Just thinking out loud....

[GuanoGerbil]

Perhaps we need to set some sort of goal or vision to work towards in what this site is aiming towards in regards to the ultimate finished official list (if there ever was to be such a thing?). With the munro's, it is clear cut - being based purely on elevation. Of course this same system is not possible here in regards to tramping terrain due to the height and technical difficulty of many of our peaks here.

Deciding whether certain peaks are worthy of official status or not may still be a little difficult at this stage. Individual members (myself included) know their local areas well and would be more inclined to vote for peaks in their areas accordingly, as we are simply unaware of other (perhaps better) ones further away. We run the risk of having lots of official peaks around higher populated areas where there are more members requesting to have them added. If we had more dedicated members scattered over the entire country we would get a more balanced view of our overall terrain and which peaks were best to include. Hopefully this will happen in time. As the number of peaks grows, the quality of some of those initial easy bags may become doubtful. If we have set a limit on the number of peaks, some of these in time may have to go for no other reason that there are better ones now.

Do we need to perhaps consider what the potential number of peaks will ultimately be on the official list? If it is a high number, or no number at all, then the quality of the peaks up for discussion is not such an issue, provided they meet most of the criteria. If the number is more limited, we will need to be more selective, and perhaps allow more time to fully explore the less visited places as more members come on board. I don't mind either way, but if I had a better idea of where we were going, it may make the selection process easier.

[Jon (aka site admin)]

mmm, interesting question.  When we started, we'd never really thought about putting a cap on the number on the list - quite the opposite really - the aim was to make sure there were enough rewarding North island peaks to make it challenging.

In the South Island though especially this could be useful.  My main personal aims have always been about providing something that all ages and fitness levels can at least have a go at.  And a list that has over 500 or over 1000 peaks or whatever, doesn't really fulfill that aim - as it immediately goes into the too hard basket for most people....  so yes, interesting point.

what do others think?

[vinodrinker]

I did bring up the idea of assigning points to a peak as the tasmanian peakbagging site does

We could then assign higher points to the big boys (popular, significant, must do's) then assign lesser points to the more obsessive types of peaks/ smaller peaks

That way you could include a large amount of peaks but people could 'cherry pick' if they wished to build a points total over a bag total if they wished

[GuanoGerbil]

I'd always thought it would be better and simpler to keep it to just 1 tick for each peak bagged regardless of difficulty. This is how it's done in geocaching. With that, you have different terrain and difficulty ratings (1-5 stars), but these are more just a quick indication of difficulty in finding the cache. You still only get one point regardless. If you are obsessive about these things, the difficulty/terrain ratings are still shown on your stats, but not many people pay much attention to this. You find some people will go out doing all the easy drive-bys to get their numbers up (if that's what you're into), whereas others are more selective and opt more for the quality caches. This is quite a nice idea in that it encourages you to realise that it's not just about the numbers. With geocaching there are an unlimited number of them out there (and there are A LOT - some people have found thousands). Easy drive-bys are becoming a dime a dozen and the harder terrain ones, for me anyway, are more satisfying. I'd rather spend a long day in the mountains to get one cache than bagging 20 easy ones around town. When talking to other cachers, you respect them not so much for the number bagged, but more for the time and effort they have put into the ones they have found. Well, at least that's how I feel about it.

Mind you, with peakbagging, the biggest limiting factor is location. So you're going to bag all the peaks nearby regardless of their difficulty anyway right? I know I'll happily bag any peaks nearby if I'm travelling further afield and have the time regardless of difficulty once again. This is due to the limited number that are available. Of course if we started listing every hill in the countryside I wouldn't bother with a lot of them if that were to happen (heaven forbid!).

I hadn't heard about the Tasmanian site. Just had a quick look and it does look quite interesting - I like their light hearted way of awarding points. Although it does still go back to putting the emphasis on numbers again, it's an interesting concept.

I personally like the idea of the munro's, where the ultimate aim is to aspire to climb all of them, as opposed to seeing who can simply accrue the most points. But to do that here we would need a limited number of peaks, and the peaks selected wouldn't be as clear cut as it is over there. Greater travel distances would also make it difficult, so not sure if this idea would take off over here - will be interesting to see where this all goes!

[Jon (aka site admin)]

quick idea: we could just take the number of munros in Scotland, and make that our upper limit - maybe for each the north and south islands....?   Kind of random, but with a nod to the Munro list.   But we know it's an achievable number.  Not sure what happen we reached that upper limit though.  Personally, I'll be stoked if I reach 100, that would be plenty for me at this stage!  Also, some of the munros are right beside each other, and you knock of a few in one day - our list is more distinct than that so far.

The points idea would be useful too.... not necessarily as a way to tally them up (though that would work too), but as a way of determining the difficulty.  That is, the points could be voted on, and would therefore reflect the user base of this site.  e.g. if there's lots of hardcore people, many of them will come out as easier, and the opposite if we have lots of beginners using the site...   

[GuanoGerbil]

A quick reply:
Yes, the 284 munros had also crossed my mind as a figure. But that many in both the south and the north may be a bit high?? Depends if you've got your sights set on bagging them all in one island or both I guess! We need a number that is challenging, but still achievable. Although even a relatively low number is always going to be challenging due to the distances involved. As you point out, many of the munros can be bagged as a group in one hit, and the overall amount of distance to cover certainly wouldn't be as vast as the whole of NZ. Presumably there's going to be more peaks down south too - but then again, many of these would be too difficult, so it may balance out enough to be consistant with the north??

The big drawcard for the munros is the dream of being able to say that you've bagged them all. I can imagine that if this was ever to be done here, the resulting publicity for the site would be fantastic and would really get the ball rolling!

Maybe we need to wait and see how things unfold as we go along. I would suggest we start with the most obvious "must do" peaks gaining recognition first, and then gradually increasing the numbers and see how things are looking. A final number (if we want one) will become clearer as we go. It's nice to get a gauge on how others out there are thinking though! 

To me, adding up the number of peaks bagged has more meaning than accrueing some random points tally. But one thing I've learned from geocaching is that everyone is different, and people do these things for very different reasons. Perhaps the points idea could work in conjunction with the number of peaks bagged. You could have some members chasing the number of peaks, whilst others may have their sights set on the points earned.