Talk:List of highest mountains on Earth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Review.

I have not checked everything on this list but my in initial impression is that it is very good and does not contain many of the errors on other internet lists, especially the falsehood that Kula Kangri is in and the HP of Bhutan. I particularly like the map. I am not sure who the authors are but well done anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005-11-09t10:18:57z (talk • contribs) 213.128.239.213 Viewfinder

I am sorry about the FLC failure. This seems to mainly design related, and I am no expert on this. Map download time could be improved by whiting out irrelevant areas but that would probably annoy the judges even more. Re accuracy, many of the prominences and coordinates seem to come from [here] so if any of these are wrong then sorry! But I think they are generally accurate to 10" and are better than the coordinates [here], where even Everest is 20" out and many are much worse. Some of the topographical info on that Alpine-club site looks to be poorly researched, for example it has 6950m for Zangser Kangri which is poppycock and the coordinates are equally crazy. (obviously no contributor has bothered to check public domain SRTM data or a GPS reading by two Germans who climbed it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005-11-10t15:34:07z (talk • contribs) Viewfinder

Thanks. Most of this stuff is from a list going down to 6600m that I put together a few years back, but all prominence info of >1450m prominence mountains I indeed simply copied from your viewfinderpanoramas site (referring to the general prominence site, as I'm sure you'll soon put your data there). The location of the peaks was fine-tuned, if necessary, using the terrafinder site and topo maps. I think an accuracy to at the least 5" is possible, except when there are clouds in the way of course. - Afasmit 01:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I will be publishing similar lists to the above, to 500m of all 7000m+ areas quite soon, which would help, but the problem is SRTM no data areas. For high prominence areas these were fixed by 3D bridging vectors. To do this down to 500m would be possible but I decided instead to try to fix these areas by more thorough means (see [here]), which I need to do for my panoramas. It is taking time, but I am getting there. Still, if it would help with FLC acceptance (I'm not sure if it would) I should be able to find more accurate prominences and coordinates for the <1500m currently listed by lower tech means. Viewfinder 15:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, your expert input would be wonderful. It would be fun to have this to be the most accurate "heightist" list on the web. - Afasmit 01:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been trying to clean up the coordinate layout, it is a mess. The problem is (a) superfluous spaces and (b) a hard carriage return after the longitude degree symbol. I tried meddling with the Wiki "coor dms" template page, this cleaned up (a) but not (b). Finally I decided to revert all my changes. Are you familiar with these coordinate templates? Viewfinder 01:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Other project : alternate spelling redirects

We need 4-5 alternate spellings for many of these peaks. Anyone interested in helping with that subproject, might get in touch with a larger moutnains project and try to formulate policies and sources for various spellings. I have a hard time figuring out if uncategorized mountains already exist somewhere in wp or not... +sj + 00:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to go about this is to create redirects to existing articles. I've been doing that to get rid of "broken links" in the list. Eventually I may get around creating stubs for the remainder. The issue of the preferred name for a peak, to be used as the name of the article, is tricky and probably unresolvable for many peaks, given the frequent location of summits on borders, names in the local language or the offical language of the country. Afasmit 22:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Bei Tip"?

"Bei Tip" is listed on this List of Mountains in Pakistan as "Bei Tip - (7912 m) - Karakoram, Masherbrum Mts.". Apparently no information is available online for any peak named "Bei Tip".

Is it considered a separate peak? If so, it should be listed in List of highest mountains, otherwise it should be removed from the List of Mountains in Pakistan list as well. Please comment.Waqas.usman 22:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Waqas! To be listed here, a mountain should have a prominence of at least 500 metres, although some well known peaks have been listed but not ranked. Bei Tip has a prominence of about 100 metres. It is about 0.5km north of Gasherbrum IV. Viewfinder 23:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Viewfinder, thanks for the info. Do you know more about it? Please write about it on Bei Tip. Also, what is your source? Google search on "Bei Tip" literally gives no results related to this peak, except for the wikipedia article on List of Mountains in Pakistan. Waqas.usman 03:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no further information about Bei Tip, other than the source 100k Chinese topo map by Mi Desheng which I am not free to upload. I do not think it needs a Wiki page of its own. Viewfinder 08:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Bei Tip is quite minor and doesn't need its own page. As Waqas has discovered, it is very obscure. Also, its entry on the List of Mountains in Pakistan is inaccurate, having it in the Masherbrum Mountains; I will change that to Baltoro. -- Spireguy 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

two mounatins are #15!

Hi, would someone mind explaining to me why two mountains (Gyachung Kang and Gasherbrum III) are both written as number 15? Thx Jonathan ^talk File:Canada flag 300.png 16:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Only one mountain is number 15 - Gyachung Kang. The other is unranked because it has insufficient prominence to be classified as a separate mountain. Viewfinder 16:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I also had that reservation.Waqas.usman 23:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you identify these?

Please take a look at these unidentified peaks at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_Karakoram_peaks. If you recognize any of these, please update their description and category and notify me. Thanks! Waqas.usman 23:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir border dispute

Although there is no defined border between India and Pakistan that is internationally recognised in this area, it has become the established practice on Wikipedia's mountain pages to regard the line of control as the border, rather than fill mountain pages with links to complicated detail about the situation. Anyone who disagrees with this practice should add their views to the talk pages rather than edit the main article. Viewfinder 11:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:K2:

I have reverted the edits by 203.135.0.66. I reverted the earlier edits because they unnecessarily re-emphasised that K2 is in Pakistan, when infact, although it is on the Pakistan side of the line of military control, it is claimed by India. It is already stated in the article that K2 is in Pakistan. Viewfinder 16:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems that some Pakistani editors are unwilling to accept the above and are continuing to revert to a version which has K2 wholly in Pakistan. I do not know if this reflects the official Pakistan position; I realise that these areas contains many unsettled territorial claims. But as far as I know, every Wikipedia article that lists K2, and every other mountain list that I am aware of, has K2 on the Pakistan-China border, so listing K2 as being on the Pakistan-China border has become established Wikipedia practice. Therefore editors who wish to challenge this should do so on this and other talk pages, and not make unilateral POV edits to the main articles.

By the way, I have reverted several pro-Indian POV edits to this and similar articles, and will continue to do so. Viewfinder 16:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Following these comments, some edits to K2 and other pages were made by User:Deeptrivia, adding footnotes about Indian claims. In response, I added the following to User Talk:Deeptrivia:

Hi, I refer to your reference edits to K2 and some other Kashmir mountains. While what you added is absolutely correct, I am concerned about the proliferation and multiple repetition of these references, on both sides of the Kashmir line of control. Pakistan claims many places currently under Indian administration. K2 is listed as being in Pakistan on many Wikipedia pages. Please see Talk:List of highest mountains#Kashmir border dispute. Viewfinder 19:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

A response was posted on my user page User Talk:Viewfinder.

I fully agree that it's a bad idea to clutter these pages with details of disputes that few people will be interested in. I feel however, that adding a ref-style note, which just adds a superscript number on the main sentence, and puts the explanation on the bottom, shouldn't distract an uninterested reader too much, and at the same time conform with NPOV. Simply saying these peaks are in Pakistan/India without any hint of the dispute (well, even "dispute" is somewhat POV because India maintains there's no dispute, just illegal Pakistani occupation), will be too much of a POV. Also, we have to put the disclaimer on all these articles simply because most readers will only be landing up on one odd article, leaving with the impression that there's no dispute about the concerned mountain being in Pakistan/India. We can't expect the reader to somehow reach the sole page with the explanation. Looking at it this way, I don't quite know how to avoid the repetition of this note. deeptrivia (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Points taken, Deeptrivia, but, rightly or wrongly, the practice of regarding the line of control as the border, and listing these peaks in Pakistan/India accordingly, without footnotes, has become established in Wikipedia, and I do not think it should be changed without more discussion. Therefore I remain unhappy about your edits, and I may consider reverting them to prevent them from snowballing throughout the vast disputed Kashmir region, and onto mountain pages in other parts of the world.

What do other mountain editors think? Perhaps this discussion should have its own page, but I am not sure of the proper procedure for creating such a page. Viewfinder 04:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

There are still some outstanding inconsistencies in this list with other Wikipedia pages. I hope to clear this up soon. Viewfinder 08:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Precision elevations

Some time ago I restored the elevation of Everest to 8,848m. The reasons are stated in at Everest#Measurement. Since then it has been changed to 8850 m several times and changed to 8844.43 m several times, usually with no explanation at all. I have reverted all these changes and I will continue to do so until a convincing case for a new elevation is made. There have been several recent surveys of Everest and K2 claiming precision to less than a meter, some giving higher figures than the traditional 8,848m and 8,611m, others giving lower figures, and the spread of these exceeds their claimed accuracy. They should therefore be regarded as publicity seeking and should not be used until a clear pattern shows any of them to be more accurate. In reality, the Himalayan geoid has not been determined with sufficient accuracy to allow such precision. A further point with regard to the recent Chinese survey: according to the Mount Everest page, the geologic height was measured, not the height including perennial snow and ice cover. The logical extenstion of this would demand that the elevation of Mont Blanc (which varies seasonally) be lowered by 10-20m, Khan Tangiri Shyngy to 6,995m and the South Pole to around or below sea level. Until several independent measurements show a consistent error margin, the elevations of Mount Everest and K2 should stand at 8,848m and 8,611m, and confusing alternatives should be rejected. Similarly establlshed elevations of well known mountains should also stand until it becomes clear that new elevations aremore accurate. Viewfinder 10:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Khumbu/Rongbuk/Mahalangur

I notice the recent change on Changtse from "Khumbu" to "Rongbuk". Neither is really correct: the range name is the Mahalangur Himal. Any objections to my making the change for the peaks in this range (Cho Oyu through Makalu)? -- Spireguy 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No - but I changed the elevation back to 7543m, correct on Chinese snow map and Guide to Mountaineering in China. I also changed the elevation on the Changtse main page. Viewfinder 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but I'm wondering why you trust the Chinese map more than the Washburn map. That has always seemed to me like the gold standard for the Everest region. -- Spireguy 03:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that the Washburn map was the source of the 7583 m elevation. The authors of the highest mountains list regarded the Nepal Finnmaps and Chinese snow maps as the local gold standards. I don't have the Washburn map so I cannot comment on it specifically, but I will get it and then comment further. I would be interested to know if its authors carried out their own accurate survey throughout its coverage area, or if they copied data from older surveys. As far as I can tell the Washburn name seems to be synonymous with the National Geographic society, who seem to me to trade on their past glory and give seriously in error elevations for Orizaba (5747 m) and Khardungla (5682 m). See my comments on Talk:Mount_Everest#Measurement and Talk:Khardungla_Pass (section 6). Viewfinder 07:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No no no! You need to revise your opinion of Bradford Washburn. Your general opinion of the National Geographic Society is, I think, well founded, and Washburn has long been associated with the Society, but do not associate him with their errors. Washburn has a very long history of making excellent, careful surveys and maps. The Everest map was based on new aerial surveys and careful cartography. (Washburn himself did some of the aerial photography, in an open plane, in his 70's.) I am not completely sure that all of the spot elevations on the map come from this survey, or whether they used previous spots; however I would trust their judgment about those elevations as much as or more than I would trust the Chinese map. And yes, you must own this map. You will see how much care was taken on this project. -- Spireguy 16:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to point the finger at Washburn personally. No further comment until I have the map. Viewfinder 16:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several NGS maps of the Everest area in the catalogue. Can you give the title and scale of the map you recommend? Also did Washburn get permission to overfly Chinese territory (i.e. Changtse) in the 1980's, as implied? Viewfinder 16:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if there were any restrictions on the overflights. I attended a talk by Washburn dealing with the project and I don't remember him mentioning it one way or the other. My feeling is that the flights were over both China and Nepal, but I can't be sure. However Changtse is close enough to the border that I would think that good observations could be made from the Nepal side.

The title of the map is "The National Geographic Map of Mount Everest", Second Edition, 1991, ISBN 3-85515-105-9. It might also be labeled with "Boston Museum of Science" and "Swiss Foundation for Alpine Research," which were more closely associated with the actual production of the map. The map also has detailed route and ascent information, BTW. -- Spireguy 19:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I now own the above Washburn map (WM) and I have studied the Changtse area, and found that it is fairly consistently 40m higher than the Chinese Desheng snow map (DM). Not surprisingly, there is no SRTM data for Changtse summit, but I have checked out Beiao La, between Changtse and Everest, 7020m on DM, 7066m on WM, and Rapu La, 6501m on DM, 6548m on WM, against SRTM. Rapu La, in particular, is a broad saddle where I would expect SRTM to be very accurate - and it is near enough spot on with the Desheng map. SRTM comparison of Beiao La and Khartaphu Peak also supports the DM. I therefore conclude that the DM is almost certainly more accurate for Changtse summit also, and for Chinese territory generally.

I would be careful about assuming that the La altitudes are correct. Often they are choked with ice and snow, especially, Beiao La/Chang La/North Col. It is also a fairly large area. From various photos over the years you can clearly see that it is always heavily corniced with ice and snow 60, 70 or 80 feet in height. I can't see how any accurate surveys could be done until the snow and ice are completely melted. So I can't fully agree with your conclusion here. csearl 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTM)

I have been working with SRTM data for some time now, and, unlike satellite and photogrammetry surveys, SRTM is good at measuring the heights of perennial ice fields. Of course, ice thickness rises and falls, so permanent high precision ice cap elevation measurement is impossible (ditto summit of Mount Everest). But the fact that two modern and completely separate sources, SRTM and Chinese mapping, are significantly closer to each other than to Washburn, strongly suggests that they more correct, despite the latter's reputation. Despite their implicit claims, I don't think that Washburn's guys got adequate access to the Chinese side, or if they did, they surveyed it less accurately than the border and Nepal side. Viewfinder 17:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is claimed on the WM that permission to carry out photoflights was obtained from the governments of Nepal and China, and they were carried out at 10,500-13,000 m ASL in December 1984 by Swissair (this seems to contrast with Washburn open plane) and that the cartography was carried out by the Swiss Federal Office of Topography. But it is also states that some points of control were taken from earlier mapping. It seems likely, therefore, that the Changtse summit height was based on earlier mapping.

Conclusion: the Chinese Desheng snow maps, where available, should be the gold standard for Chinese territory, and the 7543m elevation for Changtse summit should stand.

Aside: the Chinese claim to have surveyed their entire territory at scale 1:50,000. Unfortunately only small amounts have been released, in the form of the Desheng maps and local topos in the Chinese Mountaineering guide, and some spot heights published by Ken Nakamura in the Eastern Himalayas Japanese Alpine journal. But these agree closely with SRTM, which suggests the Chinese survey work is good. If China ever releases its DEM data generally, it would certainly enable me to fill many of the SRTM data voids more accurately than I am able to do from Russian topos, which are currently the best and only detailed general topographic source available for Chinese territory. Maybe some day.... Viewfinder 16:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Viewfinder, what are the given heights then of the South and North Col of Everest? Are the heights on their pages South Col and North Col correct?

• South Col: Chinese map 7,907m, Washburn map 7,906m. No SRTM data. This is a border col which Washburn's guys likely to have surveyed well.
• North Col (Bei'ao): Chinese map 7,000-7,040m; Washburn map 7,066m, SRTM 7,000-7,010m.
• Rapu La (NE col)aa: Chinese map 6,501m, Washburn map 6,548m, SRTM 6,505m.

There is room for improvement to both the North and South col page heights, if you have no objection I will edit them. Viewfinder 03:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Zemu Gap Peak

I reverted the addition of Zemu Gap Peak. Not only was the addition put in place of the header row of the table, it's very unlikely that this peak has 500m of prominence. If anyone wants to discuss this please do so here. -- Spireguy 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

German 150k Sikkim topo map suggests it has no prominence at all, merely a shoulder on Kangchenjunga's SE ridge, although I don't doubt that it looks prominent when viewed from parts of Sikkim. Some <500m prominence summits are included but not ranked, but I don't think this one should be included. It's not a separate mountain. Gangkhar Puensum is generally considered to be the world's highest unclimbed mountain. Viewfinder 01:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a page that lists unclimbed subsidiary (but named) summits, expanding on Highest unclimbed mountain? (Or maybe the list could go there?) For example before Lhotse Middle was climbed, it was notable as the world's highest unclimbed named summit, even though it did not have enough prominence to be an independent peak. (I'm not suggesting the creation of separate pages for all such summits; any info about them could go on the parent peak's page, as in the case of Lhotse Middle.) The UIAA list could be a start. -- Spireguy 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Elevation inconsistencies with mountain pages

I am concerned about some 8000er discrepancies with the individual mountain pages. I propose that, unless there is clear contrary evidence, the heights given on best topographic maps should be used. For Nepal, the official Nepalese Finnmap series is the best; for other areas, the Chinese Desheng Maps are the best. Viewfinder 12:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Significant digits, new peaks

There are some peaks in various other lists that didn't show up here; the numbering wasn't consistent; and the peak heights were given with great precision despite the warning in the intro.

I updated the intro a bit, added notes that it was not quite a complete list, and capped the significant digits at 3.5 (meters) and 4 (feet) for all but the top ten.

Ideally, we would have ranges for heights for each peak; since not all peaks have the same variance in height-measurements. For the time being, rounding to the nearest 5 makes it clearer that these aren't precise numbers.

Missing peaks that I added : Zemu Gap Peak and Kangbachen (needs a Kangbachen article). +sj + 00:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to revert these changes, for two reasons.

(1) Kangbachen has not been included, and should not be included, because its prominence is only 122m and it is therefore part of Kangchenjunga, not a separate mountain. Similarly, if there is a 7780m summit in the Zemu Gap area, it has a similarly low prominence and is also part of Kangchenjunga. A prominence of 500m is required for full inclusion in this list of mountains, although a few such summits with slightly lower prominence have been included but have not been ranked.

(2) There may be some logic to the rounding up of summit altitudes on the basis of their accuracy, but this is not topographic practice and no authority that I know of does this. Viewfinder 01:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

sj: There are currently some inconsistencies in the numbering because I haven't updated the figure yet. With the help of some experts in the field, Viewfinder and I have checked the data carefully, resulting in some peaks moving around on the list. We're almost done. Once the numbers stabilize, I'll update the numbering and figures. As mentioned in the intro, some other "inconsistencies" are intentional; some interesting peaks that do not have 500 meter prominence are included but are not numbered. Afasmit 15:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the entries for the peaks in the Batura Muztagh. I have created pages for Batura Sar, Shispare, and the Batura Muztagh, so I linked to those pages. I also fixed the ranking around 23-26 to be consistent with the current heights (I now see that these are still in flux, but it was bugging me). I changed a couple of things: Ultar is now listed as Ultar Sar, which is the more current name than Ultar II, and I changed the number of ascents to 2, since the HI lists two separate ascents in 1996 (perhaps by different groups in the same expedition; I can look it up in the AAJ if necessary). Oh, and Viewfinder, one guess as to who I am: --Spireguy 18:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Afasmit please explain why you undid the changes about Jammu and Kashmir to Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir is the official name of the disputed entity and still used by India and Pakistan officially. Kashmir is the name of the Vale in the middle of the state, there is no official political entity named only Kashmir. Indeed, none of the peaks mentioned are in the vale itself, the pakistani entity is split in two i.e Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Northern areas. Please, stick to official names. I would suggest changing it to Northern Areas where ever appropriate. How would someone find K2 if they trying looking for it on a map in Kashmir(pakistan) on a map of Pakistan for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.76.44 (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)