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
Kevin Baker
Posts: 884
Joined: 5/19/2005
14ers: 58  53 
13ers: 674 32
Trip Reports (125)
 
Contact:

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Kevin Baker »

Nice work, John and Ben! It looks like i have several "Lidar orphans" out there to keep me busy. Lol! I am looking forward to going back for The Crags and North Noddle Head. The Castles tower in the West Elks now makes the 12ers a much more formidable list to complete!
Always do what you are afraid to do. -Ralph Waldo Emerson
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: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:45 am Do you mind explaining what we're looking at on this one? What's the scale (to help understand where the block might be in relation to the summit, and the size of the features shown)? Which of the red dots is the summit as found by your analysis (or are those all the same elevation), and where's the summit as previously known? Do those match? Is the "no data" area that large white trapezoid shaped area northwest/up and left of the summit/main cluster? Thanks for doing this work, Ben!
I'll take a look at the LAS data again when I get home. Yes, the big white area is the no-data zone. The main high points are the red dots in the right of the picture. The right-most group is the high point area. The top of the ridge shows up in the upper left of the picture, with the orange dots being the highest point caught on lidar. The no data area might actually be below/north of the ridge, which would make sense since that area would be covered by the ridge if the plane wasn't flying directly overhead/to the south slightly - and I might be able to visualize the rest of the ridge by changing my symbology classification - I'll let you know.

I downloaded a lidar-based DEM from The National Map, which I included below. Each pixel is a meter, and elevations are in meters.

Does this match what you saw in reality? Or does it look like anything major is missing? I created discrete 1-m elevation classes for easier visualization, though they end at a big low class from 3240-3272m.

If the high point of the northwest-trending ridge is indeed near the very end, maybe the lidar point-cloud did catch the high point. The NW end of the ridge has an averaged value of 4034.17m (~13,235.5 ft). The left high point on the main summit block averages as 4036.00 m (~13241.5 ft), and the highest point to the right averages at 4036.60 m (~13,245.5 ft). Since these cells are averaged, very small high points that the lidar picked up will be averaged down into a meter-sized cell based on the surrounding area. Based on the DEM alone, it looks like the high point is indeed the right group of red dots on the main summit block.

A: ~13,235.5 ft (38.08909,-107.53110)
B: ~13,241.5 ft (38.09782,-107.53064)
C: ~13,245.5 ft (38.09781,-107.53060)

The current LoJ summits are listed to 4 decimals of precision (~10 m). With lidar updates, he'll list them to 5 decimals of precision (~1 m). So not surprisingly, if you put in the LoJ coordinates, you'll get a point relatively "far" to the SE.
Fortress DEM
Fortress DEM
Fortress.jpg (75.31 KiB) Viewed 2235 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 »

Kevin Baker wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:16 pm Nice work, John and Ben! It looks like i have several "Lidar orphans" out there to keep me busy. Lol! I am looking forward to going back for The Crags and North Noddle Head. The Castles tower in the West Elks now makes the 12ers a much more formidable list to complete!
No problem! The Crags is really fun - (plus I actually made it to the top unaided, unlike McReynolds), and the views are great.
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 »

bdloftin77 wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:23 pm
supranihilest wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:45 am Do you mind explaining what we're looking at on this one? What's the scale (to help understand where the block might be in relation to the summit, and the size of the features shown)? Which of the red dots is the summit as found by your analysis (or are those all the same elevation), and where's the summit as previously known? Do those match? Is the "no data" area that large white trapezoid shaped area northwest/up and left of the summit/main cluster? Thanks for doing this work, Ben!
I'll take a look at the LAS data again when I get home. Yes, the big white area is the no-data zone. The main high points are the red dots in the right of the picture. The right-most group is the high point area. The top of the ridge shows up in the upper left of the picture, with the orange dots being the highest point caught on lidar. The no data area might actually be below/north of the ridge, which would make sense since that area would be covered by the ridge if the plane wasn't flying directly overhead/to the south slightly - and I might be able to visualize the rest of the ridge by changing my symbology classification - I'll let you know.

I downloaded a lidar-based DEM from The National Map, which I included below. Each pixel is a meter, and elevations are in meters.

Does this match what you saw in reality? Or does it look like anything major is missing? I created discrete 1-m elevation classes for easier visualization, though they end at a big low class from 3240-3272m.

If the high point of the northwest-trending ridge is indeed near the very end, maybe the lidar point-cloud did catch the high point. The NW end of the ridge has an averaged value of 4034.17m (~13,235.5 ft). The left high point on the main summit block averages as 4036.00 m (~13241.5 ft), and the highest point to the right averages at 4036.60 m (~13,245.5 ft). Since these cells are averaged, very small high points that the lidar picked up will be averaged down into a meter-sized cell based on the surrounding area. Based on the DEM alone, it looks like the high point is indeed the right group of red dots on the main summit block.

A: ~13,235.5 ft (38.08909,-107.53110)
B: ~13,241.5 ft (38.09782,-107.53064)
C: ~13,245.5 ft (38.09781,-107.53060)

The current LoJ summits are listed to 4 decimals of precision (~10 m). With lidar updates, he'll list them to 5 decimals of precision (~1 m). So not surprisingly, if you put in the LoJ coordinates, you'll get a point relatively "far" to the SE.

Fortress.jpg
Thanks for the thorough explanation! Yes, this is very similar to what I remember as well as the photos posted in this thread so far. Your screenshot here shows typical north orientation so the sub-summit block goes off up and left (northwest) when standing on the summit, which matches my memory, and in the photos viewing it from the north looking south it extends towards the viewer at a slight angle to the right, which again is northwest. This seems definitive that the summit remains the summit and the sketchy block is just that - a random block. Whew!
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 »

supranihilest wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:56 pm
bdloftin77 wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:23 pm
supranihilest wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:45 am Do you mind explaining what we're looking at on this one? What's the scale (to help understand where the block might be in relation to the summit, and the size of the features shown)? Which of the red dots is the summit as found by your analysis (or are those all the same elevation), and where's the summit as previously known? Do those match? Is the "no data" area that large white trapezoid shaped area northwest/up and left of the summit/main cluster? Thanks for doing this work, Ben!
I'll take a look at the LAS data again when I get home. Yes, the big white area is the no-data zone. The main high points are the red dots in the right of the picture. The right-most group is the high point area. The top of the ridge shows up in the upper left of the picture, with the orange dots being the highest point caught on lidar. The no data area might actually be below/north of the ridge, which would make sense since that area would be covered by the ridge if the plane wasn't flying directly overhead/to the south slightly - and I might be able to visualize the rest of the ridge by changing my symbology classification - I'll let you know.

I downloaded a lidar-based DEM from The National Map, which I included below. Each pixel is a meter, and elevations are in meters.

Does this match what you saw in reality? Or does it look like anything major is missing? I created discrete 1-m elevation classes for easier visualization, though they end at a big low class from 3240-3272m.

If the high point of the northwest-trending ridge is indeed near the very end, maybe the lidar point-cloud did catch the high point. The NW end of the ridge has an averaged value of 4034.17m (~13,235.5 ft). The left high point on the main summit block averages as 4036.00 m (~13241.5 ft), and the highest point to the right averages at 4036.60 m (~13,245.5 ft). Since these cells are averaged, very small high points that the lidar picked up will be averaged down into a meter-sized cell based on the surrounding area. Based on the DEM alone, it looks like the high point is indeed the right group of red dots on the main summit block.

A: ~13,235.5 ft (38.08909,-107.53110)
B: ~13,241.5 ft (38.09782,-107.53064)
C: ~13,245.5 ft (38.09781,-107.53060)

The current LoJ summits are listed to 4 decimals of precision (~10 m). With lidar updates, he'll list them to 5 decimals of precision (~1 m). So not surprisingly, if you put in the LoJ coordinates, you'll get a point relatively "far" to the SE.

Fortress.jpg
Thanks for the thorough explanation! Yes, this is very similar to what I remember as well as the photos posted in this thread so far. Your screenshot here shows typical north orientation so the sub-summit block goes off up and left (northwest) when standing on the summit, which matches my memory, and in the photos viewing it from the north looking south it extends towards the viewer at a slight angle to the right, which again is northwest. This seems definitive that the summit remains the summit and the sketchy block is just that - a random block. Whew!
Agreed! Seems to match up with the photos, so it looks definitive that the summit is not moving on this one. Usually when they are close I walk over to the other one and back check, but this one was just too sketchy to do so.
"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 »

Yeah, I think the area with no data was just on the other side of the steep ridge, blocking lidar from hitting the ground there (like lidar shade). That's my hope. Here's two pictures.. From what the lidar caught, which my best guess would be the very top of that steep ridge to the NW, you guys made it to the high point.
Fortress1
Fortress1
Fortress1.png (721.43 KiB) Viewed 2056 times
Fortress2
Fortress2
Fortress2.png (730.83 KiB) Viewed 2056 times
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 »

It seems like Fortress is close enough that a second visit with leveling hardware wouldn't be totally out of the question, but I'm gonna call it case closed. :-"

A question for Mr. Kirk and Mr. Middlebrook: with the imminent demise of soft-ranked peaks, what will happen to them on your respective sites? Will they be removed? Once the prominence [of at least all 13ers] is known they will either be ranked or unranked, the very concept of soft-ranked peaks as we currently know it will become obsolete. It's the interpolation that makes a soft-ranked peak what it is, but eventually there won't be any interpolated soft-ranked peaks, the prominence will be a known value. If a formerly soft-ranked peak has no name it ceases to be noteworthy under a simple ranked/unranked paradigm. I frankly like the idea of soft-ranked peaks - I've always kind of considered them "baby peaks" - and think the concept is an interesting one that can continue to have a purpose in the future. Therefore, I propose that soft-ranked peaks be redefined as peaks that A) fit under the current definition (i.e. is an interpolated soft-rank) OR B) is a peak with 280-299' of prominence. That should future proof the concept.
User avatar
cougar
Posts: 1181
Joined: 8/9/2007
14ers: 58  2 
13ers: 135 2
Trip Reports (10)
 
Contact:

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by cougar »

supranihilest wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:50 pm It seems like Fortress is close enough that a second visit with leveling hardware wouldn't be totally out of the question, but I'm gonna call it case closed. :-"

A question for Mr. Kirk and Mr. Middlebrook: with the imminent demise of soft-ranked peaks, what will happen to them on your respective sites? Will they be removed? Once the prominence [of at least all 13ers] is known they will either be ranked or unranked, the very concept of soft-ranked peaks as we currently know it will become obsolete. It's the interpolation that makes a soft-ranked peak what it is, but eventually there won't be any interpolated soft-ranked peaks, the prominence will be a known value. If a formerly soft-ranked peak has no name it ceases to be noteworthy under a simple ranked/unranked paradigm. I frankly like the idea of soft-ranked peaks - I've always kind of considered them "baby peaks" - and think the concept is an interesting one that can continue to have a purpose in the future. Therefore, I propose that soft-ranked peaks be redefined as peaks that A) fit under the current definition (i.e. is an interpolated soft-rank) OR B) is a peak with 280-299' of prominence.
Some of the peaks on LoJ are already updated with lidar prominence, and the demoted ones are still listed, but with no soft-ranked designation.

Example:

https://listsofjohn.com/peak/212671

Not sure how they'd be bucketized but nice to have them still count for stats, and a lot of those soft ranked ones are fun and interesting. A significant number to fall within a 19ft prominence window, and many unnamed.
http://www.listsofjohn.com/m/cougar

"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going."
"Bushwhacking is like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're gonna get."
"Don't give up on your dreams, stay asleep"
User avatar
JChitwood
Posts: 622
Joined: 8/29/2011
14ers: 58 
13ers: 51
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by JChitwood »

supranihilest wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:50 pm It seems like Fortress is close enough that a second visit with leveling hardware wouldn't be totally out of the question, but I'm gonna call it case closed. :-"

A question for Mr. Kirk and Mr. Middlebrook: with the imminent demise of soft-ranked peaks, what will happen to them on your respective sites? Will they be removed? Once the prominence [of at least all 13ers] is known they will either be ranked or unranked, the very concept of soft-ranked peaks as we currently know it will become obsolete. It's the interpolation that makes a soft-ranked peak what it is, but eventually there won't be any interpolated soft-ranked peaks, the prominence will be a known value. If a formerly soft-ranked peak has no name it ceases to be noteworthy under a simple ranked/unranked paradigm. I frankly like the idea of soft-ranked peaks - I've always kind of considered them "baby peaks" - and think the concept is an interesting one that can continue to have a purpose in the future. Therefore, I propose that soft-ranked peaks be redefined to a peak with 280-299' of prominence.
Denied! Science has only hard facts no room for soft. I was hoping every mountain close to soft ranked above 13,800 would be promoted to hard. North Massive a 14er! Drift, Spalding, Frasco, and Iowa become Centennials! Peaks I can actually climb.
"I'll make it." - Jimmy Chitwood
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 »

supranihilest wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:50 pm A question for Mr. Kirk and Mr. Middlebrook: with the imminent demise of soft-ranked peaks, what will happen to them on your respective sites? Will they be removed? Once the prominence [of at least all 13ers] is known they will either be ranked or unranked, the very concept of soft-ranked peaks as we currently know it will become obsolete. It's the interpolation that makes a soft-ranked peak what it is, but eventually there won't be any interpolated soft-ranked peaks, the prominence will be a known value. If a formerly soft-ranked peak has no name it ceases to be noteworthy under a simple ranked/unranked paradigm. I frankly like the idea of soft-ranked peaks - I've always kind of considered them "baby peaks" - and think the concept is an interesting one that can continue to have a purpose in the future. Therefore, I propose that soft-ranked peaks be redefined as peaks that A) fit under the current definition (i.e. is an interpolated soft-rank) OR B) is a peak with 280-299' of prominence. That should future proof the concept.
14ers and LoJ have always included peaks that are not hard/soft-ranked or named.
LoJ usually includes such only if they're "unofficially named" by some criteria, i.e. https://listsofjohn.com/peak/165222
There are 727 (pre-LiDAR) hard/soft ranked or officially named 13ers and 767 listed on this site. I'm guessing the other 40 are all Roach-named, though I haven't confirmed that.

So in keeping with that tradition, the answer is probably that LiDAR-unranked peaks could be subject to removal if they are also not unofficially named.
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 »

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. 💩💩
Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted....
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 »

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!
Climb the mountain so you can see the world, not so the world can see you.
Post Reply