Peaks by USGS Quadrangle

Potential lists to add to the existing array

Peaks by USGS Quadrangle

Postby Layne Bracy » Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:34 am

Here's another item for the wishlist:

How about a map of Colorado broken into USGS quads? (Like at REI, where you can use the large map to locate quads you wish to purchase.)

You can then click on any quad to get its peak list.

One option would be to limit this to ranked peaks above 12K for now, 11K when the 11ers are up.

Another option would be to put everything in - ranked high peaks, divide peaks, prominent peaks, county highpoints.

This could be left as an informative section only, or it could go into the member lists, showing members' "completed" quads. (Like the other lists, this list would probably influence hiking activity, getting people to some lower peaks they wouldn't otherwise do.)

Well, I thought this idea could be fun and don't want John to run out of stuff to do! :) Layne
Layne Bracy
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Brighton, CO

Postby John Kirk » Wed Feb 08, 2006 5:53 pm

I've thought about that before - specifically I wanted to be able to see what quads I've finished off at what level (13k+, 12k+, Front Range, 1k prominence, etc.). The good news is that quad info for peaks is already available. I need only a few more days in my spare time to complete the 11ers list and post it. My plan after/during the Divide String project was to alternate between NM and CO from 10ers on down to wherever I decide I've had enough - 5ers? :shock: :john: :roll:

I've been meaning to ask you - how close are we to having another Bracy?
User avatar
John Kirk
LoJ Architect
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Lakewood, CO

Postby Layne Bracy » Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:45 pm

John: I sent an email to you, but as Ryan and others know, sometimes my emails seem to take the long way....

Anyway, here's our new 8er! :D

Seth Harrison Bracy

If you get to 5ers, I think you just have to complete the job. It'd be interesting trivia to know the lowest ranked peak in Colorado. My state map lists the state lowpoint as 3315', near Wray. I think that requires the lowest point with 300' prominence to be at least 3615', since it must rise 300' above all saddles, including those that connect it with the Rockies. Maybe I'll muck around on topozone and try to find a 3'er... :shock:
Layne Bracy
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Brighton, CO

Postby John Kirk » Wed Feb 08, 2006 7:23 pm

Wow - Congratulations!
User avatar
John Kirk
LoJ Architect
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Lakewood, CO

Postby Layne Bracy » Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:43 pm

Thanks, John!

It looks like David Olson has already scoured the plains for ranked peaks.
Most prominent points in Colorado counties

43 counties in Colorado have at least one 1000' prominence point. Among the remaining 21 counties, Olson lists 6 points with 300' prominence(Broomfield and Denver counties are not on the list):
Prowers 4711'
Baca 4780'
Bent 4855', 4760'
Elbert 7140'
Weld 5570'

I have posted a couple questions to the prominence group - one regarding David's coordinates, which I am not familiar with. I have also asked whether he knows if there could be other ranked points below 5000' in any of the 43 P1000 counties. If not, then there are only 4 ranked CO summits below 5000', and the lowest is Two Buttes at 4711'.
Layne Bracy
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Brighton, CO

Postby John Kirk » Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:35 pm

Elbert County has two if we use interpolation - Olson is using "clean prominence". The saddle would be 5,690, thus giving Cedar Point 301' of rise. Maybe I should be making these lists from the bottom up :roll:. On another topic, similarly geek-driven, and teetering on ridiculous, I devised a new peak measure (maybe more of a visual representation) while trying to find the saddle for Cedar Point - "closed contour diameter". I couldn't decide with certainty if it made more sense to use the smallest or largest diameter, however. What about the area of the largest rectangle that can fit inside the lowest closed countour? :!:

Here's a screen shot of Cedar Point's 2.84 mile diameter (being the smallest by fitting the largest circle):
Attachments
untitled1.jpg
untitled1.jpg (139.89 KiB) Viewed 7475 times
User avatar
John Kirk
LoJ Architect
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Lakewood, CO

Postby Layne Bracy » Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:09 am

Interesting. If I understand, your circle diameter metric rewards peaks that are prominent over a large surface area. Elbert would rank highest in Colorado. This measure would correlate with "isolation", used to describe the distance to the nearest higher neighbor.

What about a metric to rate those peaks that are the gentlest and yet still have 300' prominence? This metric might be measured from the summit to the nearest point that is 300' lower - the greater the measure the gentler the peak. We could imagine a peak in the midwest, gradually rising several feet per mile for many miles in all directions, struggling to gain its final 300' of rise. The gentlest theoretical peak would be a smooth "hill" on a planet with no other mountains, where the low point is reached only on the opposite side of the world. The entire surface of the planet would be part of the hill.

The opposite metric, akin to spire measure, would favor peaks with the shortest distance needed to travel from the summit to have guaranteed a 300' drop in all directions. The best theoretical peak would be a thin spire which drops precipitously in all directions within an atom or two of horizontal distance.

It'd be interesting to repeat these for 1000', 5000', etc, to find the gentlest and sharpest peaks for a certain prominence.

Maybe I'm not getting enough sleep. :oops:
Layne Bracy
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Brighton, CO

Postby RyanSchilling » Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:30 pm

Thanks for posting that link, Layne, I hadn't seen David's work yet. I wish he didn't use township, though, and instead used lat/long. I'm appending David's explanation of townships that I received from him a few years ago, but I still find it difficult to work with since I don't own any hard copies of the quads. TOPO! indeed has the section numbers, as he states, but I've never found a way to obtain the township information from the program, even if you print out a map.

David's original Colorado's Most Prominent Peaks list used the township system. My first step in extending that list was to figure out where all the peaks were. Fortunately, most of them had names, so I didn't have to try to rely on the township information much at all. :D



"11S81W", actually T11SR81W s.4, was a useful way, with the map
name, of finding the highpoint in the old hardcopy days. It is
less useful on topozone, which doesn't know about it.

T11SR81W s.4 refers to the public land survey conducted in much
of the U.S.A. The basic unit for land-sales in the 19th century,
invented by Thomas Jefferson, was the township, which was subdivided
down as needed. A township is supposed to be 6 miles by 6 miles
and the sections (square miles) are arranged:
.6 5 4 3 2 1
.7 8 9 10 11 12
18 17 16 15 14 13
19 20 21 22 23 24
30 29 28 27 26 25
31 32 33 34 35 36
s.4 means that Mt. Elbert is located somewhere in section 4, which
is in the top row of the township, more west than east. The sections
are marked on the map with red lines and are individually numbered
on the 7.5' maps.

There were several public land surveys in the U.S. Most of Colorado
was surveyed as part of the Sixth Principal Meridian survey. The
origin point for the Sixth Principal Meridian Survey is located at
40 degrees N, about 97 d 22' W. The townships are then arranged
T2NR2W T2NR1w | T2NR1E T2NR2E
T1NR2W T1NR1W | T1NR1E T1NR2E
--------------0--------------
T1SR2W T1SR1W | T1SR1E T1SR2E
and so forth.

T and R numbers are printed on the margins of 7.5' maps.

On the eastern plains most roads, particularly the secondary roads,
are located along section lines. The eastern plains county lines
usually follow surveyed township lines. And when the surveyors did
their
work they often put monuments at the township corners. And there
is often a monument at the origin of the survey. The closest origin
and monument to you is probably The Cimarron Survey monument, located
0.1 mile north of the southwest corner of the Oklahoma panhandle.
User avatar
RyanSchilling
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:29 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Postby Layne Bracy » Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:01 pm

Thanks for the explanation, Ryan. Seems like it would be a little tedious to do the conversion. Fortunately there are so few ranked points on the plains it might be doable to just stumble onto them in topozone.
Layne Bracy
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Brighton, CO

Postby RyanSchilling » Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:53 pm

Hey John,

Check out this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prominence/message/3171


It might help save you some time on the 11ers list and some of these other lists you're talking about.
User avatar
RyanSchilling
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:29 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Postby John Kirk » Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:50 am

I just finished my data project for the 11ers last night - the member area should be up sometime today. I found 28 ranked 11ers not included in previous lists. I'll have to pick Tim's brain tomorrow about 300' peaks while alphabetizing the Kenoshas.
User avatar
John Kirk
LoJ Architect
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Lakewood, CO

Postby RyanSchilling » Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:50 am

I mustn't have looked too hard for a township converter before. Here's a link to a handy DOS program for the conversions. I wouldn't have guessed you'd need regression analysis to create a conversion program:

http://www.geocities.com/jeremiahobrien/trs2ll.html


I went ahead and converted the most prominent Weld County "peak".
User avatar
RyanSchilling
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:29 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Peaks by USGS Quadrangle

Postby John Prater » Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:40 pm

LayneBracy wrote:How about a map of Colorado broken into USGS quads? ... You can then click on any quad to get its peak list.


Have you seen this map for Washington state? Yes, something similar for Colorado would be very cool!

Congratulations on the new addition to your family, Layne! Wonderful times ahead.
John Prater
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: Superior, CO

Postby Layne Bracy » Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:02 pm

Thanks, John. In a few years we'll have to start some kid-friendly outings!

That Washington map is great! No, I hadn't seen it before. Somehow I didn't think there would be so many quads, and Colorado should have even more. :shock:
Layne Bracy
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Brighton, CO

Postby John Kirk » Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:17 pm

LayneBracy wrote:Thanks, John. In a few years we'll have to start some kid-friendly outings!


That's one reason for us three to save some of the 'easy ones'. A Bracy/Prater/Kirk outing would be fun.

Mount Warren was a good one for my daughter at 10 months this last July:
Attachments
WARREN1.jpg
WARREN1.jpg (45.37 KiB) Viewed 7409 times
User avatar
John Kirk
LoJ Architect
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:04 am
Location: Lakewood, CO

Next

Return to Lists in the Works

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests