UN 9385 RANKED NO MORE!!! UN 9400 is actual HP El Paso Cty

[Jeremy Hakes]

While tagging Eagle Peak (sign at TH and at summit) and 9385, at the suggestion of Dave Hale, I went over to the other HP of the little area, UN 9400. There is a relatively new BM there, with the shown elevation at 9400.

I believe this makes UN9400 the ranked peak and relegates UN9385 to obscurity and simply a point elevation.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffcojeremy/2548784106/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffcojeremy/2548782424/in/photostream/

[John Kirk]

So are you referring to this contour?:
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=38.99641,-104.91720&z=15&t=T

[Jeremy Hakes]

Not sure why, but I can't make that link work. :(

[John Kirk]

Yes - that is the same contour. Any luck finding a datasheet on the benchmark? I haven't looked yet, seems like a similar situation as Golden Age Hill in Boulder though.

[Jeremy Hakes]

I will look into it and get any info I find.

What are your thoughts on Eagle Peak/North BM?

[John Kirk]

What are your thoughts on Eagle Peak/North BM?

Eagle Peak is not an official name, so the benchmark name should supercede it. However, the rise is insufficient to be listed without an official name status. Not sure how this one got in at all actually, because we had agreed to exclude benchmarks that don't have a possibility of being ranked (unless already in the 12ers+ list or Boulder/Gilpin lists). This inconsistency troubles me quite a bit where high peak lists, Boulder and Gilpin have extraneous detail whereas other areas in the state do not.

I think past precedent where we retain unofficially named summits with inadequate rise for possibility of being ranked works out better here than listing a benchmark. So "Eagle Peak" it is...