dGPS Centennials Surveys Completed

[EricGilbertson]

Eric Gilbertson, Elijah Gendron, Dylan Kilby, Ben Loftin, Joseph Thompson

The Centennials List was updated with LiDAR measurements in 2021, but LiDAR is not perfect and can have elevation errors up to a few feet. Based on LiDAR errors there were still nine edge-case peaks of being Centennials based on prominence or elevation.

We have now surveyed all these edge-case peaks with dGPS units capable of 0.1ft vertical accuracy or better. The edge case peaks were Crestone, East Crestone, Columbia Point, Arrow, Niagara, Trinity, Teakettle, American, and Obstruction. Crestone and Columbia point were removed due to having less than 300ft of prominence, and East Crestone added for having greater than 300ft of prominence (results of those surveys from October were posted previously). The others were tied for number 100 for elevation. Results for the more recent surveys, conducted in May/June this year, are (NAD83(2011)Epoch2010 NAVD88 Geoid18 international ft):

Rank Peak Elevation (ft)
98 Arrow 13817.8
99 Niagara 13816.2
100 Trinity 13815.8
101 Teakettle 13815.2
102 American 13814.1
103 Obstruction 13813.0

The full Centennials list is now updated on peakbagger: https://www.peakbagger.com/list.aspx?lid=21363

The Centennials list is now stable and not anticipated to be updated further, barring major events such as landslides.
All the climbers/surveyors have backgrounds either climbing the centennials or are working on them. I set the self-supported Centennials FKT in 2020 (still unbeaten as of 2026). Joseph Thompson finished the Cents in 2025, and Elijah Gendron finished this year. Ben Loftin and Dylan Kilby are working on finishing.

Link to detailed report and raw measurement files:
https://www.countryhighpoints.com/gnss- ... ials-list/


Eric and Elijah on Trinity

[blazintoes]

A big thank you to Eric, Elijah, Dylan, Ben, and Joseph for all the work that went into surveying these edge-case Centennial peaks. It’s pretty amazing to see long-standing mountain debates settled to within fractions of a foot.

As someone recovering from ankle surgery, following these surveys has been a fine distraction and given me something fun to obsess over besides physical therapy.

Also, thanks to Boggy for sharing such a great route up West Eolus. It made for a memorable day in one of my favorite corners of the San Juans.

As for West Eolus, I’m still not emotionally prepared to accept 299.931 feet of prominence. Elijah informed me that any changes to the saddle must occur naturally, so I’ve begun training a mountain goat excavation crew. Judging by this photo, progress is being made.

[daway8]

Someone remind me what the final fate of Dallas was - did it meet all the requirements but just get pushed too far down the list (like 104) or was it disqualified altogether due to prominence?

(I know it's been posted before but there are sooo many of these threads to look through now - it would be nice to consolidate the data and that's the one key point not reviewed in this update...)

Thanks!

[josephnephi]

Someone remind me what the final fate of Dallas was - did it meet all the requirements but just get pushed too far down the list (like 104) or was it disqualified altogether due to prominence?

It’s currently 104 with 13812. Could be worth measuring with dGPS but incredibly, incredibly unlikely it ends up being a Centennial.

[junkj]

Gotta love everything about this, especially the persistent indeterminacy despite all the efforts to eliminate it.

"There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors."

Joseph, is it time to update your 14ers.com signature?

[josephnephi]

Joseph, is it time to update your 14ers.com signature?

Fixed it!

Screenshot 2026-06-21 at 10.14.17 AM.png

[skyrme17]

I commend the team for the effort.

I have a question for the OP concerning their arXiv:2511.12341 article. In justifying the discrepancies between LIDAR and dGNSS they state: "In one instance, LiDAR was in error by 0.94m for a summit elevation because a measurement sampled what was possibly a person on a summit. The point was misclassified as ground, leading to an overmeasurement. This occurred on Crestone Peak in Colorado (Fig 1), an open rocky summit." If the Crestone Peak measurement is inaccurate because of an erroneous data point hypothetically associated with a person on the summit, why aren't more data points in the LIDAR measurement erroneous because of the same effect on peaks that get significantly more traffic? LIDAR measurements on peaks like Quandry, Grays, Elbert to name a few should then return many more 3'-5' erroneous data points.

[josephnephi]

I commend the team for the effort.

I have a question for the OP concerning their arXiv:2511.12341 article. In justifying the discrepancies between LIDAR and dGNSS they state: "In one instance, LiDAR was in error by 0.94m for a summit elevation because a measurement sampled what was possibly a person on a summit. The point was misclassified as ground, leading to an overmeasurement. This occurred on Crestone Peak in Colorado (Fig 1), an open rocky summit." If the Crestone Peak measurement is inaccurate because of an erroneous data point hypothetically associated with a person on the summit, why aren't more data points in the LIDAR measurement erroneous because of the same effect on peaks that get significantly more traffic? LIDAR measurements on peaks like Quandary, Grays, Elbert to name a few should then return many more 3'-5' erroneous data points.

This is why hand processing the point cloud is still the most accurate method. Ben Loftin analyzed the Crestones LiDAR cloud, if I remember correctly, and explicitly did not include that point as the summit because it did not match with the known shape of the summit. The same is true for cairns or other man made structures. Most algorithms only use "ground points", which are determined statistically, to find summits. If one of these algorithms were used, instead of Ben analyzing by hand, the West Crestone LiDAR elevation would have been highly inaccurate.

Additionally, it's very unlikely that this occurs in most situations. Given LiDAR spacing (usually on the order of a few points per square meter) it's unlikely you get a return off a person. Further, the individual in question would have to be in the LiDAR path at the exact moment the data was being collected.

Lastly, the person-based return would have to be higher than the highest return off the actual ground. Because we generally only care about the highest point, the person would have to be in a location that is no lower than ~6 feet from the highest point of the summit at the exact time data recording was occurring for it to be relevant to the final elevation number. This further limits the likelihood that someone would appear as a relevant erroneous return.

TL;DR: while some of these points might exist, they are:
a) very unlikely both temporally and spatially
b) unlikely to be relevant to the final summit elevation, and
c) can be selectively ignored by an experienced LiDAR analyst.

Others can add their thoughts if I got anything wrong/want to add anything!

[supranihilest]

Promote West Eolus???

My disappointment knows no bounds. Oh the drama this would have caused among the 13er, bicent, and tricent finishers.

[d_baker]

Promote West Eolus???

My disappointment knows no bounds. Oh the drama this would have caused among the 13er, bicent, and tricent finishers.

At least W Eolus sounds like it's more attainable than if Sunlight Spire got bumped up.

[josephnephi]

I commend the team for the effort.

I have a question for the OP concerning their arXiv:2511.12341 article. In justifying the discrepancies between LIDAR and dGNSS they state: "In one instance, LiDAR was in error by 0.94m for a summit elevation because a measurement sampled what was possibly a person on a summit. The point was misclassified as ground, leading to an overmeasurement. This occurred on Crestone Peak in Colorado (Fig 1), an open rocky summit." If the Crestone Peak measurement is inaccurate because of an erroneous data point hypothetically associated with a person on the summit, why aren't more data points in the LIDAR measurement erroneous because of the same effect on peaks that get significantly more traffic? LIDAR measurements on peaks like Quandary, Grays, Elbert to name a few should then return many more 3'-5' erroneous data points.

TL;DR: while some of these points might exist, they are:
a) very unlikely both temporally and spatially
b) unlikely to be relevant to the final summit elevation, and
c) can be selectively ignored by an experienced LiDAR analyst.

I was super curious about this and looked into it on some specific popular peaks... it's more common than I though! It really underscores how important thoughtful hand analysis of LiDAR is (LoJ is all hand analyzed FYI)! In light of this I want to amend my previous comments a little bit.
Human returns are:
a) very unlikely both temporally and spatially (except on very popular/busy 14ers)
b) unlikely to be relevant to the final summit elevation, and
c) can be selectively ignored by an experienced LiDAR analyst.

Screenshot 2026-06-21 at 4.31.18 PM.png

Screenshot 2026-06-21 at 4.33.02 PM.png

[skyrme17]

That's a good argument. Thank you.