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.
- bdloftin77
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: 9/23/2013
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 58
- Trip Reports (2)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
For those who asked about lidar-based contour maps...
The USGS is doing a pilot study on custom auto-generated contour maps (though probably not including the newly analyzed peak spot elevations that we've been working on, now shown in LoJ). For a limited time, they're offering a free "on demand custom topographic map builder." They will be created from the "best available National Map data, cartography, and standards." This probably includes lidar-based DEMs (class 2 ground points) where that data is available.
Here's a link to the main page: https://www.usgs.gov/news/technical-ann ... aphic-maps
And here's a link to the topoBuilder applicaton: https://topobuilder.nationalmap.gov/
Enjoy!
The USGS is doing a pilot study on custom auto-generated contour maps (though probably not including the newly analyzed peak spot elevations that we've been working on, now shown in LoJ). For a limited time, they're offering a free "on demand custom topographic map builder." They will be created from the "best available National Map data, cartography, and standards." This probably includes lidar-based DEMs (class 2 ground points) where that data is available.
Here's a link to the main page: https://www.usgs.gov/news/technical-ann ... aphic-maps
And here's a link to the topoBuilder applicaton: https://topobuilder.nationalmap.gov/
Enjoy!
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Thanks Ben!bdloftin77 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:19 pm I looked at Hayden, Middle Mountain, and Little Baldy recently. None cross the 13k mark. The next closest officially named 12er is now West Sheridan at 12,962'. It's unlikely that it's above 13k ft. Yeah, we tried to cover the map P280-299 ones as best as we could.
I'll also be checking some more 13ers near the Centennial and Bicentennial boundaries to make sure there aren't any further changes with those lists. Arkansas, 13975, and Garfield are not in the highest 100. It's also unlikely that 13768 is in the top 100. John's on a trip right now, so LoJ hasn't yet been updated with these results yet.
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Was Clark the only bicent to be knocked off?
- Tornadoman
- Posts: 1438
- Joined: 7/30/2007
- 14ers: 58 8
- 13ers: 266 35
- Trip Reports (12)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Here's what I see at a quick look although I might be missing something.
Wood Mountain (Not Ranked)
Lightning Pyramid (Not Ranked)
13,580A- San Juans- Now 13,573- Demoted
13,580B- Sangres- Now 13,543- Demoted
Mt. Powell Gore- (13,556')- Demoted
Also, Clark is at 13,579 and tied with Rosalie in elevation at the 200 mark. I think most Bicent chasers would want to include Clark still.
Climb the mountain so you can see the world, not so the world can see you.
- climbingcue
- Posts: 994
- Joined: 10/11/2011
- 14ers: 58 8 27
- 13ers: 319 23 11
- Trip Reports (0)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
The updated Colorado top 200 peaks on listsofjohn does not have Clark listed as being in the 200 highest. I am still planning on climbing it, being dropped does not change that.Tornadoman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 12:15 pmHere's what I see at a quick look although I might be missing something.
Wood Mountain (Not Ranked)
Lightning Pyramid (Not Ranked)
13,580A- San Juans- Now 13,573- Demoted
13,580B- Sangres- Now 13,543- Demoted
Mt. Powell Gore- (13,556')- Demoted
Also, Clark is at 13,579 and tied with Rosalie in elevation at the 200 mark. I think most Bicent chasers would want to include Clark still.
Bill
Consecutive months with at least one 13er or 14er, 73 months
- bdloftin77
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: 9/23/2013
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 58
- Trip Reports (2)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Yeah, the only reason Clark is listed lower than Rosalie is because it’s less prominent (peaks are listed in order of descending elevation, then prominence, then isolation). So still tied for the highest 200th peak.Tornadoman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 12:15 pm Also, Clark is at 13,579 and tied with Rosalie in elevation at the 200 mark. I think most Bicent chasers would want to include Clark still.
Gibbs had a big cairn that was excluded, otherwise it would be listed a few feet higher.
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
.
Last edited by Skimo95 on Wed Aug 17, 2022 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mtnman200
- Posts: 1113
- Joined: 9/26/2012
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 440
- Trip Reports (85)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Here's what's changed for bicentennial chasers. Feel free to correct me if necessary.
No longer ranked:
Challenger Point (14,086'; was 14,081')
Lightning Pyramid (13,729'; was 13,722')
Wood Mountain (13,682'; was 13,660')
No longer unranked:
North Maroon Peak (14,022'; was 14,014')
Summit moved:
Unnamed 13,660's summit is now 13,656' and has moved down the ridge toward Ellingwood Point
Promoted to bicentennials:
Mt. Parnassus (13,580'; was 13,574')
Rosalie Peak (13,579'; was 13,575'); tied with Clark Peak (13,579'; was 13,580'), which remains a bicentennial
Mt. Evans B (13,591'; was 13,577')
West Apostle (13,597'; was 13,568')
Demoted to tricentennials:
Unnamed 13,573' (was 13,580'); near Pole Creek Mtn.
Unnamed 13,543' (was 13,580'); near Mt. Adams
Mt. Powell (13,556'; was 13,580')
"Adventure without risk is not possible." - Reinhold Messner
- Bigfoot
- Posts: 63
- Joined: 6/25/2008
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 19
- Trip Reports (0)
- Contact:
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
I seem to remember that the summit of Mt. Buckskin moved as well.
- dwoodward13
- Posts: 746
- Joined: 3/26/2011
- 14ers: 58 12
- 13ers: 157 6
- Trip Reports (1)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
- Mtnman200
- Posts: 1113
- Joined: 9/26/2012
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 440
- Trip Reports (85)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Thanks to Bigfoot for catching that, and thanks to Davis for providing confirmation. Essentially, LIDAR showed that what used to be Buckskin's false summit is actually the true summit. (The former true summit is shown as 13,865' on the topo map.)dwoodward13 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 4:39 pmYes. It moved from the marked summit to the high mark further to the west.
"Adventure without risk is not possible." - Reinhold Messner
- XterraRob
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: 7/20/2015
- 14ers: 42 7
- 13ers: 14
- Trip Reports (4)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Does anyone have a copy of the Save Sunshine picture featuring the Chinook?
RIP - M56
Re-introduce Grizzly Bears into the Colorado Wilderness™
Re-introduce Grizzly Bears into the Colorado Wilderness™