14er List Updated to match LOJ

Check here for updates to the forum and site.
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.
  • Troll posts will be removed.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
Skimo95
Posts: 220
Joined: 5/19/2021
14ers: 58 5 14
13ers: 82 1

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by Skimo95 »

Thank you as always sir.
User avatar
CheapCigarMan
Posts: 454
Joined: 12/10/2014
14ers: 58 2
13ers: 69 2
Trip Reports (1)

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by CheapCigarMan »

Thank you Bill.

Am I mistaken or did Sunlight Spire get removed?
I should be on a mountain
User avatar
Fisching
Posts: 424
Joined: 10/10/2009
14ers: 58 10
13ers: 131 1
Trip Reports (13)

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by Fisching »

CheapCigarMan wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:02 am Thank you Bill.

Am I mistaken or did Sunlight Spire get removed?
The LiDAR study reconfirmed that the Spire is under 14K. I believe LiDAR has its elevation at 13,996.
Peter Aitchison on the risks of rock climbing and mountaineering: "That's life, isn't it? We think the challenge and satisfaction you get from doing this is worth the risks."
"Respect the mountain. Train hard. Hope you can sneak up when it isn't looking."
"The mind is always worried about consequences, but the heart knows no fear. The heart just does what it wants."
User avatar
CaptainSuburbia
Posts: 923
Joined: 10/7/2017
14ers: 58 34
13ers: 120 18
Trip Reports (40)

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by CaptainSuburbia »

Thanks for the update Bill!

Poor Challenger.
Some day our kids will study Clash lyrics in school.
Nothing drives people crazy like people drive people crazy.
Save Challenger Point
User avatar
BillMiddlebrook
Site Administrator
Posts: 6551
Joined: 7/25/2004
14ers: 58 46 22
13ers: 168 58 45
Trip Reports (7)
Contact:

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by BillMiddlebrook »

My pleasure.

Also, the elevations will be automatically picked up by the mobile apps.
“Today, up on this hill
I'm counting all the killers
They sway as they swarm
A look of gluttons in their eyes
They mutter as the body loses warmth
They pick your bones like locks inside a tomb
And take great care to not take care of you”
User avatar
Trotter
Posts: 1272
Joined: 6/5/2013
14ers: 58 5
13ers: 211 2 12
Trip Reports (13)

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by Trotter »

BillMiddlebrook wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:31 am
Fisching wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:22 am
BillMiddlebrook wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:12 am This morning I updated the 14ers.com 14er elevation numbers as well as promoted North Maroon Peak to "ranked" and demoted Challenger Point to "unranked" to match the work done by John Kirk on https://www.listsofjohn.com. I consider John to be the authoritative source for these elevation numbers and his latest work using Colorado LiDAR data has provided us with the most accurate peak elevation data to date. A huge thanks to John and those who helped him finalize these new numbers!!

I'll get the 13er list updated in the next month or so.
I *FINALLY* will get the credit I deserve for summiting Peak 8.
Me, too! I must have at least 125 Peak 8 summits. :)
Better not count it unless you hiked up the 50 feet from the top of the lift :P
After climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. -Nelson Mandela
Whenever I climb I am followed by a dog called Ego. -Nietzsche
User avatar
BillMiddlebrook
Site Administrator
Posts: 6551
Joined: 7/25/2004
14ers: 58 46 22
13ers: 168 58 45
Trip Reports (7)
Contact:

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by BillMiddlebrook »

^Of course! And I have about about 30 winter summits before they even put the lift in!!!
“Today, up on this hill
I'm counting all the killers
They sway as they swarm
A look of gluttons in their eyes
They mutter as the body loses warmth
They pick your bones like locks inside a tomb
And take great care to not take care of you”
User avatar
Candace66
Posts: 223
Joined: 1/23/2017
14ers: 42 1
13ers: 184 4
Contact:

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by Candace66 »

Boggy B wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:08 am In the LiDAR thread there was discussion about a new sea level model this summer possibly lowering everything a few feet. That could impact promoted 12ers as well as a handful of other 13ers near the threshold...
Thanks for bringing this up, as I've been wondering about it myself. Might the elevation-based peak lists change again this year? :mrgreen:
HikerGuy wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:29 am Goodbye, Challenger! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Going over Challenger is the technically easiest way to climb Kit Carson Peak, so I expect it will still play a role. :)
"One criterion for climbing a peak is that you should gain a vertical height under your own power equal to your peak's rise from its highest connecting saddle with a neighbor peak...Beyond this minimum gain, you are free to gain as much altitude as your peak-bagging conscience requires." - Gerry Roach, "Colorado 14ers" :wink:
https://listsofjohn.com/m/Candace+Skalet
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 950
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58 1
13ers: 57
Trip Reports (2)

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by bdloftin77 »

Candace66 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:03 am
Boggy B wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:08 am In the LiDAR thread there was discussion about a new sea level model this summer possibly lowering everything a few feet. That could impact promoted 12ers as well as a handful of other 13ers near the threshold...
Thanks for bringing this up, as I've been wondering about it myself. Might the elevation-based peak lists change again this year? :mrgreen:
Yeah, I'm not sure exactly when they'll officially switch over to the 2022 NAPCG datum - they're finalizing calculations, etc this year. So far, the lidar point cloud tiles have been in NAVD88 (corresponding geoid is GEOID12B or GEOID18). Haven't talked with John yet about this switch, since it hasn't been relevant yet.

Looking at the NOAA website, sounds like there's a delay in the release of the new datum: https://geodesy.noaa.gov/datums/newdatu ... ease.shtml
First question in FAQ, release might not officially happen til 2024 or 2025, with airborne gravity research flights still occurring in 2023: https://geodesy.noaa.gov/datums/newdatu ... tums.shtml

For more info, you can browse the main page: https://geodesy.noaa.gov/datums/newdatums/index.shtml

And yes, it looks like the new definition of where sea level is based on equal gravity across the globe will lead to positions in Colorado being lower than previously measured by 0.5 to 0.75 meters (~1.6 to ~2.5 ft). This will lead to the eventual demotion of some very low peaks to the lower elevation threshold. We have estimates, but won't officially know how big this elevation drop will be til they release the new datum.

Approximate elevation change map: https://geodesy.noaa.gov/datums/newdatu ... eights.jpg

Right now I'm just rolling with what we have and what's currently being released to the public - NAVD88 based on GEOID12B and GEIOD18, which are within a few cm of each other.

And thank you, Bill!!
User avatar
DArcyS
Posts: 914
Joined: 5/11/2007
14ers: 58
13ers: 504
Trip Reports (3)

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by DArcyS »

bdloftin77 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:37 am
Candace66 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:03 am
Boggy B wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:08 am In the LiDAR thread there was discussion about a new sea level model this summer possibly lowering everything a few feet. That could impact promoted 12ers as well as a handful of other 13ers near the threshold...
Thanks for bringing this up, as I've been wondering about it myself. Might the elevation-based peak lists change again this year? :mrgreen:
Yeah, I'm not sure exactly when they'll officially switch over to the 2022 NAPCG datum - they're finalizing calculations, etc this year. So far, the lidar point cloud tiles have been in NAVD88 (corresponding geoid is GEOID12B or GEOID18). Haven't talked with John yet about this switch, since it hasn't been relevant yet.

Looking at the NOAA website, sounds like there's a delay in the release of the new datum: https://geodesy.noaa.gov/datums/newdatu ... ease.shtml
First question in FAQ, release might not officially happen til 2024 or 2025, with airborne gravity research flights still occurring in 2023: https://geodesy.noaa.gov/datums/newdatu ... tums.shtml

For more info, you can browse the main page: https://geodesy.noaa.gov/datums/newdatums/index.shtml

And yes, it looks like the new definition of where sea level is based on equal gravity across the globe will lead to positions in Colorado being lower than previously measured by 0.5 to 0.75 meters (~1.6 to ~2.5 ft). This will lead to the eventual demotion of some very low peaks to the lower elevation threshold. We have estimates, but won't officially know how big this elevation drop will be til they release the new datum.

Approximate elevation change map: https://geodesy.noaa.gov/datums/newdatu ... eights.jpg

Right now I'm just rolling with what we have and what's currently being released to the public - NAVD88 based on GEOID12B and GEIOD18, which are within a few cm of each other.

And thank you, Bill!!
I've been harping on LiDAR not removing the inherent uncertainty involved in defining climbing lists, whether it be due to the uncertainty of the measurements or the uncertainty of how a peak is defined. Even with the 2022 NAPCG datum and whatever uncertainty that may reduce, there will always be uncertainty to the exact sea level due to increasing sea levels (at least in the near future). In my Internet search to find a quick answer to the confidence intervals associated with measuring sea levels, I found this (the point being that using LiDAR to define peak lists down to the foot or inch is subsumed by natural geologic processes over time):
SeaLevelVariation.PNG
SeaLevelVariation.PNG (109.29 KiB) Viewed 776 times
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 585
Joined: 10/14/2009
14ers: 58 7
13ers: 767 101
Trip Reports (39)

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by Boggy B »

DArcyS wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:31 am I've been harping on LiDAR not removing the inherent uncertainty involved in defining climbing lists, whether it be due to the uncertainty of the measurements or the uncertainty of how a peak is defined. Even with the 2022 NAPCG datum and whatever uncertainty that may reduce, there will always be uncertainty to the exact sea level due to increasing sea levels (at least in the near future). In my Internet search to find a quick answer to the confidence intervals associated with measuring sea levels, I found this (the point being that using LiDAR to define peak lists down to the foot or inch is subsumed by natural geologic processes over time):
You may have been harping on the wrong thing, since the "ranked" lists that you're referring to are defined by the arbitrary metric of 300 feet, not whatever means is used to arrive at the most definitive categorization of peaks by that metric.

Not to mention rising sea levels don't affect prominence.

Correction: Rising sea levels don't affect prominence, until the saddle is underwater.
User avatar
DArcyS
Posts: 914
Joined: 5/11/2007
14ers: 58
13ers: 504
Trip Reports (3)

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by DArcyS »

Boggy B wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:40 pm
DArcyS wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:31 am I've been harping on LiDAR not removing the inherent uncertainty involved in defining climbing lists, whether it be due to the uncertainty of the measurements or the uncertainty of how a peak is defined. Even with the 2022 NAPCG datum and whatever uncertainty that may reduce, there will always be uncertainty to the exact sea level due to increasing sea levels (at least in the near future). In my Internet search to find a quick answer to the confidence intervals associated with measuring sea levels, I found this (the point being that using LiDAR to define peak lists down to the foot or inch is subsumed by natural geologic processes over time):
You may have been harping on the wrong thing, since the "ranked" lists that you're referring to are defined by the arbitrary metric of 300 feet, not whatever means is used to arrive at the most definitive categorization of peaks by that metric.

Not to mention rising sea levels don't affect prominence.

Correction: Rising sea levels don't affect prominence, until the saddle is underwater.
LiDAR P-300 Points List -- not an issue.
LiDAR lists defining peaks using 300' of prominence -- issue as to what is actually a peak.
Post Reply