at 12773. So I went back to Secor and found out that two listings refer to the new and old listing (that is all he says). So the evidence leans toward 12773 and I have changed the site accordingly.
You've got a lot of useful information here. The photos are gorgeous. I like how you integrated some photos into the route description. But isn't the elevation wrong? As others have asked, isn't the elevation 12773? Let me know if that is incorrect.
RJ Secor lists two elevations, 12773 and 12764. I then consulted National Geographic's Topo, which listed it as 12764 as well. However, the SierraClub has it at 12773. So I went back to Secor and found out that two listings refer to the new and old listing (that is all he says). So the evidence leans toward 12773 and I have changed the site accordingly.
hgrapid - Jul 28, 2005 1:57 pm - Voted 9/10
Untitled CommentWelcome to SP!
The page is getting better, but route information must be improved, along with more precise information on how to reach the trailhead.
Dave K - Jul 28, 2005 10:50 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNice job!
Matthew Holliman - Jul 29, 2005 12:04 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentLooks good!
keema - Aug 4, 2005 10:24 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentGetting there. The overview could be improved, a little more description, type of rock etc. There are routes up the west and south ridges also. All my maps show the elevation as 12,773 ft. Check out Bob Burd's site for the etymology of the name.
HenneB - Aug 18, 2005 7:20 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentHi Keema,
RJ Secor lists two elevations, 12773 and 12764. I then consulted National Geographic's Topo, which listed it as 12764 as well. However, the SierraClub has it at 12773. So I went back to Secor and found out that two listings refer to the new and old listing (that is all he says). So the evidence leans toward 12773 and I have changed the site accordingly.
Henrich
pinch - Aug 7, 2005 6:40 pm - Voted 8/10
Untitled CommentYou've got a lot of useful information here. The photos are gorgeous. I like how you integrated some photos into the route description. But isn't the elevation wrong? As others have asked, isn't the elevation 12773? Let me know if that is incorrect.
keema - Aug 7, 2005 6:56 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentThanks, I think, for the compliment on the route page. I did that one.
dan
HenneB - Aug 18, 2005 7:19 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentHi Pinch,
RJ Secor lists two elevations, 12773 and 12764. I then consulted National Geographic's Topo, which listed it as 12764 as well. However, the SierraClub has it at 12773. So I went back to Secor and found out that two listings refer to the new and old listing (that is all he says). So the evidence leans toward 12773 and I have changed the site accordingly.
Henrich