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
ChrisinAZ
Posts: 437
Joined: 8/11/2010
14ers: 58  14 
13ers: 36
Trip Reports (12)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by ChrisinAZ »

bdloftin77 wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 1:28 pm Colorado county highpointers:

Many of the eastern county high points remain in similar locations. Three have changed by a decent amount, however.

Phillips County High Point: Now 2.22 miles south of the old LoJ location, at 40.5128,-102.6651 and 6 feet higher than the previous location

"Bledsoe Windmill": Now 0.22 miles east of the old LoJ location, at 39.0588,-103.1578. It's on a slight rise on the easternmost of the three closed contours, and is 3 feet higher than the previous location.

"Selenite Bluff": Now 0.16 miles southwest of the old LoJ location at 38.5166,-103.2674. It's on the eastern edge of the southwest closed contour, and is 2 feet higher than the previous location.

I visited the Phillips location previously, but will be returning to pick up Bledsoe Windmill and Selenite Bluff.

Elbert Rock's location is slightly south of the previous one (it'll be coming out soon: 39.13043,-104.63800). I didn't quite hit it on the way, so I'll be revisiting that one as well. The new location is within vertical foot of the old, and many people probably visited this on the way to the previous LoJ location.

Shannon Benchmark is more centered in the contour and not actually on the benchmark (40.4981,-104.0519), but many people probably visited this on the way to the previous LoJ spot.
Luckily, looks like I covered my bases well with all of these and shouldn't need to go back (I visited all the county line candidates for Phillips, and all the contours for the others).

However, one I'd be highly interested to see is Hesperus vs Lavender in far southwest Montezuma County. Supposedly Hesperus measures higher, but I never did climb Lavender and would have to go back for it if it's indeed higher...
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason."
— Jack Handy


Mah peaks
User avatar
mike offerman
Posts: 210
Joined: 8/9/2005
14ers: 58 
13ers: 189
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by mike offerman »

ChrisinAZ wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:17 am Hesperus vs Lavender
Looks like they checked that one out already, still Hesperus.

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

113 Hesperus Mountain 13,232' 10,380' 2,852' 13,238' n/a n/a CO Montezuma La Plata TNM Oct 31 2021 John Kirk
114 Lavender Peak 13,220' 12,820' 400' 13,234' 12,860' 374' CO Montezuma La Plata TNM Oct 31 2021 John Kirk
User avatar
13erRetriever
Posts: 18
Joined: 2/1/2017
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 164 1 6
Trip Reports (15)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by 13erRetriever »

What about Grand Turk true summit? I did this group yesterday and it felt to me like the middle bump of the group of three was highest. Register is on the far right/east bump.
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

Dobsons wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:47 pm Me and a few buddies did QRST this past summer. I do not recall any cairns or certainly nothing of significance. I attached a few shots, hopefully that helps. There is a spot in the direction of the west partner east partner saddle that seemed like it could be higher but it definitely wasn't and the shot with both my friends on the summit is looking back at the high point.
Thank you! Since those look like natural rocks, I won't exclude them. We've been rounding to the nearest foot for summits and saddles. This one hits 12,999.761 feet. That's three inches shy of being a 13er. Since lidar might have missed the very highest point anyways, I feel okay with calling this Colorado's new lowest 13er! (at least until the new elevation datum rolls around and possibly do a mass-update on peak elevations).
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

13erRetriever wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:52 am What about Grand Turk true summit? I did this group yesterday and it felt to me like the middle bump of the group of three was highest. Register is on the far right/east bump.
Looks like it’s in the same general location, on the middle bump. I sent this to John.
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

LetsGoMets wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:04 am Any ability to check Bi-centennial 13,712? I was up there yesterday and my GPS measurements where extremely close to should not be ranked.
I found it to be ranked at 322’. Sent this to John.
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

Jon Frohlich wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:39 am Anyone checked Hagar and The Citadel? Both aren't ranked by much and I'm curious which summit of The Citadel is actually higher.
I attempted to analyze those, but lidar for the summit of one and the saddle of the other isn't yet available for download.
User avatar
LetsGoMets
Posts: 394
Joined: 9/9/2012
14ers: 58  5 
13ers: 132 6
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by LetsGoMets »

bdloftin77 wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:31 pm
LetsGoMets wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:04 am Any ability to check Bi-centennial 13,712? I was up there yesterday and my GPS measurements where extremely close to should not be ranked.
I found it to be ranked at 322’. Sent this to John.
Appreciate you for doing all this, thanks!
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 »

I just checked the LOJ Lidar Analysis page for updates. I was interested to see that "Window Peak" (neighbor of Rio Grande Pyramid) has been demoted.

I still hope to bag RG Pyramid some day! Now I have one less reason to extend the outing to include "Window Peak." :mrgreen:

https://listsofjohn.com/lidar/lidar.php
User avatar
jkirk
Posts: 65
Joined: 7/19/2005
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by jkirk »

Chicago Transplant wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 am What I found interesting and seems to not caught anyone's attention in this thread yet is that Eolus is higher than Windom under the LiDAR analysis. This is different than field surveys which noted the following on LOJ's Windom page:
Windom Peak has been determined higher than Eolus via survey-grade GPS, as well as the fact that summit block is 5' higher than benchmark.


So now with LiDAR, Eolus is coming in 5' higher than Windom, making Eolus the LaPlata county highpoint again. Did LiDAR miss Windom's summit block?

Also Whitney in the HCW, the technical summit block has been leveled higher by numerous parties, and is noted as such on LOJ:
Eastern end of contour has a 8' block that levels much higher than the spot elevation 13271. Elevation is interpolation of 13271 spot elevation and next higher contour (13280). 1949 Quadrangle accurately depicts east end of contour as the highpoint.
Now LiDAR is saying the western non-technical summit is actually the higher one. Did LiDAR miss the boulder on the east?
I fat-fingered some pasting for Eolus and Windom, replacing a new elevation value with Windom's old one from the original table. Whitney I found the summit block to the east to be higher but updated my upload sheet after replacing the values in the analysis template with results from a different tile for the west summit which was found to be lower. Ben did the extra legwork on the saddles for these and rechecked the summits; should all be reflected on the LiDAR analysis page properly now.
User avatar
Chicago Transplant
Posts: 4008
Joined: 9/7/2004
14ers: 58  12  24 
13ers: 697 39 34
Trip Reports (66)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Chicago Transplant »

jkirk wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 4:08 pm
Chicago Transplant wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 am What I found interesting and seems to not caught anyone's attention in this thread yet is that Eolus is higher than Windom under the LiDAR analysis. This is different than field surveys which noted the following on LOJ's Windom page:
Windom Peak has been determined higher than Eolus via survey-grade GPS, as well as the fact that summit block is 5' higher than benchmark.


So now with LiDAR, Eolus is coming in 5' higher than Windom, making Eolus the LaPlata county highpoint again. Did LiDAR miss Windom's summit block?

Also Whitney in the HCW, the technical summit block has been leveled higher by numerous parties, and is noted as such on LOJ:
Eastern end of contour has a 8' block that levels much higher than the spot elevation 13271. Elevation is interpolation of 13271 spot elevation and next higher contour (13280). 1949 Quadrangle accurately depicts east end of contour as the highpoint.
Now LiDAR is saying the western non-technical summit is actually the higher one. Did LiDAR miss the boulder on the east?
I fat-fingered some pasting for Eolus and Windom, replacing a new elevation value with Windom's old one from the original table. Whitney I found the summit block to the east to be higher but updated my upload sheet after replacing the values in the analysis template with results from a different tile for the west summit which was found to be lower. Ben did the extra legwork on the saddles for these and rechecked the summits; should all be reflected on the LiDAR analysis page properly now.
Thanks John! Keep up the good work, Ben too.

I am super excited to see a few 12ers promoted, 12977 and Peak 8 - welcome to the 13ers. I of course am also very happy Grand Traverse maintained its ranked status. 8)
Still sad to see so many 13ers dropping off the ranked list, but they seem to be replaced in higher numbers so far so the list is growing!
"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
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

[/quote]
Thanks John! Keep up the good work, Ben too.
[/quote]

Thank you! Though many might believe otherwise, John's not a robot (and I'm not either). Fortunately with so many eyes, we're able to catch things like this. John caught a couple fat finger errors in my latest submission - I'm re-checking over everything else I submitted in the last bunch to make sure it all matches what I found in the lidar.

Lavender also moved slightly from the east contour to the west one, and is a mere foot lower than Hesperus (but still lower!).
Post Reply