This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mountains Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 18 January 2021 for a period of one week.

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 25 April 2022 for a period of one week.

..for research: are there passes which never were passed? Maybe there are geographic saddle points which nobody wants to enter, i.e. between lower mountains in Alaska, Sibiria or Antarctica.

There are saddle points beween mountains climbed by men - but never traversed: imho the South Col of Mount Everest. Entered mainly from the west by some 2000 or 3000 persons. Extremely seldom entered (imo 9 persons) from the east side, but everybody climbed down same side as he climbed up.. No traverse. --77.11.230.123 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the articles water gap and wind gap. It might be useful to link to these in the article and constant how they are different; or, if they aren't, to considering merging. —Sladen (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider removal of the Andes Mountains section, or merging with another subject, as it fits poorly into the structure of this article. Consider reducing the summary, and placing some of the information into sub-topics such as Formation, Etymology, Famous passes and other relevant topics. GARETHenterprises© 17:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garethdennis (talk • contribs)

This page is totally wrong. A pass is a route through high mountains. It is frequently at a saddle point, but is not defined to be so. 63.107.91.99 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A summit is usually considered to be the highest point on a pass; however, the term is sometimes used for the highest point on a mountain or hill. To confuse matters further, however, a summit may be a high point along a road, whether or not in a pass; in either case, the geographical feature may be designated on maps, road signs, etc., as "Such-and-such Summit," rather than "Such-and-such Pass."

If anyone has reliable links to information about this, it might be incorporated into the article. 69.42.7.98 (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A summit is the term usually reserved for a peak but yes it has the subsidiary meaning of the high point of a road through a hill or mountain range as in the phrase 'summit of the (such and such) road'. Okay to insert in article provided the context is explained. Geopersona (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 21st century for Christ's sake. Please stop using feet and inches to measure things like mountains. It's a primitive system used only by a very small number of people round the world (mostly Americans) and totally confuses the rest of us. Sure someone will point out that some British people still use such measurements but anyone who has been schooled since the 1970s was ONLY taught metric units. Wikipedia shouldn't be dumbing down and if Americans can't find the sense to use metric measurements then we shouldn't pander to such ignorance. Proving measurements in imperial units (or using both imperial and metric) just discourages Americans from ever bothering to convert.--Xania ^talk 22:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page uses metres. Foot equivalents are mentioned in parentheses. Are you asking people to stop using feet altogether, even parenthetically? Are you confused by the parentheses? Pfly (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently confused by parentheses. Maybe Xania expects us to dumb down Wikipedia and remove parentheses so that he/she is not confused anymore. Pantherskin (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How narrow-minded! If people want to use feet to measure mountain heights, let them! Wikipedia conveniently caters for both. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Brennig' has been listed as a word for a pass - in what language is this? Citation required or it needs removing- I'm happy for someone to enlighten me. Geopersona (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst a mountain pass usually crosses a col or saddle, they are not the same thing and cols and saddles may have no recognised routes over them. I propose we create a separate article called "col" (redirect "saddle"). --Bermicourt (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pasting this now-archived Reference Desk thread here as it is about this page and some text that ought to be confirmed/clarified/adjusted. Pfly (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some sort of defined criterion or criteria for what does and doesn't constitute a mountain pass? Our article on the topic says that there are precisely 42 passes in the 5300-km-long border between Argentina and Chile; it would seem that some sort is necessary in order to say that most low spots between mountains aren't truly passes. Is there perhaps a minimum amount of topographic prominence for the mountains on each side of the pass? Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There could be within some limited context, but not in general. For a very non-pass-looking-pass, take a look at Deadhorse Pass, File:CupLakeDeadhorsePass.jpg—it's the dip on the right side of the photo. I wonder about the claim of "precisely 42 passes" on the Argentina-Chile border. Seems fishy. Perhaps there is some context, like "named passes" (although I would think there are many more than 42), or some arbitrary cutoff prominence. Or perhaps Chile and Argentina have some official standard they abide by for whatever the term would be in Spanish... Pfly (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that one criterion -- maybe the only one -- is that at least a few people have actually used it to get from one side to the other. Looie496 (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work. Someone could cross a mountain by going over the top, but that doesn't make the peak a pass! APL (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1] there are more than 42 official border crossings, all named "paso" such-and-such. Pfly (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote from mountain pass is

"For passes with roads, it is also customary to have a small roadside sign giving the name of the pass and its elevation above mean sea level. An example of this is Argentina and Chile that share the world's third longest international border, 5,300 kilometres (3,300 mi) long, running from north to the south through the Andes mountains, having a total of 42 mountain passes between them"

--emphasis mine. I think the article is saying that there are 42 passes with roads, each of which has a sign with a name and elevation. I have no idea if that's true, but it does seem to imply how the count was arrived at. SemanticMantis (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being lazy here. But this article could do with some info on the wider significance of mountain passes beyond geography and transport. Even beside their historical significance these places are fascinating.158.223.165.11 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of wider significance are you thinking of? Geography and transport seems pretty all-encompassing to me. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following up a comment from 13 years ago (!!!) - both water gap and wind gap are small, lame articles with no references but good graphics - they should be incorporated into this one. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]