California's 100 Highest Peaks

[magikwalt]

Here are two sites. One I believe is listing the named peaks regardless of any other parameter and the other has a bit more of discussion of what constitutes a peak. Would some of you wandering souls care to share your thoughts on which one I might use to start my collection and scoring with?

http://pweb.jps.net/~prichins/calif100.htm

http://www.mountainpeaks.net/hiking_california.html

This second one can be searched for any state.

Thanks,

Walt

[Hikin_Jim]

This site, http://www.vulgarianramblers.org/ca13er ... ssingPeaks, which lists CA peaks over 13k', might well be a good resource. The linked list contains 147 peaks, many of them quite remote, inaccessible and requiring technical skills to summit.

Now that ought to keep anyone busy for a while!

By the way, I have an extra copy of RJ Secor's guide book which is cited on that list. If you'd like a copy, maybe we can barter something or ?

Technical note: The list only contains peaks that rise at least 300 feet above the "key col" (the nearest saddle leading to higher ground). If a peak doesn't rise more than 300 feet above the key col, it may be interesting to climb but it's not considered a separate mountain. For example West San Gorgonio (about 80' above its key col) would not be considered a separate peak for the purposes of this list. Also, many peaks that have names but don't have 300' of "prominence" aren't on this list; just having a name doesn't qualify for this list.

This 300' is somewhat arbitrary. For example, Dragon's Head in the SGW is a fairly prominent peak, BUT it only rises about 280' above its key col. Is it a peak or is it not? At 160', Little Charlton might be a candidate for "de-peaking" as might Alto Diablo at 200'. Surprisingly, Shields Pk has only 160' above its key col and E San Bernardino only 240'. Maybe 200' is more reasonable? Whatever number you use, someone's favorite peak will be "de-peaked," but it's an interesting way to look at what constitutes a peak.

[KathyW]

Thanks Walt. I've never looked at those lists before - that would be a great goal - to get all 100 peaks. I've only climbed 14 of them, so I have a long way to go.

[magikwalt]

Hikin_Jim I'll assume its the Sierra book and yes I will buy or trade for it. Bring it along on Saturday.

[Cy Kaicener]

Here are 90 spectacular pictures of the High Sierra
http://www.climbing.com/photo-video/gal ... rssierras/

100 Peaks list for Southern California
http://contact20.ics.uci.edu/hundredpea ... ntains.cfm
The Sierra Club has 250

[Hikin_Jim]

Walt: I'll lug Secor's book along on Sat.

[Hikin_Jim]

Cy: That's an interesting listing of the 270 or so peaks on the "Hundred Peaks List" of the Hundred Peaks Section of the Sierra Club. I know the HPS just unsuspended some peaks, so the official list may differ from the site linked to above (if anyone even cares about the official list). The linked site is nice in that you can sort it by area and it's very concise.

Just perusing, I've done about 50 or so of them. Interesting.

[Cy Kaicener]

Jim - They just keep finding new peaks. I stopped at 100 when the driving became unbearable.

[TerraElise]

Is there a list for the 10-12k for the lazy people like me? (-;

[Hikin_Jim]

Here's a list that purports to contain 1,978 peaks in Calif above 5700'. Should be plenty in the 10 - 12k range.