All of my ranked peaks — those with at least 300 feet of prominence — are listed below. Why 300 feet? Because, that's what everyone else does. It's low enough to encompass a good selection of peaks, yet not so low to include a bunch of small meaningless hills. But this is subjective. In Europe and other places where metric is common, they use the 100-meter rule for their lower cutoff, which is about 328 feet. Thus, the two roughly correlate.

How accurate is this? My data is stored at both Peakbagger (PB) and Listsofjohn (LoJ). PB mostly uses the clean (low-end cutoff) figure for prominence, LoJ uses the mean figure. However, LoJ does not include peaks outside the United States, and can be strict in what it will include (e.g. a peak with median prom of 299 feet is not included, whereas I may include it based on a study of the map). Peakbagger may not include all peaks either, especially if the peak is not yet part of the approved database. This is why I keep my list, because I wanted as clear a value as possible. There are a number of peaks that have a mean prom figure at or above 300 feet that I do not feel actually meets the 300-foot rule. I look at the saddle map and other data sources (LiDAR, etc) to make this determination. I tend to be conservative and only include a peak if I feel fairly certain (p > 0.9) that it meets the 300-foot rule.

I include a handful of peaks with 295 feet of prominence. These are cases in which the prominence was derived from Lidar data at the 1-meter scale, but possibly ignores rock outcrops that may push the figure closer to or above 300 feet.

New (May 2024): I am including many unranked peaks in my master list below, simply because I don't want to overlook them. I don't have a hard rule what lower bound prominence is needed to be included. I am excluding very-low prominence points, e.g. those with prominences less than 100 feet.