*PSA* - Ranked Lists Changing based off LiDAR Analysis

[jkirk]

John's link contains the mystery 12er, as well... Good luck to all who attempt it!

Kind of wanted to keep that one a secret to get the FA, but seems like it was going to get figured out anyway (c'mon luke you guess too well ).

[HikerGuy]

I've read the posts on here and facebook and I'm too lazy to go back over them, so I may have missed it, but will peaks be demoted as well as promoted? I know it is exciting to add ranked peaks, but the exercise seems pointless if the peaks just over the criteria by map contours are not investigated as well.

[bdloftin77]

I've read the posts on here and facebook and I'm too lazy to go back over them, so I may have missed it, but will peaks be demoted as well as promoted? I know it is exciting to add ranked peaks, but the exercise seems pointless if the peaks just over the criteria by map contours are not investigated as well.

It'll be interesting seeing everything sorted out in the end. Some new peaks will be added, others will be removed. For the 14ers, Challenger Point is right on the cusp, and I think it will be unranked. Mt Bross is at 312', so there's the possibility of it being removed as well (to much rejoicing). Though both would still be named, and thus still part of the 58 on this site.

[jkirk]

I've read the posts on here and facebook and I'm too lazy to go back over them, so I may have missed it, but will peaks be demoted as well as promoted? I know it is exciting to add ranked peaks, but the exercise seems pointless if the peaks just over the criteria by map contours are not investigated as well.

Eliminating error-range peaks will be phase 2. Then elevations for all peaks/saddles phase 3. Probably worth looking at all peaks with 240+ prominence in terms of map interpolation as I'm sure at least a couple could make their way to 300' with analysis. I'm hoping technology gets easier to leverage because right now it is rather time-consuming to analyze just one peak

I'll add that the main driver is being more confident that lists we say we finish are actually complete lists, which cover all possibilities as priority #1, and rule out possibilities already included as priority #2. People who have completed the lists as they were have already done the false positives, in other words.

[supranihilest]

Good thing Whiley and I have raging fetishes for soft-ranked peaks.

[Chicago Transplant]

As much as I'd like to keep the cat in the bag until a more thorough listing is available, I'll share my findings thus far. Some of it is random, because there are areas I have been wanting to visit and seeking out "new peaks." Since I'm doing the work, I may as well be selfish about what comes first.

The goods:
https://listsofjohn.com/lidar/lidar.php

Enjoy!

Thanks for sharing your progress, and thanks for the putting the effort in to it. I agree with your earlier post - they were already ranked we just didn't know about it.

Looks like I have a little work to do on a few of my lists to re-complete them. Somehow I knew not climbing "Pink" (aka East Red) would come back to haunt me. Glad to see 11716 in Camp Hale added to the ranked list, that one has some fun tree skiing off the north!

[DaveLanders]

"Pink Pk" is an interesting case. The map shows a 12960' contour, so at one time it was listed as a ranked peak with an interpolated elevation of 12980'. Then some people who climbed it said the actual high point was at the 12945' benchmark, and claimed that the 12960' contour was spurious. So it got demoted off the ranked list. Now it seems that with the LiDAR elevation of 12983', then maybe that 12960' contour is real after all.

[HikerGuy]

I've read the posts on here and facebook and I'm too lazy to go back over them, so I may have missed it, but will peaks be demoted as well as promoted? I know it is exciting to add ranked peaks, but the exercise seems pointless if the peaks just over the criteria by map contours are not investigated as well.

Eliminating error-range peaks will be phase 2. Then elevations for all peaks/saddles phase 3. Probably worth looking at all peaks with 240+ prominence in terms of map interpolation as I'm sure at least a couple could make their way to 300' with analysis. I'm hoping technology gets easier to leverage because right now it is rather time-consuming to analyze just one peak

I'll add that the main driver is being more confident that lists we say we finish are actually complete lists, which cover all possibilities as priority #1, and rule out possibilities already included as priority #2. People who have completed the lists as they were have already done the false positives, in other words.

Excellent! I totally get the focus on the soft ranked peaks first. Thanks for doing the tedious work.

[bergsteigen]

Top of my list for demoted peaks is Bartlett. Please please! I know it will happen eventually.

[Fisching]

Top of my list for demoted peaks is Bartlett. Please please! I know it will happen eventually.

Don't hate on poor Bartlett. It's not its fault that it sucks.
Plus, you get to go full ninja to clandestinely hide from Climax Mine staff.

[Tornadoman]

As for potential demotion, I am curious about UN 13,577 in the Sangres. I took measurements at the saddle (with 13,660) and summit with my phone app (seems reasonably accurate, but not great) and it showed the peak to be a bit under the requisite 300 vertical. This is an interesting topic!

[Trotter]

Top of my list for demoted peaks is Bartlett. Please please! I know it will happen eventually.

Yeah I'm leaving that one behind. Soon it will cease to be ranked, or even a 13er I bet.

Sidenote, for anyone using true GPS to measure saddle or summit altitudes, I think most ones have a vertical accuracy of like +-50 feet. Not super crazy precise