Colorado LiDAR Findings

Colorado peak questions, condition requests and other info.
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.
Post Reply
User avatar
Count40
Posts: 55
Joined: 8/14/2011
14ers: 45  4 
13ers: 37
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Count40 »

It is so good and reassuring to see that OCD and bureaucracy are alive and healthy in dem hilz.
Perhaps, it would be good to take a few steps away from the picture to see it better.
And, perhaps, how about .....just walking.
dhgold
Posts: 67
Joined: 6/8/2012
Trip Reports (10)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by dhgold »

Count40 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:16 pm It is so good and reassuring to see that OCD and bureaucracy are alive and healthy in dem hilz.
Perhaps, it would be good to take a few steps away from the picture to see it better.
And, perhaps, how about .....just walking.
While normally I have the forbearance to let sleeping trolls lie, in this case, I can't help but observe that of the 349 posts of this thread, this one is for my money, the most obnoxious, most pointless, and least constructive.
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 781
Joined: 10/14/2009
14ers: 58  7 
13ers: 777 76
Trip Reports (40)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Boggy B »

Count40 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:16 pm It is so good and reassuring to see that OCD and bureaucracy are alive and healthy in dem hilz.
Perhaps, it would be good to take a few steps away from the picture to see it better.
And, perhaps, how about .....just walking.
As it turns out, the more you walk the more you care.
User avatar
Candace66
Posts: 255
Joined: 1/23/2017
14ers: 42  1 
13ers: 207 3
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Candace66 »

Count40 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:16 pm ...And, perhaps, how about .....just walking.
Yet, you are tracking and publicizing your progress on elevation-based lists (13ers and 14ers). *shrug*
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

For ease of viewing, I added another new list called Colorado Newly Demoted Peaks (LiDAR Analysis)

Newly ranked: https://listsofjohn.com/customlists?lid=2298
Newly demoted: https://listsofjohn.com/customlists?lid=2354

For now, they have the old elevations. I might add columns with new elevations/prominences at some point.
LiDAR Rank Status Changes
LiDAR Rank Status Changes
LiDAR Rank Status Changes.png (22.16 KiB) Viewed 1965 times
User avatar
lukePlumley
Posts: 79
Joined: 8/14/2007
14ers: 52 
13ers: 232
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by lukePlumley »

Please add the Noddle Heads to these lists Ben. North became ranked and South was demoted on Nov 7.

Thank you!
"Ain't nothing to it, Listsofjohn made me do it!" -- Ice Cube
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

lukePlumley wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 6:51 pm Please add the Noddle Heads to these lists Ben. North became ranked and South was demoted on Nov 7.

Thank you!
Will do, thanks!
User avatar
KentonB
Posts: 713
Joined: 5/13/2007
14ers: 58 
13ers: 56
Trip Reports (3)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by KentonB »

bdloftin77 wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:14 pm For ease of viewing, I added another new list called Colorado Newly Demoted Peaks (LiDAR Analysis)

Newly ranked: https://listsofjohn.com/customlists?lid=2298
Newly demoted: https://listsofjohn.com/customlists?lid=2354

For now, they have the old elevations. I might add columns with new elevations/prominences at some point.

LiDAR Rank Status Changes.png
Just saw that Point 8385 in Douglas County is ranked. Wow. I drove right by that one. Thought about doing it, but it was near the end of a long day. Looks like I'll have to go back! :-D
User avatar
RyanSchilling
Posts: 171
Joined: 1/18/2005
14ers: 58 
13ers: 249
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by RyanSchilling »

Got my hands on LIDAR data for some of RMNP. I've handed off to John, but some findings of note:

• 12277: new ranked 12er (elev 12303, saddle 11999)
• Longs: maintains rank 15 ahead of Mt Wilson; elevation 14259', prominence TBD
• Meeker: elevation 13916', prominence 453'
• Sharkstooth: nearly 100-feet lower than previously indicated; elevation 12531', prominence 395'
• Mt Lady Washington: demoted (279' of rise); saddle is at 12998'
• Storm Pk: summit is the closed contour closest to The Keyhole; elevation 13328'
• Powell Peak: summit is a point on summit ridge nearer McHenrys Notch; elevation 13197'
• Petit Grepon & Pen Knife: near identical elevations (readings are within margin of error -- just 1 cm difference); elevation 12105'
• "Hiamovi Tower": a demotion candidate after losing nearly 20' from its interpolated summit elevation; saddle data was unavailable

EDIT: Noted the wrong 12er for promotion! Ben made a compelling case for a lower elevation for Longs than my initial finding. This places Longs at 14,259'
Last edited by RyanSchilling on Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:30 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

RyanSchilling wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:27 pm Got my hands on LIDAR data for some of RMNP. I've handed off to John, but some findings of note:

• Ooh La La!: new ranked 12er
• Longs: maintains rank 15 ahead of Mt Wilson; elevation 14261', prominence TBD
• Meeker: elevation 13916', prominence 453'
• Sharkstooth: nearly 100-feet lower than previously indicated; elevation 12531', prominence 395'
• Mt Lady Washington: demoted (279' of rise); saddle is at 12998'
• Storm Pk: summit is the closed contour closest to The Keyhole; elevation 13328'
• Powell Peak: summit is a point on summit ridge nearer McHenrys Notch; elevation 13197'
• Petit Grepon & Pen Knife: near identical elevations (readings are within margin of error -- just 1 cm difference); elevation 12105'
• "Hiamovi Tower": a demotion candidate after losing nearly 20' from its interpolated summit elevation; saddle data was unavailable
Thanks for posting! Where’d you find this data? I didn’t think TNM had northern Colorado data yet. Exciting!
User avatar
RyanSchilling
Posts: 171
Joined: 1/18/2005
14ers: 58 
13ers: 249
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by RyanSchilling »

bdloftin77 wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:35 pm Thanks for posting! Where’d you find this data? I didn’t think TNM had northern Colorado data yet. Exciting!
I put in a request a few weeks ago with the OIT's GIS team, and they got back to me this week. They explained that the CO Hazard map doesn't fully represent their available coverage. They supplied this link instead:

https://arcg.is/0SLj5y
User avatar
Candace66
Posts: 255
Joined: 1/23/2017
14ers: 42  1 
13ers: 207 3
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Candace66 »

RyanSchilling wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:27 pm
• Storm Pk: summit is the closed contour closest to The Keyhole; elevation 13328'
How much higher is that point than the point marked by the 13326 spot elevation? In fact, exactly where is the Lidar summit?
Post Reply