Colorado LiDAR Findings

[climbingcue]

Nice! And Buckskin is a much better ski from the western summit.

Great to know that I can look forward to snowboarding it, so I can again be a Centennial finisher.

[bdloftin77]

How much more mining needs to be done before Bartlett isn't a 13er anymore?

Looks like ~141ft off the top to render Bartlett unranked
Source: https://listsofjohn.com/peak/402

The latest LiDAR data is from 2019, so I wonder if LoJ might be even more accurate. I'll take a look regardless, though.

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

I'll take a look at those, as well as peaks slightly above and slightly below. Chief's Head's "old" elevation is 13,579'. It's not yet covered by LiDAR, so it might throw a wrench into things if we try to define a firm Bicentennial list before it's available.

Any higher newly discovered hard ranked peaks will change that list, as well as any higher peaks that are discovered to be actually unranked. So far no new Bis have been discovered. However, I earlier found "Lightning Pyramid" to be unranked. This would bump another peak up into the Bicentennials list. (EDIT: Lightning is a Bicentennial, so this wouldn't affect the Centennial list). If Challenger is found to be unranked, it would bump Niagara up onto the Centennials list. I'll probably take a look at the peaks at around that elevation range as well (end of Centennials list) to make sure there isn't any flip-flopping, as the next five or so peaks are very close to each other in elevation.

I did find that Overlook Point is now a low 13er, at 13,005 ft! (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/817). This wasn't unexpected as there's a general elevation increase trend in Colorado due to a lower sea level estimate in the NAVD88 datum vs the NAD27 one. I had high hopes for Greenback Mountain (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/818), but it remains neither a 13er nor ranked.

Here's a list of the newly ranked peaks so far:
https://listsofjohn.com/customlists?lid=2298

Their new elevations and saddles are in John's LiDAR list (https://listsofjohn.com/lidar/lidar.php?). I put this together just to see them all together and in elevation order.

Newly Ranked.jpg

[supranihilest]

This is great stuff, thanks for doing this work, Ben. This question seems like it has an obvious answer but this new data (or new technology, since the data isn't fully available yet) has the potential to completely eliminate soft-ranked peaks by virtue of finding the true prominence of everything, doesn't it? If the true prominence is known then it's not soft-ranked even if it sits within that 280-299' range.

[DArcyS]

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

[Boggy B]

This is great stuff, thanks for doing this work, Ben. This question seems like it has an obvious answer but this new data (or new technology, since the data isn't fully available yet) has the potential to completely eliminate soft-ranked peaks by virtue of finding the true prominence of everything, doesn't it? If the true prominence is known then it's not soft-ranked even if it sits within that 280-299' range.

That's right. Any peaks whose prominence has been calculated by LiDAR are no longer candidates for soft-ranking at the interpolated 280' threshold.
However, there's still the possibility that LiDAR missed important features at the current horizontal resolution in certain cases (like W Eolus), so there will probably be a much shorter list of "possibly ranked" peaks. I wouldn't call them soft-ranked as there are no generally applicable criteria for it.

[CheapCigarMan]

When will all of this become "official"?

Is there a plan to update this site with the new information?

[bdloftin77]

This is great stuff, thanks for doing this work, Ben. This question seems like it has an obvious answer but this new data (or new technology, since the data isn't fully available yet) has the potential to completely eliminate soft-ranked peaks by virtue of finding the true prominence of everything, doesn't it? If the true prominence is known then it's not soft-ranked even if it sits within that 280-299' range.

No problem! I'm sending whatever I analyze to John. I'll make sure that he's saving whatever I do, so that it can eventually be incorporated into his site. He seems to be more interested in immediately updating the soft-ranked findings, which makes sense. He's only put a couple of his LiDAR findings into the rest of his website/actual peak pages (eg. see https://listsofjohn.com/peak/4845). I'm thinking he has to do this manually, otherwise the rest would automatically be updating the peak pages. Might ask him about that.

That's right. Any peaks whose prominence has been calculated by LiDAR are no longer candidates for soft-ranking at the interpolated 280' threshold.
However, there's still the possibility that LiDAR missed important features at the current horizontal resolution in certain cases (like W Eolus), so there will probably be a much shorter list of "possibly ranked" peaks. I wouldn't call them soft-ranked as there are no generally applicable criteria for it.

Yep, this would theoretically eliminate soft-ranked peaks. However, LiDAR does still have an associated error, though it's usually <20 cm. With some peaks such as West Eolus that are within a foot of being ranked, those might either be put into a new possibly-ranked category as you mentioned, or they might simply warrant a mental caveat (beware - this peak might actually be ranked). West Eolus seems like a special case. Its summit is especially narrow, it is just below the 300' mark, and we have field observations from Boggy B indicating it is at least a few feet higher than LiDAR indicates. In my opinion, it'd be good to at least have a note on the website, or possibly leave it as possibly-ranked.

Regardless, if a summit is within 1 foot of the 300' mark, avid peakbaggers might want to consider climbing it to cover their bases. Boggy B and Mike Garratt did well to complete all the soft-ranked 13ers - unless we find some big contour errors, they might be the only two people who are guaranteed to have completed the truly ranked (not just interpolated ranked) CO 13ers. (https://listsofjohn.com/elev?s=CO&e=13). Though others might have chosen their soft-ranked 13ers wisely and might be current completers as well.

As you can see regarding the 12ers though, even Mike Garratt is missing The Castles, East. (https://listsofjohn.com/elev?s=CO&e=12). It looks like he does have all the other soft-ranked 12ers.

[bdloftin77]

When will all of this become "official"?

Is there a plan to update this site with the new information?

That's a good question! Are you referring to recent findings that I've mentioned, or to analyzing all 5000+ peaks in Colorado?

I don't want to bug John too much, but I might ask about incorporating recent findings into the website. Some he's put in right away (eg. Buckskin https://listsofjohn.com/peak/95). Others, even soft-ranked that he's personally analyzed, he hasn't put in yet (eg. The Crags https://listsofjohn.com/peak/2479).

[CheapCigarMan]

When will all of this become "official"?

Is there a plan to update this site with the new information?

That's a good question! Are you referring to recent findings that I've mentioned, or to analyzing all 5000+ peaks in Colorado?

I don't want to bug John too much, but I might ask about incorporating recent findings into the website. Some he's put in right away (eg. Buckskin https://listsofjohn.com/peak/95). Others, even soft-ranked that he's personally analyzed, he hasn't put in yet (eg. The Crags https://listsofjohn.com/peak/2479).

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.

[cougar]

He's probably waiting to climb them all first to be the first finisher before updating the list...

It's a big undertaking to cross check these for the serious peakbaggers, and a complete list makes sense for those wanting to be efficient if multiple promoted peaks are in the same area, and can be done in one trip.

Peak promotion to ranked on LOJ has happened a couple other times in the past few years using other measuring and extrapolation algorithms based off contours.

[justiner]

He's probably waiting to climb them all first to be the first finisher before updating the list...

LOL I've never heard of red tagging an entire set of mountains, but shine on you crazy diamond.

So to be clear, it's the point nearest to Tweeto that's the actual summit of Buckskin, and not the point nearest Democrat? We need to move that summit register.

[Scott P]

Other questions are welcome! As long as the lidar is available, we can analyze it.

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?