Cordillera Occidental (Ecuador) > Chimborazo > Additions and Corrections
Cordillera Occidental (Ecuador) > Chimborazo > Additions and Corrections
|
| Socorro | Update | |
Hasn't voted | Just an update on getting to the park - the terminal in Riobamba is under construction and the improvised terminal is a little bit of a mess. None of the buses would let me off at the park entrance, including the Flota Bolivar that goes to Guaranda. So it was taxi or nothing. You can get them cheaper than $35, even down to $20. | |
| Posted Jan 22, 2012 3:57 pm | ||
| Socorro | Quick mention | |
Hasn't voted | I´d like to add though that you can probably get on the bus without telling them where you need to go and spring it on them when you approach the entrance. | |
| Posted Jan 28, 2012 2:19 pm | ||
| rgg | The elevation ... | |
Hasn't voted | In The Overview, a paragraph is dedicated to the elevation discussion. I strongly feel that it's important that Summitpost provides the best elevations avaiable. I know about the discussion (or perhaps I should say controversy), but I don't believe the 6310m number, and wish to see it changed to 6267m or 6268m (I believe a good case can be made for both, see below) in the page data at the top. I don't mind keeping a paragraph about the elevations, on the contrary, I think it's an important part of the page. Of course, it would have to be rewritten from the perspective that 6267m or 6278m is the elevation and where it comes from, and then it can go on to explain why 6310m is still in circulation so much. Why do I not believe this value? 1. Peaklist gives 6267m, including an explanation with references. Some of these references were quite interesting to read. 2. Wikipedia, which I normally take with a grain of salt when it comes to such details, gives 6268m. In this case however, I give Wikipedia more credit than usual, because the article has a note and reference explaining where the elevation comes from. 3. In "The Andes: A Guide For Climbers", John Biggar gives 6270m. 4. Ecuador according to Landinfo gives 6267m. As stated in all these references, SRTM data corroborate the lower value. Simply said, SRTM data provide accurate measurements of the earth's surface, but with only one elevation being determined per area the size of a football field. For jagged mountains and sharp peaks, that means that SRTM data can easily give too low measurements, but for a large and flat summit like Chimborazo, even if the closest point that was measured happened to be half a football field away, it's still close enough to give an almost exact summit elevation. The official SRTM site gives more information, as does this very readable article which, by the way, gives Chimborazo 6267m. Why is 6310m still quited so frequently? Although many sources, some recent guidebooks included, give 6310m, I believe that that's simply because people keep copying it. However, that doesn't make it right! The fact that, despite proof to the contrary, some official authorities and agencies appear to hold on to the old official elevation does not help either. You would almost start to think some people take it personally if "their" mountain is reported to be lower than what they thought it was. Chimborazo is not the only mountain where this happens. An ego thing, perhaps? As explanation for the difference between the official elevation of 6310m and the alternative of 6267m or so, the overview says that the lower value is said to correspond with Veintimillia. Now, I don't doubt that quite a few climbers got to Veintimillia in poor visibility thinking they made it to the summit, but I don't buy for one second that the official surveyors who measured it in 1993 made that mistake, nor do I believe that the SRTM data are wrong, and the weather is no factor with SRTM. Instead, I believe that this Veintimillia explanation is just made up, to try to explain away the lower value. | |
| Posted Feb 7, 2012 2:35 pm | ||
|
