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.
User avatar
Eli Watson
Posts: 192
Joined: 5/29/2020
14ers: 58 13
13ers: 51 1
Trip Reports (2)

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by Eli Watson »

RIP Sunlight Spire. 73/73 for the Unranked, Unnamed List doesn't hit the same as 74/74.

#MakeTheListof74GreatAgain
People who are hardcore don't think they're hardcore. Marshall Ulrich, Fastest Known Podcast #85
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 973
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58 1
13ers: 57
Trip Reports (2)

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by bdloftin77 »

supranihilest wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:15 am
Teresa Gergen wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:06 am And that's fair too. I personally will give the new lists my best shot. Whether I can finish them is not at all clear. For me, there are a whole lot of them to re-finish. For some people, even an attempt to do more than pick off a few new peaks is physically out of the question. And of course, we've lost a number of those who came before us. Not recognizing in some manner their life's work is just wrong. Also, for LOJ to put the same kind of effort into LiDAR analysis for other states (which I, for one, also need in order to re-finish my lists) would either take an army of LiDAR analysis volunteers, or decades, during which something else even more accurate is sure to replace LiDAR. There are a lot of peakbaggers based out of other states who are not having their life's work upset like this. Yet. Another reason why it's fair to argue that both sets of lists are valid.
I want to be clear here: those who finished the interpolated 13er list are 13er finishers. Period. At least that's what I think.
Yep! They came up with a certain list (ranked 13ers based on the interpolation of the most up-to-date maps and information available), and they completed that list. Just like the early 14er finishers who finished the list (albeit different than today's) of peaks calculated to be 14ers at that time.

As long as you are specific as to which list you are completing and have indeed reached the summit of every peak in that list, there are no issues.

(ramble warning below about the uncertainty of pinpointing and reaching high points)

Reaching the summit, if the summit is ambiguous, can be controversial. It's difficult to touch every square centimeter of the highest point of every possible highest rock. If you are below treeline, it's even more ambiguous. Also, lidar is sometimes good at catching the highest point of two competing below-treeline contours, as long as they are not extremely close in elevation, and as long as there aren't confounding boulders. If the boulders are known and are able to be spotted via lidar, there's a little more certainty in ascertaining the summit and which contour is highest.

How far into the weeds do we want to/can we get? My wife thinks just hiking up a mountain and getting near the general summit area is good enough. She thinks people like me, who try to pinpoint and to reach the exact highest spot are a little kooky. There's a definitely a spectrum of how anal people are about reaching summit high points (again, provided the high point isn't extremely obvious and even then some people call near/below this point "close enough"). Lidar helps with pinpointing high points, but still has an error range (though small), and trees blocking possible higher areas of class 2 ground returns are also issues, as well as hidden boulders/rocks. We can do the best we can with both pinpointing and reaching summits, but there is often some amount of uncertainty unfortunately. Unless an extremely costly and time intensive effort is made to use professional survey-grade equipment on every peak in question, there will always be some uncertainty. And even then, details might be missed because no one is perfect.

Living with varying amounts of uncertainty seems to be a part of human life.
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 610
Joined: 10/14/2009
14ers: 58 7
13ers: 767 101
Trip Reports (39)

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by Boggy B »

Good discussion here.
Teresa Gergen wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:40 am the definition of a ranked peak used to be something like "300 feet of interpolated prominence based on the best available topo maps, unless field observation proved otherwise." Now it's something like "300 feet of prominence based on the best LiDAR analysis that can be done at the moment."
Aren't all elevations given in the maps based on field observations, which include surveys by various means and degrees of accuracy (else all accepted prominences would be neatly divisible by the maps' contour intervals)?

Isn't LiDAR just another survey technique and a type of field observation?

I'm no scientist and could be wrong about that, but I still don't see a need to change even the definition, if that's the accepted one, except maybe to divorce ourselves from "topo maps" which are just the product of observations, the best of which is currently LiDAR.

Though I fully agree on the points about finishers being finishers, I'm not sure we need multiple lists except for footnotes/posterity. If you finished a list, and then the list changed, you can still say you finished it without diving into pedantry that would kill 99% of audiences by boredom.
User avatar
supranihilest
Posts: 555
Joined: 6/29/2015
14ers: 58 35
13ers: 632 17
Trip Reports (102)
Contact:

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by supranihilest »

Boggy B wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:53 amThough I fully agree on the points about finishers being finishers, I'm not sure we need multiple lists except for footnotes/posterity. If you finished a list, and then the list changed, you can still say you finished it without diving into pedantry that would kill 99% of audiences by boredom.
I am reminded of an excellent joke by comedian Emo Philips.
Emo Philips wrote:Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
The debate of 58 vs 54 vs 53 vs random number is the 14ers version of this joke. 13ers list next up!
Teresa Gergen
Posts: 225
Joined: 8/12/2012
14ers: List not added

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by Teresa Gergen »

Boggy B wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:53 am Good discussion here.
Teresa Gergen wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:40 am the definition of a ranked peak used to be something like "300 feet of interpolated prominence based on the best available topo maps, unless field observation proved otherwise." Now it's something like "300 feet of prominence based on the best LiDAR analysis that can be done at the moment."
Aren't all elevations given in the maps based on field observations, which include surveys by various means and degrees of accuracy (else all accepted prominences would be neatly divisible by the maps' contour intervals)?

Isn't LiDAR just another survey technique and a type of field observation?

I'm no scientist and could be wrong about that, but I still don't see a need to change even the definition, if that's the accepted one, except maybe to divorce ourselves from "topo maps" which are just the product of observations, the best of which is currently LiDAR.

Though I fully agree on the points about finishers being finishers, I'm not sure we need multiple lists except for footnotes/posterity. If you finished a list, and then the list changed, you can still say you finished it without diving into the pedantry that would kill 99% of audiences by boredom.
In addition to lidar finding a surprising percentage of missing and extra contours on the maps, peaks have been found where the maps have two equal contours, each with a given exact spot elevation, where the contour with the lower spot elevation is actually higher than the contour with the higher spot elevation. An actual field survey was done to get those spot elevations, but they got it wrong. Peaks have been found where a competing equal contour was determined to be lower by people who have a heck of a lot of experience using a sight level but got it wrong. Peaks have been found where lidar got it wrong because it picked a cairn that looked like all the other embedded rocks near the summit on the satellite imagery, and there wasn't any way to tell the difference until someone went out and climbed it with a GPS in hand and a lidar waypoint in it, and found the lidar hp matched up with a cairn instead of a natural rock. None of our tools to find highest natural ground or exact elevations are perfect. Either there's no point in bothering to even try to define a peak and thus create lists based on that definition, or you're gonna get pedantic. 99% of the people who climb a peak find a nice spot to sit down and have lunch and don't even look around for what might be higher ground. It's only peakbaggers (i.e. those trying to finish lists) that eventually realize maybe they're supposed to care. Or not. Do what you feel you need to do, define carefully what you claim you did if you make claims, and live and let live.
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 973
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58 1
13ers: 57
Trip Reports (2)

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by bdloftin77 »

Boggy B wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:53 am Good discussion here.
Teresa Gergen wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:40 am the definition of a ranked peak used to be something like "300 feet of interpolated prominence based on the best available topo maps, unless field observation proved otherwise." Now it's something like "300 feet of prominence based on the best LiDAR analysis that can be done at the moment."
Aren't all elevations given in the maps based on field observations, which include surveys by various means and degrees of accuracy (else all accepted prominences would be neatly divisible by the maps' contour intervals)?

Isn't LiDAR just another survey technique and a type of field observation?

I'm no scientist and could be wrong about that, but I still don't see a need to change even the definition, if that's the accepted one, except maybe to divorce ourselves from "topo maps" which are just the product of observations, the best of which is currently LiDAR.

Though I fully agree on the points about finishers being finishers, I'm not sure we need multiple lists except for footnotes/posterity. If you finished a list, and then the list changed, you can still say you finished it without diving into pedantry that would kill 99% of audiences by boredom.
This is true, and I think what Supra was hinting at as well. We were still aiming for elevation thresholds (13ers, 14ers, etc) as well as the generally accepted 300' of prominence mark. Data and accuracy gaps existed (approximate elevation contours above and below saddles, averaging/interpolating those contours for saddle elevations, and more or less accurate summit elevations). Lidar could be seen as a new mass-surveying tool, also with data and accuracy gaps, though they are smaller than otherwise.

Teresa's mentioned that deciding what to do when more accurate elevation data comes out is hard, especially if that would mean deciding to rest with your accomplishments despite the more accurate (though still imperfect) data, or trying to continue with the newer data despite age and health issues. For those who are younger and are in good health, deciding whether to stick with the old or newer survey data for their lists and goals might be easier, with the result often being "why not go with the newer, more accurate data?"
Teresa Gergen wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:12 am In addition to lidar finding a surprising percentage of missing and extra contours on the maps, peaks have been found where the maps have two equal contours, each with a given exact spot elevation, where the contour with the lower spot elevation is actually higher than the contour with the higher spot elevation. An actual field survey was done to get those spot elevations, but they got it wrong. Peaks have been found where a competing equal contour was determined to be lower by people who have a heck of a lot of experience using a sight level but got it wrong. Peaks have been found where lidar got it wrong because it picked a cairn that looked like all the other embedded rocks near the summit on the satellite imagery, and there wasn't any way to tell the difference until someone went out and climbed it with a GPS in hand and a lidar waypoint in it, and found the lidar hp matched up with a cairn instead of a natural rock. None of our tools to find highest natural ground or exact elevations are perfect. Either there's no point in bothering to even try to define a peak and thus create lists based on that definition, or you're gonna get pedantic. 99% of the people who climb a peak find a nice spot to sit down and have lunch and don't even look around for what might be higher ground. It's only peakbaggers (i.e. those trying to finish lists) that eventually realize maybe they're supposed to care. Or not. Do what you feel you need to do, define carefully what you claim you did if you make claims, and live and let live.
+1
supranihilest wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:03 am I am reminded of an excellent joke by comedian Emo Philips.
Emo Philips wrote:Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
The debate of 58 vs 54 vs 53 vs random number is the 14ers version of this joke. 13ers list next up!
Nice :lol:
User avatar
DArcyS
Posts: 921
Joined: 5/11/2007
14ers: 58
13ers: 504
Trip Reports (3)

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by DArcyS »

supranihilest wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:08 am 1) Oh I understand your point, I just don't think it's salient.
2) You're going to have to change the collective mind of the entire Colorado mountaineering community to change the definition of what a peak is, and that isn't happening and won't happen.
1) I'd agree with that. As I said, esoteric, more of something to be appreciated than to be pragmatic.
2) KISS -- keep it simple stupid, and with that, most people will only see 300' and call these things "peaks" instead of "points." Yeah, I get it, that's far too nuanced for a recreational pursuit. But for those interested in the subtleties, it's there.
Post Reply