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
Mtnman200
Posts: 1112
Joined: 9/26/2012
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 440
Trip Reports (85)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Mtnman200 »

Tornadoman wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:38 am
Tufftommy-BV wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:28 am LiDAR says “Lightning Pyramid “ has been demoted to unofficially named sub-peak of barely ranked Thunder Pyramid. Too bad that didn’t happen before I ventured up that garbage gully late this past summer! Going up - and down (which is how I did come down) - the white gully would have been much more enjoyable. 💩💩
I wanted nothing to do with Lightning Pyramid, I briefly considered it this year and am now glad I held off!
I’ve done the Lightning/Thunder combo twice and enjoyed it both times. Sounds like I’m in the minority here!
"Adventure without risk is not possible." - Reinhold Messner
DaveLanders
Posts: 532
Joined: 3/7/2009
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by DaveLanders »

Mtnman200 wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:40 am
Tornadoman wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:38 am
Tufftommy-BV wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:28 am LiDAR says “Lightning Pyramid “ has been demoted to unofficially named sub-peak of barely ranked Thunder Pyramid. Too bad that didn’t happen before I ventured up that garbage gully late this past summer! Going up - and down (which is how I did come down) - the white gully would have been much more enjoyable. 💩💩
I wanted nothing to do with Lightning Pyramid, I briefly considered it this year and am now glad I held off!
I’ve done the Lightning/Thunder combo twice and enjoyed it both times. Sounds like I’m in the minority here!
I also enjoyed that climb, but I did it early enough in the summer that the gully was still full of snow.
Every village has at least one idiot. Successful villages choose someone else to be their leader.
User avatar
Tornadoman
Posts: 1438
Joined: 7/30/2007
14ers: 58  8 
13ers: 266 35
Trip Reports (12)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Tornadoman »

It looks like some changes at the bottom of the BiCentennial list for the peaks at 13,580!

Mt. Powell-- 13,556
Clark Peak-- 13,579
Twin Peaks (North)-- 13,584
UN 13,580 (San Juans) -- Now 13,573
UN 13,580 (Sangres)-- No Info Yet...

Also of note for the Bi List-- Mt. Parnassus has gone from 13,574 to 13,580.

For the Peaks that were listed at 13,581 previously.
Emma is now at 13,592
UN 13,581 is now 13,587

I'd be interested in seeing the results for 13,580 in the Sangres, as well as Chiefs Head, UN 13,577 (if that's even ranked- have my doubts), and Evans B to see how those shake out.
Climb the mountain so you can see the world, not so the world can see you.
User avatar
Tufftommy-BV
Posts: 66
Joined: 4/22/2017
14ers: 57  4 
13ers: 509
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Tufftommy-BV »

And as previously mentioned by Ben it’s doubtful that Challenger is a ranked 14er so that would change the bi list as well…

Doing the Lightning gully with snow would be the way to go! Didn’t mind being up on the ridge but getting there was, um, “loose”.
Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted....
User avatar
Salient
Posts: 178
Joined: 2/19/2021
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Salient »

Tufftommy-BV wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:20 pm And as previously mentioned by Ben it’s doubtful that Challenger is a ranked 14er so that would change the bi list as well…

Doing the Lightning gully with snow would be the way to go! Didn’t mind being up on the ridge but getting there was, um, “loose”.
I’m sure a lot of people would be happy to see Challenger Point crossed off the list of 14ers. I to am doubtful of its current 301’ of prominence. I think it’s a bit lower.
Be the best you that you can be.
User avatar
CaptainSuburbia
Posts: 1101
Joined: 10/7/2017
14ers: 58  35 
13ers: 125 9
Trip Reports (44)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by CaptainSuburbia »

Salient wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:00 pm
Tufftommy-BV wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:20 pm And as previously mentioned by Ben it’s doubtful that Challenger is a ranked 14er so that would change the bi list as well…

Doing the Lightning gully with snow would be the way to go! Didn’t mind being up on the ridge but getting there was, um, “loose”.
I’m sure a lot of people would be happy to see Challenger Point crossed off the list of 14ers. I to am doubtful of its current 301’ of prominence. I think it’s a bit lower.
20211120_222323.jpg
20211120_222323.jpg (116.04 KiB) Viewed 2095 times
Some day our kids will study Clash lyrics in school.
Nothing drives people crazy like people drive people crazy.
Save Challenger Point
User avatar
Bean
Posts: 2757
Joined: 11/2/2005
14ers: 45  45  10 
13ers: 9 4
Trip Reports (27)
 
Contact:

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Bean »

Interesting that "North Massive," having never been its own 14er under any standard, continues to not be its own 14er regardless of what time of year someone chooses to walk over to it.
"There are no hard 14ers, but some are easier than others." - Scott P
http://throughpolarizedeyes.com
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

Tornadoman wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:44 am It looks like some changes at the bottom of the BiCentennial list for the peaks at 13,580!

Mt. Powell-- 13,556
Clark Peak-- 13,579
Twin Peaks (North)-- 13,584
UN 13,580 (San Juans) -- Now 13,573
UN 13,580 (Sangres)-- No Info Yet...

Also of note for the Bi List-- Mt. Parnassus has gone from 13,574 to 13,580.

For the Peaks that were listed at 13,581 previously.
Emma is now at 13,592
UN 13,581 is now 13,587

I'd be interested in seeing the results for 13,580 in the Sangres, as well as Chiefs Head, UN 13,577 (if that's even ranked- have my doubts), and Evans B to see how those shake out.
I've taken a look at the low end of the Bicentennials. There is not yet lidar data available for Chief's Head, otherwise the other 16 peaks now have lidar elevations on the lidar page.
End of Bicentennials Analyzed
End of Bicentennials Analyzed
New List.PNG (79.02 KiB) Viewed 1812 times
Old List Section
Old List Section
Old List.jpg (187.87 KiB) Viewed 1812 times
Lightning Pyramid has been demoted - this will move all lower peaks up one slot in the Bicentennial list. There are several other Bicentennials that also have a chance of being demoted. See below for a list of 13ers that have <= 320' of interpolated prominence.
13ers - Candidates for Demotion
13ers - Candidates for Demotion
13ers - Candidates for Demotion.PNG (444.37 KiB) Viewed 1812 times
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

We'll likely have to analyze every peak in a list before that list becomes official. John came upon a surprising demotion - Lenawee, having 344' of interpolated prominence, was demoted to only having rise of 286' due to the ridgeline being higher than shown by the USGS contours. Though it's small, there's a chance that even peaks with over 320' of prominence can have contour errors, and thus be demoted. (see screenshot below)

13580 near Mt Adams was also a surprise. The 1959 contour map that Roach and others used to calculate its interpolated elevation had an extra and false contour. Today we noted that later maps (shown on LoJ) have only 3 contours above the 13,400' mark, giving it an interpolated 13,540' elevation (120' plus half a contour/ 20') - very close to the lidar-calculated 13,543'. (see screenshot below). Mt Powell is also lower than listed, possibly ferried in as well from older maps.
Lenawee and 13580
Lenawee and 13580
Other Analysis.PNG (35.68 KiB) Viewed 1811 times
Today we finished looking at the soft-ranked 13ers. All beside Chiquita, that is - there isn't yet lidar available for download in its area. We've found 8 new 13ers.
New 13ers
New 13ers
New 13ers.PNG (37.09 KiB) Viewed 1807 times
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

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?
1. I'll get back to you on this.

2. Yep, you're right. I found the high point in the eastern contour at 39.02216,-108.61754 rounding to 5750 ft. Ground a bit to the east of that is higher, but looking at google earth at that spot I believe it was catching the shrubs/vegetation 25-30 ft to the east.

3. Yeah, this one unfortunately isn't available yet.
User avatar
Tornadoman
Posts: 1438
Joined: 7/30/2007
14ers: 58  8 
13ers: 266 35
Trip Reports (12)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Tornadoman »

Awesome work on sorting through the Bis, Ben! Definitely going to see some additions/subtractions. Curious what Chiefs Head turns out to be once that data is available; I am also interested to see what the results are for those other Bis with just over 300' prominence.

The lower part of the Centennial list and just below is also interesting with several tightly packed peaks. (mainly 13,811 down to around 13,800).

And of course the potential bump up one spot for all the peaks below it if Challenger turns out to be unranked. Watching this unfold is really interesting!
Climb the mountain so you can see the world, not so the world can see you.
User avatar
HikerGuy
Posts: 1406
Joined: 5/25/2006
14ers: 58 
13ers: 426 8
Trip Reports (9)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by HikerGuy »

bdloftin77 wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:40 pm We've found 8 new 13ers.
9! You mentioned Overlook Point earlier, promoted from a 12er to 13er. With 3 demotions, we're at a net 6 gain in ranked peaks.

This analysis is so fun to watch. Appreciate the updates as you work through the list.
Post Reply