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

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

HikerGuy wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:28 am
bdloftin77 wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:40 pm We've found 8 new 13ers.
9! You mentioned Overlook Point earlier, promoted from a 12er to 13er. With 3 demotions, we're at a net 6 gain in ranked peaks.

This analysis is so fun to watch. Appreciate the updates as you work through the list.
You're right! I overlooked Overlook Point.

Thanks! These counties have been completed (all soft-ranks analyzed) and contain these new peaks:

Custer: 12,585 (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/27)
Huerfano: 13,555 (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/268) and 9156 (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/3974)
Conejos: 11,037 (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/2382)
Lake: 13,545 (https://listsofjohn.com/peak/278)
Alamosa: None
Dobsons
Posts: 108
Joined: 4/5/2007
14ers: 58  6 
13ers: 317 1 11
Trip Reports (5)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Dobsons »

Really impressed by the hard work you guys are putting into this to analyze so much! Thanks for doing it! Would wonder about the lower 13ers and the high 12ers and if any of those could flip flop with the more accurate data too. Peak R in the Gore comes to mind as one that could potentially jump up the few feet to the 13er realm and have to wonder if a few of the lower 13ers could drop.

With all the peaks close to 300' that will be eventually analyzed it seems like several more 13ers will drop off the officially ranked list as well like Lenawee. I wouldn't be surprised if when it is all said and done the number of total 13ers is still actually quite similar but it will be cool having removed so much of the grey zone of the soft ranked peaks.

It's funny how I will check back to see how certain peaks shake out. There can be almost routing interest in the results. IE "Don't take peak 15! What a shame if that became unranked" or "Alright now I don't have to slog up to lightening pyramid and face that slope again to stand pretty much in the same place I did for thunder pyramid" etc etc. Regardless how it all shakes out will be cool to have more of a definitive list with certainly less grey zone involved.

Thanks again for the work you guys are putting into this
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

Dobsons wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:58 pm Really impressed by the hard work you guys are putting into this to analyze so much! Thanks for doing it! Would wonder about the lower 13ers and the high 12ers and if any of those could flip flop with the more accurate data too. Peak R in the Gore comes to mind as one that could potentially jump up the few feet to the 13er realm and have to wonder if a few of the lower 13ers could drop.

Thanks again for the work you guys are putting into this
No problem! Yeah, we'll definitely take a look at the 12er/13er borderline peaks.
Scott P wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 6:10 pm 1. Traditionally and in guidebooks and other peak lists, the summit of Perkins Peak is considered to be the spot 7491. Listsofjohn has it listed as the interpolated point 7500:
https://listsofjohn.com/mapf?lat=40.747 ... 15&d=y&d=r
Since this is a peak I used to frequent, I'd be really curious. Personally I believe the LoJ point marked to be the true summit.
I found the LoJ point to be higher than the 7491 point (7520', 40.74784, -111.77091 to be exact). This is class2/ground only - there were several areas nearby to the east that are higher, but appear to be vegetated (eg 40.74789,-111.77073 is a foot higher and is ~50 ft to the east, but looks like in the middle of some shrubs).
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

RadioJay wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:08 pm Haven’t seen anything about South Elbert in this thread so I’ll ask, has anyone revisited the 300’ rule for South Elbert? Contour lines show somewhat less than 300’ to the saddle (about 254’) but it sure seemed like more than 300’ last time I did it. Maybe I was just tired.
Just checked - 234' of prominence for South Elbert.
User avatar
Salient
Posts: 178
Joined: 2/19/2021
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Salient »

Are you able to check Challenger Point?
Be the best you that you can be.
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

Salient wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 4:47 pm Are you able to check Challenger Point?
It’s not covered by The National Map. On the Colorado Hazard Mapping website it shows as being in coverage. I downloaded Custer county from their FTP. Though a tile covering Challenger and its saddle showed up in their index shapefile (00155), it unfortunately was not included in their LAS tiles. I sent in an official request for that area, since it shows up as within their coverage. If they respond (hopefully within a couple weeks), I’ll take a look right away and report the results. That’s the peak I’ve been the most interested in.
User avatar
RadioJay
Posts: 66
Joined: 10/3/2011
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 15
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by RadioJay »

bdloftin77 wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:17 pm
RadioJay wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:08 pm Haven’t seen anything about South Elbert in this thread so I’ll ask, has anyone revisited the 300’ rule for South Elbert? Contour lines show somewhat less than 300’ to the saddle (about 254’) but it sure seemed like more than 300’ last time I did it. Maybe I was just tired.
Just checked - 234' of prominence for South Elbert.
Thanks!
User avatar
gb
Posts: 989
Joined: 12/12/2006
14ers: 56  54  6 
13ers: 67 54
Trip Reports (26)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by gb »

Eagerly awaiting Kit Carson's subpeak being demoted to non 14er status (which it's never really had, except on this website and a handful of other places). 54. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Tufftommy-BV
Posts: 66
Joined: 4/22/2017
14ers: 57  4 
13ers: 509
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Tufftommy-BV »

Ranked 13ers took a beating today with an additional FIVE being demoted below the 300’ threshold. 😳. This includes bicentennial Wood along with 13401, Milwaukee, Peak 12 and Rhoda. Seems I’ve done some extraneous work! More to come, I’m sure.

On the other hand, those rooting for Peak 15 will be happy to know it’s climbed to 349’ of prominence.
Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted....
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by bdloftin77 »

Tufftommy-BV wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:03 pm Ranked 13ers took a beating today with an additional FIVE being demoted below the 300’ threshold. 😳. This includes bicentennial Wood along with 13401, Milwaukee, Peak 12 and Rhoda. Seems I’ve done some extraneous work! More to come, I’m sure.

On the other hand, those rooting for Peak 15 will be happy to know it’s climbed to 349’ of prominence.
Beat me to the punch! We also found a new ranked 11er in the Elephant Head Rock quad. https://listsofjohn.com/peak/2010
User avatar
Chicago Transplant
Posts: 4008
Joined: 9/7/2004
14ers: 58  12  24 
13ers: 697 39 34
Trip Reports (66)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Chicago Transplant »

Tufftommy-BV wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:03 pm Ranked 13ers took a beating today with an additional FIVE being demoted below the 300’ threshold. 😳. This includes bicentennial Wood along with 13401, Milwaukee, Peak 12 and Rhoda. Seems I’ve done some extraneous work! More to come, I’m sure.

On the other hand, those rooting for Peak 15 will be happy to know it’s climbed to 349’ of prominence.
By the time this is all done we will end up where we started, 584 ranked 13ers. They will just shift around :lol:
"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
Tornadoman
Posts: 1438
Joined: 7/30/2007
14ers: 58  8 
13ers: 266 35
Trip Reports (12)
 

Re: Colorado LiDAR Findings

Post by Tornadoman »

The BiCentennial picture continues to becoming clearer with the additional peaks with just over 300' being evaluated by LIDAR.

REMOVALS:
"Lightning Pyramid" (Not Ranked)
Wood Mountain (Not Ranked)
Mt. Powell (Elevation Lowered)
13,580- San Juans (Elevation Lowered)
13,580- Sangres (Elevation Lowered)

Additions
Mt. Evans B (Elevation Raised)
Mt. Parnassus (Elevation Raised)
Mt. Rosalie (Elevation Raised)

Currently if my math is correct, Clark and Rosalie are tied at 199 & 200 at 13,579'. Chiefs Head is also at 13,579' so depending on it's new LIDAR elevation it may or may not be a Bi. Obviously the list won't be final until all the peaks are evaluated!
Climb the mountain so you can see the world, not so the world can see you.
Post Reply