Accuracy in reporting

In the Himalayas some mountaineers have stopped short of the actual summit.. a few meters below... in order to respect some off the Buddhist beliefs regarding the summit being the home of some deity they worship. It 's generally accepted in those cases that they are entitled to claim the summit.

I think it depends on the context.
If its a first ascent or first ski descent of a mountain then that's history and accuracy is important in that context.


The rest of the time...who cares..it's up to the individual and their own personal context.

Piscator...seems strange this is your first post.... has people wondering if you are actually an alias... wonder why? Please clarify if you would be so kind.

I guess Piscator was successful in his trolling, he's quite the angler.

It doesn't count unless you carry all your own gear, from your house, on a bike - Goran Kropp style.

Once I have reached a summit once it becomes a lot less of a goal on return trips for me. I have never been an ambitious sort but after having tagged Adams once, the more memorable time there was the great nap I took in the sun atop the SW chutes while the rest of the group bagged the last few hundy feet of blue rime.

I guess Piscator was successful in his trolling, he's quite the angler.

Seems to me he went with an alias so they could post a question and then answer it later in the post using their normal avatar ....could be wrong but it looks that way. Hate that!

If it is his first post and not an alias.....nice catch... a Skoog and a Sky.....that there's good fishing!

There's a good thread about bagging summits like Amar stated in the 14ers website. Their golden rule is 2,000ft of gain/loss between the summits = a new summit. So, in the instance of this, going to the Flats/Emmons/Muir would count as a new summit, but if you camped at 13k, went down and back up, in this spot it wouldn't count.

And also, it depends on where you count the 'trail head' at. I would consider Muir a good starting point for a trail head. It's 3ish miles to the summit, with 4k+ feet gained. That's a pretty big gain regardless of what mountain you're on.

My attempts on Rainier out of the 6 times i've climbed it, I've made the "summit" 3x and the CC 2x out of those with 1 being a complete white out and didn't want to risk getting disoriented on top of the mountain.

Personally, who cares what other people say, as long as you know what 'they' mean by a summit. If their definition of a summit is the crater, then cool, just make sure you know what they're talking about. If someone says they can climb a 5.13c sport route, but it's TR'd with 100+ takes, then make note of that. Each person has their own way to identify something.

Personally, I haven't climbed Liberty Ridge (though I want to this year), but I would almost consider the top there a summit vs the HUGE walk across the saddle to the CC,

Though I think on Rainier personally I wouldn't call it a true summit unless weather or white out permited me to get to the CC. But I'd have to reach the crater or 1 of the 3 major peaks to count it.

On a side note, 117 days until I move to Seattle from Austin!

Depends. If your objective is the recognition of the summit by others, then it would be advisable to make the high point. If its for personal satisfaction, then who cares. It's up to you!