Colorado LiDAR Findings

[RyanSchilling]

I know that, that's pure fact of physical reality. Any point has the prominence that it has. It's tautological. My point was that Sheep's "summit," where the benchmark is, is lower than a point along the ridge that makes up Sheep-at-large. Using ChicagoTransplant's example of "Hawk Peak", however, the summit is higher than the benchmark. The only differences are the former is unranked and the latter ranked; the former's ridge high point is farther from the benchmark, the latter's high point closer. So they have different rules as far as what we consider to be the point worth tagging. In Sheep's case it's the lower benchmark. In "Hawk"'s case it's the higher unmarked point. Actual prominence should be irrelevant in my opinion, it's what point has a higher elevation that matters. At least in my mind!

Sorry I had misunderstood!

[Chicago Transplant]

I kind of see Ben's point on consistency, but to me its more "why is Hawk BM not listed as an unranked peak with 53' of interpolated prominence"? That would be the 12793 BM minus a 12740 interpolated saddle. Benchmarks are typically listed if they have some sort of prominence. Maybe it is a proximity thing in that case? It is consistent to note a higher ranked peak as the summit even when it is not named as it is the high point of a ranked peak. In this case the highpoint is not sharing its name with the BM, it is separately named as "Hawk Peak". They are being treated as two different points.

It is also consistent to NOT list an unranked unnamed summit unless it has a published nickname (i.e. "Lake Point" being marked on the map but the tower east of Sheep not being marked). I think in the tower in question's case, it's more about what was intended to be Sheep Mountain when this feature was named? If the BM is the intent, then the tower is irrelevant without a name as it is still not ranked. Given that there are so many unnamed unranked towers all over the state, not including it seems consistent to me if the BM is considered the named point. If Sheep was intended to be the entire massif, it could be the tower that is the top, especially given that the saddle with San Miguel is actually east of it. That may be the most compelling reason to call the tower the summit?

[supranihilest]

I kind of see Ben's point on consistency, but to me its more "why is Hawk BM not listed as an unranked peak with 53' of interpolated prominence"?

This is basically my argument but in reverse.

Maybe it is a proximity thing in that case?

Quite possible, but this would once again come down to an arbitrary value like the 300-foot prominence = ranked criteria. What isolation does a peak require before it's considered a separate peak? Could we actually call "Hawk Peak" the nearby benchmark, that is call it Hawk Benchmark, if it's within a certain distance of the benchmark? What about Sheep? The fact that the benchmark for Hawk isn't actually on the high point is the unusual thing about that one, if you ask me. The higher point is a few feet away and non-technical, so I'd just call the darn thing Hawk Benchmark even if that's not the exact location of the benchmark.

It is also consistent to NOT list an unranked unnamed summit unless it has a published nickname (i.e. "Lake Point" being marked on the map but the tower east of Sheep not being marked). I think in the tower in question's case, it's more about what was intended to be Sheep Mountain when this feature was named? If the BM is the intent, then the tower is irrelevant without a name as it is still not ranked.

I guess, but I think in the case of Sheep the name came before the benchmark. I don't know that but I'm going to assume it. So therefore it's the massif itself that's named Sheep. It's possible that some old miner intended a spot on the massif to be Sheep but I think it's more likely that as the name came into common usage that it meant the massif. Someone else may have meant a different point. Ultimately something up there got the name Sheep Mountain, and I would hazard a guess that the name came long before the benchmark. About towers...

Given that there are so many unnamed unranked towers all over the state, not including it seems consistent to me if the BM is considered the named point.

I'm going to throw the pile of "named" towers around Sneffels in as an example. Sneffels is named, has a benchmark, and is obviously ranked, and none of the towers are named, have a benchmark, or are ranked, but in this case it's obvious the massif is Mount Sneffels (and Mount Sneffels actually encompasses the towers as well; I don't think anybody could argue they aren't part of the mountain known as Mount Sneffels) and the towers are the towers but also a part of the massif. That distinction isn't clear with Sheep but only because of two words on a map and a small circle of metal cemented into a rock. However...

If Sheep was intended to be the entire massif, it could be the tower that is the top, especially given that the saddle with San Miguel is actually east of it. That may be the most compelling reason to call the tower the summit?

I'd argue that the name Sheep Mountain tells us what we need to know. It's officially named Sheep Mountain, not Sheep Benchmark. The words on the map and the arbitrary location of the benchmark are irrelevant, in my opinion. The local denizens of the past who originally gave it the name Sheep Mountain almost certainly, as a collective, called the entire massif Sheep. Which circles back to yeah, some individuals probably called individual points (including, no doubt, the tower in question) Sheep Mountain, but as a whole, if you polled a large representative sample of folks back then, I'm sure most would probably just gesture carelessly at the massif and say "yep, that's Sheep Mountain". The only arbitrary thing then becomes where we determine Sheep Mountain to start and stop, and "Lake Point" to start and stop, or perhaps San Miguel Peak to start and stop in relation to Sheep if we were to take "Lake Point" out of the equation (which would be difficult to do because it's higher than Sheep, so either it would be a part of Sheep or a part of San Miguel; maybe we should separate by color? San Miguel and "Lake Point" are red, Sheep is gray. ) Which then again comes back to the arbitrary 300-foot prominence = rank thing. Now I'm just arguing in circles. With myself.

In any case, I give this my vote based on likely history of the name existing before the benchmark:

If Sheep was intended to be the entire massif[...] That may be the most compelling reason to call the tower the summit?

[bdloftin77]

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.

Me neither. Got a similar result for Pt 13269, and 241' of prominence for this point below.

Maybe we'll eventually find something with these spot checks! Doing this ridge analysis gave me some appreciation for all the work John's done! And he didn't have the benefit of lidar elevation coloring to help his task, either.

[KentonB]

Ben, I've got a question for you that's been on my mind for years... A couple pages back you mentioned Point 8130 in El Paso County (part of Section 16). I noticed years ago that there is a high point ~270' to the north of the LoJ summit that appeared to be the same elevation. Trees block an unobstructed view from one summit to the other, but GPS shows them to be essentially the same altitude. I tried to do an angular comparison from a point slightly west of their saddle but again, couldn't determine which was higher. By any chance did you look to see which might be the true high point? Below shows my tracks on one trip up there visiting both summits along with the LoJ summit location.

Capture.JPG

[bdloftin77]

Hi Kent,

The first time I “did” 8130, I visited the north summit but hadn’t done enough research to realize the south summit was a strong candidate. Don’t even think I brought my GPS along. Last week I visited the rocky class three south summit. After taking some relatively measurements with a tape measure, I’m confident both that LiDAR was hitting this high point and that this is indeed the high point of 8130, making it barely ranked.

I’m on my way to the Horns right now to see if I can figure out what’s going on up there. The high point might actually be in the southern contour instead of the northern contour that’s next to the ‘lookout’ cabin (what looks like a fire lookout tower from a distance).

[supranihilest]

What's the story on Sheep's ladder? That's a first for me.

No idea besides someone got scared by the tower and thought it necessary. Whiley says the tower is only Class 2+, just super loose and super exposed.

I really hope V9's summit doesn't change, that's the junkiest of the junk ridges in the San Miguels.

Was anything found to be different for "V 9" and its western summit? I wanted to make sure that didn't get lost in the discussion.

[KentonB]

I’m on my way to the Horns right now to see if I can figure out what’s going on up there. The high point might actually be in the southern contour instead of the northern contour that’s next to the ‘lookout’ cabin (what looks like a fire lookout tower from a distance).

Looking forward to hearing your results! I agree, they both looked viable. I was so uncertain where the true summit was that I tagged both when I was there in 2010. I remember my hiking partners thinking I was wasting my time and waiting for me at the north summit while I tagged the southern point. I'd really love to go back 12 years later and say "I told you so".

[bdloftin77]

Was anything found to be different for "V 9" and its western summit? I wanted to make sure that didn't get lost in the discussion.

Thanks for checking! I remembered a bit ago that I hadn’t responded to that part. The current LoJ summit is current, and higher than the western summit by more than 5 feet. I submitted the actual result along with a few other peaks to John recently, should be up soon.

[bdloftin77]

Looking forward to hearing your results! I agree, they both looked viable. I was so uncertain where the true summit was that I tagged both when I was there in 2010. I remember my hiking partners thinking I was wasting my time and waiting for me at the north summit while I tagged the southern point. I'd really love to go back 12 years later and say "I told you so".

Haha. I haven’t yet revisited the LiDAR results yet, but from a visual inspection, either of the two big rocks near the cabin seemed to be the highest. I visited all candidates, and will compare the LiDAR to my tracks later today.

I’m on 9620 right now, and it does look like the northeastern point is legit with no encroaching vegetation. I’ll look at the LiDAR later, but I believe this point barely remains ranked.

[Chicago Transplant]

Was anything found to be different for "V 9" and its western summit? I wanted to make sure that didn't get lost in the discussion.

Thanks for checking! I remembered a bit ago that I hadn’t responded to that part. The current LoJ summit is current, and higher than the western summit by more than 5 feet. I submitted the actual result along with a few other peaks to John recently, should be up soon.

Thanks for checking V9! I did go out and back to that other summit and thought it was lower. I didn't bother with that point on my repeat visit.

[Imcp]

On the topic of Sheep Mountain's name and benchmark (and more generally where names and benchmarks are vague), it could have been named because it is aesthetically pleasing or very noticeable from just one angle like Storm Peak as viewed from around the Estes Park entrance to RMNP.

From the north, Sheep Mountain just looks like a sub-summit of Lake Point (screenshot from Google streetview):
https://imgur.com/n9zTMtU

Lake Point and Sheep from North.JPG

But looking at it from near the Kilpacker trailhead, it looks like its own mountain (screenshot from Google Earth):
https://imgur.com/UAU1Em0

Sheep Lake San Miguel.JPG

There used to be a mine up near Dunton so the area was trafficked.
This is a screenshot from https://maps.dnrgis.state.co.us/drms/In ... iewer=drms:
https://imgur.com/MjnaXPX

San Miguel Area Mines.JPG

Since the benchmarks were made more for surveying than for identifying exact peak elevations, and the view from Kilpacker is pretty convincing, I think the benchmark is also the named point/"summit".

Sort of related, I would consider the Sawtooth ridge to be a named feature on the Bierstadt-Evans saddle that was retroactively considered a peak, sort of like how the Flatirons are almost always thought of separately from Green Mountain. That would explain why maps label it centrally instead of on the highpoint.

Edit: I attached the images since imgur doesn't want to preview and clicking links is annoying