Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

End August FRL update

Expand Messages
  • Andy Martin
    Hi Folks - Am preparing the end August update to the prominence FRL. I realize that many of you have hikes in the next couple weeks, feel free to delay your
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 17, 2013
      Hi Folks -

      Am preparing the end August update to the prominence FRL.

      I realize that many of you have hikes in the next couple
      weeks, feel free to delay your update until your information
      is correct to August 31.

      Please send your info to me at

      oldadit @ gmail.com (remove spaces)

      The updated FRL will be posted online at

      http://sites.google.com/site/oldadit/FRL.html

      Adam Helman posts the FRL at

      http://www.cohp.org/prominence/index.htm#FRL

      thanks - Andy
    • Rob Woodall
      Hi Andy Just had another update in but about time you harvested the spreadsheet.... Rob
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 5, 2013
        Hi Andy

        Just had another update in but about time you harvested the spreadsheet....

        Rob


        On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Andy Martin <oldadit@...> wrote:
         

        Hi Folks -

        Am preparing the end August update to the prominence FRL.

        I realize that many of you have hikes in the next couple
        weeks, feel free to delay your update until your information
        is correct to August 31.

        Please send your info to me at

        oldadit @ gmail.com (remove spaces)

        The updated FRL will be posted online at

        http://sites.google.com/site/oldadit/FRL.html

        Adam Helman posts the FRL at

        http://www.cohp.org/prominence/index.htm#FRL

        thanks - Andy


      • Andy M
        Hi rob On the road, will catch up on email in a few days see ya Andy
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 10, 2013
          Hi rob
          On the road, will catch up on email in a few days see ya Andy


          On Thursday, September 5, 2013, Rob Woodall wrote:


          Hi Andy

          Just had another update in but about time you harvested the spreadsheet....

          Rob


          On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Andy Martin <oldadit@...> wrote:
           

          Hi Folks -

          Am preparing the end August update to the prominence FRL.

          I realize that many of you have hikes in the next couple
          weeks, feel free to delay your update until your information
          is correct to August 31.

          Please send your info to me at

          oldadit @ gmail.com (remove spaces)

          The updated FRL will be posted online at

          FRL.html | oldadit

          Adam Helman posts the FRL at

          http://www.cohp.org/prominence/index.htm#FRL

          thanks - Andy




        • Andy Martin
          Hi Rob - Just finished pulling data from spreadsheet and updating FRL. It is online. One question (you might have explained this before) Why are some of the
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 15, 2013
            Hi Rob -

            Just finished pulling data from spreadsheet and
            updating FRL. It is online.

            One question (you might have explained this
            before)

            Why are some of the entries in column AP
            (GBMan >=100 meters) bigger than column AT
            (summits >= 92 meters).

            For example Phil Cooper has 1670 in AP
            but only 1574 in AT.

            If this is an error no need to fix it
            any time soon - I think the numbers I used
            in the FRL are pretty close to the mark,
            and can make changes on the next big
            go-round in December.

            thanks - Andy

            On 9/5/2013 4:07 PM, Rob Woodall wrote:
            >
            >
            > Hi Andy
            >
            > Just had another update in but about time you harvested the spreadsheet....
            >
            > Rob
            >
            >
            > On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Andy Martin <oldadit@...
            > <mailto:oldadit@...>> wrote:
            >
            > __
            >
            > Hi Folks -
            >
            > Am preparing the end August update to the prominence FRL.
            >
            > I realize that many of you have hikes in the next couple
            > weeks, feel free to delay your update until your information
            > is correct to August 31.
            >
            > Please send your info to me at
            >
            > oldadit @ gmail.com <http://gmail.com> (remove spaces)
            >
            > The updated FRL will be posted online at
            >
            > http://sites.google.com/site/oldadit/FRL.html
            >
            > Adam Helman posts the FRL at
            >
            > http://www.cohp.org/prominence/index.htm#FRL
            >
            > thanks - Andy
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Rob Woodall
            Sorry Andy, probably an error, I ll check. Rob On 16 Sep 2013 04:55, Andy Martin wrote: Hi Rob - Just finished pulling data from
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 15, 2013

              Sorry Andy, probably an error, I'll check.
              Rob

              On 16 Sep 2013 04:55, "Andy Martin" <oldadit@...> wrote:

                      Hi Rob -

                      Just finished pulling data from spreadsheet and
                      updating FRL. It is online.

                      One question (you might have explained this
                      before)

                      Why are some of the entries in column AP
                      (GBMan >=100 meters) bigger than column AT
                      (summits >= 92 meters).

                      For example Phil Cooper has 1670 in AP
                      but only 1574 in AT.

                      If this is an error no need to fix it
                      any time soon - I think the numbers I used
                      in the FRL are pretty close to the mark,
                      and can make changes on the next big
                      go-round in December.

                              thanks - Andy


              On 9/5/2013 4:07 PM, Rob Woodall wrote:
              >
              >
              > Hi Andy
              >
              > Just had another update in but about time...

              > <mailto:oldadit@...>> wrote:
              >
              >     __

              >
              > Hi Folks -
              >
              > Am preparing the end August update to the prominence FRL.
              >
              > I reali...

              >     oldadit @ gmail.com <http://gmail.com> (remove spaces)

              >
              > The updated FRL will be posted online at
              >
              > http://sites.google.com/site/oldadit/FRL.ht...

              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links

              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prominence/

              <*> Your email settings:
                  Individual Email | Traditional

              <*> To change settings online go to:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prominence/join
                  (Yahoo! ID required)

              <*> To change settings via email:
                  prominence-digest@yahoogroups.com
                  prominence-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  prominence-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                  http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

            • Rob Woodall
              Hi Andy Those P300ft (P92m) figures mostly have to be inferred from P100m and other totals as few of us track that cutoff directly. I think I ve now inferred
              Message 6 of 14 , Sep 16, 2013
                Hi Andy

                Those P300ft (P92m) figures mostly have to be inferred from P100m and other totals as few of us track that cutoff directly. I think I've now inferred all the outdated / incorrect ones.

                Should now be more robust going forward too.

                Sorry about that
                Rob


                On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Rob Woodall <rhwxyz@...> wrote:

                Sorry Andy, probably an error, I'll check.
                Rob

                On 16 Sep 2013 04:55, "Andy Martin" <oldadit@...> wrote:

                        Hi Rob -

                        Just finished pulling data from spreadsheet and
                        updating FRL. It is online.

                        One question (you might have explained this
                        before)

                        Why are some of the entries in column AP
                        (GBMan >=100 meters) bigger than column AT
                        (summits >= 92 meters).

                        For example Phil Cooper has 1670 in AP
                        but only 1574 in AT.

                        If this is an error no need to fix it
                        any time soon - I think the numbers I used
                        in the FRL are pretty close to the mark,
                        and can make changes on the next big
                        go-round in December.

                                thanks - Andy


                On 9/5/2013 4:07 PM, Rob Woodall wrote:
                >
                >
                > Hi Andy
                >
                > Just had another update in but about time...

                > <mailto:oldadit@...>> wrote:
                >
                >     __

                >
                > Hi Folks -
                >
                > Am preparing the end August update to the prominence FRL.
                >
                > I reali...

                >     oldadit @ gmail.com <http://gmail.com> (remove spaces)

                >
                > The updated FRL will be posted online at
                >
                > http://sites.google.com/site/oldadit/FRL.ht...

                ------------------------------------

                Yahoo! Groups Links

                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prominence/

                <*> Your email settings:
                    Individual Email | Traditional

                <*> To change settings online go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prominence/join
                    (Yahoo! ID required)

                <*> To change settings via email:
                    prominence-digest@yahoogroups.com
                    prominence-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    prominence-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                    http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/


              • Andy Martin
                Hi Rob - Thanks for checking on this. Moving USA based counts to 100 meters would be painful. Many western quads have 40 foot contours, so seven of these
                Message 7 of 14 , Sep 16, 2013
                  Hi Rob -

                  Thanks for checking on this.

                  Moving USA based counts to 100 meters would be painful.
                  Many western quads have 40 foot contours, so seven of these
                  contour intervals makes 280 +80, or 320 feet interpolated.

                  These "7 interval" summits would not get counted with a 100 meter
                  criteria.

                  see ya - Andy

                  On 9/16/2013 1:41 AM, Rob Woodall wrote:
                  > Those P300ft (P92m) figures mostly have to be inferred from P100m and
                  > other totals as few of us track that cutoff directly. I think I've now
                  > inferred all the outdated / incorrect ones.
                • Rob Woodall
                  No no no I wasn t trying to suggest that, just trying to explain my apparent list keeping incompetence ;-) However since you mention it ... Wouldn t moving
                  Message 8 of 14 , Sep 16, 2013

                    No no no I wasn't trying to suggest that, just trying to explain my apparent list keeping incompetence ;-)

                    However since you mention it ... Wouldn't moving from blind interpolation to estimated prominence improve things? Then it would be possible to operate to any cutoff...

                    Rob

                    On 17 Sep 2013 04:32, "Andy Martin" <oldadit@...> wrote:

                     

                    Hi Rob -

                    Thanks for checking on this.

                    Moving USA based counts to 100 meters would be painful.
                    Many western quads have 40 foot contours, so seven of these
                    contour intervals makes 280 +80, or 320 feet interpolated.

                    These "7 interval" summits would not get counted with a 100 meter
                    criteria.

                    see ya - Andy



                    On 9/16/2013 1:41 AM, Rob Woodall wrote:
                    > Those P300ft (P92m) figures mostly have to be inferred ...

                  • Andy Martin
                    Hi Rob - ... This would be good if 1) The estimated prominence data was available 2) The estimated prominence was used by the web sites (LOJ and Peakbagger,
                    Message 9 of 14 , Sep 17, 2013
                      Hi Rob -

                      On 9/16/2013 11:45 PM, Rob Woodall wrote:
                      > However since you mention it ... Wouldn't moving from blind
                      > interpolation to estimated prominence improve things? Then it would be
                      > possible to operate to any cutoff...

                      This would be good if

                      1) The estimated prominence data was available
                      2) The estimated prominence was used
                      by the web sites (LOJ and Peakbagger, for example)
                      3) The estimated prominence was subject to update
                      when survey data or better maps was available
                      4) The hikers had all their peaks on the web sites.

                      Expect it would take some time to get this
                      accomplished ...

                      see ya - Andy
                    • Rob Woodall
                      1) is simple enough - look at the map and make an estimate :-) Stated simply, if the saddle is nearer to one contour than the other contour, then the saddle
                      Message 10 of 14 , Sep 17, 2013
                        1) is simple enough - look at the map and make an estimate :-)  Stated simply, if the saddle is nearer to one contour than the other contour, then the saddle elevation will not be midway between the two values and an estimate, while not precise, will self evidently be more accurate than midpoint interpolation - especially if the saddle is very close to a contour.

                        Somehow in the UK, we've been doing it this way just about as long as there have been lists with prominence values, about 20 years, and it just seems to us the obvious way to proceed.

                        Steps 2) to 4) would tend to follow after 1) ...

                        Rob


                        On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Andy Martin <oldadit@...> wrote:
                                Hi Rob -

                        On 9/16/2013 11:45 PM, Rob Woodall wrote:
                        > However since you mention it ... Wouldn't moving from blind
                        > interpolation to estimated prominence improve things? Then it would be
                        > possible to operate to any cutoff...

                                This would be good if

                                  1) The estimated prominence data was available
                                  2) The estimated prominence was used
                                     by the web sites (LOJ and Peakbagger, for example)
                                  3) The estimated prominence was subject to update
                                     when survey data or better maps was available
                                  4) The hikers had all their peaks on the web sites.

                                Expect it would take some time to get this
                                accomplished ...

                                                see ya - Andy


                        ------------------------------------

                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prominence/

                        <*> Your email settings:
                            Individual Email | Traditional

                        <*> To change settings online go to:
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prominence/join
                            (Yahoo! ID required)

                        <*> To change settings via email:
                            prominence-digest@yahoogroups.com
                            prominence-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            prominence-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                            http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/


                      • Petter Bjørstad
                        Rob and Andy, I started out a bit like this, with estimated prominence, however, experience has shown that to estimate saddle elevations based on map and
                        Message 11 of 14 , Sep 17, 2013
                          Rob and Andy,

                          I started out a bit like this, with estimated prominence,
                          however, experience has shown that to estimate saddle elevations
                          based on map and closeness of contours is very unreliable, at least
                          in Norway. How and what the local terrain looks like is impossible to
                          guess (in most places), thus the closeness of a contour does not at all
                          imply that the elevation of the saddle is closer to this value. There
                          are local cliffs and all sorts of unpredictable terrain. IF one
                          actually visits the saddle and inspects the terrain and compares with
                          the map, then an estimate can be made, otherwise the statistics is in
                          favor of "blind" interpolation. There is one important and notable
                          exception, perhaps mostly relevant in places like Norway. There are
                          thousands of local lakes and topo-maps almost always have an official
                          lake elevation. Maps also show which way lakes drain. Lakes that are
                          located close to a saddle can therefore be used to narrow the gap,
                          interpolation should then be between a contour and the lake elevation
                          rather than with the next contour.

                          Petter
                        • Rob Woodall
                          Interesting to see others viewpoints. Maybe our gentler more eroded UK terrain informs our practice. Also the Marilyns (P150m) list was based on 1:10,000 (6
                          Message 12 of 14 , Sep 17, 2013
                            Interesting to see others viewpoints.  Maybe our gentler more eroded UK terrain informs our practice. Also the Marilyns (P150m) list was based on 1:10,000 (6 inch) mapping and its prominence values tend to mostly hold up pretty well against precision GPS (centimetre accuracy) surveys. And old mapping available online tends to have a lot of spot heights not on modern maps...

                            The view from a small over-surveyed island?

                            Rob


                            On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Petter Bjørstad <Petter.Bjorstad@...> wrote:
                             

                            Rob and Andy,

                            I started out a bit like this, with estimated prominence,
                            however, experience has shown that to estimate saddle elevations
                            based on map and closeness of contours is very unreliable, at least
                            in Norway. How and what the local terrain looks like is impossible to
                            guess (in most places), thus the closeness of a contour does not at all
                            imply that the elevation of the saddle is closer to this value. There
                            are local cliffs and all sorts of unpredictable terrain. IF one
                            actually visits the saddle and inspects the terrain and compares with
                            the map, then an estimate can be made, otherwise the statistics is in
                            favor of "blind" interpolation. There is one important and notable
                            exception, perhaps mostly relevant in places like Norway. There are
                            thousands of local lakes and topo-maps almost always have an official
                            lake elevation. Maps also show which way lakes drain. Lakes that are
                            located close to a saddle can therefore be used to narrow the gap,
                            interpolation should then be between a contour and the lake elevation
                            rather than with the next contour.

                            Petter


                          • Rob Woodall
                            Petter wrote ... I can understand this will be the case in areas of rugged terrain. We have this problem too, but usually only with higher level cols on narrow
                            Message 13 of 14 , Sep 23, 2013
                              Petter wrote


                              I started out a bit like this, with estimated prominence,
                              however, experience has shown that to estimate saddle elevations
                              based on map and closeness of contours is very unreliable, at least
                              in Norway. How and what the local terrain looks like is impossible to
                              guess (in most places), thus the closeness of a contour does not at all
                              imply that the elevation of the saddle is closer to this value. There
                              are local cliffs and all sorts of unpredictable terrain. IF one
                              actually visits the saddle and inspects the terrain and compares with
                              the map, then an estimate can be made, otherwise the statistics is in
                              favor of "blind" interpolation. 


                              I can understand this will be the case in areas of rugged terrain. We have this problem too, but usually only with higher level cols on narrow ridges.

                              However where cols are located in more gentle terrain - as is often (usually?) the case - then an estimate will clearly be more accurate in cases where the col is close to the contour. In such terrain a summit elevation can also be estimated with reasonable confidence when the highest contour is small.

                              Rob
                            • Andy Martin
                              Am preparing the end August 2014 update to the prominence FRL. Please send your info to me at oldadit @ gmail.com (remove spaces) The updated FRL will
                              Message 14 of 14 , Aug 18, 2014
                                Am preparing the end August 2014 update to the prominence FRL.
                                Please send your info to me at

                                oldadit @ gmail.com (remove spaces)

                                The updated FRL will be posted online at

                                http://sites.google.com/site/oldadit/FRL.html

                                Adam Helman also posts the FRL at

                                http://www.cohp.org/prominence/index.htm#FRL

                                thanks - Andy Martin, Tucson AZ
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.