Higest peaks by state and territory

[Lophophaps]

Are there definitive lists of highest peaks sorted by state and territory? I can find trip reports about climbing the highest peaks, but they vary a bit. For example, there are unnamed knolls near Mount Nelse and Mount Twynam that may or may not be on the highest lists.

[johnw]

I've searched high and low for something like this but yet to find anything either official or complete/accurate.
Another problem is the definition of a mountain/peak. I did find this site below, which on the surface looks pretty good, but it isn't correct/complete for NSW.
In the top ten highest missing are the Unnamed peak on Etheridge Ridge, Alice Rawson Peak and Byatts Camp peak, and still more as you go down the list.
I assume the same may be true for other states:
http://www.bonzle.com/c/a?a=f&sc=h&cmd=sp

The nearest thing I have is a small paperback book "Tables of Australian Mountains, A State by State Guide" published 1994 by Tasmania's Bill Wilkinson (of Abels fame).
Bill has been very diligent in compiling the lists. But the definitions of a mountain are based on similar principles to those he used for the Tasmanian Abels.
Consequently, many well recognised named high points do not even make it into the book. Not saying he is wrong, just based on a different set of parameters to what most of us are used to.
Also there is no list for Tasmania, presumably because they are covered in the Abels books. Although some are listed in an "Australia's Highest 200 Mountains" section.
If interested it is out of print but a copy/copies available here for $40 ( I think I paid about $4 for a very good 2nd hand copy at a jumble sale years ago):
https://bowenbooks.com.au/book.php?category_id=6&item_id=233677

It's a bit disappointing that Geoscience Australia has not produced such a list, as they would have all the data, but their public contribution is minimal:
https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/national-location-information/landforms/highest-mountains

[Lophophaps]

John, thanks. The Bonzle link is a bit suss. Gungartan 2068 metres according to my map (Kosciusko 8525 1:100, 1982) is not listed. My map and a quick online search show Jagungal as 2061 metres, with 2047 metres on the list. In Victoria it was interesting to see Mount Fainter North - the official name - which I've always called Fainter North. The Abel list is good in that it defines a mountain. Should this be adopted for other places, or should local conventions be used? The latter may be just bumps on a ridge, but have distinct names. Geoscience should have a list

[GBW]

Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _Australia

[johnw]

Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _Australia

Yeah I've seen that one GBW but it starts out with;
"This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items. (August 2008)"
It actually isn't too bad, but like all of Wikipedia anyone can contribute without any formal validation AFAIK, and the organisation of the lists seems to be inconsistent between states.
So it makes it difficult to compare as some are split by region, some not. If you were prepared to copy all of the data to a spreadsheet and rework it, then validate the heights with an official source it may be possible to come up with the type of list that Lops is seeking. But that's a lot of work! To be fair the Bonzle link I posted above likely does have similar issues regarding input.

[crollsurf]

Paul Ma has a list for NSW which is pretty good
https://mntviews.blogspot.com/p/paul-mas-a2k-peaks.html

[Son of a Beach]

As John said, to do it properly, you'd have to be using a specific definition of what a "peak" is. Eg, Cradle Mtn has at least 4 peaks, just on the one mountain (Bensons Peak, Weindorfers Tower, Smithies Peak and Little Horn); Mt Olympus has two distinct plateaus - do they both count as separate peaks? Same for Geryon Nth/Sth.

The "Abels" in Tasmania has a very clear definition on what an "Abel" (peak) is based on the highest peak on an area of land that is consistently above a specific altitude. Of course that definition only really works for that specific case and only in Tasmania.

[north-north-west]

The Abel definition is fine as far as it goes, but the problem with the altitude/drop criteria is that it includes nonentities like Patrick and Penny West, while excluding some absolute classics (such as every peak in the Wilmot and Frankland Ranges). OK, some sort of minimum drop is necessary or you'd have to step on every single square inch of the CP - not that I have a problem with that idea but it would be *&%$#! time-consuming.
We're never going to come up with a definition that will suit everyone.

[Son of a Beach]

The Abel definition is fine as far as it goes, but the problem with the altitude/drop criteria is that it includes nonentities like Patrick and Penny West, while excluding some absolute classics (such as every peak in the Wilmot and Frankland Ranges). OK, some sort of minimum drop is necessary or you'd have to step on every single square inch of the CP - not that I have a problem with that idea but it would be *&%$#! time-consuming.
We're never going to come up with a definition that will suit everyone.

Yep... but the point is that the original post should define "peak" for the purposes that suit them for their original question (the Abels was just an example, not a suggestion for this question ). Or maybe they are not that fussy about which peaks are included/excluded, in which case, it doesn't really matter, I suppose.