# Talk:Finisterre Range

## unnamed peak

It is possible that the other summit has been climbed, though not by Europeans. The peak is close, at around 20km, to a village called Tep Tep. Nomadtales 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is stated at http://www.awm.gov.au/units/event_347.asp that Shaggy Ridge is the highest point. Is this incorrect, or is it simply the case that Shaggy Ridge was never gazetted as an official name? Grant65 | Talk 05:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
From what I have heard, Shaggy Ridge is a ridge line on the Ramu/Markham valley side of the range. I don't think it is the actual high point of the range itself. I met some Australians who had actually walked along it and they said it was quite a tough walk, mainly because of the lack of water. Nomadtales 11:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

## High point elevation and prominence source dilemma

Given the two sources I have at hand for Finisterre HP, I have a small problem. Here's what the two sources say:

• Peakbagger.com[1]
Elevation = 4,125 m
Key col = 480 m
Prominence = 3,645 m
• Peaklist.org[2]
Elevation = 4,175 m
Key saddle (col) = 441 m
Prominence = 3,734 m
However, Peaklist also states the following in the footnotes (1):[3]
...According to the topographic maps, (Finisterre HP) is an unnamed point at 4175m. This is somewhat incompatible with the SRTM data, whose highest cell in the region is only 4120m...The key saddle, dubbewd[sic] the Ramu/Markham divide is approimately[sic] 441m, 480-40 on the 1:100,000 topographic map.'

Peaklist's footnote seems to support Peakbagger's elevation, so based on this mutual support, I am quite comfortable with stating 4,125 m as the elevation.

But what to do with the prominence? Peakbagger and Peaklist give different key cols and therefore have calculated different prominences, even if you start with 4125 m as an elevation. Because Peaklist gives more detail on how these figures were derived, (and Peaklist is in general a superior source IMO) I am tempted to use only Peaklist's data and the information in the footnote to adjust Peaklist's prominence value by the same 50 m SRTM supported elevation adjustment:

3734 m - 50 m = 3,684 m

Or another way to do it and get the same value is to subtract Peaklist's (topo map supported) key col value from the 4,125 m elevation figure given by Peakbagger and supported by Peaklist's footnote:

4125 m (elev.) - 441 (Peaklist's key col) = 3,684 m (prominence)

The problem with all this is that Peaklist never explicitly states 3,684 m as the peak's prominence. So the above is, at the very least, possible or borderline original research if not blatant OR. Is this correct (would it in fact be OR?), or may we adjust the prominence based on the above? It is just simple subtraction of sourced data after all.

My dilemma - should I place in the article what I believe to be the most accurate information at the risk of introducing possible OR/synthesis, or should I just leave it as is, even though the sources seem indicate something else?--Racerx11 (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry this got a little long and confusing. In a nutshell, prominence = elevation - key col. So if we have a sourced elevation and sourced key col, can we simply take the difference and call it the prominence? Or is this OR?--Racerx11 (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As you may have heard, the Finisterre HP has now been climbed - a landmark event for all with an interest in topographic prominence. I have complete confidence in the summit claim and GPS elevation of 4150m (this is the same climber that disproved the not-even-official 5670m Mount Damavand elevation). Regarding the prominence, 480m is based on "clean" prominence based on 40m contours. But I have just rechecked SRTM data and am certain that the 441m height given for the col is correct to within a few metres, and is definitely more accurate than 480 metres. When it comes to cols and coordinates, peaklist is more accurate than peakbagger; in fact, peakbagger has on occasions misled baggers to wrong locations. This is, however, my research. It is not for me to pass final judgment on it. Viewfinder (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
What is the prominence of the peak? 4150 - 441 = 3709? I have no source for that figure. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 16:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we have a reliable name, height and coordinates at [4]. Re the prominence, you could add something like "based on the 441m key col height given at [5]". I think it is well enough understood that prominence = height - height if key col. Viewfinder (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. I am planning to make several changes/updates to this article and others in the near future. I am real-life busy for the next week or so, but I will try to work the changes in during the next couple days.--RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 18:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't forget about this and I am now just considering the scope of the changes. I'm a little concerned that the new prominence value 3709m will jump this peak about four spots on the List of peaks by prominence. Are we confident enough in this figure to re-rack the prominence list?--RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 12:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I have made the changes to this article based on the above. Will await feedback before making other changes at related articles. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 16:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the Finisterre edit. I think we should accept the 4150m GPS reading and delete the references to 4125 and 4175. I have asked PB to upload more information about the name. Viewfinder (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I noticed earlier in the Bjørstad source it says "Primary factor 3700 m" under the elevation. Is this a prominence? If so I would much rather use a value that is directly sourced rather than one we calculated on a talk page. The combined error margin of the two measurements probably exceeds 7 m anyway. As I am about to change the standing of five peaks at List of peaks by prominence with this, I would like to be armed with a least something. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 18:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Primary factor is another name for prominence. I stand by the 441m col and would rather it was not changed, at least until I have asked about the source of 3700 on the Boising page. Viewfinder (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
There is now more information about the name at [6]. The article begins by referring to the peak as "unnamed", I don't think this is compatible with the above source. Something like "although this summit is not named on official maps, the name "Mount Boising" is used by local tribesmen" should appear here instead? The last paragraph can then be deleted altogether, although the link to the US Army map (not dead) could be retained. Viewfinder (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We actually have enough information for an article on the highpoint alone. How about that? --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 20:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My first reaction would be that a split is unnecessary, but on further thought, the article has become somewhat unbalanced by the new information about the summit. A split would solve this, we could use the name "Mount Boising" for the new article. There is a new drawing linked to the source page. Viewfinder (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Made the latest changes we discussed. I have to leave the house very soon so a split won't happen today unless you go ahead and do it. Feel free to make any other changes. What a day! See ya. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 20:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for these, I think the article is OK for now. I will come back to it in a day or two and maybe make some changes. Viewfinder (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

## Inaccurate WWII relief map

A 1942 army map is referenced to support the claim that the unnamed peak might have at some stage been called Mt Gladstone. The location of Mt Gladstone on the map is the same Lat/Long as now quoted for the highest point in the range, however the terrain shown on the WWII map only vaguely resembles the correct topography, with Mt Disraeli being a more accurate topographic representation of the highest point (based on ridges and valleys). Further, the height given for Mt Disraeli is 15000ft, which is higher than Mt Gladstone and closer to the true mark (the heights for both Mts do not correctly match the actual topography). Given that this is a WWII map of an area that was inadequately surveyed, and that the resultant map does not correspond with now known topography it is highly likely that none of the names given for peaks on the map have any authoritative standing. Whilst the map has historical interest, its inclusion, without context, merely adds confusion, thus I am removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameel the Saluki (talkcontribs) 10:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The high point native name "Mount Boising", which is sourced, would appear to be more appropriate. Viewfinder (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)