*PSA* - Ranked Lists Changing based off LiDAR Analysis

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
JChitwood
Posts: 622
Joined: 8/29/2011
14ers: 58 
13ers: 51
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: *PSA* - Ranked Lists Changing based off LiDAR Analysis

Post by JChitwood »

I’m pulling for Drift or Iowa to move up and take out Dallas as a Centennial.
"I'll make it." - Jimmy Chitwood
User avatar
HikerGuy
Posts: 1406
Joined: 5/25/2006
14ers: 58 
13ers: 426 8
Trip Reports (9)
 

Re: *PSA* - Ranked Lists Changing based off LiDAR Analysis

Post by HikerGuy »

JChitwood wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:59 pm I’m pulling for Drift or Iowa to move up and take out Dallas as a Centennial.
If Challenger drops off, you'll need both.
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: *PSA* - Ranked Lists Changing based off LiDAR Analysis

Post by bdloftin77 »

Unfortunately the lidar isn't yet available for Challenger. But having taken an hour GPS reading at the saddle, I'm very doubtful that it's ranked.
Flyingfish
Posts: 282
Joined: 5/23/2011
14ers: 58  3 
13ers: 533 2 16
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: *PSA* - Ranked Lists Changing based off LiDAR Analysis

Post by Flyingfish »

12ersRule wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:07 pm
Flyingfish wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:37 pm I was the lead climbing instructor at that scout ranch for a few years and can tell you that it is a stiff climb or a super easy aid.
Super Easy Aid for a 5.11 sounds fabulous! Thanks!
Now that I look through my guide book for the ranch it looks like there are 3 routes to the summit. The splitter 5.11 trad crack. A 5.10- variation to that and a 5.8 arete to face climb with a bolt ladder on the face. The other soft ranked peak on ranch property is easy class 3 or so and we would do it as an into to scrambling evening event. If you are interested in climbing either contact Longs Peak Council out of Greeley and I suspect that you can gain legal access to these especially if they become ranked.
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 781
Joined: 10/14/2009
14ers: 58  7 
13ers: 777 76
Trip Reports (40)
 

Re: *PSA* - Ranked Lists Changing based off LiDAR Analysis

Post by Boggy B »

Some history courtesy of the late Steve G:
sgladbach wrote: When Jerry Roach printed his tabular listing of the 13ers he named peaks at a whim. Some came from historical usage (Phoenix), some he created using a geographical reference (Cloud Peak or Petroleum Peak) and others he just thought were cute (”So-So” near the formally monickered Mt.Oso and ”Proposal Peak” where he and Jennifer were engaged.)

As a basis for his tabular listing, before he began his own work to identify ”soft-Ranked” peaks, he referenced the first tabular listing ever compiled. This can only be found in the ground-breaking publication Colorados High Thirteeners: A Climbing and Hiking Guide by Mike Garrat and Bob Martin. The tabular listing was first published in 1984. Other CMC members were instrumental in the development of this first accurate tabular listing of the 13ers.

Roach's decision assign and publish names as he wished has had mixed consequenses. Many climbers find it easier to remember and reference these officially un-named peaks, but it has confused the historical record.

Last week I was part of a team to complete a winter trip on an Eastern San Juan centennial. I sent a SPOT message and a climbing partner of 25 years called to congratulate me on climbing UN13895. A younger, newer partner called to get the beta for Phoenix Peak!

Listsofjohn, 14ers.com, and 13ers.com have re-published the Roach-named list; it will be hard to back now!

[...] Soft-ranked peaks are a concept concieved by Jerry Roach and, IMO, a very valuable contribution to the idea of creating a complete tabular listing of the 13ers (much more so than making up names for un-named peaks.)

The only criterion for the ranked lists (including the 584) is that they are ranked, so when more accurate measurements turn up additional peaks, the lists should receive them, lest they become arbitrary and defunct like the CMC definition of a 14er.
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: *PSA* - Ranked Lists Changing based off LiDAR Analysis

Post by bdloftin77 »

Boggy B wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:29 pm Some history courtesy of the late Steve G:
sgladbach wrote: When Jerry Roach printed his tabular listing of the 13ers he named peaks at a whim. Some came from historical usage (Phoenix), some he created using a geographical reference (Cloud Peak or Petroleum Peak) and others he just thought were cute (”So-So” near the formally monickered Mt.Oso and ”Proposal Peak” where he and Jennifer were engaged.)

As a basis for his tabular listing, before he began his own work to identify ”soft-Ranked” peaks, he referenced the first tabular listing ever compiled. This can only be found in the ground-breaking publication Colorados High Thirteeners: A Climbing and Hiking Guide by Mike Garrat and Bob Martin. The tabular listing was first published in 1984. Other CMC members were instrumental in the development of this first accurate tabular listing of the 13ers.

Roach's decision assign and publish names as he wished has had mixed consequenses. Many climbers find it easier to remember and reference these officially un-named peaks, but it has confused the historical record.

Last week I was part of a team to complete a winter trip on an Eastern San Juan centennial. I sent a SPOT message and a climbing partner of 25 years called to congratulate me on climbing UN13895. A younger, newer partner called to get the beta for Phoenix Peak!

Listsofjohn, 14ers.com, and 13ers.com have re-published the Roach-named list; it will be hard to back now!

[...] Soft-ranked peaks are a concept concieved by Jerry Roach and, IMO, a very valuable contribution to the idea of creating a complete tabular listing of the 13ers (much more so than making up names for un-named peaks.)

The only criterion for the ranked lists (including the 584) is that they are ranked, so when more accurate measurements turn up additional peaks, the lists should receive them, lest they become arbitrary and defunct like the CMC definition of a 14er.
I agree. Ranked (CO) lists are based off of peaks likely having 300 feet of prominence. Though this number may seem arbitrary, it is part of the definition of what many define as a unique peak, and not just a sub-summit. If you're climbing all the peaks in an elevation range, or all the peaks in a geographic area, an objective way to do so is to define a prominence threshold that applies to all the peaks. Names are not objective - some names might call attention to a bump/rock on a ridge; others might name the edge of a cliff/lookout point. If we don't define a prominence threshold, you either have an infinite list (infinite sub-summits as you zoom further and further in), or you get a subjective list that doesn't treat all the peaks according to an equal standard. (There are other objective standards that could be applied such as steepness, isolation, etc, but these are less commonly used).

From the most accurate data that we previously had (USGS maps), unless saddles have been surveyed, you have contour intervals as error factors. If you define the saddle as equal to the lowest ridge contours, you are likely missing many ranked summits where the saddle is below that, and the list is too exclusive. If you define the highest valley contours as the saddle, your list is too inclusive, and you are including too many peaks that are in fact not ranked. Splitting the difference, or taking the interpolated saddle location, made the most sense. Because of the error factor, you are still missing some summits and including other extra summits that shouldn't be there. But it's a good start based on the data we had.

Now that we have LiDAR data becoming more and more available, it only makes sense to use this more accurate information to better refine our ranked lists. Kirk thinks all of Colorado might have LiDAR coverage within a few years at most, possibly a lot sooner. It is exciting we have this data available so we can more accurately look at the elevations and saddles of our peaks.
User avatar
Eli Boardman
Posts: 660
Joined: 6/23/2016
14ers: 58  1  15 
13ers: 18 1
Trip Reports (16)
 
Contact:

Re: *PSA* - Ranked Lists Changing based off LiDAR Analysis

Post by Eli Boardman »

So based on John's LoJ ticks, I'm guessing that we're talking about Ellingwood Ridge and U.N. 13545 (north of Independence Pass) as possible new 13ers? Curious to hear which 12er is the one that no current finishers have climbed...

https://listsofjohn.com/peak/581
https://listsofjohn.com/peak/278
User avatar
lukePlumley
Posts: 79
Joined: 8/14/2007
14ers: 52 
13ers: 232
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: *PSA* - Ranked Lists Changing based off LiDAR Analysis

Post by lukePlumley »

https://listsofjohn.com/mobile/peak/1742

The Castles East is my guess, and this one would really complicate the 12ers endeavor!
"Ain't nothing to it, Listsofjohn made me do it!" -- Ice Cube
User avatar
Chicago Transplant
Posts: 4008
Joined: 9/7/2004
14ers: 58  12  24 
13ers: 697 39 34
Trip Reports (66)
 

Re: *PSA* - Ranked Lists Changing based off LiDAR Analysis

Post by Chicago Transplant »

Eli Boardman wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:08 am So based on John's LoJ ticks, I'm guessing that we're talking about Ellingwood Ridge and U.N. 13545 (north of Independence Pass) as possible new 13ers? Curious to hear which 12er is the one that no current finishers have climbed...

https://listsofjohn.com/peak/581
https://listsofjohn.com/peak/278
I think there are more than just those two, but he may have climbed them previously and not gone back? PT 13517 in the Sangre is 297' interpolated and 13555 also in the Sangre is 295'. There are several others with over 290 feet interpolated and when we did Kendall BM by Silverton years ago GPS in both directions gave a saddle of 12740 which would be 326' instead of the 286' interpolated.

John's notes on Kendall BM:
Notes: Saddle is located in area indicated as 12720+40' on map. It appears map contours are incorrect near saddle, and multiple GPS units read difference between summit and saddle to be more than 340'. Historical maps also show 4 100' closed contours (minimum 300' prominence).
https://listsofjohn.com/peak/754
"We want the unpopular challenge. We want to test our intellect!" - Snapcase
"You are not what you own" - Fugazi
"Life's a mountain not a beach" - Fortune Cookie I got at lunch the other day
User avatar
jkirk
Posts: 65
Joined: 7/19/2005
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: *PSA* - Ranked Lists Changing based off LiDAR Analysis

Post by jkirk »

DArcyS wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:42 pm
bdloftin77 wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:14 am I can say with certainty that no one has completed the 12ers in Colorado. [quoting John Kirk]
The correct statement is "I can say with certainty that no one has completed the 12ers in Colorado according to a new criterion for establishing what constitutes a ranked peak."

There is no "certainty," just different ways of obtaining elevation data (i.e., more accurate means through time) and interpreting elevation data (i.e., the subjective 300' rule), where the elevation data of geologic features changes as a function of time (i.e., erosion and rising sea levels).

To each their own.
I have to disagree. LiDAR has revealed that contours are missing from the map in this case, and in fact the unclimbed peak has over 450' of prominence. There is no new criterion here, if a peak possesses more than 300' of prominence, it possesses more than 300' of prominence.
User avatar
jkirk
Posts: 65
Joined: 7/19/2005
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: *PSA* - Ranked Lists Changing based off LiDAR Analysis

Post by jkirk »

As much as I'd like to keep the cat in the bag until a more thorough listing is available, I'll share my findings thus far. Some of it is random, because there are areas I have been wanting to visit and seeking out "new peaks." Since I'm doing the work, I may as well be selfish about what comes first. :roll:

The goods:
https://listsofjohn.com/lidar/lidar.php

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

Re: *PSA* - Ranked Lists Changing based off LiDAR Analysis

Post by bdloftin77 »

Eli Boardman wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:08 am So based on John's LoJ ticks, I'm guessing that we're talking about Ellingwood Ridge and U.N. 13545 (north of Independence Pass) as possible new 13ers? Curious to hear which 12er is the one that no current finishers have climbed...

https://listsofjohn.com/peak/581
https://listsofjohn.com/peak/278
Eli, you are correct!

John's link contains the mystery 12er, as well... Good luck to all who attempt it!
Post Reply