|WikiProject Mountains||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject United States / Colorado||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
From Stan Adamson, editor of Paul Nesbit's Longs Peak: Its Story and a Climbing Guide (11th Edition, Broomfield: Grey Wolf Books, 2005). The altitude of Longs Peak summit was revised by the USGS to 14,259 feet in 2002, using Global Positioning System measurements.
http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=391b9f74-0abe-421a-000c-28b6f6a4069d&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf Man survives 800 foot fall from Longs Peak. Anomo 01:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting enough for the talk page, but not for the article. Longs has killed hundreds of people, as well as had many near-death falls (e.g. Lamb's original fall). Lavaka 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Keplinger's Couloir & Route
My gut tells me that these two routes are really the same one, but my knowledge of Longs Peak is not such to determine this myself. Any info from Keplinger climbers? Benwildeboer 13:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think they are the same. I did the route a few summers ago. I don't necesarily agree that it's 4th class, nor do I think that climbing it without technical gear is necessarily dangerous. It is long and involves routefinding, but the technical crux is near the top where it joins the Homestretch of the Keyhole route, and therefore it should be the same rating as the Keyhole route (which is class 2 or class 3, depending on which guidebook author you prefer). Of course the difficulty depends on routefinding as well.
- And, regardless of whether the route has class 4 sections or not, the statement "can be accomplished without technical gear, though this is dangerous" is subjective and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. All mountain climbing can be dangerous, of course. Should we put similar warnings on all the routes? Of course not. I'll edit the statement in a few days unless anyone has a good argument not to. Lavaka 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the following:
- "The Diamond was first ascended that year, and the route was listed in Fifty Classic Climbs of North America, although today the "Casual Route" (5.10-) is considered a better climb."
It would be nice to add info on the actual first ascent route. I think it was the (aptly named) D1, no? Also, I don't think a wikipedia article should say something like "... is considered a better climb", which is a subjective statement. What would be appropriate is saying something like "... but the original route has loose rock and is often wet..." (note: I am not saying that is true), or "...but today the Casual Route (5.10a) is the most popular route..." (which IS true). "better" should be used very sparingly; "popular" is a much better choice. Lavaka 22:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Number of 14,000-foot Peaks in Colorado
I edited "The first ascent recorded by European Americans was in 1868" to read "The first recorded ascent was in 1868". The term "European Americans" excludes Americans of non-European extraction and, if Native Americans did climb to the summit, they left no record. Read the article First ascent. –droll [chat] 01:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)