http://www.listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/Cl ... hp?Id=2419
The listed HP is at a spot elevation of 10,982'. I believe the only reason this elevation is shown is because that is the only of the three closed contours on the summit area that are anywhere near visible from anywhere else. The other two, both larger, are very densely tree and dead-fall covered. Both are impossible to back or foresight to/from either of the other summits. My GPS read perfect height (within a foot or two of the 10982') at the north summit, but the central looked higher (being the only one visible from the north summit, at least the copse of trees). At this summit, it read 11004, but knowing there was another closed contour south, we continued on. In a clearing looking back north between central and south, it read 10,998, and I was several feet lower than the summit, backsighting to the north (central). Again, heading south to the southernmost, the GPS said 11009 (certainly within reason, +/- a few feet). We felt this south summit was a tiny bit lower than the central, but only slightly. We didn't leave a register at any of the three summits because I was not sure a) anyone else would be venturing up there any time soon, and b) I didn't think the spot elevation was the true HP.
After exchanging e-mail with Mike G and Erik P, we all felt the central summit is the actual HP, and could likely easily be over the 11,000' mark, thus making the map lacking a closed contour. From the Peak Profile photo, you can see the forested points as well, and they all appear higher than the more bare spot elevation to the north.
What's my point?
That even if LoJ doesn't show the HP as being the central summit, it should at least make it into an added "notes" section for the peak.
, except that the north summit was spot on, and the other summits appeared higher both visually and by GPS readings.