Peak lists are changing!

[mikeofferman]

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'

[bdloftin]

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.

[jmbrooks8]

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.

[JoeGrim]

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.

[CandaceS]

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

https://listsofjohn.com/peak/218278

[jmbrooks8]

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?

[jmbrooks8]

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

[jmbrooks8]

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).

[RyanSchilling]

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!

[Scott Patterson]

I have to admit that I'm loving all this new information even though I have "lost" a lot of ranked peaks.

[John Kirk]

If you look at the ascent comments, Highpointers are ironically the most recalcitrant about the changes

I'm tempted to delete all ascents prior to 2022, but seeing them there in spite of the change kind of speaks for itself.

[Scott Patterson]

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 ??????

I think John just showed us the answer to that that question.

Black Mesa seems ambiguous as well.

For the purists the 50 state high point list finishers just took a nosedive.

[CandaceS]

There does seem to be an integrity issue among the state high-pointers. But, I suppose people who thought they'd completed the Colorado 12ers might not be eagerly accepting reality, either.

I wonder how many past state HP finishers are unaware of the LiDAR findings?