San Gabriel Mountains Discussion Forum

Did the 3 T's trail on Sunday for the first time. Discovered that the "peak" immediately south of Telegraph (what I initially thought was Telegraph) is apparently not an independently named and recognized peak at all. It just shows on topos as point "8923." So if this point is not a "peak," what is it? I guess the broader question is when does a "peak" become a peak? Using this point/summit/sub-peak/whatever as an example, it appears to my untrained eye that it has significant topographic prominence and isolation to warrant peak status, but I guess the peak gods disagree. Enlighten me topography geeks.

It is a topic of discussion among climbers as to what is a peak and what is a bump on a ridgeline. I don't know if Peak 8923 qualifies for independent status under whatever rules they are using. If it is considered separate, then the geographic naming board would have to approve a name, a process that could take years if ever.

You mean the south summit of Telegraph? It's still Telegraph, just that the point to the north is higher by x amount of feet. The south summit has better views anyway, and has better routes up to it in winter.

There's no standard definition of a peak, but you'll hear talk about prominence and isolation.

Prominence refers to the amount a high point rises above the nearest saddle that connects it to a higher point. In the case of point 8923, the saddle between the the two high points is approximately elevation 8820, which would give point 8923 a prominence of 103 vertical feet -- not much prominence in other words. There is no standard figure that automatically qualifies a high point as a peak, but most people would not call point 8923 an indpendent peak. On the other hand, let's take a look at Telegraph Peak (8985'). The next highest point to Telegraph Peak is Mount Harwood (9552'). The saddle that connects them is Baldy Notch (7802'), which means that Telegraph Peak has a prominence of 1,183' -- more than 1,000' vertical feet. Most people would consider Telegraph Peak an independent peak.

Isolation refers to how far apart two high points are. If you have a long ridge with a high point at either end, both high points might be considered peaks simply because they are so distant from one another even if there weren't much difference in elevation between the two high points. Put those same two high points right next to each other and probably only the higher of the two would get a name.

The naming of peaks being a human enterprise, there all sorts of quirks and exceptions.

HJ

Thanks for the insight boys. I guess it makes sense to call it the south summit of Telegraph ala Taco, but I'm just surprised that it isn't referenced that way on anything I looked at. It's just another number on a map (or not even identified) which isn't necessarily a bad thing I suppose. It just seems to me based purely upon looking at topos that giving a feature peak status is somewhat of an arbitrary endeavor. For example, the ridge running north-east from Cucamonga appears to have a couple of identifiable points above 8000, but the only one I am aware of other that Cucamonga worthy of identification is Etiwanda.

So who ultimately makes the call? Is it a bunch of USGS functionaries sitting around a conference room table in their short sleeves and ties pouring over maps and arguing about prominence and isolation or is there another method? I've never really thought much about it before now.

Which of these are officially named peaks? I would give the source of the picture, but then you would know the answer. Very Happy

If Telegraph has two summits, is the connecting feature a ridge? If so, and the south summit were to gain peak/mount status, would the ridge necessarily become a saddle? And if the ridge were to become a saddle, would it necessarily inherit the name of the taller peak?