jkirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:45 am
DArcyS wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:42 pm
bdloftin77 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:14 am
I can say with certainty that no one has completed the 12ers in Colorado. [quoting John Kirk]
The correct statement is "I can say with certainty that no one has completed the 12ers in Colorado
according to a new criterion for establishing what constitutes a ranked peak."
There is no "certainty," just different ways of obtaining elevation data (i.e., more accurate means through time) and interpreting elevation data (i.e., the subjective 300' rule), where the elevation data of geologic features changes as a function of time (i.e., erosion and rising sea levels).
To each their own.
I have to disagree. LiDAR has revealed that contours are missing from the map in this case, and in fact the unclimbed peak has over 450' of prominence. There is no new criterion here, if a peak possesses more than 300' of prominence, it possesses more than 300' of prominence.
Yup, I was wrong regarding this peak, my apologies, John.
Although my point about the uncertainty about the manner of ranking peaks is still germane.
Within probability and statistics, there's a fundamental concept that the more data points, the better. Currently, determining whether a peak is ranked is based upon two points, the saddle elevation and the summit elevation. As is quite evident, there's a large degree of uncertainty and error involved in determining elevations. Based upon the LOJ LiDAR chart, I can see elevations are being determined to within a foot, but what is the error associated with those calculations? I've wandered about the hills a little in my life, and I've seen boulders that stand many feet above the surrounding ground, so how does a stray boulder just laying around on the saddle affect the confidence in a LiDAR calculation?
John initially called the soft ranked peaks the "elephant in the room," which is indicative of the uncertainty of using two points to determine whether or not a peak is ranked. The statistically better way to determine whether a peak is ranked is to count the number of contour lines "crossed" from the saddle to the summit, as contour lines are created from a multitude of points (eh, I'll avoid the hyperbole that mathematically there's an infinite number of points in a line).
Generally, 300' is used as the ranking criterion, which is most closely associated with crossing eight contour lines (at least 280') or nine contour lines (at least 320'). This gets away from the 300', but as Roach stated in at least one of his books, there's nothing magical about 300. (However, I've bowled a 300 game, so I'll assert that there's something quite magical about 300 at a bowling alley -- ha, ha sorry about the brag.)
I can make the case that 10 contour lines would make a good criterion. Ten is a round number and ten lines (at least 360') corresponds to the contour line scheme on the 7.5' topographic maps (i.e., one bold line and four fine lines every 200' on the map). Applying this to the 14ers, three 14ers are lost: Challenger, Bross, and Ellingwood. Or maybe go with 400' and 11 contour lines.
Given the lists are going through a transformation, at this point maybe some thought should be given to now using contour lines for the ranked peak criterion. Perhaps this might alleviate the burden of obtaining point elevations via LiDAR. In this day and age of computers, maybe you have multiple lists, e.g., the historic USGS list, the LiDAR list, the 8 contour line list, etc., noting that when it's all said and done, selecting the ranking criterion is quite subjective.