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
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 »

DArcyS wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:30 pmLiDAR P-300 Points List -- not an issue.
LiDAR lists defining peaks using 300' of prominence -- issue as to what is actually a peak.
Do peaks even, like, exist, maaaaannnnnnnnnnn?
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: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:00 pm
DArcyS wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:30 pmLiDAR P-300 Points List -- not an issue.
LiDAR lists defining peaks using 300' of prominence -- issue as to what is actually a peak.
Do peaks even, like, exist, maaaaannnnnnnnnnn?
🀣
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 »

bdloftin77 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:25 pm
supranihilest wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:00 pm
DArcyS wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:30 pmLiDAR P-300 Points List -- not an issue.
LiDAR lists defining peaks using 300' of prominence -- issue as to what is actually a peak.
Do peaks even, like, exist, maaaaannnnnnnnnnn?
🀣
Well, I don't know guys. Ask Gerry Roach, he was the one who broached the subject some 30 years ago. In my post about this subject at viewtopic.php?f=1&t=61397, I mentioned the title of the Appendix, which is "What is a Peak?" I guess that's close to the question, "Do peaks even, like, exist, maaaaannnnnnnnnnn?"

Here's the thing about Roach -- he's a damn bright guy. In his first (?) biographical book Transcendent Summits, he mentioned that he took calculus in high school (at a time when only the brightest students took calculus in high school, see https://www.utdanacenter.org/blog/decad ... ach%20year , and he was a math major at the University of Washington (I'm pretty sure I'm remembering this stuff from the book correctly, it's been awhile). When I review his Appendix, I don't have much of a problem recognizing the thoughts are coming from a mathematically inclined mind. He states, "It seems, then, that any definition of a peak should provide a framework that yields a progression of answers," where this "progression of answers" amounts to confidence intervals as taught in probability and statistics.

Yup, the "progression of answers" as Roach posited is somewhat esoteric, that much is clear. 'Nuff said.
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 607
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 5:30 pm LiDAR lists defining peaks using 300' of prominence -- issue as to what is actually a peak.
What "LiDAR lists defining peaks using 300' of prominence"?

The CO ranked 14ers, 13ers, 12ers, highest 100, ad nauseam all classify peaks as "ranked" using 300' of prominence. These are not LiDAR lists, the most obvious reason being that they predate LiDAR. These lists simply determine whether a peak--as in, an apex--is "ranked," not whether it's an ever loving peak in the transcendental sense you keep alluding to.

Is your issue really with the concept of "rank" conferring significance that you think should be reserved for philosophical discourse and (unattainable) consensus? If so, that's understandable, and the solution is to not care how the ranked lists change.
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 »

Boggy B wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:00 pm
DArcyS wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:30 pm LiDAR lists defining peaks using 300' of prominence -- issue as to what is actually a peak.
What "LiDAR lists defining peaks using 300' of prominence"?

The CO ranked 14ers, 13ers, 12ers, highest 100, ad nauseam all classify peaks as "ranked" using 300' of prominence. These are not LiDAR lists, the most obvious reason being that they predate LiDAR. These lists simply determine whether a peak--as in, an apex--is "ranked," not whether it's an ever loving peak in the transcendental sense you keep alluding to.

Is your issue really with the concept of "rank" conferring significance that you think should be reserved for philosophical discourse and (unattainable) consensus? If so, that's understandable, and the solution is to not care how the ranked lists change.
In the end, it really boils down to what Roach called a "progression of answers," and it's a way of dealing with uncertainty with what is a peak -- should a ranked "peak" be P300, P400, P1000? But there is very little uncertainty for defining a "point" as having 300' of prominence as determined using LiDAR that can measure elevations on the order of inches.

So, I think you're trying to understand my point, thanks. :thumbup:
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 »

DArcyS wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:35 amIn the end, it really boils down to what Roach called a "progression of answers," and it's a way of dealing with uncertainty with what is a peak -- should a ranked "peak" be P300, P400, P1000? But there is very little uncertainty for defining a "point" as having 300' of prominence as determined using LiDAR that can measure elevations on the order of inches.

So, I think you're trying to understand my point, thanks. :thumbup:
Oh I understand your point, I just don't think it's salient. A point with 300 feet of prominence being a point with 300 feet of prominence is tautological. A peak, at least in Colorado, has been a high point (point vs high point, the distinction being there are infinite points above a saddle but only one true high point) with 300 or more feet of prominence, that standard has stood for decades. LiDAR doesn't change that definition. It is still the high point 300 or more feet above the parent saddle. LiDAR is irrelevant in the definition of what a peak is, it only changes the results. 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. Don't like it? Climb whatever you like, nobody is stopping you.
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 8:08 am
DArcyS wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:35 amIn the end, it really boils down to what Roach called a "progression of answers," and it's a way of dealing with uncertainty with what is a peak -- should a ranked "peak" be P300, P400, P1000? But there is very little uncertainty for defining a "point" as having 300' of prominence as determined using LiDAR that can measure elevations on the order of inches.
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. Don't like it? Climb whatever you like, nobody is stopping you.
Second this. With regard to climbing mountains and setting specific goals, people tend to like categorizing them so that they can have a more or less definitive goal to accomplish. Climbing all the peaks above 14,000 ft is one of them. (yes, that cutoff is arbitrary and based off a snapshot approximation of the real world, but if you're on this website you might just have to go with it). Even on Mount Elbert though, there are near-infinite possible sub-summits if you don't set a prominence threshold. This boulder? This rock? This pebble? To "climb all the peaks above 14,000 feet," we'd need to set some sort of schema to accomplish that. Officially named peaks is one way of doing that. Another way is by setting some sort of prominence threshold. As Supra mentioned, the 300 feet threshold has been both collectively and historically recognized here in Colorado.

This doesn't mean that unranked peaks aren't worthy of being climbed - there's many that I enjoy significantly more than ranked ones. It's just one a way to narrow down otherwise obscure, cloudy, and near-infinite lists of peaks to form more concrete hiking goals.

And as Supra also mentioned, you don't have to agree with this definition, or even follow it for your own goals. It's just a concrete and easy way to categorize peaks for general peakbagging purposes for many people. To use your terminology, we haven't finally "discovered" what a true peak is, we've just come up with a convenient definition that has worked historically for most people, and still works today. You can definitely create your own custom list of whatever you determine is a peak or not for your climbing purposes. And if you can't do that because your definition is still too hazy... I guess still climb or don't climb whatever you want or whatever catches your attention?
Teresa Gergen
Posts: 225
Joined: 8/12/2012
14ers: List not added

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by Teresa Gergen »

supranihilest wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:08 am LiDAR doesn't change that definition. It is still the high point 300 or more feet above the parent saddle. LiDAR is irrelevant in the definition of what a peak is, it only changes the results.
This isn't quite exactly true. The arbitrary selection of 300 ft of prominence to consider a peak ranked was established, at least for CO, decades ago and I'm not arguing with that at all. But 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." LiDAR analysis is somewhat subjective and there is a lot of room for small errors with it, but it's proving to be much, much more accurate than the maps ever were. So it's valid to change the definition of a ranked peak to the LiDAR one. It's also valid to consider that there are two sets of lists, one based on the historical map definition of a ranked peak, and one based on the LiDAR definition of a ranked peak. Seems to me that individuals can choose either set of lists as they see fit, as long as they specify which definition of a ranked peak they're using. LOJ recognized this and preserved historical map-based lists and completion records for them, while at the same time switching to LiDAR-based lists because they're more accurate.

Back to the original topic, with respect to updating the lists here, it should be noted that there are still many 13ers (and lower peaks) for which LiDAR analysis has not been done, and the elevations and prominences of the peaks on the 13er list will continue to change until someone has the time to look at all of them.
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 »

Teresa Gergen wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:40 am
supranihilest wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:08 am LiDAR doesn't change that definition. It is still the high point 300 or more feet above the parent saddle. LiDAR is irrelevant in the definition of what a peak is, it only changes the results.
This isn't quite exactly true. The arbitrary selection of 300 ft of prominence to consider a peak ranked was established, at least for CO, decades ago and I'm not arguing with that at all. But 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." LiDAR analysis is somewhat subjective and there is a lot of room for small errors with it, but it's proving to be much, much more accurate than the maps ever were. So it's valid to change the definition of a ranked peak to the LiDAR one. It's also valid to consider that there are two sets of lists, one based on the historical map definition of a ranked peak, and one based on the LiDAR definition of a ranked peak. Seems to me that individuals can choose either set of lists as they see fit, as long as they specify which definition of a ranked peak they're using. LOJ recognized this and preserved historical map-based lists and completion records for them, while at the same time switching to LiDAR-based lists because they're more accurate.

Back to the original topic, with respect to updating the lists here, it should be noted that there are still many 13ers (and lower peaks) for which LiDAR analysis has not been done, and the elevations and prominences of the peaks on the 13er list will continue to change until someone has the time to look at all of them.
That's fair. I still see it less as a definitional change and more an improvement in accuracy. Further defining based on interpolation or LiDAR does indeed create two lists where until now only the interpolation list existed, but I still think the shared P-300 part of the definition is the relevant part. We've just improved the accuracy by using a different methodology. To D'Arcy's point, I think his issue is that P-300 = peak is arbitrary, not that the method used to reach the real world prominence to the Nth fraction of a foot is a problem. Could be wrong there too, of course.

That said, Whiley and I have agreed that personally we will follow both lists. We started in the interpolation era and will finish in the LiDAR era. We will follow both our predecessors, like you, and the future, which for now is LiDAR. I think that makes 599 13ers for us. It will complicate explanations of "we've climbed all of Colorado's 13ers" but that's fine, it eliminates any questions about whether we've finished "the list" because we'll just do both. It'll be fun to see what other future finishers do.
Last edited by supranihilest on Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Teresa Gergen
Posts: 225
Joined: 8/12/2012
14ers: List not added

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by Teresa Gergen »

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.
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 »

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.
Skimo95
Posts: 267
Joined: 5/19/2021
14ers: 58 5 14
13ers: 94 1

Re: 14er List Updated to match LOJ

Post by Skimo95 »

I like mountains
Attachments
53471CB5-62DD-4F4A-9000-347BD3E75382.jpeg
53471CB5-62DD-4F4A-9000-347BD3E75382.jpeg (207.9 KiB) Viewed 568 times
Post Reply