Peak lists are changing!

Discuss geopolitical area highpoints, prominence, and similar lists.

Re: Peak lists are changing!

Postby mikeofferman » Tue Dec 21, 2021 7:38 pm

I think that the saddle for Yale is off by 1k


# Name Map Elevation Map Saddle Map Prominence LiDAR Elevation LiDAR Saddle LiDAR Prominence
40 Yale, Mount 14,196' 12,300' 1,896' 14,200' 13,326' 874'
mikeofferman
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: Windsor

Re: Peak lists are changing!

Postby bdloftin » Tue Feb 01, 2022 5:11 pm

jmbrooks,

Here's a useful link with all the info you wanted (or didn't want) to know about the USGS 3DEP lidar base specifications.
https://www.usgs.gov/ngp-standards-and- ... e-contents

Regarding nominal pulse spacing and vertical accuracy, see this link: https://www.usgs.gov/ngp-standards-and- ... ion-tables
The USGS is wanting to fill the CONUS and Hawaii with Quality Level 2 lidar data (Alaska will be covered by interferometric synthetic-aperture radar).

Regarding coordinate systems/datums, see here: https://www.usgs.gov/ngp-standards-and- ... nts#datums
For the vertical datum, they were first required to use GEOID12 iterations, but are now going with GEOID18 which differs from the former by less than a couple centimeters.
bdloftin
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: Peak lists are changing!

Postby jmbrooks8 » Sun May 22, 2022 4:43 pm

I just noticed you are updating the coordinates of LiDAR based peak data with 5 digits. I think that is fantastic. I believe in CO that is ~ +/- 2 ft.
Sure appreciate the extra accuracy & precision.

I've checked some of my old summit gps pts and the new data definitely aligns better.
User avatar
jmbrooks8
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:32 pm
Location: Niwot, CO

Re: Peak lists are changing!

Postby JoeGrim » Mon May 30, 2022 3:22 am

bdloftin wrote:Regarding nominal pulse spacing and vertical accuracy, see this link: https://www.usgs.gov/ngp-standards-and- ... ion-tables


Thanks for the links! I had wondered about the absolute vertical accuracy, and now I know! It makes sense how peaks with 299-300' LiDAR prominence are now the new soft ranked, since the accuracy for level 2 data is about 1 foot.
User avatar
JoeGrim
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: Loveland, CO

Re: Peak lists are changing!

Postby CandaceS » Mon Jun 06, 2022 5:44 pm

Tee-hee, Pennsylvania has a new high point, per Lidar :-D

https://listsofjohn.com/peak/218278
CandaceS
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:49 pm
Location: Candace Skalet on Facebook

Re: Peak lists are changing!

Postby jmbrooks8 » Tue Jun 07, 2022 10:39 am

wow - I see all the 50 StHP completers back @ 49
this LiDAR stuff is getting ridiculous
seems like all lists suspect until all peaks analysis completed
why isn't the USGS working on updating their maps?
User avatar
jmbrooks8
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:32 pm
Location: Niwot, CO

Re: Peak lists are changing!

Postby jmbrooks8 » Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:43 pm

This PA StHP change is definitely a test for the purists & climbing community integrity.
How will this be treated? Will anyone/everyone accept the fact they have not climbed this state's HP?
1 ft ??????

Thanks a lot PA! don't even know where your HP is, ugh!
surely this info was available a lot longer ago, c'mon
User avatar
jmbrooks8
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:32 pm
Location: Niwot, CO

Re: Peak lists are changing!

Postby jmbrooks8 » Fri Jun 10, 2022 4:56 am

Regarding PA StHP, even Google Earth shows the correct elevations (3213' vs. 3214') of Mt Davis vs. the new StHP area.
They are 0.9 mi apart.
Since the map doesn't show the correct contours & there is no path, I don't see how anyone would have visited this point before, unless they scanned GE.
New pt is 334 ft from nearest road & fortunately still on public land (Somerset Co).
User avatar
jmbrooks8
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:32 pm
Location: Niwot, CO

Re: Peak lists are changing!

Postby RyanSchilling » Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:17 am

jmbrooks8 wrote:Regarding PA StHP, even Google Earth shows the correct elevations (3213' vs. 3214') of Mt Davis vs. the new StHP area.


Hiding in plain sight!
User avatar
RyanSchilling
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:29 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Previous

Return to Highpoints, Prominence & Etc.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests