Discussion: Consider the hotness that is Mt. Foraker

Looks cold to me -- brrrr!

Are you planning a visit?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001798.html

and

http://geography.about.com/od/lists/a/highestpeaks...

list it as 3rd highest in the US (I hadn't realized so many of them were in Alaska, but guess it makes sense).

http://www.mountainzone.com/mountains/highest-peak...

has it at # 7.

Perhaps one day, when I have the skills to behold the splendor of such mountains in a way directly. For now, I will admire them from a distance and be contented. Hiking around the bases of the mountains would be an enjoyable activity that is accessible to my present capabilities.

It appears that the discrepancy in rank has to do with how many of the sub-peaks surrounding Mt. McKinley are counted as separate mountains.

Yeah, unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be consensus on the definition of a peak. Most definitions use some threshold of prominence, but with a mountain as massive as Denali, you will end up with redundant peaks for all but the largest thresholds.

The separation between Denali's southern and northern peaks is apparent here. The north peak is about two kilometers north of the main summit and has a prominence of 402 meters.

I used Wikipedia's ranking, which has a requirement of 300 foot prominence.

Subjectively, I would define Denali's North summit to not be a separate mountain for the ranking of the tallest peaks in the US (I guess choosing the prominence threshold to be > 402 meters), which would make Foraker the third tallest mountain, after Denali and Mt. Saint Elias.