Talk:Fort Rock

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Wikify

This page has been wikified. There is nothing left for me to do, so I removed the wikify tag. KarenAnn 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a well done page, but I have a ground level photo that I think would add something as it presents a view that visually why the place is called "fort Rock" any problems if I find a place to insert it...Rvannatta 16:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size of Fort Rock

The size in the article "The ring is about 1/3 of a mile (0.5 km) in diameter and stands about 360 ft (110 m) high above the surrounding plain." is in contradiction with the size given at [1] of "It is a tuff ring 1,370 m (4,500 ft) in diameter and 60 m (200 ft) high at its crest. The present crater floor is 6 to 12 m (20 to 40 ft) above the floor of the lake basin." Does anyone have a more definitive source for size? --Burntnickel (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm following up to myself, some references say ~1400 m in diameter and others say ~1400m "around" which works out to about 450m in diameter so I guess the diameter vs. around is the confusion. Any suggestions for a resolution? --Burntnickel (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation

I question the change of the elevation to "44699 ft". Rather then revert the entire edit as a lot of changes were made, could someone identify the correct elevation? --Burntnickel (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my edit error. I changed the citation back to the NGS datasheet and I think I did the cut and paste right this time. NGS is really a better source than GNIS I think. Remember that the elevation given by NGS is NAVD 88. You can also find the NGVD 29 elevation on the sheet. GNIS elevations are not all that accurate but their coordinates are fairly accurate in my experience although NGS seems to be more accurate. For more talk about the datum issue read the Summit elevations discussion on the project discussion page. I don't know if this link will work once the discussion page gets archived. Also take a look at the Where do the elevation figures come from? section at the GNIS FAQ page. Most online sources use the NGVD 29 elevations that are found on USGS topo maps. They have not been updated in a long time. Thanks. --DRoll (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First ascent

I wonder about the prehistoric Native American first ascent thing. Is there documentation. Did some one find a lost arrowhead. I have no doubt that Native Americans visited many summits but Wikipedia needs references. Seems like a credibility issue. --DRoll (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entry should really be the first documented ascent. If there isn't one then the field should likely be left blank. For many of the smaller mountains / hills the ascent isn't particularly noteable. --Burntnickel (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]