| Welcome to SP! - Sign-In | Register | ||
| | |
| MbPost.com -- It's SP for Mountain Biking! | ||
Sawatch Range > Mount Elbert > Additions and Corrections
|
| vanman798 | 14,433 ft | |
Hasn't voted | Most other sites list the evelation as 14,433 ft. See http://peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=5736 for example. | |
| Posted Sep 9, 2009 12:02 pm | ||
 | ||
| Alan Ellis | Re: 14,433 ft | |
Hasn't voted | Peakbagger.com is incorrect. You need to read paragraph three of the main Mt. Elbert page. | |
| Posted Sep 9, 2009 4:21 pm | ||
| ||
| vanman798 | Re: 14,433 ft | |
Hasn't voted | Thanks, I should have read that "a recent survey of several Colorado peaks, including Mt. Elbert, concluded that Mt. Elbert is actually 14,440 ft." By the way, who does these surveys? Is it the USGS? Must be someone else cause the USGS site (see http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html#14,000) lists it at 14,433 ft, but that is a 1967 figure (from the National Geodetic Survey). Sorry, I'm just very curious as to when and who did the most recent survey and came up with 14,440 ft. | |
| Posted Sep 9, 2009 6:06 pm | ||
| ||
| Alan Ellis | Re: 14,433 ft | |
Hasn't voted | It is not recent, but happened in 2002. Here is a 2002 article from the Denver Post: Denver Post | |
| Posted Sep 9, 2009 9:27 pm | ||
| ||
| Scott | Re: 14,433 ft (not a resurvey) | |
Hasn't voted | If interested, it really wasn't a resurvey as mentioned on the mountain page. It was just a recalculation of the old surveyed elevations and Elbert was not resurveyed. It's actually a world wide adjustment (some areas went up and some down) and not unique to Mount Elbert or Colorado. It's actually a recalculation of the geoid: Geoid definition Most elevations in the world changed with the new calculation. | |
| Posted Sep 9, 2009 9:50 pm | ||
| ||
| Alan Ellis | Re: 14,433 ft (not a resurvey) | |
Hasn't voted | Scott, I made changes to the text on the main page. Let me know if it sounds right and is accurate. Thanks. | |
| Posted Sep 9, 2009 10:20 pm | ||
| ||
| Scott | Re: 14,433 ft (not a resurvey) | |
Hasn't voted | Looks good. I guess there will be lots of different elevations floating around out there for a long time. I haven't bothered changing all my SP pages to the new calculated elevations! | |
| Posted Sep 9, 2009 10:28 pm | ||
| vanman798 | Thanks | |
Hasn't voted | I appreciate the information. I think Scott is right when he says "I guess there will be lots of different elevations floating around out there for a long time." This re-calculation makes me wonder about the Borah Peak story - that it rose 7 feet after a 1983 earthquake. Prehaps the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1988 is responsible for the 7 foot rise more so than the earthquake. Anyways… Thanks | |
| Posted Sep 10, 2009 12:19 pm | ||
|
