Arranging Ranges: Mountain Ranges of the World
The Peakbagger.com Mountain Range Classification System (PEMRACS)
This page is the gateway for browsing the Peakbagger.com Mountain Range
Classification System (PEMRACS), a huge, consistent, hierarchical database that
divides the entire land surface of the earth into ranges and subranges.
There are tens of thousands of named ranges and mountain groupings on the
planet, varying greatly in size, elevation span, and mountaineering interest.
Often, smaller ranges are nested within other ranges, and larger ranges contain
numerous sub-ranges. Comparing ranges and creating lists of range high points
is difficult if all ranges in the world are treated equally. For an extreme
example, any system that treats the Himalaya range of Asia and the Watchung
Mountains of New Jersey as equivalent is next to useless.
The core of the PEMRACS is a classification of the world's ranges into a
six-level hierarchy, with the general idea that all ranges at the same level
are roughly equivalent in extent and interest. The six levels are simply called
Range1, Range2, and so on, down to Range6. A Range1 is equivalent to a
continent, while a Range6 is a tiny massif or range of just a few peaks.
The PEMRACS is set up so that every Range1 throught Range5 is completely
divided into between 2 and 10 non-overlapping Ranges of the next lower level.
For example, a Range2 will be divided into a number of Range3s, and each one of
those in turn is divided into Range4s. For example, the Rocky mountains (a
Range2) is divided into Range3s like the Canadian Rockies, the Yellowstone area
Rockies, and the Southern Rockies. In turn, the Southern Rockies Range3 is
divided into Range4s like the Sawatch Range and the San Juan Mountians.
It is very important to note that this whole elaborate thing is totally
arbitrary. When classifying the ranges, I had to make innumerable judgment
calls, and I am sure that many of them are wrong and will look ridiculous to
people more familiar with their local mountain areas than I am. The very notion
of six levels is pure invention and is just the number that felt right.
Every level is chock-full of bogus ranges with bogus-sounding names like "North
Eureka County Ranges" or "Shavers Fork Mountain Complex" that are needed to
fill out the master outline. Very few mountains will have well-known and
established range names for all six levels of ranges. Most commonly, peaks are
in one or two commonly used ranges—Mount Rainier is in the Cascade Range; Mount
Elbert is in the Sawatch Range of the Rocky Mountians. Some peaks might have
three well-known ranges—for example, Mount Washington in the Presidential Range
of the White Mountains of the Appalachian Mountiains. And some peaks have no
ranges at all—Kilimajaro springs to mind. So, in order to classify these peaks
into all six levels, the slots missing familiar names are filles with bogus
Aside from being a way to see just what the various child-parent relationships
among ranges are, the principal application of PEMRACS is in making consistent
and meaningful lists. Any sort of ranking or tabulation of ranges can be
created by selecting only ranges at one certain level (1 through 6), insuring
that all the ranges in your list will be roughly equivalent. Then your list of
range high points, range area, or ranges you have climbed in will be at least
As a example, without a classification system the list of the range high points
of North America could have thousands of entries for everything from the high
point of a major chain like the Rocky Mountains down to that of a low range of
minor hills. However, if you want a list of the Range2 high points, you have a
list of 10 peaks that all crown major ranges or extensive areas of land. Or,
you could pick a list of the Range3 high points (60 summits in North America)
or Range4 high points (199 summits in the USA and Canada).
Rules used in creating the PEMRACS:
All land in the world is included in the PEMRACS, including all plains and
Exisiting, established nomenclature and extent are be the primary determination
of a range's boundaries.
Bodies of water, rivers, valleys, and low passes are used wherever possible as
the boundaries between ranges.
Wherever possible, real names for physical features are to be used. Official
range names are always the first choice, but an area of mountians may be named
after the highland, plateau, island, archipelago, plains, valley, or other
physical feature that defines the area best.
When a range or mountain grouping has no clear name, a bogus name is created,
using real range names, directional indicators, political unit names, or
whatever other logical name best describes the area.
No officially-named range can be split into arbitrary child sections unless the
entire range is a single entity at the parent level. For example, the PEMRACS
has 3 entries for the arbitrarily-defined northern, central, and southern Wind
River Range. This means that the entire Wind River Range, by itself, must be
the parent of these sub-ranges. The parent of those 3 can not be something like
"Central Wyoming Ranges" or "Wind River and Gros Ventre Ranges".
As much as possible, every range at every level should have a well-defined peak
for its high point. There should be no issues with boundary conditions,
sub-peaks, shoulders, and other distractions that arise when determining high
points of political units. Ideally, a range high point should be prominent,
centrally located, and well-known.
Lowlands present special problems in classifying all the world's land into
ranges. In some cases I have included adjacent lowlands with the mountains they
abut, but when the lowlands are extensive and have their own well-known name, I
have created special "ranges" for them and whatever hills they may contain. For
example, the Great Plains of North America are their own extensive Range3 and
include areas like the Black Hills and the Sand Hills as sub-ranges.
The boundaries between mountains and lowlands (for example, where the Great
Plains meet the Rocky Mountains) are often a tricky place to draw a line.
Following a certain contour line that follows the base of the moutains goes
against the rule of always using major rivers or low passes as range dividers,
as well as the prominent high point rule (using a contour often means no clear,
prominent high point for the lowland "range"). My solution has been to draw the
line along rivers when they parallel the base of the mountians, and to cut
arbitraily across plains to connect rivers as needed.
Questions/Comments/Corrections? See the Contact Page
Copyright © 1987-2014 by Peakbagger.com. All Rights Reserved.