Colorado LiDAR Findings
Forum rules
- This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
- Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
- Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
- Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
- BillMiddlebrook
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 6918
- Joined: 7/25/2004
- 14ers: 58 46 19
- 13ers: 172 44 37
- Trip Reports (2)
- Contact:
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
This is awesome work!
I’m a bit skeptical of Peak 8 since there’s an 8 foot weather station at the highest point. If it is a 13er, it’s one I’ve summited over 100 times. Lol
I’m a bit skeptical of Peak 8 since there’s an 8 foot weather station at the highest point. If it is a 13er, it’s one I’ve summited over 100 times. Lol
"When I go out, I become more alive. I just love skiing. The gravitational pull. When you ski steep terrain... you can almost get a feeling of flying." -Doug Coombs
- bdloftin77
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: 9/23/2013
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 58
- Trip Reports (2)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Lidar coverage: Here's the possible game-changing 13,000'+ ones we're waiting on for the 13er+ list.
Sometime soon I'll be looking at the lowest available 13ers to make sure none are demoted to 12ers.
Though the list will be much more solidified after these are available, there might still be some P>320' peaks that could be demoted (or P<280' peaks that could be promoted). Eventually the peaks just falling short of soft-ranked status will be looked at as well, just to make sure there aren't any big surprises. I don't think we have a comprehensive list of, say, Colorado peaks with prominence between 240-280' (I do think John tried to find all the existing soft-ranked peaks in CO). So there could still be some peaks hiding that might not make it through. But the list will be much more accurate than otherwise.
Sometime soon I'll be looking at the lowest available 13ers to make sure none are demoted to 12ers.
Though the list will be much more solidified after these are available, there might still be some P>320' peaks that could be demoted (or P<280' peaks that could be promoted). Eventually the peaks just falling short of soft-ranked status will be looked at as well, just to make sure there aren't any big surprises. I don't think we have a comprehensive list of, say, Colorado peaks with prominence between 240-280' (I do think John tried to find all the existing soft-ranked peaks in CO). So there could still be some peaks hiding that might not make it through. But the list will be much more accurate than otherwise.
- bdloftin77
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: 9/23/2013
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 58
- Trip Reports (2)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
I can double-check Peak 8 to make sure the weather station wasn't included in the elevation. Thanks!BillMiddlebrook wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:09 pm This is awesome work!
I’m a bit skeptical of Peak 8 since there’s an 8 foot weather station at the highest point. If it is a 13er, it’s one I’ve summited over 100 times. Lol
- Jon Frohlich
- Posts: 2611
- Joined: 10/14/2005
- 14ers: 58
- 13ers: 162 3
- Trip Reports (29)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
It looks the one on the Lidar results page is Peak Eight in the San Juans?bdloftin77 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:16 pmI can double-check Peak 8 to make sure the weather station wasn't included in the elevation. Thanks!BillMiddlebrook wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:09 pm This is awesome work!
I’m a bit skeptical of Peak 8 since there’s an 8 foot weather station at the highest point. If it is a 13er, it’s one I’ve summited over 100 times. Lol
- BillMiddlebrook
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 6918
- Joined: 7/25/2004
- 14ers: 58 46 19
- 13ers: 172 44 37
- Trip Reports (2)
- Contact:
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
I was referring to Peak 8 in Summit County, part of the Breckenridge ski area. Looks like it jumped from 12987 to 13005Jon Frohlich wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:38 pmIt looks the one on the Lidar results page is Peak Eight in the San Juans?bdloftin77 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:16 pmI can double-check Peak 8 to make sure the weather station wasn't included in the elevation. Thanks!BillMiddlebrook wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:09 pm This is awesome work!
I’m a bit skeptical of Peak 8 since there’s an 8 foot weather station at the highest point. If it is a 13er, it’s one I’ve summited over 100 times. Lol
"When I go out, I become more alive. I just love skiing. The gravitational pull. When you ski steep terrain... you can almost get a feeling of flying." -Doug Coombs
- Tornadoman
- Posts: 1438
- Joined: 7/30/2007
- 14ers: 58 8
- 13ers: 266 35
- Trip Reports (12)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
A random 'bump' that might be worth checking just in case is the 13,299 Point near 13,317 in the Sawatch (St. Elmo/Mt. Princeton area roughly). It shows a saddle of 13,000 to 13,040 (average 13,020), thus an estimated prominence of 279'. Probably won't make the cut, but it would seem there is at least a chance.
Climb the mountain so you can see the world, not so the world can see you.
- Chicago Transplant
- Posts: 4013
- Joined: 9/7/2004
- 14ers: 58 12 24
- 13ers: 697 39 34
- Trip Reports (66)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Good call, that was a heartbreaking reclimb. Would be awesome if that turned out to be a 3 13er day.Tornadoman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:41 pm A random 'bump' that might be worth checking just in case is the 13,299 Point near 13,317 in the Sawatch (St. Elmo/Mt. Princeton area roughly). It shows a saddle of 13,000 to 13,040 (average 13,020), thus an estimated prominence of 279'. Probably won't make the cut, but it would seem there is at least a chance.
"We want the unpopular challenge. We want to test our intellect!" - Snapcase
"You are not what you own" - Fugazi
"Life's a mountain not a beach" - Fortune Cookie I got at lunch the other day
"You are not what you own" - Fugazi
"Life's a mountain not a beach" - Fortune Cookie I got at lunch the other day
- cottonmountaineering
- Posts: 849
- Joined: 5/11/2018
- 14ers: 58 7 18
- 13ers: 180 39 31
- Trip Reports (1)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
way cool, looks like ill have a few mountains to do to refinish the bicentennials
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
So it looks like we are net +1 13er after all this. We would still expect maybe a few more demotions from maybe one or two of the lowest 13ers being lowered and final analysis of the borderline peaks once LiDaR is available on the remaining fringe peaks.
Looks like the recap as of now on 13ers changes goes like this -
Replacement - 13510 concedes rank to Telluride
Demoted - Lightning Pyramid, Lenawee, Wood, 13401, Rhoda, Peak Twelve, Milwaukee, Window, 13123, Loma Lisa Mountain, and Cinnamon mountain (11 peaks total)
Promoted - Kendall No2 Benchmark, 13545, Peak Ten, Ellingwood Ridge, Peak Eight (weminuche), 13472, 13555, and 5 12ers were promoted 12990, peak 8 (breck), 12977, Peak R, and Overlook point (12 peaks total)
Anything I'm missing outside of those?
Really curious to see if Dallas will remain a centennial and it looks like the Bicent list is nearly able to be dialed in as well now that there is likely no more subtractions or additions to the top 200 (pending what happens with Challenger).
Sorry for my ignorance but I'm curious as to where this all goes from here. Obviously John and Bill can eventually update the lists associated with their sites but when would we expect these new elevations etc to show up on future maps? Is there a governing body that makes these changes and updates map elevations etc?
Thanks in advance for any explanation.
Again thanks for the work you guys have been doing! I have been looking forward to reviewing the list almost daily now for a while!
Corey
Looks like the recap as of now on 13ers changes goes like this -
Replacement - 13510 concedes rank to Telluride
Demoted - Lightning Pyramid, Lenawee, Wood, 13401, Rhoda, Peak Twelve, Milwaukee, Window, 13123, Loma Lisa Mountain, and Cinnamon mountain (11 peaks total)
Promoted - Kendall No2 Benchmark, 13545, Peak Ten, Ellingwood Ridge, Peak Eight (weminuche), 13472, 13555, and 5 12ers were promoted 12990, peak 8 (breck), 12977, Peak R, and Overlook point (12 peaks total)
Anything I'm missing outside of those?
Really curious to see if Dallas will remain a centennial and it looks like the Bicent list is nearly able to be dialed in as well now that there is likely no more subtractions or additions to the top 200 (pending what happens with Challenger).
Sorry for my ignorance but I'm curious as to where this all goes from here. Obviously John and Bill can eventually update the lists associated with their sites but when would we expect these new elevations etc to show up on future maps? Is there a governing body that makes these changes and updates map elevations etc?
Thanks in advance for any explanation.
Again thanks for the work you guys have been doing! I have been looking forward to reviewing the list almost daily now for a while!
Corey
- bdloftin77
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: 9/23/2013
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 58
- Trip Reports (2)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Looks like it's definitely above 13,000 feet. Everything that is not gray is above the 13k ft level. This is using class 2/ground only below. I'm confident in saying that it's at least at 13,104', if not the original 13,105'. Lidar didn't seem to pick up the small radio tower much. There were a couple points that did filter out. But putting the high point's coordinates into google earth, the tower appeared to be slightly NE of the high point location that lidar picked up (but within 10-15 ft). The high point below is the lowest of the three dark blue dots.BillMiddlebrook wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:42 pmI was referring to Peak 8 in Summit County, part of the Breckenridge ski area. Looks like it jumped from 12987 to 13005Jon Frohlich wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:38 pmIt looks the one on the Lidar results page is Peak Eight in the San Juans?bdloftin77 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:16 pm
I can double-check Peak 8 to make sure the weather station wasn't included in the elevation. Thanks!
The first imagery is from 10/2015. I see a structure/shadow 15 ft NE of the high point. I believe this is the 8 ft tall radio tower (B).
The second imagery is from 9/2019. I see the same structure/shadow (B), and something else a bit closer (8-9 feet away - A). Not sure what that is. But looks like neither conflicts with the high point's elevation, even if the ground class only still managed to pick up unnatural materials.
- Eli Boardman
- Posts: 662
- Joined: 6/23/2016
- 14ers: 58 1 15
- 13ers: 18 1
- Trip Reports (16)
- Contact:
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
So how does this work with things like FKTs? For instance, the FKT on the centennials would presumably now include a different set of peaks. So, first person to beat the current time (established on the old list) while climbing the new peaks instead? It probably doesn't make much difference in this case, but it's interesting how peak additions/substitutions could potentially alter the character of an established FKT on a hypothetical list.
Further, what is the precedent for handling other types of records, i.e. first winter completion of a given list? Again, not sure if it's directly relevant to the lists in question, but I'm curious how it would work if someone's existing claim was repeated either slower/later on the "correct" peaks, assuming an existing record was completed partially on the "wrong" peaks. I'm sure the FKT community must have a precedent for this sort of situation, right?
Further, what is the precedent for handling other types of records, i.e. first winter completion of a given list? Again, not sure if it's directly relevant to the lists in question, but I'm curious how it would work if someone's existing claim was repeated either slower/later on the "correct" peaks, assuming an existing record was completed partially on the "wrong" peaks. I'm sure the FKT community must have a precedent for this sort of situation, right?
- BillMiddlebrook
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 6918
- Joined: 7/25/2004
- 14ers: 58 46 19
- 13ers: 172 44 37
- Trip Reports (2)
- Contact:
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Excellentbdloftin77 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 9:09 pmLooks like it's definitely above 13,000 feet. Everything that is not gray is above the 13k ft level. This is using class 2/ground only below. I'm confident in saying that it's at least at 13,104', if not the original 13,105'. Lidar didn't seem to pick up the small radio tower much. There were a couple points that did filter out. But putting the high point's coordinates into google earth, the tower appeared to be slightly NE of the high point location that lidar picked up (but within 10-15 ft). The high point below is the lowest of the three dark blue dots.BillMiddlebrook wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:42 pmI was referring to Peak 8 in Summit County, part of the Breckenridge ski area. Looks like it jumped from 12987 to 13005Jon Frohlich wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:38 pm
It looks the one on the Lidar results page is Peak Eight in the San Juans?
The first imagery is from 10/2015. I see a structure/shadow 15 ft NE of the high point. I believe this is the 8 ft tall radio tower (B).
The second imagery is from 9/2019. I see the same structure/shadow (B), and something else a bit closer (8-9 feet away - A). Not sure what that is. But looks like neither conflicts with the high point's elevation, even if the ground class only still managed to pick up unnatural materials.
In the 2nd photo, that is probably a ski patrol sled. Sometimes they leave one on the summit (secured and bottom-side up) for easier access injured skiers.
In all likelihood Peak 8 is now the busiest calendar winter 13er!!
"When I go out, I become more alive. I just love skiing. The gravitational pull. When you ski steep terrain... you can almost get a feeling of flying." -Doug Coombs