First, you made an excellent page. Very well-written and thorough. However, I gave you 3 stars rather than 4 because of a glaring omission: you forgot to put the state containing Prusik Peak! Without a state listing, many aspects of the database don't work (topozone map, listing in the mountain database, etc.).
Since many of the routes are technical, you might think of adding dedicated route pages (click on "add a route") for them. Also, for the web addresses you gave,you can make them clickable: <a href=http://www.whatever.com>Click here</a>.
So this is extortion (or something). Add the state, and I'll come back and give it 4 stars. ;) Just reply to my comment and it will signal me to revisit the page. Again, great work!
The rangers cleaned up some of the rap anchors on Prusik. If you have a single 60, it'll still work, but you have to rap down toward the end of the rope, off the summit, and look for the second rap anchors to your left. The rest should unfold per usual.
By Washington standards, a peak must have 400 feet of prominence. Prusik has 160 feet of prominence which makes it a cragging spire and nothing more. It is merely a high point at the western terminus of The Temple. Photos of Prusik from the west are purposely misleading.
Now all facts set aside, I have been assured that it has some of the best granite in Washington and I believe it's a worthy climbing objective, but it's still not a real peak. When viewed from the north or south, it becomes more apparent that it's just a point on the ridge.
Now there are many "peaks" on summitpost which do not officially qualify as peaks including many if my own pages, but people researching Prusik have a right to know, and therefor I decided to leave this comment. Most people won't care, but a few might.
It depends on how you define the word peak. The webster definition is "A tapering, projecting point; a pointed extremity". I actually consider all spires and points on ridges "peaks" and would also call Prussik a peak. I think what you meant to say is that it is not a "ranked" peak. There are peaks everywhere...but not all of them are ranked :)
It is a peak, just not a "ranked" one. Peaks without enough prominence to be ranked peaks are usually referred to as "unranked peaks", at least over here in Colorado. Before elevation prominence became hip, sometimes such peaks were referred to as sub-peaks.
Nepal is the only country I know of that actually has a word for them. They are called "Ri".
You both have valid arguments. I tend to agree with you Scott. I would consider Prusik a sub-peak, but certainly not a peak. Prusik Point would be a more fitting name.
I'm just nit picking here but it is technically a "peak" going by the literal definition of the word. Heck that boulder with a pointy top in my backyard is a peak too!
Ask Josh about my literal personality...he will tell you some stories lol
mpbro - Jan 30, 2002 11:10 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentGreat, you added washington... :)
------------------------------------
Hey Joe,
First, you made an excellent page. Very well-written and thorough. However, I gave you 3 stars rather than 4 because of a glaring omission: you forgot to put the state containing Prusik Peak! Without a state listing, many aspects of the database don't work (topozone map, listing in the mountain database, etc.).
Since many of the routes are technical, you might think of adding dedicated route pages (click on "add a route") for them. Also, for the web addresses you gave,you can make them clickable: <a href=http://www.whatever.com>Click here</a>.
So this is extortion (or something). Add the state, and I'll come back and give it 4 stars. ;) Just reply to my comment and it will signal me to revisit the page. Again, great work!
-Morgan
Rahel Maria Liu - Jan 30, 2002 12:57 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentHi Joe,
wonderful page!! I have only 3 requests:
Keep up the good work!
Regards, Rahel
Bob Bolton - Jan 30, 2002 8:32 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentJoe,
Nice page! Will you be adding a route description?
Love your photos too! Hope you like the ones I added.
Welcome to SummitPost! I hope you have lots more to add. :-)
Bob Bolton
climbit - Mar 30, 2002 7:12 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled Commentnice page - very straight and infromative and "worthy" of the peak!
later
leeee
Dean - Nov 6, 2002 5:59 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentExcellent information and well presented. Thank you for maintaining this page and for your efforts.
cjwhat - Nov 7, 2002 3:57 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentThorough page with excellent presentation. Under "Getting There", I believe the spelling is Wenatchee, not Wenachee.
Andy - Nov 27, 2002 7:26 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNice page, great photos. That's a very pretty area, do you know how the fishing is in all those little lakes and tarns?
bigwally - Dec 25, 2002 3:21 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentGreat page !!! Thank you for caring !!!!
vertx - Sep 30, 2003 10:30 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentGreat pictures. Good accurate information. Thanks!
Kenzo Okawa - Oct 8, 2003 7:28 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentHello Joe Hanssen:
I enjoyed several beautiful mountains in Washington. Thanks a lot.
Diggler - Oct 27, 2003 3:17 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentGreat page! This is on my PNW ticklist- can't wait!
Dave K - Nov 20, 2003 10:49 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentThis is an excellent page.
BobSmith - Jun 8, 2004 11:22 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentImpressive page.
rl23455 - Sep 2, 2013 7:10 pm - Hasn't voted
rap anchor betaThe rangers cleaned up some of the rap anchors on Prusik. If you have a single 60, it'll still work, but you have to rap down toward the end of the rope, off the summit, and look for the second rap anchors to your left. The rest should unfold per usual.
http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1111207/Rap_info_for_WR_Prusik#Post1111207
gimpilator - Jun 18, 2014 2:57 am - Hasn't voted
Not a peakBy Washington standards, a peak must have 400 feet of prominence. Prusik has 160 feet of prominence which makes it a cragging spire and nothing more. It is merely a high point at the western terminus of The Temple. Photos of Prusik from the west are purposely misleading.
Now all facts set aside, I have been assured that it has some of the best granite in Washington and I believe it's a worthy climbing objective, but it's still not a real peak. When viewed from the north or south, it becomes more apparent that it's just a point on the ridge.
Now there are many "peaks" on summitpost which do not officially qualify as peaks including many if my own pages, but people researching Prusik have a right to know, and therefor I decided to leave this comment. Most people won't care, but a few might.
Nice job on the page!
Matt Lemke - Jun 18, 2014 5:29 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Not a peakIt depends on how you define the word peak. The webster definition is "A tapering, projecting point; a pointed extremity". I actually consider all spires and points on ridges "peaks" and would also call Prussik a peak. I think what you meant to say is that it is not a "ranked" peak. There are peaks everywhere...but not all of them are ranked :)
Scott - Jun 18, 2014 9:20 am - Voted 10/10
Re: Not a peakIt is a peak, just not a "ranked" one. Peaks without enough prominence to be ranked peaks are usually referred to as "unranked peaks", at least over here in Colorado. Before elevation prominence became hip, sometimes such peaks were referred to as sub-peaks.
Nepal is the only country I know of that actually has a word for them. They are called "Ri".
gimpilator - Jun 19, 2014 12:03 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Not a peakYou both have valid arguments. I tend to agree with you Scott. I would consider Prusik a sub-peak, but certainly not a peak. Prusik Point would be a more fitting name.
Matt Lemke - Jun 19, 2014 12:27 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Not a peakI'm just nit picking here but it is technically a "peak" going by the literal definition of the word. Heck that boulder with a pointy top in my backyard is a peak too!
Ask Josh about my literal personality...he will tell you some stories lol