Colorado LiDAR Findings

[TakeMeToYourSummit]

I was looking at the LOJ map the other day and noticed that "South South Massive" now is soft ranked. Does that mean it will get a marker over on this site at some point in the future?

[k_fergie]

I was looking at the LOJ map the other day and noticed that "South South Massive" now is soft ranked. Does that mean it will get a marker over on this site at some point in the future?

?? Not showing up as soft ranked for me. https://listsofjohn.com/peak/136507

[TakeMeToYourSummit]

I was looking at the LOJ map the other day and noticed that "South South Massive" now is soft ranked. Does that mean it will get a marker over on this site at some point in the future?

?? Not showing up as soft ranked for me. https://listsofjohn.com/peak/136507

The map is showing 262' of prominence. I hadn't checked it on the list yet. I'm sure John is doing a lot of update work on his site as well.

[k_fergie]

I was looking at the LOJ map the other day and noticed that "South South Massive" now is soft ranked. Does that mean it will get a marker over on this site at some point in the future?

?? Not showing up as soft ranked for me. https://listsofjohn.com/peak/136507

The map is showing 262' of prominence. I hadn't checked it on the list yet. I'm sure John is doing a lot of update work on his site as well.

The FS map shows an interpolated prominence of 250' (spot elevation of 13630 and interpolate saddle of 13380). The LiDAR is showing a prominence of 262', having gained 7 feet of height and 5 feet lower saddle. It is line 1183 on this table: https://listsofjohn.com/lidar/lidar.php

[TakeMeToYourSummit]

?? Not showing up as soft ranked for me. https://listsofjohn.com/peak/136507

The map is showing 262' of prominence. I hadn't checked it on the list yet. I'm sure John is doing a lot of update work on his site as well.

The FS map shows an interpolated prominence of 250' (spot elevation of 13630 and interpolate saddle of 13380). The LiDAR is showing a prominence of 262', having gained 7 feet of height and 5 feet lower saddle. It is line 1183 on this table: https://listsofjohn.com/lidar/lidar.php

Ahhh 280'... for some reason 250' for soft ranked was sticking in my head! I work in a bank - so I stare at too many numbers on a daily basis! Thanks for reminding me!

[Scott P]

Ahhh 280'... for some reason 250' for soft ranked was sticking in my head! I work in a bank - so I stare at too many numbers on a daily basis! Thanks for reminding me!

I don't know if you know what soft ranked means. Once a peak has LiDAR data, it can't be soft ranked unless it was within a foot or two of the threshold so still questionable.

Soft rankings are only for interpolated elevations, not fixed elevations.

If a peak has a fixed elevation for both the saddle and the summit (whether by topo map or LiDAR), even if the rise is between 280-299', it won't get a soft ranking.

This peak is a good example:

https://listsofjohn.com/mobile/peak/6280

It has 299' of rise, but is not currently soft ranked because the saddle has a spot elevation.

Even if South South Massive had a rise of 292', it would still not be soft ranked (since the saddle has a LiDAR elevation).

[TakeMeToYourSummit]

Scott-

It's as you said here - it's not as simple as 280 to 299:

Ranked - prominence = 300' or higher.
Soft-ranked - 280' to 299'.
Unranked - below 280'

This, but only if the elevation for either (or both) the connecting saddle and/or peak is interpolated. Peaks where both elevations are given in a topo map aren't soft ranked even if they have 280' to 300' of prominence. Example:

https://listsofjohn.com/mobile/peak/6280

Soft ranked just means that a peak might have 300' of prominence, but the interpolated value is 280-299. Since it is possible such a peak has 300 feet of prominence, it is given a soft rank.

North Massive is a good example to use to show why the peak is soft ranked.

The topo maps don't give a spot elevation for either the peak or the connecting saddle.

The peak is between 14,320' and 14,360' and the saddle is 14,040 to 14,080' The prominence of the peak using interpolation is 280', but the possible prominence range is 240' to 320'.

There is a 75% chance that the peak is unranked and a 25% chance that the peak is ranked, so the peak is given a soft rank since it might be ranked.

Signal Butte (in the link) is not soft ranked, even though it has 299' of prominence since the summit elevation has a spot elevation of 6522' and the saddle also has a fixed elevation of 6223'. Assuming the topo map is correct (and lists always assume it is until proven otherwise), there is a 0% chance that the peak is ranked, thus no soft rank. Someone would have to go out there and prove that the topo map is in error for it to be ranked, but it will never be soft ranked since both the saddle and peak have spot elevations.

Sorry if I was making it sound as simple as a basic number like 250 or 280. I know you delve into this stuff pretty deep!

[Candace66]

Is there a way I can download the updated Colorado Trcentennial list? Or at least the Bicentennial list? I can pull up the Bi list on LOJ, but there's no way to download it. At least not when I'm on my phone.

Come to think of it, is this project complete? Or are there still some question marks when it comes to the highest peaks in Colorado? I've been traveling for over a month so I haven't been following this lately.

[mike offerman]

Is there a way I can download the updated Colorado Trcentennial list? Or at least the Bicentennial list? I can pull up the Bi list on LOJ, but there's no way to download it. At least not when I'm on my phone.

Come to think of it, is this project complete? Or are there still some question marks when it comes to the highest peaks in Colorado? I've been traveling for over a month so I haven't been following this lately.

I believe you can get what you want with the export feature, https://listsofjohn.com/export

If you select the gpx type and Colorado, it lets you pick an elevation range, 13,000 - 13,999 and a # of peaks, say 200.

Looks like the csv option doesn't have the # of peaks available. It gives you what you want, but just with more peaks tacked onto the end!

[Candace66]

I believe you can get what you want with the export feature, https://listsofjohn.com/export

If you select the gpx type and Colorado, it lets you pick an elevation range, 13,000 - 13,999 and a # of peaks, say 200.

Looks like the csv option doesn't have the # of peaks available. It gives you what you want, but just with more peaks tacked onto the end!

That looks like it'll work for my purposes. I selected "all" and downloaded the whole shebang! Thanks!

But I'm still wondering if there is still some lidar analysis going on for colorado?

[12ersRule]

Per this link, which Eli provided in the "LiDAR what it takes" thread, this is the current LiDAR coverage in Colorado.

https://usgs.entwine.io/

It's a little hard for me to read that map because I can't seem to figure out the frame of reference in regards to peaks, but from how I interpret it is that there are a lot of Sawatch peaks that don't have liDAR coverage. It looks like there's some holes in the San Juans too.

I heard at a presentation at work that liDAR mapping of the entire lower 48 should be done in 2025, but as you know, there's the whole analysis thing that has to happen once all the raw data is in. I don't know where this person got 2025 from either, because we're just consumers of this data.

It's probably gonna be a few years for a full LiDAR Tricentennial list.

[bdloftin77]

Per this link, which Eli provided in the "LiDAR what it takes" thread, this is the current LiDAR coverage in Colorado.

https://usgs.entwine.io/

Some LiDAR coverage maps that I've used..

TNM (The National Map):
https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/LidarE ... dex.html#/ (check the box on the left to show where lidar is available)
Soon the old website will migrate to this address: https://usgs.gov/NationalMap/LidarExplorer

OIT (Governor's Office of Information Technology - Colorado Hazard Mapping):
https://coloradohazardmapping.com/LidarDownload (see large coverage map on the right)

Between TNM and OIT, most of Colorado currently has coverage except some north and northwestern areas.