Forums 2004 FOT48 Information Archive 2004 Planning Meeting Assigning Peaks/Accessible Peaks

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
  • Stephen
      Post count: 759
      #46844 |

      This thread is to discuss how peaks will be assigned this year.

      There are peaks that are ALWAYS taken, and some that are never taken. How do we fairly assign peaks while ensuring full coverage? Previous events have been done purely on a first-come/first-served basis

      Also, there are 3 peaks that are readily accessible to the “hiking-challeneged”, Wildcat (tram), Cannon (tram) and Washington (drive/cog). How do we fairly distribute these peaks?

        Post count: 1307

        Seeing as Cannon and Wildcat are both ski areas, maybe the skiing half of the Alpinezone board could help us out. What better way to plan a weekend of skiing for the coming winter months, than with other posters from the site.

        I think the first-come/first serve basis is alright. I’m sure many folks have already kicked around an idea in their head as to what you are going to do this year. Granted many of the popular peaks with nice views will go first but that’s why we have sign-ups. I would hope that some of the easier summits would be saved for the scout groups and outdoors groups that help out. It would be nice to have a group of local veterans take a flag up Washington.

          Post count: 397

          I think I like the first-come/first-served approach too. I think we’ve been pretty close the past two years. It’ll simply be a matter of spreading the word/more publicity…

            Post count: 338

            I am also in favor of the “first come/first served approach”. If we set boundries for people it will likely turn them off. It’s hard enough as it is to get people to join in.

            As for the “easily accessible” peaks, we could always highlight them with an *, and mention that they are preferred for people who do not wish to hike. But if someone signs up, I don’t think that we should try and deter them.

              Post count: 839

              I’m fine with fc/fs as long as I’m first.

              I say that only because I’m counting on doing Garfield because it will be #47 for me that week…

                Post count: 884

                This may not be popular, but I was thinking maybe opening registration to previous participants a couple days before others, to offer a little reward for regular contributors (like MichaelJ who is so close to finishing all 48 )? Or even open registration three days early for those who hiked all three years, then two days early for those who hiked two out of three, and one day early for those who did one? Just thinking out loud here…

                  Post count: 1307

                  The less boundaries and rules we have about signing up, the better. Too many rules can turn people off and we are really starting to build a nice little community group here. Once sign-up opens, I think you’ll see about half the peaks go in the first two weeks, then the trickle down effect. And hopefully FULL COVERAGE!

                    Post count: 372

                    With the Zealand bridge being closed on or about Sept 7 to be rebuilt, I wonder if we can still cross it to get Hale. As MikeP said there’s always the somewhat obscure fire wardens route. Probably only those hikers that have used it will feel comfortable on it. We’ll have to go up the Twins to get to Zealand Mtn.

                      Post count: 759

                      I agree with Cal… there’s an added side effect of if we stay with FCFS, then the programming for automatic assignments is WAY simpler.

                      We seem to be in concensus… FCFS method.


                    Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
                    • The topic ‘Assigning Peaks/Accessible Peaks’ is closed to new replies.