Washington's Major Peaks

[MounTAIN_Woman]

A new website just came on line last week. It presents a new classification scheme for determining the major peaks in Washington. There are 197 major peaks based on this scheme. Interesting write-up and lots of mountain photos. Check it out at:

 

Washington's Major Peaks

 

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

Do you get a special patch if you climb 'em all? A free toaster?

 

...An interesting site none the less.

[slothrop]

All the in-browser image resizing is killing that page. It takes about 2 minutes to load on my DSL connection.

[PONCHO&LEFTY]

Cool unique idea. This list obviously wasn't thrown together overnight. Lincoln is on the list!

[ChrisT]

frustatingly slow loading...and I'm on a cable modem!

[MounTAIN_Woman]

You can have the fastest connection in the world, and if you are operating on a smaller processor, like the celeron, the older pentium processers, etc. , certain web pages (and large email attachments) will load slowly. It is like water flowing through pipes. If you have a huge pipe (your internet connection) flowing into a small network of tubes (your processor), you can't possibly get all the water from the large pipe through the small tubes as fast as it flowed through the large pipe. The backup in the system is with the small tubes, i.e., your computer's processor.

 

I don't have any problem with the site loading in less than a minute. I have broadband and a Pentium 4 at 1.6 Gigs. Not a particulary high-end setup, but it works for me.

 

[COL._Von_Spanker]

Mt Wmn. Face it, IT's SLOW. I have a fast connection flowing into a faster computer (BIG TUBE).

 

Cool Site though.

[slothrop]

<>

Sure, Mountain Woman, but the page is still wayyyy too slow for its content. There's too much on one page to scroll through without it being annoying, first of all. Worse, the page loads a bunch of mountain photos from big image files and then squeezes the images smaller using the 'width' and 'height' attributes of the <img> tag. This means you download more than you need to see the pictures on the page, and your computer does extra processing to shrink the unnecessarily-large images.

 

All it takes to greatly speed things up is for the author to manually resize the images and leave out that height/width BS.

 

A minute is too long to wait, anyway. It should load in more like 10 seconds.

</>

[MounTAIN_Woman]

Good comments, all. It is through these comments that we will make the site even better. We had problems with the photos before. Since I did most of the scanning, and I'm somewhat of a novice photo doctor/scanner, Steve did the best he could with the larger photos I sent. I have learned a bit since then, and we've been talking about a faster version in the next update with me re-scanning the photos. Not a small task, but well worth it if it makes the site even better.

 

[COL._Von_Spanker]

Are you scanning the photo's at 72 DPI? This is best for web since monitors display at 72dpi.

[ChrisT]

MW I'm on an iMac (400 MGHZ I think). Don't forget the Mac users!

 

I think the site is a wonderful resource however I just think there is too much too soon. The opening page shouldn't have quite so much info on it to start. Also, if you're using Photoshop (version 5 or above) use the "Save for Web" option and that will automatically make the scans 72 dpi regardless of the original resolution of the scan.

[slothrop]

I'd say there's no need to rescan the photos (which are cool, btw), but instead just resize (in Photoshop, whatever) the thumbnail images that appear on the front page. Link the thumbnails to the full-size images so people who want to see the photo full-size can just click on the thumbs.

[fleblebleb]

Damn those Mac users! 400000000000000000 Hz! That's one hell of a power book

[wayne]

Wow what a web site! This guy has a lot of time on his hands. I hear Stim Bullit has climbed all of the peaks over 8,000 feet !!!

THE PICKET 12 !!!

[klenke]

Tip for surfing slow websites:

1. Right click mouse button while hovering over link

2. Select "Open in New Window" (second from top for me)

3. While slow site loads in new window, continue surfing in old window

 

Note that the website in question for this thread already opens in a new window (at least for me). Simply surf in another window until it loads up. And actually, for me it loaded up in less than 10 seconds on a AT&T Broadband connection.

 

[MounTAIN_Woman]

To answer an earlier question, the photos were originally scanned at 75 ppi. Steve has been working to improve the speed, and I think it's a bit faster now. We'd like to hear if it's speed has improved or not. We've been considering other options as well. Needless to say, it's a work in progress.

[wayne]

Anyone know where the "Tallest 100" list is?

[klenke]

The answer to your question, Wayne, is relative to what constitutes a relevant peak (prominence being the most distinguishing factor). There are several lists (Bulger, et al.) but these are usually modified by those making frequent use of them. Can you be more specific as to what you want?

 

As for Brisbine's site (the link presented herein), I had noticed how it does not really present a top-down list up front. You kind of have to search around for the information. I have found the annotated index to be most useful for acquiring information relative to a given peak. Plus you can sort by different table categories in the index. What Brisbine has failed to mention (or maybe I did not read enough fine print) is that there are errors in USGS maps themselves (most notably in regard to contour lines) and they need to be taken into account as much as the accuracy of triangulations.

[Gary_Yngve]

top 100 peaks