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
supranihilest
Posts: 719
Joined: 6/29/2015
14ers: 58  42 
13ers: 709 1 8
Trip Reports (112)
 
Contact:

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by supranihilest »

Candace66 wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:28 pmSo, there are bolts and a summit rappel anchor on the "Western Mountaineers" route, according to that description.
I noticed that too. I thought bolting was illegal in wilderness areas because it permanently alters the natural rock features. Can someone in the know confirm/deny/clarify the regulations?
Last edited by supranihilest on Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dpage
Posts: 924
Joined: 7/4/2009
14ers: 58  2 
13ers: 28 3
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by dpage »

Candace66 wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:28 pm
Not sure if I was ever aware of that website. But it looks to be class 4+ and bouldering routes, so not the sort of thing I do anymore. :)
[/quote]

It says 5.10 R which is very far away from class 4 anything.
User avatar
dpage
Posts: 924
Joined: 7/4/2009
14ers: 58  2 
13ers: 28 3
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by dpage »

supranihilest wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:51 pm
Candace66 wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:28 pmSo, there are bolts and a summit rappel anchor on the "Western Mountaineers" route, according to that description.
I noticed that too. I thought bolting was illegal in wilderness areas because it permanently alters the natural rock features. Can someone in the know confirm/deny/clarify the regulations?
https://www.accessfund.org/news-and-eve ... bing-bolts
User avatar
supranihilest
Posts: 719
Joined: 6/29/2015
14ers: 58  42 
13ers: 709 1 8
Trip Reports (112)
 
Contact:

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by supranihilest »

dpage wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 7:02 pm
supranihilest wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:51 pm
Candace66 wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:28 pmSo, there are bolts and a summit rappel anchor on the "Western Mountaineers" route, according to that description.
I noticed that too. I thought bolting was illegal in wilderness areas because it permanently alters the natural rock features. Can someone in the know confirm/deny/clarify the regulations?
https://www.accessfund.org/news-and-eve ... bing-bolts
So the super short version is its a legal gray area. In the case of the West Elk Wilderness what are the regs, if any?
User avatar
supranihilest
Posts: 719
Joined: 6/29/2015
14ers: 58  42 
13ers: 709 1 8
Trip Reports (112)
 
Contact:

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by supranihilest »

Ben, would you mind also checking the true summit of "Fortress Peak"? There's a sinuous dirt/chalk ridge off the commonly accepted summit that's about a foot wide, 50 horizontal feet long, and looks like it's just barely higher than the summit. It looks utterly horrific and I can't imagine it's even climbable but it's so close to the same elevation I think it warrants a check. Maybe someone else has already hand leveled it and determined it's lower. I neglected to take any photos of it this year but John Paul of LoJ was up there with me and agreed - it could be higher. I'm tempted to climb Fortress again just to get a second look at it, it's just that close, within a few feet at most. Maybe it'll collapse at some point and render my query irrelevant...

Edit: I think I found a pic in Floyd's TR. It's the big rectangular block on the right, but it's deceiving because it's only about a foot thick perpendicular to the width of the rectangle. The tiny person is standing on the summit as we currently know it.
Image

The feature I'm talking about is not the pointy nubbin seen below the summit on the standard route. That point (seen here from Allie's/13erRetriever's TR from below) is clearly lower than the summit.
Image
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

CheapCigarMan wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 2:00 pm I'm thinking that as information becomes "official" it should be updated. Perhaps once per time increment (monthly, quarterly, .....).
What type of workload would that create? What's realistic?
From a consumer (those of us that consume this data) standpoint it might be frustrating when visiting the site one day then finds the data has changed when the site is revisited on a later date. Perhaps an explanation on the home page with an explanation.
I talked with John. He said he'll probably add full results to the peak pages when he can finish available areas by 1,000 ft elevation increments or full counties (as outlined before in a three-phase approach - soft ranks first, error range second, then everything else). He's been super busy with a new job lately.

Though they're not on the peak pages, he has added new info to the lidar page - check it out!
https://listsofjohn.com/lidar/lidar.php?

Some of the peaks I've looked at for 14ers.com members (eg Thunder Pyramid, Lightning Pyramid, and Mt Champion) I haven't yet sent him the new elevations/coordinates - I'll send those soon. (I'd found elevations for this forum, but didn't send him new coordinates).
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

Some results:

El Paso and Teller county soft-ranks have been analyzed!

The two new ranked peaks in El Paso are Cascade Mountain (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/3720) and Goat Mountain (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/4710). The two new Teller peaks are Sentinel Point (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/1277) and The Crags (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/2479).

For county high point seekers, you can breath a sigh of relief concerning Montezuma county if you only did Hesperus - Hesperus is higher than Lavender.

High Dune is ranked, Star is not. We're looking at 8860 right now, but it's likely not ranked.

Mt. Bross is ranked.

T10 and 13253 results are listed. Noddle Heads North is higher than South by 10'.
Last edited by bdloftin77 on Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:08 am, edited 1 time 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 »

supranihilest wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 5:19 pm Ben, would you mind also checking the true summit of "Fortress Peak"? There's a sinuous dirt/chalk ridge off the commonly accepted summit that's about a foot wide, 50 horizontal feet long, and looks like it's just barely higher than the summit. It looks utterly horrific and I can't imagine it's even climbable but it's so close to the same elevation I think it warrants a check. Maybe someone else has already hand leveled it and determined it's lower. I neglected to take any photos of it this year but John Paul of LoJ was up there with me and agreed - it could be higher. I'm tempted to climb Fortress again just to get a second look at it, it's just that close, within a few feet at most. Maybe it'll collapse at some point and render my query irrelevant...

Edit: I think I found a pic in Floyd's TR. It's the big rectangular block on the right, but it's deceiving because it's only about a foot thick perpendicular to the width of the rectangle. The tiny person is standing on the summit as we currently know it.

The feature I'm talking about is not the pointy nubbin seen below the summit on the standard route. That point (seen here from Allie's/13erRetriever's TR from below) is clearly lower than the summit.
Sure, I'll take a look! What direction is the photographer facing with your first/large picture?
Scott P wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 6:10 pm There are three I am curious about, but they aren't major peaks.

1. Traditionally and in guidebooks and other peak lists, the summit of Perkins Peak is considered to be the spot 7491. Listsofjohn has it listed as the interpolated point 7500:

https://listsofjohn.com/mapf?lat=40.747 ... 15&d=y&d=r

Since this is a peak I used to frequent, I'd be really curious. Personally I believe the LoJ point marked to be the true summit.

2. Here is a peak that I have done 99 times, but I'm skeptical that the highest point on LOJ is correct:

https://listsofjohn.com/peak/6564

I believe that it is slightly to the east. I brought this up on the forum, but someone said that they hand leveled it. Standing on both points, I'm skeptical.

3. When I climbed this one with my friends, his GPS on the ascent and descent indicated that this peak should be ranked:

https://listsofjohn.com/peak/6280

Of course GPS can vary, but since the results on both the ascent and descent indicated that it was ranked, I do wonder. LoJ has a note that says: May be ranked if spot elevation 6223 at the saddle is not the lowpoint.

I'd be really curious, but since it's in Moffat County, maybe LiDAR isn't available?
I'll take a look at these.
DArcyS wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:14 am Huerfanito might warrant a looksie, kind of wondering about the point to the NE of what is recognized as the summit at 13,081'.

huerfanito.PNG
The point to the NE is higher. I'll send that to John soon.
Tufftommy-BV wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 6:29 am Right now peaks 198 to 202 are all “tied” at 13580’ of elevation. Any idea how they really rank? I also assume that some soft peaks will come in above them to further alter the bicentennial list…. Thanks for posting this stuff - fascinating to follow. TT
Slowly crunching through the available ones.
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 »

bdloftin77 wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:33 am
supranihilest wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 5:19 pm Ben, would you mind also checking the true summit of "Fortress Peak"? There's a sinuous dirt/chalk ridge off the commonly accepted summit that's about a foot wide, 50 horizontal feet long, and looks like it's just barely higher than the summit. It looks utterly horrific and I can't imagine it's even climbable but it's so close to the same elevation I think it warrants a check. Maybe someone else has already hand leveled it and determined it's lower. I neglected to take any photos of it this year but John Paul of LoJ was up there with me and agreed - it could be higher. I'm tempted to climb Fortress again just to get a second look at it, it's just that close, within a few feet at most. Maybe it'll collapse at some point and render my query irrelevant...

Edit: I think I found a pic in Floyd's TR. It's the big rectangular block on the right, but it's deceiving because it's only about a foot thick perpendicular to the width of the rectangle. The tiny person is standing on the summit as we currently know it.

The feature I'm talking about is not the pointy nubbin seen below the summit on the standard route. That point (seen here from Allie's/13erRetriever's TR from below) is clearly lower than the summit.
Sure, I'll take a look! What direction is the photographer facing with your first/large picture?
I was on that trip, that picture was coming off the NE ridge in an attempt to traverse high to Precipice. I may have some other pictures at home, the block in question would be to the west of the currently accepted summit.
"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
supranihilest
Posts: 719
Joined: 6/29/2015
14ers: 58  42 
13ers: 709 1 8
Trip Reports (112)
 
Contact:

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by supranihilest »

Chicago Transplant wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:46 am
bdloftin77 wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:33 am
supranihilest wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 5:19 pm Ben, would you mind also checking the true summit of "Fortress Peak"? There's a sinuous dirt/chalk ridge off the commonly accepted summit that's about a foot wide, 50 horizontal feet long, and looks like it's just barely higher than the summit. It looks utterly horrific and I can't imagine it's even climbable but it's so close to the same elevation I think it warrants a check. Maybe someone else has already hand leveled it and determined it's lower. I neglected to take any photos of it this year but John Paul of LoJ was up there with me and agreed - it could be higher. I'm tempted to climb Fortress again just to get a second look at it, it's just that close, within a few feet at most. Maybe it'll collapse at some point and render my query irrelevant...

Edit: I think I found a pic in Floyd's TR. It's the big rectangular block on the right, but it's deceiving because it's only about a foot thick perpendicular to the width of the rectangle. The tiny person is standing on the summit as we currently know it.

The feature I'm talking about is not the pointy nubbin seen below the summit on the standard route. That point (seen here from Allie's/13erRetriever's TR from below) is clearly lower than the summit.
Sure, I'll take a look! What direction is the photographer facing with your first/large picture?
I was on that trip, that picture was coming off the NE ridge in an attempt to traverse high to Precipice. I may have some other pictures at home, the block in question would be to the west of the currently accepted summit.
Yep, the block is somewhere in the northwest quadrant when standing on the summit. The photo was taken north of the summit looking roughly south, so the block is about west-northwest of the summit.
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

Chicago Transplant wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:46 am I was on that trip, that picture was coming off the NE ridge in an attempt to traverse high to Precipice. I may have some other pictures at home, the block in question would be to the west of the currently accepted summit.
supranihilest wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:35 am
Chicago Transplant wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:46 am I was on that trip, that picture was coming off the NE ridge in an attempt to traverse high to Precipice. I may have some other pictures at home, the block in question would be to the west of the currently accepted summit.
Yep, the block is somewhere in the northwest quadrant when standing on the summit. The photo was taken north of the summit looking roughly south, so the block is about west-northwest of the summit.
Thanks, guys! That'll be helpful. There's at least a chance lidar would pick up the top of the ridge. Might miss some parts as well though, if it's similar to W Eolus.
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: Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:31 am Some results:

El Paso and Teller county soft-ranks have been analyzed!

The two new ranked peaks in El Paso are Cascade Mountain (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/3720) and Goat Mountain (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/4710). The two new Teller peaks are Sentinel Point (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/1277) and The Crags (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/2479).
Thanks Ben! It looks like I made the right call climbing Cascade, Goat, and Sentinel a few years back! I'll have to bring a ladder to get The Crags. Out of curiosity, do you know which of the 3 "bumps" on Goat Mountain is the highest? I did all 3 to make sure, but I've always wondered. I'm a little disappointed that Point 9500 wasn't ranked. I've already completed the grid on that one.

Also, I noticed for 8100 (unranked El Paso peak), the Lidar prominence is 267'... which is exactly what I calculated using GPS in my LoJ Trip Report... Woo Hoo! Called it back in 2012! ;-)
Post Reply