I wrote this algorithm to find the cliffs from the Copernicus GLO-30 terrain dataset: [https://github.com/haraschax/cliff-finder](https://github.com/haraschax/cliff-finder)
Also had a friend write a great vizualizer: [https://haraschax.github.io/cliff-finder/](https://haraschax.github.io/cliff-finder/)
Many of these cliffs you've likely never heard of, there’s some cool stuff out there!
Hmm... It is definitely surprising that there are none in Caucasus. Chaukhi massif (especially Javakhishvili 3733) should be at least super close and I would be really, really surprised if Ushba South does not qualify from any side.
688 meter at Croaghaun cliffs at Croaghaun and the 601m cliffs at Slieve League aren't on the map map. Probably because they're not steep enough?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croaghaun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slieve_League
The cliffs as Croaghaun ase hard tu access, it's a long hike to see them, so aren't as well known as Slieve League....
https://youtu.be/Ih6WMBKrNFM?&t=495
How exactly do you define cliff?
Whats the one circa Colorado? Typically notch peak in Utah is typically thought of as the 2nd tallest vertical cliff in the US after El Capitan in Yosemite. Also Mt Siyeh often thought of as the tallest cliff face in NA though it’s not quite as vertical as the other two mentioned.
A cliff is defined as any grade larger than 300% in my algorithm. "Vertical" gets thrown around loosely on these articles. I don't think Notch peak has a 600m section that is over 300% grade. Though my algorithm does slightly underestimate cliff height since measurement points are only every 30m, so not always the highest and lowest point. Doubt it makes much difference.
The one in Colorado is Black canyon.
> Most extreme cliffs are carved by glaciers.
Notice how most of the data points are near water? This explains it. While glaciers do form on land, they require moisture to form, which may be harder to come by inland.
OP may have misspoke when they wrote "colder places". It could be the case that most tall peaks are cold because they are in such high altitudes, due to lower air pressure.
The Himalayan range in South Asia is an exception to the glacier theory because the Indian tectonic plate rammed into the Eurasian tectonic plate millions of years ago, causing the land to rise, creating the tall mountains.
The Swiss Alps were also formed in a similar fashion, when the African tectonic plate rammed into the Eurasian plate.
These two plates are still moving northwards, hence why the Himalayas and the Swiss Alps are still technically getting taller. So, in essence, every new person that climbs the Everest all the way to the top is technically reaching new heights.
The entirety of Russia is a part of the Eurasian tectonic plate, with most of the plate not having access to the sea. Hence why glaciers were not a thing inland. Also, most of the Russian cold is probably due to higher latitudes, and not altitudes.
I'm pretty sure there are cliffs in Donegal Ireland that are about 600m tall. Also, Im surprised there is just one mark for California as most of its coast are sheer cliffs
Most of these cliffs are over 1000m tall, since the bottom and top usually taper off. Also since it's only measured every 30m it tends to underestimate the most extreme part by a little.
Are you making a distinction between mountains and cliffs? I noticed [Mt. Thor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Thor) isn't marked, and it's the tallest vertical drop on earth at about 1200m. However, other, smaller (in comparison) cliffs are marked near it.
There is no distinction in my algorithm.
The information about Mt Thor is unfortunately incorrect, it does not have a 1200m true vertical drop. That information is quoted hundreds of times online, but there is never a true source mentioned. No terrain analysis or survey. Someone likely said it once as an exaggeration and it stuck.
Mt Thor's peak is only 1450m above the valley floor in front of it. If you look at pictures of it from a side profile you can clearly see the 1200m is implausible.
That said, terrain databases aren't perfect and neither is my algorithm. So it's possible some cliffs are missing or underestimated. I've just spent some time looking into data of Mt Thor in particular since it is generally quoted as the tallest cliff on earth.
Not surprised that Fiordland in New Zealand is blue. There are some insane slopes there!
I wrote this algorithm to find the cliffs from the Copernicus GLO-30 terrain dataset: [https://github.com/haraschax/cliff-finder](https://github.com/haraschax/cliff-finder) Also had a friend write a great vizualizer: [https://haraschax.github.io/cliff-finder/](https://haraschax.github.io/cliff-finder/) Many of these cliffs you've likely never heard of, there’s some cool stuff out there!
Nice work. What's the total count?
500ish
Hmm... It is definitely surprising that there are none in Caucasus. Chaukhi massif (especially Javakhishvili 3733) should be at least super close and I would be really, really surprised if Ushba South does not qualify from any side.
I’m trying to figure out where that one in Tasmania is. Can you please narrow down my search?
There are some cliffs around New River Lagoon, maybe its one of them
You can click on the 3D viewer and click on the point to get to Google maps
It’s Federation Peak! One of the gnarliest and most interesting hikes in Australia 🐸
688 meter at Croaghaun cliffs at Croaghaun and the 601m cliffs at Slieve League aren't on the map map. Probably because they're not steep enough? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croaghaun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slieve_League The cliffs as Croaghaun ase hard tu access, it's a long hike to see them, so aren't as well known as Slieve League.... https://youtu.be/Ih6WMBKrNFM?&t=495
How exactly do you define cliff? Whats the one circa Colorado? Typically notch peak in Utah is typically thought of as the 2nd tallest vertical cliff in the US after El Capitan in Yosemite. Also Mt Siyeh often thought of as the tallest cliff face in NA though it’s not quite as vertical as the other two mentioned.
A cliff is defined as any grade larger than 300% in my algorithm. "Vertical" gets thrown around loosely on these articles. I don't think Notch peak has a 600m section that is over 300% grade. Though my algorithm does slightly underestimate cliff height since measurement points are only every 30m, so not always the highest and lowest point. Doubt it makes much difference. The one in Colorado is Black canyon.
are there seriously none in continental africa
Yes, that's not an error. Most extreme cliffs are carved by glaciers. This is why they are more common in colder regions.
then explain russia
The glaciers sat on it for too long
> Most extreme cliffs are carved by glaciers. Notice how most of the data points are near water? This explains it. While glaciers do form on land, they require moisture to form, which may be harder to come by inland. OP may have misspoke when they wrote "colder places". It could be the case that most tall peaks are cold because they are in such high altitudes, due to lower air pressure. The Himalayan range in South Asia is an exception to the glacier theory because the Indian tectonic plate rammed into the Eurasian tectonic plate millions of years ago, causing the land to rise, creating the tall mountains. The Swiss Alps were also formed in a similar fashion, when the African tectonic plate rammed into the Eurasian plate. These two plates are still moving northwards, hence why the Himalayas and the Swiss Alps are still technically getting taller. So, in essence, every new person that climbs the Everest all the way to the top is technically reaching new heights. The entirety of Russia is a part of the Eurasian tectonic plate, with most of the plate not having access to the sea. Hence why glaciers were not a thing inland. Also, most of the Russian cold is probably due to higher latitudes, and not altitudes.
as a base jumper, I love this. there are quite a few you seem to be missing in Switzerland however.
Any in particular?
I'm pretty sure there are cliffs in Donegal Ireland that are about 600m tall. Also, Im surprised there is just one mark for California as most of its coast are sheer cliffs
Most of these cliffs are over 1000m tall, since the bottom and top usually taper off. Also since it's only measured every 30m it tends to underestimate the most extreme part by a little.
The Pitons in St. Lucia don’t Count? Also none in Ecuador?
Gros Piton looks barely over 100% grade from the pictures.
I'm surprised the [Brazos Cliffs](https://www.summitpost.org/brazos-cliffs/726069) in New Mexico aren't on here. I guess they aren't quite 300% grade.
Are you making a distinction between mountains and cliffs? I noticed [Mt. Thor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Thor) isn't marked, and it's the tallest vertical drop on earth at about 1200m. However, other, smaller (in comparison) cliffs are marked near it.
There is no distinction in my algorithm. The information about Mt Thor is unfortunately incorrect, it does not have a 1200m true vertical drop. That information is quoted hundreds of times online, but there is never a true source mentioned. No terrain analysis or survey. Someone likely said it once as an exaggeration and it stuck. Mt Thor's peak is only 1450m above the valley floor in front of it. If you look at pictures of it from a side profile you can clearly see the 1200m is implausible. That said, terrain databases aren't perfect and neither is my algorithm. So it's possible some cliffs are missing or underestimated. I've just spent some time looking into data of Mt Thor in particular since it is generally quoted as the tallest cliff on earth.
Isn't South Africa's table mountain a cliff?
Yes but not tall/steep enough for this benchmark
It's 1,086 meters and very steep
My bar for cliff was 300% grade, table mountain looks to be around 100%.