Hey y'all, just a quick question: What's your thoughts on the updated elevations of Colorado's fourteeners? Start referring to the peaks with their updated elevations or keep using the "classic" elevations? (as in, Pikes Peak, is it 14,110' or 14,115'? Elbert - 14,433' or 14,440'?, etc.) Trying to decide whether or not to make the update for our 2017 Colorado Fourteeners calendar.

Thanks!
Todd

The new elevations should be more accurate, but it will likely take a long time for the new elevations to show up on maps. As far as a calendar goes, I would go with the new ones, but I don't think it matters that much either way.

Accurate data is better than appeasement data. In other words if the new measurements are confirmed to be more accurate, I don't see why you wouldn't go with them. I understand that you might get some folks up in arms about it, however simply show them the evidence of why it's different.

NPS list Whitney in California at 14,494 but virtually every other site is 14,505. Has been that for 5 year or so..

NPS list Whitney in California at 14,494 but virtually every other site is 14,505. Has been that for 5 year or so..

As of last year,14,508 is the apparently latest corrected elevation.

Thank you, guys.

If your girlfriend weighed 125 lbs and gained 50 lbs would you still call her 125 lbs?

Just to offer a different opinion, I personally have avoided the new elevations because if they 14ers "went up", so did every other mountain and yet nobody seems to talk about what their elevations are when it comes to this update. For example, there are 4 peaks above 12,994 feet that are probably 13ers now, but where is the updated data? I am sure other peaks were bumped a category as well.

I realize the 14ers are popular and are most people's intro (mine too) to Colorado peaks, but there are thousands of mountains below 14,000 feet and I just don't know why they have been seemingly completely ignored in this whole elevation discussion. If the 14ers got taller, so did they, and until I see that complete data, the 14ers can stay a little shorter in my opinion. Otherwise the comparison of elevations with the "lower" peaks is incomplete.

It should be more accurate now...

Tonka wrote:If your girlfriend weighed 125 lbs and gained 50 lbs would you still call her 125 lbs?

You'd better

Since Mt. Whitney is thought to be about 10 feet higher than in former years (national geodetic folks say 14,505 ft), isn't it the case that Mt. Barnard is now a 14,000 ft. mtn?

LeeS wrote:

Tonka wrote:If your girlfriend weighed 125 lbs and gained 50 lbs would you still call her 125 lbs?

You'd better

Would you still call her your girlfriend?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

desainme wrote:Since Mt. Whitney is thought to be about 10 feet higher than in former years (national geodetic folks say 14,505 ft), isn't it the case that Mt. Barnard is now a 14,000 ft. mtn?

Yep. Surprisingly, the highest CO 13er, Grizzly (13,988') probably wouldn't get bumped up.

Sunlight spire is 14,000 and not considered a 14er. Thats a hard technical climb to the summit.

chicagotransplant wrote:I realize the 14ers are popular and are most people's intro (mine too) to Colorado peaks, but there are thousands of mountains below 14,000 feet and I just don't know why they have been seemingly completely ignored in this whole elevation discussion.

This is a true story:

I moved to Colorado Springs in 1990, and started looking for a climbing partner. I found a personal ad in a climbing shop and we met for beer.

He said that he had been climbing since he was 10 years old, and he had climbed every single peak in Colorado.

I was amazed. "Every single peak in Colorado??" He replied, "Yes, every one."

I was trying imagine how many peaks there were in Colorado. "My goodness, there must be THOUSANDS of peaks in Colorado!"

He looked a me very puzzled, and replied, "No, there are only fifty four."