Texas?

Potential lists to add to the existing array

Texas?

Postby BarryRaven » Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:23 am

How about a list for Texas?
User avatar
BarryRaven
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby John Kirk » Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:07 pm

Good news Barry - I got the TOPO! state series for TX, SD, ND, and AK as a present. When I get bored with projects I'm working on (currently UT followed by MT), I'll be working on TX. Eventually, I'd like to list not only the Western US, but list the entire US at 300' prominence. AK will no doubt be the crux, and may take more than a year on its own.
User avatar
John Kirk
LoJ Architect
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Lakewood, CO

Postby BarryRaven » Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:59 pm

Cool stuff, I look forward to seeing it. I'll be bagging a couple more Texas peaks on Thursday and Friday.
User avatar
BarryRaven
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby Layne Bracy » Wed Dec 27, 2006 7:27 am

There is a mini-list for Texas, containing its 12 2000'prominence peaks:

http://listsofjohn.com/USPro/USProIndex.php

John, I suppose it was only a matter of time before you set your sights on the whole country. Alaska's maps have 100-ft contours, correct? Will you still try to make a P300 list? That would seem difficult, since every interpolated P300 would be an error range peak and every P200 would be soft-ranked(if you allow that a peak could be as high as the next higher contour).
Layne Bracy
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Brighton, CO

Postby John Kirk » Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:29 pm

LayneBracy wrote:Alaska's maps have 100-ft contours, correct? Will you still try to make a P300 list? That would seem difficult, since every interpolated P300 would be an error range peak and every P200 would be soft-ranked(if you allow that a peak could be as high as the next higher contour).


The beauty with 100' contours is nothing is soft-ranked unless saddles and/or summits have a printed elevation (although three closed contours have an exact interpolation of 300 and are error range peaks).



Closed ContoursInt PeakInt SaddleInt PromMin ElevMax ElevMin SaddleMax SaddleMax PromMin Prom
4495045504004900499945004599499301
3485045503004800489945004599399201
2475045502004700479945004599299101
User avatar
John Kirk
LoJ Architect
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Lakewood, CO

Postby Layne Bracy » Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:17 pm

What I am getting at is that when a peak elevation is the same as a contour level, the contour line for the summit elevation is sometimes shown, sometimes not.

Here is an example where it is not:
Cub Island
The summit is at 4300, but the 4300 contour is not drawn. When we looked at Colorado peaks that fit this category, likewise sometimes the higher contour was depicted, sometimes not.

So, in your table, I would submit that the max elevations should all be one foot higher. In other words, a peak with an interpolated elevation of 4750' could actually be 4800' high with the 4800' contour line not drawn.

Now admittedly, it would be an unusual case that both extremes are met - the summit is at the higher contour level AND the saddle is at the lower contour level, allowing for a peak with 2 100' contours to have 300' prominence.

And, given that in a state as rugged and huge as Alaska, including all the peaks with 2 contours would probably mean adding thousands, if not tens of thousands of peaks, I would agree that for practical reasons the 2-contour summits are best left off.
Layne Bracy
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Brighton, CO

Postby John Kirk » Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:54 pm

LayneBracy wrote:What I am getting at is that when a peak elevation is the same as a contour level, the contour line for the summit elevation is sometimes shown, sometimes not.


I think this phenomenon is really a lack of printed contour that should be there. Utah seems to have a few of these I've seen thus far, and this one takes the cake:
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=38.0418&lon=-112.97985&s=25&size=l&u=4&datum=nad83&layer=DRG

Transposed #'s might be another explanation.
User avatar
John Kirk
LoJ Architect
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Lakewood, CO

Postby Layne Bracy » Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:05 pm

Wow - I haven't noticed that before. So, a summit might even be higher than the lowest unprinted contour! Interpolated 240' prominences are possibly ranked? Quite a can of worms.

You are tearing up southern Utah by the way. Hopefully I'll be done with Utah County within a week. :oops:
Layne Bracy
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Brighton, CO


Return to Lists in the Works

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests