What state would you regard as the "most mountainous"? (2013, credit)

[westboundrambler]

Colorado and WV come to mind, but Cali is so long and the cascades span the entire state, I think they may have the most mountains.

[UKWildcat1981]

West Virginia, Vermont which means Green Mountain, Colorado, Nevada, Alaska, California.

[nei]

Why is Washington not getting mentioned much?

[JayJayCB]

On the East Coast, North Carolina has the highest mountains but the entire state of West Virginia is mountainous. Tennessee is actually quite hilly along with Pennsylvania and upstate New York, but the clear answer is West Virginia.

[bartonizer]

Originally Posted by Vatnos

To me 'most mountainous' is a mix of the largest percent coverage of mountains and the height and ruggedness of those mountains. Maybe also sheer area covered by mountains.

Hawaii wins obviously, it's nothing but volcanic islands.

I would guess Idaho next.

Then maybe Nevada? Then a handful of other western states. Then West Virginia and Vermont. New Hampshire, then a handful of other eastern states.

I'd agree with your "formula" but it's worth mentioning that all of the western states have huge expanses of flat, empty land. So, overall percentage of land covered by mountains suffers quite a bit. As a poster mentioned earlier, National Geographic recently did a study where they created an algorithm that ranked states on perception from a human scale of flatness in the Lower 48 (I agree with you about HI being somewhat of an outlier, due to the fact that they're volcanic islands). Anyway, it's an interesting article and WV was the winner, as there are literally zero flat areas in the entire state. Here's the link: The Flattest U.S. States? Not What You Think

Have you been to Idaho? The entire southern 1/3 is very flat. Granted, routes for interstates were chosen to avoid mountains, but I've had to take I-15 and I-84 across the state 4-5 times in the last year and can assure you that if someone blindfolded you and dropped you off somewhere in the area, you'd think you were in the midwest or Great Plains!

[bartonizer]

Originally Posted by nei

Why is Washington not getting mentioned much?

Probably because the Columbia Plateau covers close to 40% of the state. While not entirely flat, it is decidedly not mountainous.

[nei]

Originally Posted by bartonizer

Probably because the Columbia Plateau covers close to 40% of the state. While not entirely flat, it is decidedly not mountainous.

True but people keep bringing up Colorado and Nevada, where you can say the same thing.Seems like there are two different ways to measure:

1) How much of the area of the state isn't flat
2) How rugged, as in how big the ups and downs are in the non-flat area

By (2) and focused on the mountainous areas, Wyoming would do great just looking at the Tetons, but so much of Wyoming is relatively flat or gently sloping that's misleading. By just (1) Connecticut is more mountainous than Washington, but that's a silly result. Some way to reward to both would make sense. In my previous post I found a link that did just that, and found Washington was #2 after Hawaii.

[bartonizer]

Originally Posted by nei

True but people keep bringing up Colorado and Nevada, where you can say the same thing.Seems like there are two different ways to measure:

1) How much of the area of the state isn't flat
2) How rugged, as in how big the ups and downs are in the non-flat area

By (2) and focused on the mountainous areas, Wyoming would do great just looking at the Tetons, but so much of Wyoming is relatively flat or gently sloping that's misleading. By just (1) Connecticut is more mountainous than Washington, but that's a silly result. Some way to reward to both would make sense. In my previous post I found a link that did just that, and found Washington was #2 after Hawaii.

Ah, I understand. Personally, because I've spent so much time searching for what feels mountainous (I grew up in FL, which made me crave variations in topography), I tend to place a higher emphasis on how much of the state isn't flat. My choice of WV is mostly due to the fact that there is literally nothing flat about it, and it is surprisingly rugged.

But you're right, it should be weighted, and I would probably agree with WA being the winner, though I'm biased and a case could be made for several western states. Anyway, the link that you posted was interesting, and I find the discussion of "impressiveness" of mountains to be fascinating. Here's another good discussion on the subject: http://listsofjohn.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=172.

Spire measure and prominence are good metrics -though not the be all, end all- after living in CO, I think the state suffers a bit on such lists due to the fact that many of the mountains are part of long ranges and thus have relatively small faces or 360 degree measurements. Also, landforms like White River Plateau/Flat Tops, Uncompahgre and Roan Plateaus tend to not get viewed as mountains, but are visually impressive 4,000 to 6,000 uplifts of land that cover absolutely massive chunks of land. These types of area, predominantly in CO and UT, get no love as far as mountain rankings but are worthy of mentioning as they a different type of beast. For example, Grand Mesa is a flat topped mountain that rises 6,000-7,000 feet above the Grand Valley desert floor and contains nearly 500 square miles above 10,000 feet. It's almost hard to comprehend the scale of such a thing...

Anyway, back to your point about Washington, I think that the state doesn't get as much love as it should on these types of mountain threads, partially because relatively the peaks aren't that high in overall elevation, though they are quite jagged and steep. I feel that the scenery and amount of variation in the state is very underrated.

[Ghengis]

I agree with everyone else and that Alaska doesn't count

[nei]

Originally Posted by bartonizer

Ah, I understand. Personally, because I've spent so much time searching for what feels mountainous (I grew up in FL, which made me crave variations in topography), I tend to place a higher emphasis on how much of the state isn't flat. My choice of WV is mostly due to the fact that there is literally nothing flat about it, and it is surprisingly rugged.

But you're right, it should be weighted, and I would probably agree with WA being the winner, though I'm biased and a case could be made for several western states. Anyway, the link that you posted was interesting, and I find the discussion of "impressiveness" of mountains to be fascinating. Here's another good discussion on the subject: Forum of Lists • View topic - Spire Measure Gripes.

I have read that thread. I thought the nitpicking of the name was a bit too much. I don't care much for "reduced spire measure" either. As for WV, haven't been there. It has similar elevations to Vermont, but it appears to have deeper river valleys while Vermont has one long mountain spine and can be a bit of a pleateau in parts, so West Virginia is probably more impressive. Vermont is definitely more consistently mountainous than New Hampshire, the southern half of New Hampshire has a lot of low plains or rolling scenery.

Spire measure and prominence are good metrics -though not the be all, end all- after living in CO, I think the state suffers a bit on such lists due to the fact that many of the mountains are part of long ranges and thus have relatively small faces or 360 degree measurements. Also, landforms like White River Plateau/Flat Tops, Uncompahgre and Roan Plateaus tend to not get viewed as mountains, but are visually impressive 4,000 to 6,000 uplifts of land that cover absolutely massive chunks of land. These types of area, predominantly in CO and UT, get no love as far as mountain rankings but are worthy of mentioning as they a different type of beast. For example, Grand Mesa is a flat topped mountain that rises 6,000-7,000 feet above the Grand Valley desert floor and contains nearly 500 square miles above 10,000 feet. It's almost hard to comprehend the scale of such a thing…

Also depends on what you value. Spire measure rewards very steep peaks, especially on all side. Colorado mountains appear big and bulky and picturesque, but don't have particularly steep sides. This peak has higher spire measure than any in Colorado. It rises 7000 feet above where I took that view.



a more distant view (both photos I took):



Few Colorado peaks rise that steeply in that short of a distance (that mountain rises 6600 feet in less than 2 miles in one direction). Pikes Peak rises a bit more but over much more distance. Not naming the mountain, can you guess it?

Anyway, back to your point about Washington, I think that the state doesn't get as much love as it should on these types of mountain threads, partially because relatively the peaks aren't that high in overall elevation, though they are quite jagged and steep. I feel that the scenery and amount of variation in the state is very underrated.

Other issue is that the best peaks of Washington aren't that accessible by car. Other than the North Cascades highway and Mt. Rainier, viewing them takes more work. The Colorado Rockies appears to have more of a road network and more mountain towns. I think most people think of Mt. Rainier when they think of Washington peaks. From what I've seen, Bellingham appears to be near the most mountains of any populated spot in Washington. As for Florida, I met a bunch of college aged guys about to backpack the Olympics when I visited Washington. They were happy to escape flatness.