Makes me wonder how accurate a dGPS is going to be in that scenario being blocked by the boulder and the overhanging wall. Hopefully wouldn't need to resort to drilling to get a measurement of how deep under the boulder the saddle is with the unit on top instead. Probably would need to resort to some kind of macro caliper or something. In any event the LoJ notes in the LPC analysis indicate an alternate summit at 37.63276,-107.60664 while chosen summit is at 37.63249,-107.60652josephnephi wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2026 9:09 am some sort of dGPS measurement is very intriguing! My hunch is the same as Boggy that it's probably going to stay unranked, but you never know!
A new 13er?
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.
-
jkirk
- Posts: 105
- Joined: 7/19/2005
- Trip Reports (0)
Re: A new 13er?
-
Garrett
- Posts: 147
- Joined: 9/17/2007
- 14ers: 58 3
- 13ers: 787 34
- Trip Reports (0)
Re: A new 13er?
Always valuable and appreciated input Ben.
I think both Heather and I’s first comment on reaching the saddle was along the lines of how do you count that? In hindsight we should have measured down from the boulder but not sure that would have the accuracy needed anyway.
Here are a few more pictures of the saddle. In response to Hikerguy you can stand directly on the saddle low point. The ground falls away distinctly and rises fairly quickly from that point. My thoughts are the ground represents the saddle. The big boulder is not in place and fell from somewhere above touching the cliff at an area less than a square foot in size. That boulder is firmly planted and not going anywhere but the ground surface is relatively apparent in how it carries across the saddle unobscured by the boulder. The opening between the cliff is big enough a person could shimmy/crawl through it for some scale. As to the height of the boulder while standing in the saddle, seems like it was just below chest level so again not helpful for the detail needed.
There is a small plant and the shadow line of the boulder at the lowest point on the ground. Circled in one of the pictures.
Thanks for your screen shots Boggy those are helpful. That definitely looks like it could be the small adjacent boulder you circled so the point at 3927.11 would be close and likely within a few inches of the true saddle ground location.
I think both Heather and I’s first comment on reaching the saddle was along the lines of how do you count that? In hindsight we should have measured down from the boulder but not sure that would have the accuracy needed anyway.
Here are a few more pictures of the saddle. In response to Hikerguy you can stand directly on the saddle low point. The ground falls away distinctly and rises fairly quickly from that point. My thoughts are the ground represents the saddle. The big boulder is not in place and fell from somewhere above touching the cliff at an area less than a square foot in size. That boulder is firmly planted and not going anywhere but the ground surface is relatively apparent in how it carries across the saddle unobscured by the boulder. The opening between the cliff is big enough a person could shimmy/crawl through it for some scale. As to the height of the boulder while standing in the saddle, seems like it was just below chest level so again not helpful for the detail needed.
There is a small plant and the shadow line of the boulder at the lowest point on the ground. Circled in one of the pictures.
Thanks for your screen shots Boggy those are helpful. That definitely looks like it could be the small adjacent boulder you circled so the point at 3927.11 would be close and likely within a few inches of the true saddle ground location.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Garrett
- Posts: 147
- Joined: 9/17/2007
- 14ers: 58 3
- 13ers: 787 34
- Trip Reports (0)
Re: A new 13er?
You wouldn’t need to drill through the boulder and could place the survey equipment over the saddle ground point since the boulder is offset from it. No idea how the surrounding cliffs would affect that though. Here’s two pictures showing the summits. The one with the loose rock is what I called summit 1 in the pictures and what your calling the alternate summit. That’s how we found the summit and how we left it. The orange arrow points to the chosen summit/summit 2. The chosen summit likely is the better summit given it is a solid block. The second picture with Heather crossing back over shows that summit point a little closer.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Garrett
- Posts: 147
- Joined: 9/17/2007
- 14ers: 58 3
- 13ers: 787 34
- Trip Reports (0)
Re: A new 13er?
Also feel to message me for my phone number if any of you guys would like to talk directly.
-
yaktoleft13
- Posts: 500
- Joined: 4/17/2017
- 14ers: 58 15
- 13ers: 495 43
- Trip Reports (32)
Re: A new 13er?
I'm thinking this calls for a massive trundle to end all debate
-
Boggy B
- Posts: 955
- Joined: 10/14/2009
- 14ers: 58 7
- 13ers: 784 76
- Trip Reports (56)
Re: A new 13er?
^LOL yeah I agree on using the summit candidate that can't get East Crestone'd in lieu of a dGPS measurement.
Wow, seeing more photos of that boulder, it's shocking how well LiDAR captured it. What it did apparently miss is an accurate ground point beneath the more overhung high side of the boulder. The lowest it captured is 3928.22, which is higher than the pinch, whereas it appears there's a ground point roughly level with the top of the smaller boulder, which would place the pessimistic saddle at the south end of the boulder closer to 3927.8.
But I'm of the view that you fill the adjoining basins with water and the point/elevation at which it spills through to connect the two bodies is the saddle. In reality it's probably much lower since it's all swiss cheese under there, but logically in this case that would be the ground saddle beneath the pinch. Which would give it just shy of 299' by LiDAR.
Wow, seeing more photos of that boulder, it's shocking how well LiDAR captured it. What it did apparently miss is an accurate ground point beneath the more overhung high side of the boulder. The lowest it captured is 3928.22, which is higher than the pinch, whereas it appears there's a ground point roughly level with the top of the smaller boulder, which would place the pessimistic saddle at the south end of the boulder closer to 3927.8.
But I'm of the view that you fill the adjoining basins with water and the point/elevation at which it spills through to connect the two bodies is the saddle. In reality it's probably much lower since it's all swiss cheese under there, but logically in this case that would be the ground saddle beneath the pinch. Which would give it just shy of 299' by LiDAR.