UIAA looking at how 8000 meter peaks are identified

New way to identify peaks would add eight new peaks to the 8000 meter list

The UIAA (International Mountaineering and Climbing Federation) is the worldwide organization that defines, for lack of a better word, mountaineering. One of the organizations latest investigations is to re-define what is an 8000 meter peak. Currently there are 14 of these peaks, first climbed by Reinhold Messner. The change in definition would add 8 peaks to the list.

Below is the current analysis of how the new definition would work and how it would apply.

1)  Initial goal: defining one or more criteria for identifying 8000er peaks for a new, enlarged and officially accepted list. Earlier literature on the subject indicates the possibility of a topographic criterion (a peak is a topographic entity) and a mountaineering criterion (let us not forget that a list of this type is targeted primarily at mountaineers). Successive goal: applying the new criteria, as rigorously as we choose, to all possible new 8000ers.

2)  Working assumption. Definitive judgments on the list, that we will propose, will be down to those 8000er climbers that want to collaborate with us. Their judgments will be primarily useful with regard to possible new 8000ers that they themselves have climbed, or at least observed and documented close-up. On the other hand, we should avoid judgments that are too heterogeneous and difficult to reconcile. For this reason, I think we should propose criteria in a clear form and that can be easily applied, we should also make a first attempt to compile the list of the new 8000ers. Naturally everyone will be able to propose modifications but an attempt at a list would certainly simplify the process.

3)  From the concept of a mountain to the concept of a peak. This is a general discourse but I think it is useful to mention it briefly because it serves to avoid that confusion which has unfortunately tarnished earlier articles on the enlargement of the 8000er list.

Many mountaineers ask why there are 14 8000ers and on what basis they have been chosen. If it is true that the compilers of the Survey of India had to triangulate the highest point of a mountain, I think that in those places and times, one was impressed above all by the overall bulk of a mountain and by its majestic proportions (as always happens among mountain dwellers). Thus were the 14 8000ers established, the 14 highest and most imposing mountains. When climbers began to reach their peaks, perceptions began to change: the mountaineer began to see that there was another peak of the same mountain: which was the higher? Was it separated from him by a sufficiently deep col, could it therefore be considered as a peak? So a mountain could have several peaks. Was it worth climbing that other peak, perhaps via a new route? All niceties, of course, as long as you were not even dreaming of climbing to the summit of these mountains. However the concept of peaks is gaining ground until it becomes, perhaps, the dominant concept, at least in certain areas. The inadequacy of the 14 standard 8000ers and the request to enlarge the number of them, in my opinion, reflects the evolution of these ideas, from the intuitive and immediate idea of a mountain to the (more rational) idea of a peak. In other words we are talking about extending to the Himalayas and Karakorum what happened in the Alps some time ago, passing from the concept of a mountain (or massif) to the concept of a peak. The two concepts should not be confused, note that we will be listing peaks. The concept of a mountain continues to be useful in some cases, when, for example, the eternal problem of ridge gendarmes and their relation to the mother mountain arises. However we will examine this later.

4)  Possible topographic criteria.

Preliminary sources of information. As well as the texts published at the time of the choice of the 82 Alpine 4000ers (see the site http://www.club4000.it), the following sites are useful for the 8000ers and for the criteria for making choices on them:

[1]  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence, that clearly defines prominence.

[2]  http://www.8000ers.com, including a lot of data on the 8000ers.

[3]  www.peaklist.org

The possible topographic criteria are as follows:

(a)  Criterion of the maximum adjacent col. This criterion was used around 20 years ago to define the Alpine 4000ers. It was very simple and immediate, and had a favourable welcome from the international commission and the UIAA. Note that, in many cases, the concepts of maximum adjacent col and of prominence (see below) are the same thing. Recent studies (see sites [1-3] above), however, suggest that this criterion should be more rigorous regarding the definition of maximum adjacent col. Unfortunately this greater rigour would reduce the simplicity of the concept.

(b)  Criterion of prominence (or orometrical prominence). This is the principal criterion proposed in sites [1-3] above and today carries a broad consensus. The definition, as explained in site [1] above, is simple, using Fig. 1.

FIG. 1

Suppose that we want to assess the prominence of peak X, that has two higher peaks nearby (M1 and M2). Follow the ridge that unites X to M1 and identify the lowest col on it (col C1), this is the minimum col. Do the same on the ridge that unites X to M2 and identify a second minimum col, that is C2. Then select the higher of the minimum cols, C2, which is then called the key col. The height difference between X and the key col (line p) is the prominence of peak X. Naturally, if there were several higher peaks in the vicinity, each of the ridges and minimum cols would be considered. If there were only one higher peak, there would be only one ridge and the minimum col will automatically be the key col. In reality the idea of prominence has two faces. If the peak that we are considering is isolated (i.e. some distance from the higher peaks), the measuring of prominence becomes complicated and requires a knowledge of many, many cols as well as the use of dedicated software and obviously a computer, indeed it is of little interest to mountaineers. For example, the key col of Mont Blanc is next to Lake Onega in Russia, the key col of Mount McKinley (Alaska) is located by Lake Nicaragua in Central America, and so on. If instead peak X is a satellite of a higher peak nearby, e.g. one of the 14 8000ers (that luckily is the case for us), then the evaluation of prominence becomes much simpler.

(c)  Concept of dominance.  This is an interesting concept because it expresses the percentage of individuality of a peak, independent of its absolute altitude. If however we look at the formula that expresses dominance D (see site [2] above):  D = (P/Alt)  100, where P is the prominence and Alt the absolute altitude of the peak, we note immediately that Alt in our case is always close to 8000, or at least little distant from it, therefore the formula in practice becomes D = P/80. D is therefore in fixed proportion to P (about 80 times smaller than P). So D is effectively a duplicate measure of P and is of little use to us. It could however be useful when we compare mountain groups with very different altitudes.

In conclusion, considering the popularity of prominence, its simplicity of application, at least in our case, the fact that data on the prominence of 8000er satellites (which are those peaks that interest us) is available on site [2] above, and finally (the most important issue) the fact that the use of a concept already broadly accepted is another reason why the UIAA should not raise too many objections to our proposal – all these things have convinced me of the value of using this measure in our work on the topographic aspects (let me know what you think about it).

(5)  Choice of the critical value of prominence.  This is the crucial point: we have to choose a number, even if only approximate – if not, we are locked into the realm of personal opinions. There are two routes we can take. The first is that followed, for example, in site [2] above to find a valid value for prominence in order to divide the mountains into categories of greater or lesser importance. One idea is 30 metres because that has been for a long time the length of a climbing rope. In the work done for the Alpine 4000ers, however, I preferred another idea that seemed more realistic and closer to what mountaineers have in mind.

Please indulge me for a moment and I will briefly illustrate the idea. The starting point, and this is fundamental, connected to the idea of a peak, is identifying the peak with respect to the surrounding area. In other words we think of the peak as a point that stands at a certain difference in height with respect to the surrounding area. OK but what is the minimum difference in height, above which we consider the feature to be a peak? If we see a mass that rises 300 metres above the surrounding ground, that is a peak; if we see a mass that rises 30 cm, that is a rock. Obviously there is within each of our minds a critical value above which we talk about a peak, even if none of us has probably ever tried to put a figure on that value. The problem is indeed putting a figure on the critical value of prominence. To get at it, I considered the 4000ers that, in the numerous earlier lists, were accepted by some and rejected by others because they did not stand out enough. These 4000ers were evidently the key that could resolve the problem. I calculated therefore the average of the height differences between these doubtful 4000ers and their respective highest adjacent cols. The average height difference was in the range of 30-40 metres. It was therefore apparent that, below 30 metres, mountaineers do not speak of peaks. This was the minimum height difference acceptable to call a 4000er a peak. It is important to note that this criterion and this value of 30 metres were not inventing anything new nor were they overturning existing criteria or values. They did however make explicit what had been hidden in the earlier lists, even if still in an implicit form.

To use this procedure in our case we must select an initial base, for example one or more lists proposed previously for the new 8000ers which are candidates to enter into an official list. In this field there are very few lists proposed, and in general they are drawn up by a few isolated mountaineers. There is however an earlier work (see the very useful document of Luciano Ratto sent to us on 5 April) carried out by a group of 43 Slovakian 8000er climbers, who have made a total of 85 ascents to peaks over 8000 metres, among which all the 14 official ones plus a few minor peaks, and have used their extensive experience to compile a list of possible new 8000ers (the table appears on the site http://www.8000.sk/21×8000.pdf). In my opinion, it would be senseless not to give due weight to this valuable work and I think it could be our starting point. The small number of other lists, compiled by isolated mountaineers, would have little bearing on our case, according to me, given that the opinions of these few others would have little weight compared to those of the 43 Slovakians. Note that, even when we worked on the 4000ers, we were not able to benefit by the opinions of this many mountaineers and experts. No criterion of choice has been indicated in the Slovakian list; moreover, at the moment of publication, several of the 8000er climbers were no longer alive for which, more so than for a work founded on criteria that have been pondered over and shared, it is perhaps likely that many of the opinions were individual, and that those opinions have not been closely coordinated. Nevertheless, our aim is to extract that critical value, previously unexpressed, that is hidden within the list, using a method similar (if not identical) to that followed for the 4000ers.

The list in question includes 6 satellite peaks considered worthy to join the main 8000ers, i.e. (1) Broad Peak Central; (2) Yalung Kang (Kangchenjunga group); (3) Kangchenjunga South Peak;  (4) Lhotse Shar; (5) Lhotse Central Peak I (or Middle West Tower); (6) Kangchenjunga Central Peak. Note that the Slovakians also include the South (or South East) Peak of Makalu, at the time believed to be 8010 metres. Subsequently this peak has been ignored, see site [2] above – in particular the accurate Kielkowski guide assesses its height at 7803 m. Therefore I do not think it needs to be considered among the possible 8000ers.

As we shall shortly speak of the measured values of the various prominences of the 8000er satellites, I should say that the practical methods used to evaluate them are in general connected to photographs and the contour lines of the best maps, as well as naturally to the direct testimonies of those who have observed them close-up. Regarding Google Earth, it is easy to verify that the altimetry, especially in the high mountains, is somewhat approximate. If this inaccuracy were systematic, when I calculate the difference in height between a peak and a col (that is connected to the prominence), this difference would eliminate the systematic error on the two absolute values and all would be well. Unfortunately I have seen that, in many cases, this is not so, for which reason I am reluctant to use Google Earth. Note that even for the prominences listed in site [2] above, only maps and photographs, and not Google Earth, are used.

At this point let us look at Table 1, drawn from site [2] above, in which prominence data is collected for various 8000er satellite peaks (naturally the prominence values are a point on which the 8000er climbers could give useful opinions).

TABLE 1

As you can see in the Table, the six 8000ers proposed as true peaks by the 43 Slovakians (on the left) have prominences ranging from 63 to 181 m. In the second column are the excluded peaks that have prominences ranging from 50 m to very low values for the minor gendarmes.

It is immediately apparent that there is a singular connection between those peaks considered true 8000ers by the 43 Slovakians and the peaks which have prominences greater than the critical band between 50 and 63 m (centred therefore on a value of about 60m).

It is notable too, looking at the group of 8000ers proposed by the 43 Slovakians and the other peaks that have been discarded, that there are no cases of peaks being accepted with prominences lower than those of the excluded peaks. In other words, the prominence values account entirely for the distinction between the two groups of peaks. Another significant point is that, in site [2] above, the prominence value of 60 m has been chosen to separate categories of mountains of varying importance (categories B and C, more important above 60 m of prominence, category D under that value). Finally, a further positive point, these results eliminate the problem of the simple gendarmes, a problem that recurs often among mountaineers (personally I recall the disputes about the Grand Gendarme of the Weisshorn being a 4000er, subsequently it was excluded from the list). In general the simple gendarme, entirely assimilated to the mass of the mother mountain, should not be considered a peak, regardless of its prominence, such discussions have always been nebulous and of little use because decisions can rarely be taken according to rational, and not personal, criteria. Well, in the current case, this possible source of dispute does not arise because the large family of gendarmes and spurs are all relegated to the group of the excluded peaks (something that I personally agree with), not because of personal disputes but on the basis of an easily verifiable criterion, that of prominence.

In conclusion the Slovakian list would seem to offer a solid and realistic base for our purposes. Therefore it seems to me to be quite justified to propose, as the critical value for topographic acceptance of the true 8000ers, a prominence of about 60 m.

It is clear that if the critical value of 60 m of prominence is accepted, the six peaks listed in the left part of Table 1 enter automatically into a preliminary list of possible new 8000ers. A curiosity: the prominences of the 14 original 8000ers are much greater than 60 m – the smallest is that of Lhotse at 610 m. The risk of having to remove one of the original peaks from our list is avoided!

Lastly, even if the problem of the gendarmes fortunately should not concern us further, it must however be said that that the distance of the gendarme from the mother peak represents an extension of the topographic criterion from the height difference to the horizontal difference, and this horizontal difference is important in certain cases. For example, as we will see shortly, for the two satellite peaks of Annapurna, that will be evaluated on the basis of the mountaineering criterion, their significant horizontal difference can be a valid measure of their independence from the mother peak and can help us in deciding on their acceptance or rejection.

(6)  Mountaineering criterion.  This is obviously an important criterion for us, and could be useful above all when a possible 8000er, rejected on a topographic basis, excited a lively mountaineering interest. The mountaineering criterion is obviously related to climbing the peak in question, whether that concerns the quantity of ascents or the quality of the routes on it. But on all the climbing routes that can be considered, priority should be given, in my opinion, to those routes than can be defined as specific routes, those climbing routes that terminate on the peak, those routes used by  mountaineers that have considered the peak an end in itself and therefore autonomous in a mountaineering sense. If the peak in question, regardless of the first criterion, gained a positive evaluation on this second criterion, it could still be inserted in the list of the true 8000ers.

We should not give however, in my opinion, an excessive importance to the mountaineering criterion, as has happened in earlier articles in which this criterion claimed all the space and relegated the topographic criterion to second place. Let us not forget that a peak is an objective reality, a protuberance that rises above the ground surrounding it and exists independently of the routes marked out on it. Therefore it seems right to me to use the mountaineering criterion as the secondary consideration.

Another question on the mountaineering criterion. In general, in earlier articles in which a peak’s mountaineering importance was evaluated, the routes already marked out were considered. This approach puts us on tricky ground. Every time an important new route was opened, perhaps one that we have already defined to be specific to the peak, we would have to make changes to our list and the list would lose meaning and value. In other words the mountaineering criterion, considered in this way, becomes a moving target and therefore unreliable and a source of confusion. Much better, if you ask me, to consider the general mountaineering value of a peak, in the sense of evaluating its mountaineering interest, whether for the routes already open or for possible routes still to be opened, for example on evident and definite pillars or spurs, routes that appear enticing and have not yet been traced only because they exceed the technical level reached up to this point. In this way the mountaineering criterion can also become a fixed criterion, if it is tied to the structure of the mountain and therefore of great utility and solidity, just like the topographic criterion.

IN CONCLUSION. According to the criteria expounded above, the procedure to follow to accept or not an 8000er into the group of the true peaks is ultimately quite simple (at least as a procedure). First step: if the topographic criterion of prominence is favourable, the peak is accepted with no further consideration. In the case of prominence a little under the prescribed minimum or if there is a particular mountaineering interest, we pass to the mountaineering criterion. This, if favourable, can let the peak pass into the accepted list. Finally, if there is a negative outcome to both criteria, the peak must be discarded.

(7)  This is a possible list of peaks of 8000 m that could join the true and accepted 8000ers. It is a list that makes no claims, useful more than anything else for looking at the applicability of the criteria outlined above, nothing more.

Broad Peak Central,  Kangchenjunga West Peak (or Yalung Kang),  Kangchenjunga South Peak, Lhotse Shar, Lhotse Central Peak I, Kangchenjunga Central Peak: they would pass the tests outlined above.

Annapurna East Peak,  Annapurna Central Peak: they do not meet the topographic criteria (the first of the two failing only by a few metres) and nor are they accepted by the 43 Slovakian 8000er climbers. But, as well as the significant distance of these two peaks, both from each other and from the principal peak (a favourable fact because it witnesses to their independence, even if we have not proposed this as a true and proper criterion), in this case it may be right to consider the mountaineering criterion. We could then observe that the routes traced on the North and South faces (Himalayan Index), and also further possible routes on the South face with its great spurs and buttresses, could make the case for adding these two peaks to the list.

Other comments.

Broad Peak group: Forepeak and Broad Tooth (not cited in site [2] above). The first is a summit feature without significant character whereas Broad Tooth is a spur almost indistinguishable from the main body of the mountain. Not worth pursuing.

Everest S Peak: (absent in site [2] above). From good photos taken with people in them, a prominence of about 30 m is evident. Does not meet the topographic criterion.

There remains the East summit of Manaslu, 8013 m, almost never cited among the possible 8000ers, nor is it cited in site [2] above (see photo on last page). Given that the altitude of 8013 m has not been contradicted by more recent measurements (see the case of the Makalu SE peak) and considering the difference between 8163 and 8013 m (150 m), it is possible that its prominence exceeds 60 m (see photo). But it appears to me that the Manaslu pyramid is a unit that reaches 8163 m, and that the East summit is a gendarme not sufficiently independent from the principal pyramid. This of course is only my opinion.

In conclusion, according to this list, there would be eight other 8000ers possibly to add to the 14 main ones. Note: the same eight had already been mentioned as possible true 8000ers in an article of the CISDAE (Italian Centre for Study and Documentation on Extra-European Mountaineering) in  the Scarpone (magazine of Club Alpino Italiano) of October 2006.

Problem of nomenclature. If our project should ever reach the UIAA, it is worth noting that (i) there is often more than one name for the peaks of the various satellite 8000ers (and not only the satellites) and (ii) such names are often hybrids between the local language and the cardinal points in English. For example, I like a name like Lhotse Shar but a local name mixed with South, North, West, etc, does not appeal. This will get sorted out in time.

So do you want to climb 22 peaks above 8000 meteres?

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FaceBook, Twitter or LinkedIn

Copyright 2013 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

By Recreation Law  Rec-law@recreation-law.com      James H. Moss         Jim Moss

#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, Recreational Lawyer, Fitness Lawyer, Rec Lawyer, Challenge Course Lawyer, Ropes Course Lawyer, Zip Line Lawyer, Rock Climbing Lawyer, Adventure Travel Lawyer, Outside Lawyer, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #FitnessLawyer, #RecLawyer, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #RopesCourseLawyer, #ZipLineLawyer, #RockClimbingLawyer, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #OutsideLawyer, UIAA, 8000, 8000m, 8000 Meters, Mountains, Mountaineering, International Mountaineering and Climbing Federation,

WordPress Tags: UIAA,meter,International,Federation,investigations,Reinhold,Messner,definition,analysis,Initial,goal,criteria,Earlier,literature,criterion,mountaineers,Successive,assumption,Definitive,judgments,climbers,modifications,From,concept,mountain,enlargement,Many,basis,Survey,India,proportions,dwellers,Thus,mountains,perceptions,mountaineer,worth,niceties,summit,areas,inadequacy,opinion,evolution,Himalayas,Karakorum,Alps,massif,concepts,example,relation,Possible,Preliminary,information,texts,Alpine,Topographic_prominence,prominence,data,Note,Recent,consensus,Suppose,cols,difference,knowledge,computer,Mont,Blanc,Lake,Onega,Russia,Mount,McKinley,Alaska,Nicaragua,Central,America,satellite,evaluation,dominance,percentage,altitude,formula,proportion,altitudes,conclusion,fact,satellites,objections,proposal,aspects,Choice,realm,opinions,categories,importance,length,moment,area,differences,procedure,candidates,Luciano,Ratto,April,Slovakian,ascents,Slovakians,experts,publication,method,Broad,Peak,Yalung,Kang,Kangchenjunga,South,Lhotse,Shar,Middle,West,Tower,East,Makalu,Kielkowski,prominences,contour,testimonies,Google,Earth,inaccuracy,error,Table,Annapurna,Shoulder,Ridge,Everest,Nanga,Parbat,Shisha,Pangma,Pinnacle,column,connection,band,account,distinction,Another,category,Grand,Gendarme,Weisshorn,discussions,decisions,purposes,acceptance,extension,rejection,protuberance,pillars,outcome,North,Himalayan,Index,Forepeak,Tooth,photos,Does,Manaslu,Given,measurements,unit,article,CISDAE,Italian,Centre,Study,Documentation,Extra,European,magazine,Club,Alpino,Italiano,October,Problem,nomenclature,hybrids,English,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Outside,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,Lawyer,Paddlesports,Recreational,Line,RecreationalLawyer,FitnessLawyer,RecLawyer,ChallengeCourseLawyer,RopesCourseLawyer,ZipLineLawyer,RockClimbingLawyer,AdventureTravelLawyer,OutsideLawyer,Meters,topographic,gendarmes,favourable,metres,ones,whether,pyramid