Colorado LiDAR Findings

[supranihilest]

My post is a two parter and got split across two pages. Please see part one here: viewtopic.php?p=759069#p759069

And finally, can you check the elevation of Sheep Mountain B and the ridge to the east? I don't know quite what to make of this one, because the point labeled on maps, where the benchmark is, is clearly not the high point - the high point is a bizarre looking and obvious nub to the east. Do people go to the benchmark and call it good even if it's not the high point? Is the point on a map more important than the physical high point? Sheep is unranked so does the high point even matter? Maybe someone with more expertise can chime in on the ethics and thought behind this. I'm the type to hit both points but curious what the "official" answer is.

20200801_080325.jpg

20200801_112600.jpg

[DaveLanders]

Whiley also wants a check of "V 9"'s east-southeast sub-summit (blue circle), since it appears to be of nearly identical elevation to the currently accepted summit of "V 9" (orange circle).

20200823_090322.jpg

I think you meant the west-southwest subsummit instead of east-southeast.

[supranihilest]

Whiley also wants a check of "V 9"'s east-southeast sub-summit (blue circle), since it appears to be of nearly identical elevation to the currently accepted summit of "V 9" (orange circle).
20200823_090322.jpg

I think you meant the west-southwest subsummit instead of east-southeast.

I did, thanks for catching that.

[bdloftin77]

San Miguel-V9 Ridge
Sheep B

Sure! I can take a look at those tonight. If someone beats me to it, I'll still take a look out of curiosity.

As far as I know, benchmarks are often, but not always placed on the summit proper/high point. Often they are placed in areas that have good sight lines of the surrounding area, which might or might not be on the summit. I know Sunlight and Windom's benchmarks aren't quite on the very high point. So I'd say peakbaggers should do their best to find the actual high point, and not just go to the benchmark of a peak. Scott P probably knows quite a bit more about this topic.

[bdloftin77]

Speaking of actual high points, John found that the high point of 13660 (north of Ellingwood Point) is actually south of the previously known location. He got a tip from Gerry Roach that someone had found this new spot to be higher. Turns out it's about 2.5 feet higher than the old one. This new location is on the lidar page.

Over the holidays I went through the El Paso and Teller ranked peaks. 7820's summit was a lot lower than expected, and is unranked. 8130 near Red Rocks park is just barely ranked - had to do a field check and some measurements to make sure. I'm planning on investigating 9620 in person, to see if some class one points barely make it ranked as well. I'm also hoping to check out an alternate The Horns summit location that might be quite a bit higher than the former location next to the lookout cabin.

In analyzing Teller county's 10940 near The Crags, I found that it and The Crags share two saddle candidates. For the Crags, John and I had looked at the saddle candidate to the east, but had neglected to look at the western one, which is higher. Since 10940 is higher than The Crags, it steals the lower eastern saddle, and The Crags gets the higher western saddle. I'm not 100% sure that lidar caught the HP of The Crags as it is a knife-edge summit. But currently, the high point minus its new saddle yields 298' of prominence. Though I'd put this one into an "error range" category, The Crags now shows up as unranked on the lidar page. When a couple of our members attempt its summit this spring, I asked if they might be able to take some relative height measurements to get some more clarity.

I've analyzed some more Jefferson county summits. None of the recent ones are ranked (though Tick Dome, Black Hawk Mountain, and Ralston Buttes are ranked). Glenmiz is working on the rest of them, and we'll compare notes soon.

John said he hopes to load Eli Boardman's WY results into the lidar page sometime soon.

EDIT: Wyoming peaks are up! In the Other States section near the bottom.

The Crags Saddle.JPG

[RyanSchilling]

My post is a two parter and got split across two pages. Please see part one here: viewtopic.php?p=759069#p759069

And finally, can you check the elevation of Sheep Mountain B and the ridge to the east? I don't know quite what to make of this one, because the point labeled on maps, where the benchmark is, is clearly not the high point - the high point is a bizarre looking and obvious nub to the east. Do people go to the benchmark and call it good even if it's not the high point? Is the point on a map more important than the physical high point? Sheep is unranked so does the high point even matter? Maybe someone with more expertise can chime in on the ethics and thought behind this. I'm the type to hit both points but curious what the "official" answer is.
20200801_080325.jpg
20200801_112600.jpg

It's interesting b/c if we look back to our earliest maps, the name Sheep Mountain isn't clearly tied to the western summit, where the VABM was placed. This image is from the 1897 "Telluride Sheet".



It was only with the 1953 Mount Wilson quad that the name moved to the west. Makes you wonder what the folks who named it intended!

Quick & dirty analysis of this area shows that the spire-like HP is still unranked with 227 ft of prominence, but given that old map, maybe it's Sheep Mountain's original summit...

The ethics of it are that unranked peaks can derive their prominence from a saddle seemingly with another unranked peak. This can be confusing until you consider that, with no other ranked peaks intervening, the entirety of the ridge trending northeast from San Miguel Peak is really part of San Miguel's domain. So in this sense, Sheep VABM's saddle is with San Miguel. So, too, is the spire's saddle with San Miguel. As is Lake Point's.

The early developers of prominence used a definition that always provides clarity to me: "The height of a peak above the highest contour encircling it and no higher summit."

[bdloftin77]

Quick & dirty analysis of this area shows that the spire-like HP is still unranked with 227 ft of prominence, but given that old map, maybe it's Sheep Mountain's original summit...

Hey Ryan, since you're in the area - see anything interesting for the San Miguel-V9 ridge?

[supranihilest]

San Miguel-V9 Ridge
Sheep B

Sure! I can take a look at those tonight. If someone beats me to it, I'll still take a look out of curiosity.

Thanks, Ben.

As far as I know, benchmarks are often, but not always placed on the summit proper/high point. Often they are placed in areas that have good sight lines of the surrounding area, which might or might not be on the summit. I know Sunlight and Windom's benchmarks aren't quite on the very high point. So I'd say peakbaggers should do their best to find the actual high point, and not just go to the benchmark of a peak. Scott P probably knows quite a bit more about this topic.

I agree with that, as I'm sure most peakbaggers would, this is just a rather egregious example of the benchmark, or the point on a map, differing from the high point in reality. In this case the high point is approximately .35 miles from the benchmark! When the benchmark is a few feet away as in your examples the ethics I think are obvious - touch the high point. I personally think in Sheep's case you still have to touch the high point, but again, it differs enough from modern maps that I think it's worth reaching some sort of consensus. Scott would certainly have a valuable opinion, as I'm sure Boggy would, since he's one of the few who's climbed Sheep and is still active in the community.

A curiosity on Sheep I think funny enough to mention - there's a ladder stashed below the "summit" nub. Photo is courtesy of Whiley.

73D01D1E-A38A-4DA0-8517-00CEEC0BE91C.jpeg

My post is a two parter and got split across two pages. Please see part one here: viewtopic.php?p=759069#p759069

And finally, can you check the elevation of Sheep Mountain B and the ridge to the east? I don't know quite what to make of this one, because the point labeled on maps, where the benchmark is, is clearly not the high point - the high point is a bizarre looking and obvious nub to the east. Do people go to the benchmark and call it good even if it's not the high point? Is the point on a map more important than the physical high point? Sheep is unranked so does the high point even matter? Maybe someone with more expertise can chime in on the ethics and thought behind this. I'm the type to hit both points but curious what the "official" answer is.
20200801_080325.jpg
20200801_112600.jpg

It's interesting b/c if we look back to our earliest maps, the name Sheep Mountain isn't clearly tied to the western summit, where the VABM was placed. This image is from the 1897 "Telluride Sheet".

<photo removed>

It was only with the 1953 Mount Wilson quad that the name moved to the west. Makes you wonder what the folks who named it intended!

Quick & dirty analysis of this area shows that the spire-like HP is still unranked with 227 ft of prominence, but given that old map, maybe it's Sheep Mountain's original summit...

The ethics of it are that unranked peaks can derive their prominence from a saddle seemingly with another unranked peak. This can be confusing until you consider that, with no other ranked peaks intervening, the entirety of the ridge trending northeast from San Miguel Peak is really part of San Miguel's domain. So in this sense, Sheep VABM's saddle is with San Miguel. So, too, is the spire's saddle with San Miguel. As is Lake Point's.

The early developers of prominence used a definition that always provides clarity to me: "The height of a peak above the highest contour encircling it and no higher summit."

Thanks for the additional context, Ryan. It becomes an especially interesting question given that it's changed on maps over time, and that it's an unranked summit. If it were ranked it would simplify the question. That said, the nub is both the highest point and - I assume - the most prominent point west of "Lake Point" (at least until one reaches a peak on the Wilson massif), which as you noted is also unranked with San Miguel Peak being the parent. It's clearly separated from "Lake Point" by a ridge so I'd say the entirety of Sheep, from the high point to the benchmark, is Sheep, which would make the physical high point the point people should climb, not where the benchmark is, which again, is a fair distance from the high point. Given that it's unranked the only reason most people care is because it's named. Also of note is that the 2016 Forest Service maps differ in the number of closed contours compared to the older USGS 7.5' topos. The first image is the modern FS topos with fewer contours (near where the county line bends from northeast to directly east); the second is the 7.5' topos with more contours. I'm not a fan of the less precise FS maps for this reason, and I suppose it's possible the county line is just so fat on the FS map it covers the small closed contours on that map. Both show the benchmark in the same place, and have placed the text "Sheep Mountain" near the benchmark, not the high point, so it's all very interesting.

54SKL.jpg

H0GL3.jpg

[Chicago Transplant]

The Sheep example happens on other peaks as well, most notably off the top of my head would be Lone Eagle. Where the marked summit is the end of the ridge even though it is lower than other points. In the case of Lone Eagle there is a closed contour that interpolates to 12060 between Lone Eagle and "Limbo" https://listsofjohn.com/peak/1799.

Where the Benchmark is off of the true summit and it is ranked, then the highpoint is indicated as the summit. "Hawk Peak" in the Elks is an example where the BM is not on the high point but on a false summit with a closed contour. In this case LOJ has indicated the highpoint as the summit with the name in quotes as the name is unofficial. https://listsofjohn.com/peak/1021

Its hard to tell from the old maps what the intent was on Sheep, but it seems to me that the end of the ridge is Sheep the way it is with Lone Eagle as that is the point viewed from below? The tower with the ladder then just an unnamed, unranked point.

[bdloftin77]

I agree with that, as I'm sure most peakbaggers would, this is just a rather egregious example of the benchmark, or the point on a map, differing from the high point in reality. When the benchmark is a few feet away as in your examples the ethics I think are obvious - touch the high point. I personally think in Sheep's case you still have to touch the high point, but again, it differs enough from modern maps that I think it's worth reaching some sort of consensus. Scott would certainly have a valuable opinion, as I'm sure Boggy would, since he's one of the few who's climbed Sheep and is still active in the community.

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Yes, this is very interesting. Had Ryan not pointed out that the name on the map has shifted to the west/western point recently, it would be more cut and dry for me - Sheep would be a sub-summit of the unnamed, unranked, higher summit to the east. If someone climbed Sheep and reached the benchmark, they would have reached the summit of Sheep, even though it doesn't have much prominence at all.

If Sheep is taken to be the whole mountain, including both the higher summit and the benchmarked summit, then if someone only climbed the benchmarked summit they did not actually summit the highest point of Sheep Mtn. Since Sheep was shifted to the right in older maps, this seems to be a more ambiguous case. I don't know if we could easily tell which summit Sheep is actually referring to from the few sources mentioned.

However, looking at the BGN link on the LoJ peak page, the coordinates halfway down the page point to the benchmarked summit. Based on my non-extensive knowledge, it would seem that the true summit of Sheep might then be the benchmarked/lower summit.

A similar interesting case (which I've mentioned before, but still find interesting) is The Sawtooth between Bierstadt and Evans. The 14ers.com page shows this summit to be the highest point along that jagged ridge (see google map tab). The LoJ page however, shows it to be one of the smaller teeth along the ridge, closer to where the map label is. John reasoned that the map label is closer to this lower tooth, so that's why he keeps this location on his website - which I agree with.

EDIT: Using that same logic, I found the coordinates of the BGN page for The Sawtooth matching the LoJ location (which I ironically have not climbed, vs the higher location on the 14ers.com page which I have climbed). I bet most of the 14ers.com ascents of The Sawtooth have probably been on the higher summit vs the BGN summit - not that it matters a ton in the grand scheme of things.

[bdloftin77]

The Sheep example happens on other peaks as well, most notably off the top of my head would be Lone Eagle. Where the marked summit is the end of the ridge even though it is lower than other points. In the case of Lone Eagle there is a closed contour that interpolates to 12060 between Lone Eagle and "Limbo" https://listsofjohn.com/peak/1799.

Where the Benchmark is off of the true summit and it is ranked, then the highpoint is indicated as the summit. "Hawk Peak" in the Elks is an example where the BM is not on the high point but on a false summit with a closed contour. In this case LOJ has indicated the highpoint as the summit with the name in quotes as the name is unofficial. https://listsofjohn.com/peak/1021

Its hard to tell from the old maps what the intent was on Sheep, but it seems to me that the end of the ridge is Sheep the way it is with Lone Eagle as that is the point viewed from below? The tower with the ladder then just an unnamed, unranked point.

Was typing as you answered. I agree!

Didn't know this about showing the ranked summit as the true summit on LoJ when the benchmark is off the summit. Good to know, and makes sense.

[RyanSchilling]

Quick & dirty analysis of this area shows that the spire-like HP is still unranked with 227 ft of prominence, but given that old map, maybe it's Sheep Mountain's original summit...

Hey Ryan, since you're in the area - see anything interesting for the San Miguel-V9 ridge?

I'm not seeing anything there, I'm afraid. Only picking up 183 of prominence for PT 13269 (LiDAR comes in at 13,277) based on the saddle just to its west.