Colorado LiDAR Findings

Colorado peak questions, condition requests and other info.
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.
Post Reply
User avatar
RyanSchilling
Posts: 171
Joined: 1/18/2005
14ers: 58 
13ers: 249
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by RyanSchilling »

Candace66 wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:20 pm
RyanSchilling wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:27 pm
• Storm Pk: summit is the closed contour closest to The Keyhole; elevation 13328'
How much higher is that point than the point marked by the 13326 spot elevation? In fact, exactly where is the Lidar summit?

about a 4-foot difference.

----------

Storm Pk's candidates:

Elev 13323.135
https://listsofjohn.com/mapf?lat=40.265 ... 04842&z=20

Elev 13323.965
https://listsofjohn.com/mapf?lat=40.264 ... 09545&z=20

Elev 13328.41
https://listsofjohn.com/mapf?lat=40.262 ... 11302&z=20
User avatar
Derek
Posts: 1156
Joined: 5/22/2006
Trip Reports (57)
 
Contact:

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Derek »

RyanSchilling wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:27 pm
EDIT: Noted the wrong 12er for promotion! Ben made a compelling case for a lower elevation for Longs than my initial finding. This places Longs at 14,259'
Nice! So to clarify, its Oh-LaLa (13049) that was promoted or 12277?

12277 seemed close so that wouldn't surprise me.

By chance did your new data set stretch south to Iroquois area?
User avatar
RyanSchilling
Posts: 171
Joined: 1/18/2005
14ers: 58 
13ers: 249
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by RyanSchilling »

Derek wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:58 am
RyanSchilling wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:27 pm
EDIT: Noted the wrong 12er for promotion! Ben made a compelling case for a lower elevation for Longs than my initial finding. This places Longs at 14,259'
Nice! So to clarify, its Oh-LaLa (13049) that was promoted or 12277?

12277 seemed close so that wouldn't surprise me.

By chance did your new data set stretch south to Iroquois area?
Hey Derek -- yeah, just a brain fart on my part as I compiled the highlights. 12277 is the promotion.

As to Iroquois, according to their map, OIT does have coverage for that section of the IPW, so I'll put in a request.
Teresa Gergen
Posts: 245
Joined: 8/12/2012
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Teresa Gergen »

Derek wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:58 am By chance did your new data set stretch south to Iroquois area?
And Eagles Beak?

The map you linked to shows coverage for a decent amount of area not currently in TNM. No idea how difficult it was to acquire and process it the way you did it; I had quite a bit of trouble with my available computing resources trying to get anything from OIT. If this wasn't prohibitively difficult for you, would you be interested in at least producing and sharing any .laz files, if not also doing the analysis, for the soft ranked CO peaks not available in TNM but for which you can get access to this way? Not on the following lists is Susan in Clear Creek, which has summit but not saddle data in TNM. (First column is LOJ PID, useful for naming the .laz files if you share them.)
No TNM SRs over 11K.jpg
No TNM SRs over 11K.jpg (77.21 KiB) Viewed 1908 times
No TNM SR 10ers.jpg
No TNM SR 10ers.jpg (74.68 KiB) Viewed 1908 times
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

Teresa Gergen wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:00 am
Derek wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:58 am By chance did your new data set stretch south to Iroquois area?
And Eagles Beak?

The map you linked to shows coverage for a decent amount of area not currently in TNM. No idea how difficult it was to acquire and process it the way you did it; I had quite a bit of trouble with my available computing resources trying to get anything from OIT. If this wasn't prohibitively difficult for you, would you be interested in at least producing and sharing any .laz files, if not also doing the analysis, for the soft ranked CO peaks not available in TNM but for which you can get access to this way? Not on the following lists is Susan in Clear Creek, which has summit but not saddle data in TNM. (First column is LOJ PID, useful for naming the .laz files if you share them.)

No TNM SRs over 11K.jpg

No TNM SR 10ers.jpg
Hey Teresa,

Any peaks that are covered by yellow polygons in this (more accurate) ArcGIS OIT coverage map should be accessible either via a simple FTP download, or via a special request form (which Ryan has been putting to good use!). Looks like Chiquita isn't yet available, as well as many others in northern and northwestern CO. But between all of us, we should be able to knock out some of the peaks not available via TNM and only via OIT special request. I haven't taken an in-depth look at which of your peaks are only available via OIT, but sounds like we got a few of 'em from Ryan's latest download, and Iroquois when they get back to him hopefully soon.
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/view ... 62,40.8782

I took a look at the RMNP tiles out of curiosity (thought we'd have to wait for a lot longer for those!). 12227 didn't unzip for me (though I do trust Ryan's results), but Ryan and I both agree that Eagles Beak and Ooh La La are not ranked. Once John does his next lidar page updates, you'll see quite a few peaks that Ryan took a look at!
Last edited by bdloftin77 on Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Teresa Gergen
Posts: 245
Joined: 8/12/2012
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Teresa Gergen »

Excellent, thanks to both of you!
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

No problem!

On a different note (and possibly less interesting to most here), Fremont is finally available via FTP! I downloaded all 327 GB, and I now have an AOI coverage map for the rest of Fremont away from the Arkansas River area (only previously available section), as well as ~1700 new LAS tiles. Haven't yet checked in depth to make sure the coverage tiles do correlate with the LAS tiles, but with the couple I've checked, it looks like we do have complete Fremont coverage now.
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

Latest results are up! (RMNP and a few others). I'll add 12277 to the newly ranked 12ers list, and Lady Washington to the demoted list.
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

A bunch of Teresa Gergen's results are up, including a new 10er and two new 11ers.

https://listsofjohn.com/peak/3135
https://listsofjohn.com/peak/2065
https://listsofjohn.com/peak/32234

As well as some of Joe Grim's results. 8092 in Larimer has been demoted.
User avatar
Eli Boardman
Posts: 660
Joined: 6/23/2016
14ers: 58  1  15 
13ers: 18 1
Trip Reports (16)
 
Contact:

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Eli Boardman »

Count40 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:16 pm It is so good and reassuring to see that OCD and bureaucracy are alive and healthy in dem hilz.
Perhaps, it would be good to take a few steps away from the picture to see it better.
And, perhaps, how about .....just walking.
I thought of this post as I emailed John to point out that a 2-inch rounding error had caused a peak not to be ranked...you're not wrong about us LiDAR freaks. :wink:

User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

Eli Boardman wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:35 pm
Count40 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:16 pm It is so good and reassuring to see that OCD and bureaucracy are alive and healthy in dem hilz.
Perhaps, it would be good to take a few steps away from the picture to see it better.
And, perhaps, how about .....just walking.
I thought of this post as I emailed John to point out that a 2-inch rounding error had caused a peak not to be ranked...you're not wrong about us LiDAR freaks. :wink:

:lol:
User avatar
RyanSchilling
Posts: 171
Joined: 1/18/2005
14ers: 58 
13ers: 249
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by RyanSchilling »

Eli Boardman wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:35 pm I thought of this post as I emailed John to point out that a 2-inch rounding error had caused a peak not to be ranked...you're not wrong about us LiDAR freaks. :wink:
Curious which peak is this?
Post Reply