Anonymous ID: 4c1cf0 March 1, 2021, 6:36 a.m. No.13078459   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>8471

>>13078427

Base to Top height has always been the better indicator of how impressive a mountain appears.

The 14K ones in CO are often viewed up close from a road/valley alt of 8+K - they just don't appears as impressive as they should.

14K Mt. Ranier in WA is super-impressive since you can see it from a long way away from base land of 1-4K.

Anonymous ID: 4c1cf0 March 1, 2021, 6:43 a.m. No.13078502   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>8543

>>13078471

The issue in CO is that there are 10-12K mountains on both sides W-n-E of the 12-14K Park Ranges.

As such a view of them from the ground is obscured until you're right underneath them.

On a clear day you can see Rainer from well into OR.

Anonymous ID: 4c1cf0 March 1, 2021, 6:55 a.m. No.13078575   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>13078543

>Pikes Pk is best front range view now

Which goes back to my initial Base to Top indicator of impressive mountains.

Pikes Peak is ugly and kinda sissy in that you can drive to the top.

But, at 14K it towers over 6K-4K land sloping as far as the eye can see to the east.