After looking through hundreds of more candidates this summer, John found another newly ranked (and unnamed) peak east of Devil's Head.
https://listsofjohn.com/peak/218294
Colorado LiDAR Findings
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.
-
bdloftin77
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: 9/23/2013
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 99
- Trip Reports (2)
-
12ersRule
- Posts: 2314
- Joined: 6/18/2007
- 14ers: 58
- 13ers: 160
- Trip Reports (4)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
"Satanic LiDAR peak"?bdloftin77 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 3:25 pm After looking through hundreds of more candidates this summer, John found another newly ranked (and unnamed) peak east of Devil's Head.
https://listsofjohn.com/peak/218294
-
Scott P
- Posts: 9876
- Joined: 5/4/2005
- 14ers: 58 16
- 13ers: 57 14
- Trip Reports (16)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
It's going to be fun when someone starts taking LiDAR readings at places like Fisher Towers or Monument Basin. There are probably more ranked peaks in places like that.
I'm old, slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
-
Kevin Baker
- Posts: 882
- Joined: 5/19/2005
- 14ers: 58 53
- 13ers: 675 32
- Trip Reports (78)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Dang, Douglas County was already tough enough even though it doesn't have that many ranked peaks! Hopefully it's under 5.10 for us mortals.bdloftin77 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 3:25 pm After looking through hundreds of more candidates this summer, John found another newly ranked (and unnamed) peak east of Devil's Head.
https://listsofjohn.com/peak/218294
Always do what you are afraid to do. -Ralph Waldo Emerson
-
TomPierce
- Posts: 2759
- Joined: 11/21/2007
- Trip Reports (2)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Yea...I think? Another Colorado ranked 5th class peak!bdloftin77 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 3:25 pm After looking through hundreds of more candidates this summer, John found another newly ranked (and unnamed) peak east of Devil's Head.
https://listsofjohn.com/peak/218294
-
bdloftin77
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: 9/23/2013
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 99
- Trip Reports (2)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
In google earth, from street view bubble at 39.26047, -105.101265 looking ESE (they have street view on some mountains!)
Yep, the west side looks pretty technical at least. Not sure about the east side.
Yep, the west side looks pretty technical at least. Not sure about the east side.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
bdloftin77
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: 9/23/2013
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 99
- Trip Reports (2)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
East side looks pretty steep too from this 6/2017 google earth imagery.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
geojed
- Posts: 933
- Joined: 6/30/2009
- 14ers: 58 8
- 13ers: 138 13
- Trip Reports (29)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
I completed my Masters degree in GIS last May w/ this as my thesis topic. If anyone would like to read my thesis, it’s ~40 pages total, you can download it from my Google Drive here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vRB6MN ... F1khr/viewbdloftin77 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 8:15 am
If anyone is interested in creating an automated process for analyzing Colorado's peaks and come up with a good workflow/program, let us know! 4000+ peaks will definitely take a very long time to analyze by hand, especially since both John and I have full-time jobs.
• It's by getting away from life that we can see it most clearly... It's by depriving ourselves of the myriad of everyday experiences that we renew our appreciation for them...I've learned from my experiences in the mountains that I love life. — Dave Johnston
• Mountains are not climbed merely to reach a geographical location — but as personal and spiritual challenges to the participants. — David Stein
• Mountains are not climbed merely to reach a geographical location — but as personal and spiritual challenges to the participants. — David Stein
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Awesome, congrats on the thesis! I didn't read every part in detail, so sorry if I missed this somewhere, but did you find any new ranked peaks not yet analyzed manually?geojed wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 4:13 pmI completed my Masters degree in GIS last May w/ this as my thesis topic. If anyone would like to read my thesis, it’s ~40 pages total, you can download it from my Google Drive here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vRB6MN ... F1khr/viewbdloftin77 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 8:15 am
If anyone is interested in creating an automated process for analyzing Colorado's peaks and come up with a good workflow/program, let us know! 4000+ peaks will definitely take a very long time to analyze by hand, especially since both John and I have full-time jobs.
-
bdloftin77
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: 9/23/2013
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 99
- Trip Reports (2)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Wow, congratulations! I’ll have to take a look at it. I’m curious to see what process you came up with and what you found.geojed wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 4:13 pmI completed my Masters degree in GIS last May w/ this as my thesis topic. If anyone would like to read my thesis, it’s ~40 pages total, you can download it from my Google Drive here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vRB6MN ... F1khr/viewbdloftin77 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 8:15 am
If anyone is interested in creating an automated process for analyzing Colorado's peaks and come up with a good workflow/program, let us know! 4000+ peaks will definitely take a very long time to analyze by hand, especially since both John and I have full-time jobs.
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
Hey Bill,
Just curious if the top 200 checklist will be changed to LiDAR? Thanks
Just curious if the top 200 checklist will be changed to LiDAR? Thanks
-
bdloftin77
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: 9/23/2013
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 99
- Trip Reports (2)
Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings
That’s a whole lot of work. You’ve put a lot of thought, time, and effort into this project, and are a much bigger ArcMap whiz than I! It was interesting reading about all your research, thought processes, and methods.
Here’s some of my initial thoughts.
Mass downloading is a great idea based off the cell grids, and straight from the FTP site when applicable. And the models and automation helped streamline many of your processes. Very cool.
I like the summit finding methodology of using class 2 for buildings/treed summits, and class 1 for barren ones. Creating your own DEMs was a good idea, as well as filling in the pits for saddles.
For the 14ers, the main difference in elevations between LoJ and the ones from this project are that the LoJ ones specifically filtered out summit cairns and summit walls, all man-made and subject to further artificial building or tearing down, based off pictures and videos. Despite this, the elevations are still fairly close.
It looks like road cuts weren’t used in the project. A lot are only a few feet deep if they’re just narrow dirt roads, but some are dozens of feet deep - especially major highways. Using a buffer and a road layer might pinpoint any saddles that are near road cuts. Though summits can be lost due to human activity, it still make sense to try to preserve the natural metrics of mountains whenever possible. Finding the highest natural ground near a road cut to not overestimate its prominence still seems like the best approach to myself and to others.
The unfortunate false highs that weren’t filtered out could be something to QC further.
Some bigger things to consider or possibly tweak are the summit and saddle buffers. That caused me some pause as I was reading, but it looks like you were able to catch some weird summits/saddles by increasing the buffer some, as well as through some QCing.
I read through the hydrological divide/saddle finding process, and it sounds like a good idea. For finding saddles as well as prominence and ranked/unranked peaks, the end result highly depends on the thoroughness and accuracy of this process. All this being said, it could be very useful to use the manual method outlined by Eli on any peaks where their ranked status from this project differs from LoJ. If using this manual method you still get different results from LoJ, then the LoJ results could very well be off (hopefully not occurring too often). If your manual results do agree with the LoJ results but differ from those of the project, this would be a good exercise to determine why this is the case (buffers? false highs? hydrological divide methodology?)
Since you’ve gone through all this work already, I’d definitely recommend using the manual method to compare major differences (especially ranked vs unranked), and then adjusting your methodology as needed (or reporting any LoJ results that are incorrect so that they can be rectified). A win-win situation, doing so would either help further refine the lidar-based peak data, further refine your own process, or possibly both.
To anyone who is unsettled by any differences between the results of this project and those of LoJ, please feel free to use Eli’s method to recheck any peaks of interest. Though slow, laborious, and imperfect, this is one of the most accurate methods we have in determining heights and rises of peaks remotely. Fresh sets of eyes are always welcome! And accuracy is important, so please let us know if you find any typos or errors.
Thanks for sharing your work, Jed! Lots of good stuff in there.
Here’s some of my initial thoughts.
Mass downloading is a great idea based off the cell grids, and straight from the FTP site when applicable. And the models and automation helped streamline many of your processes. Very cool.
I like the summit finding methodology of using class 2 for buildings/treed summits, and class 1 for barren ones. Creating your own DEMs was a good idea, as well as filling in the pits for saddles.
For the 14ers, the main difference in elevations between LoJ and the ones from this project are that the LoJ ones specifically filtered out summit cairns and summit walls, all man-made and subject to further artificial building or tearing down, based off pictures and videos. Despite this, the elevations are still fairly close.
It looks like road cuts weren’t used in the project. A lot are only a few feet deep if they’re just narrow dirt roads, but some are dozens of feet deep - especially major highways. Using a buffer and a road layer might pinpoint any saddles that are near road cuts. Though summits can be lost due to human activity, it still make sense to try to preserve the natural metrics of mountains whenever possible. Finding the highest natural ground near a road cut to not overestimate its prominence still seems like the best approach to myself and to others.
The unfortunate false highs that weren’t filtered out could be something to QC further.
Some bigger things to consider or possibly tweak are the summit and saddle buffers. That caused me some pause as I was reading, but it looks like you were able to catch some weird summits/saddles by increasing the buffer some, as well as through some QCing.
I read through the hydrological divide/saddle finding process, and it sounds like a good idea. For finding saddles as well as prominence and ranked/unranked peaks, the end result highly depends on the thoroughness and accuracy of this process. All this being said, it could be very useful to use the manual method outlined by Eli on any peaks where their ranked status from this project differs from LoJ. If using this manual method you still get different results from LoJ, then the LoJ results could very well be off (hopefully not occurring too often). If your manual results do agree with the LoJ results but differ from those of the project, this would be a good exercise to determine why this is the case (buffers? false highs? hydrological divide methodology?)
Since you’ve gone through all this work already, I’d definitely recommend using the manual method to compare major differences (especially ranked vs unranked), and then adjusting your methodology as needed (or reporting any LoJ results that are incorrect so that they can be rectified). A win-win situation, doing so would either help further refine the lidar-based peak data, further refine your own process, or possibly both.
To anyone who is unsettled by any differences between the results of this project and those of LoJ, please feel free to use Eli’s method to recheck any peaks of interest. Though slow, laborious, and imperfect, this is one of the most accurate methods we have in determining heights and rises of peaks remotely. Fresh sets of eyes are always welcome! And accuracy is important, so please let us know if you find any typos or errors.
Thanks for sharing your work, Jed! Lots of good stuff in there.