A
service of
PeakViews.com
which will someday
be up and running.
A Key
It explains the
features, codes and
notes in the list.
Mini-lists
Can't do the complete
list or a subset?
Don't want to?
Maybe you will be
interested in these.
The Poem
that Darren
wouldn't let me post
and some others.
Readers
Respond
Feedback to
the web"master".
|
 |
Stopher's List
If
there's one thing I've learned from the hardcore
hiking fanatics who frequent the VFTT
boards, it's this: Ya gotta have a list; a broad
array of mountain peaks beckoning you to shut
down the computer, put the lawn mower and rake
back in the garage and do what's truly important:
go hiking! AMC's 4000 footer committee recognized
this way back, maybe 50 years ago, and to date
the committee has provided the hiking community
with three official lists (NH 4000, NE 4000, NE
100) and kept a watchful eye over a couple of not-so-official
lists (don't ask; the subject is taboo in some
circles). And fine lists they are. Check out Mohamed's
site to see these lists
and others.
But,
in an effort to make these lists feasible (and
possibly more appealing, but I don't see it that
way) to a wide range of hikers, the 4000 footer
committee exacted a stipulation: the 200' col
rule. Consequently, many fine peaks didn't make
the cut. Hal Graham partially rectified this
issue by dropping the minimum col depth to 100' (or
maybe even lower for some peaks) when he created
the Trailwrights 72 list. But I'm still not
satisfied and I've decided to take action.
Introducing:
|
New
Hampshire Least Prominent Named Peaks
The NH-LPNP list finally
gives overdue credit to those long-maligned
and left-behind lumps which, by being just a
few feet shy of an arbitrary datum, are
shunned by a large portion of the hiking
public. They deserve to be visited,
appreciated, adored. The fact that these
humble humps have names means that someone,
at some time, must have found them worthy of
attention. It's time to rediscover them.
And by the way, Mohamed
is only partially correct. Yes, this list is
a spoof and yes, this is a serious list.
The
Rules
For inclusion
of a peak in the list:
1. The peak, knob,
nubble, what-have-you, must have a
discernable rise in elevation between it and
its higher neighbor; verified by contour line(s)
or peak symbol on a map, or by on-site visual
inspection. But there must be less than a 200'
difference in elevation between it and the
lowest point connecting it to a higher peak
-- kinda like the AMC 200' col rule in
reverse. I guess you could say this is the
anti-AMC list; but don't read too much into
that.
2. The peak must have a name. Otherwise, the
compilation of the list would never be
finished, much less the hiking of the list.
For the purposes of this list, a peak has a
name if any map ever produced and issued for
use by the general public clearly delineates
the peak with said name. Throws a little bit
of mystery into the equation, doesn't it? How
will we ever be completely sure that the list
is complete? I like it.
3. The list is open ended -- no cut-off point.
For research purposes, I'm starting at the
top and working down; how far, I don't know.
It's getting kinda hairy below 3000'. However,
the list may be divided into subsets: LPNP-4000,
LPNP-3000, LPNP-100, etc.
For recognition
of completing the list or a subset:
No rules whatsoever.
Hike your own hike. And no patches either.
But I do have a vintage "Impeach Nixon"
button for the first person to complete the
list down to 3500' and has never climbed
Washington or Lafayette.
|
|