So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)
OK, if we start using your "logic" for highpointing and prominence bagging, there would seem to be tons of other CoHPs and prominence points that are now suspect. In the past, if a closed contour stood out above all the others, that was good enough. In this case, there is no 500-meter closed contour at Washtucna BM, and it is even measured at 498.9 or 499.1 meters (1637 feet) according to the datasheets. Benjamin's Butte has a good-sized 500-meter closed contour, which makes it 1640+ feet, and the top must be higher than that. So where's the problem? Now, if both of these locations shared the same highest closed contour elevation, indeed we would have to touch them both. But they don't share the same highest closed contour elevation, and I don't see you guys advocating this handling of any number of other potential problem spots around the country where this situation exists. So why this one???
Andy Martin, ya gotta stop this madness! Don't let these OC Washingtonians discredit all your hard work! The "rules" have been in place for parts of two decades already (at least), so why should they be changed now?
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)
I will admit that I didn't fully understand everything you wrote. I am reacting to this quote: "...my opinion is that Washtucna BM is a contender for Franklin CoHP". The very fact that you went there and left open the possibility of it being the highest point in the county is enough reason for me to raise the flag about the rules. It didn't help either that Roper said he had now completed the state a second time in Franklin County. So what did I miss? I am simply appealing to the long-accepted practice of only visiting multiple areas if they share the same highest contour elevation on the USGS maps. If that practice is now inadequate, as your report seems to imply, you have opened a massive can of worms -- hence my appeal to a "higher power", Andy Martin. :-)
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)
I raised it as a possibility (as a contender) but I never stated a probability. It could have a 1 in 1000 chance. Or it could be 50-50. Maybe LiDAR data will answer for us in the future.
"I am simply appealing to the long-accepted practice of only visiting multiple areas if they share the same highest contour elevation on the USGS maps."
You mean like Mt. Buckner?
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)
Andy Martin's rules apply to only Andy Martin, and other individuals who chose to follow them of their own free will. No one else.
Regardless if you agree with the statements made I think it is an interesting writeup and well written, and the points are well made. USGS Topo maps are not the gospel even if you choose to treat them that way.
The only rule in this game is that you should be satisfied for yourself that you have accomplished the objective you have in mind.
Alameda County in CA has two possible COHPs, though a lot of folks seem to accept the easier one and bypass the other. I seriously doubt those individuals made the COHP convincingly, but it doesn't matter. For me, however, I went to both to convince myself.
Similarly there are a lot of folks that think they completed Placer County and the state as a result (or that they are 'grandfathered' in, which to me is a laughable concept). As far as I'm concerned if someone visited Granite Chief and not the correct point on the north side of Tahoe they still have one left to go.
Bottom line... you make your own rules. No one else's matter.
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)
LIDAR will change a lot of things. Which is why I'm purposely steering clear of 20+ point counties for the next five or so years til the technology gets good enough to rule out most of the grey areas.
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)
You may note that I put quotes around the word "rules". I am referring to the so-called rules that have been established by the county highpointing forum. It is true that one can claim anything one wishes based upon one's own rules. There are some who simply like to base their claims on a standard established by a body, however loose-knit, that recognizes the achievements one seeks. You wouldn't get very far in golf or tennis or baseball or basketball or soccer if you made up your own rules and argued that your rules are as good as any others. You used the right word -- it's indeed a game, but I happen to prefer games that have rules, not games that are based on anarchy.
Having said that, however, Andy Martin didn't write the rules. They were decided on in a forum of people pursuing common objectives. Andy merely did a huge share of the research required to find the highpoints. If we have to research each situation such as this to the extent that Paul did, you might as well kiss goodbye to the county highpointing game until Lidar answers all questions, if it ever does. Meanwhile the game has reasonable "rules" that I choose to live by as best I can, not being the anarchist sort of person.
As for the grandfather rule, it is actually very reasonable, and it has been applied by many individuals in a respectable manner, IMO. As a hypothetical example, would you be willing to remove a person from the list of folks who completed the state highpoints if they had died or become infirm before Mt. Arvon was discovered to be the highpoint of Michigan? Maybe you know of an example of someone who refuses to return to Placer County because of the grandfather rule, but those who I respect have always maintained that if a person is able, s/he should return to pick up the corrected HP even if s/he has already "completed the list". The folks I know from the list of California completers have all held to this philosophy. But that doesn't mean to me that the grandfather "rule" isn't valid. It was human error, after all, that caused people to visit Mt. Curwood instead of Mt. Arvon, and the Curwood visitor did so in good faith, actually putting out more effort than Arvon visitors need exert today. I have no problem with allowing a deceased or infirm highpointer to retain his recognition based on Mt. Curwood. I can't imagine having any other attitude.
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)
I guess I am an anarchist. :-)
I think the difference here is that in the sports 'games' it is a competition, whereas I do not see COHPing as a competition at all, at least not one between individuals. It's just yourself and your goals. I think people can police themselves to some extent and if some like Paul want to be more thorough then that just enhances their own experience. As I mentioned I do not think most are thorough enough in Alameda County, but I'm not going to bother trying to take it away from them. They did what suited them.
BTW- if the 'rules' are not Andy's, then why did you specifically address him when you wrote a note to the COHPers saying the 'rules' were being messed with?
WRT your question... yes. As far as I am concerned if someone died having completed the incorrect HP, then they definitely did not complete the COHPs of that state. That isn't even debatable. You can still choose to recognize them, but then what you are maintaining is a list of people who believe they climbed the COHPs of a state, not a list of people who actually did it. This is what the COHPers do today, and that's fine. You just have to acknowledge the difference.
If Sir Edmund Hillary had climbed K2, thinking it was the HP of the earth, and then died still thinking that, we would not remember him for having climbed the highest point on earth. We'd remember him for having climbed K2, and whoever ACTUALLY climbed the true HP for having done that. Participants dead or not.
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)
Well, I guess you may need to take this up with the Highpointers Club so they can right a horrible wrong -- the person recognized by the club as the first 50-state completer never did visit the true Iowa state HP, yet because of the grandfather clause he is still recognized as the first completer. He "completed the states" in 1966. He died in an avalanche on Dhaulagiri in 1969 before he was able to return to Iowa to touch the true HP. I'm guessing this rankles you (??), but the way I reconcile it in my own mind is to remember that this is a game with rules, and if a body wants to recognize a person's accomplishment based on their rules, they have every right to do that. You may be able to understand my comments better when you realize that this is their context. If you don't care about being recognized by a body, of course you can claim anything you wish that makes you happy -- it really doesn't matter one way or the other if you're just doing it for your own entertainment. But I think you can agree that recognition by a body would HAVE to be based on rules. And the rules are very well defined for this game.
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)
I was replying to mrchad9. Of course I already knew you were only interested in the truth, and that is noble and right. My only concern is that highpointing as we know it is seriously challenged by this because now we can't trust anything where there is not an obvious and clearcut winner. I for one don't have time or inclination to research these situations to make sure we have the right spot, which discourages me from pursuing the hobby because of the possibility that someone may come along later with new information challenging my costly and time-consuming effort that has already been expended. Your research just opens a can of worms, and that's it.
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)
It is also noble to follow the rules. But the truth doesn't need rules. You might say that "the truth" is transcendental.
Don't be discouraged because of the can of worms I opened. I think to question the validity of some CoHPs is a good idea. It gets us thinking about things we may not have necessarily thought about before. Also, honestly though, did you really assume that all determined county highpoints are infallible (excluding those that are already in question, such as Buckner)? There are a lot of counties in America. It seems improbable to me that not a single one could be in error. As for Washington, I've compiled a list of other counties where there "could be" another contender. By "could be" don't take that necessarily as "is" at this time. I'll send that compilation along in an email soon.
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)
Actually I don't think the 'rules' are that well defined. If you read them you will notice it is full of phrases like 'probably', 'would be willing to', 'significantly', 'good enough', and 'in my opinion'. These are not phrases of very well defined rules in my opinion. btw- I don't see anything in the rules that you linked to that indicate anything about 'grandfathering'.
That said, there is one in there that for me is the only one that matters... 'If you don't climb to the highest point, you can not claim the county.' Everything else is moot if you truely accept that one.
And like Klenke, I am only interested in the truth. Nothing else. I think we agree on your last points, of course an organization like the COHPers or state highpointers is free to make its own rules. And others can follow the truth as they see it for themselves. As far as I am concerned this fellow who didn't climb Iowa still lacks one state HP. It is fine if the club recognizes him... as I said before "You can still choose to recognize them, but then what you are maintaining is a list of people who believe they climbed the COHPs of a state, not a list of people who actually did it. This is what the COHPers do today, and that's fine. You just have to acknowledge the difference." It sounds as though this statement applies to the state group... and that's also fine. I think you believe this too to some extent, there is an asterisk on this fellow in the mind of everyone who is aware he didn't climb Iowa's HP, that is why you put 'completed the states' in quotes right?
And also like Klenke says, don't be discouraged. You can be just as free to apply one set of rules to your endeavor as I am another to mine and he is another to his.
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)
Grandfathering is a carryover from the state highpointing rules. Mr. Lobdell apparently didn't deem it necessary to restate all of those rules -- they are implied because most of the original county highpointing crowd came from the state game and those rules were already implied.
I am not convinced that the SRTM-based data is without errors, itself.
The flaw I found in your theory lies within your own resources. Your theory appears to be totally based off of one resource (SRTM-based data/Shetter map) showing the summit elevation of "Benjamins Butte" being 1624' instead of the USGS-mapped elevation of 1640'-1656' (500-504.9 Meters). The SRTM-based data you are trusting for "Benjamins Butte" also shows the summit elevation of Washtucna BM as 1630', yet the USGS data you researched showed that summit elevation might actually range from 1633.8'-1643.7' (or 498-501 Meters). So immediately you have shown your resource of the SRTM-based data to be flawed (at least when compared with "official" USGS data).
Hence, the SRTM-based data for "Benjamins Butte" also cannot be trusted, as a result. In my opinion, that context of your research actually *improves* the status of "Benjamins Butte" as the most likely CoHP contender of Franklin County because it raises doubt about the reliability of your resources.
Your trip report basically suggests trusting USGS data over SRTM-based data for Washtucna BM, but trusting SRTM-based data over USGS-supplied data for "Benjamins Butte". So it is good one way, but not the other? Unlikely.
Also, if the summit elevation of the Washtucna BM has "grown" by two meters (from 499 to 501) then who is to say that the "Benjamins Butte" summit elevation has not also been similarly incorrect/underestimated? Plus, how likely is it that the "Benjamins Butte" elevation/contour has been suddenly dropped by 16'-26' elevation? At least the "Benjamins Butte" summit contour has a defined mapped summit contour above 500 Meters, unlike the Washtucna BM.
Also, judging by your photos, the Washtucna BM area appears to have been thoroughly plowed and subject to a lot of regular agricultural activity through the years. That would probably lower its summit elevation over time, not raise it. In contrast, the summit elevation of "Benjamins Butte" has not been regularly subject to agricultural activity.
------------
Personally, I have to agree with BB on this one, not only because of the size of the "Benjamins Butte" summit contour but also because multiple people (myself included) had GPS devices that showed summit elevations there that were higher than the Washtucna BM elevation and not at all close to 1624'. Also, from my own standpoint, your data comparisons raise more doubts about this COHP contender theory than enhance its likelihood.
I am not poo-pooing your theory, and I respect your efforts and research, but I am trying to look at this as logically and completely as I can. There seems to still be too much room for error with this particular CoHP contender theory. But, heck, you can believe what you want. ;-)
The point would be that we can't really trust anything we read and think we know and the reality "on the ground" may be something completely different.
Either way, I found this Franklin County anomaly intriguing, and thus worth visiting and then writing about.
This is no different than having error range summits for the GPP list, per Edward Earl's webpage, only the data sources are expanded.
If you are (or if anyone is) proposing this as a possible CoHP contender, then there is nothing wrong with good, healthy debate and analysis about it. I am not suggesting that this is not intriguing, as I am a big fan of anomalies and obscure details. You made some compelling arguments and analyses. However, there just does not seem like enough proof to convince me this is a true CoHP contender (yet). I am interested in seeing other opinions from the CoHPers out there. Heck, with enough debate and further research, it is possible that even I can be convinced otherwise.
Also... EE's GPP list is based completely off of USGS/mapped/contoured data, not a combination of different resources as you have done here. That is the difference. If you kept the argument to the USGS data showing a reference to the Washtucna BM being 501 rather than the mapped 498, while the "Benjamins Butte" summit contour is 500+, then that could be argument enough without bringing any other resources into the equation. But bringing up the SRTM-based data immediately raised doubt for me.
I might explore this further the next time I am near that general area, assuming I have some other measurement devices and people with me.
-> The data for “Washtucna No 3 1950” (SA1892) and “Washtucna 1950” (SA1893), not surprisingly, are each from 1950. Old data.
-> Unlike the first two Washtucna datasheets you listed, each of which have more recent elevation and USGS data compiled using what appears to be non-map-based methods, for each of the “Washtucna No 3 1950” (SA1892) and “Washtucna 1950” (SA1893) elevations "the orthometric height was scaled from a topographic map." That topographic map was unlikely from 1950, but even if it was there is a definite chance it was incorrect.
-> Also, because it is not currently mentioned in the report, did either you or JR take an altimeter reading at the proposed CoHP contender? If so, what did it say? If not, why not?
-> "MrChad9" is correct. Each person has to decide for himself or herself if a peakbagging list has truly been satisfactorily completed. As an example, I personally do not believe the NE summit of Buckner Mountain is the highest point of Skagit County, and I will satisfactorily finish the WA CoHPs on Mount Baker even if that NE summit of Buckner is not yet attained. I might return later, but that will be up for me to decide if/when that occurs. As another example, after finishing the WA CoHPs you (PK) felt compelled to return to Klickitat County and, now, Franklin County to feel satisfied with completing the WA CoHPs. Are you and JR going to change the records books? My guess is not, but that is totally up to you to decide. Either way, I appreciate the effort you made in this report and it might prove valuable to others and in the future.
Bob Bolton - Nov 9, 2011 1:11 am - Voted 1/10
So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)OK, if we start using your "logic" for highpointing and prominence bagging, there would seem to be tons of other CoHPs and prominence points that are now suspect. In the past, if a closed contour stood out above all the others, that was good enough. In this case, there is no 500-meter closed contour at Washtucna BM, and it is even measured at 498.9 or 499.1 meters (1637 feet) according to the datasheets. Benjamin's Butte has a good-sized 500-meter closed contour, which makes it 1640+ feet, and the top must be higher than that. So where's the problem? Now, if both of these locations shared the same highest closed contour elevation, indeed we would have to touch them both. But they don't share the same highest closed contour elevation, and I don't see you guys advocating this handling of any number of other potential problem spots around the country where this situation exists. So why this one???
Andy Martin, ya gotta stop this madness! Don't let these OC Washingtonians discredit all your hard work! The "rules" have been in place for parts of two decades already (at least), so why should they be changed now?
FWIW
Klenke - Nov 9, 2011 1:20 am - Hasn't voted
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)Me thinks you didn't fully read my report.
Bob Bolton - Nov 9, 2011 1:49 am - Voted 1/10
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)I will admit that I didn't fully understand everything you wrote. I am reacting to this quote: "...my opinion is that Washtucna BM is a contender for Franklin CoHP". The very fact that you went there and left open the possibility of it being the highest point in the county is enough reason for me to raise the flag about the rules. It didn't help either that Roper said he had now completed the state a second time in Franklin County. So what did I miss? I am simply appealing to the long-accepted practice of only visiting multiple areas if they share the same highest contour elevation on the USGS maps. If that practice is now inadequate, as your report seems to imply, you have opened a massive can of worms -- hence my appeal to a "higher power", Andy Martin. :-)
Klenke - Nov 9, 2011 2:49 am - Hasn't voted
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)I raised it as a possibility (as a contender) but I never stated a probability. It could have a 1 in 1000 chance. Or it could be 50-50. Maybe LiDAR data will answer for us in the future.
"I am simply appealing to the long-accepted practice of only visiting multiple areas if they share the same highest contour elevation on the USGS maps."
You mean like Mt. Buckner?
mrchad9 - Nov 9, 2011 11:35 am - Voted 10/10
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)Andy Martin's rules apply to only Andy Martin, and other individuals who chose to follow them of their own free will. No one else.
Regardless if you agree with the statements made I think it is an interesting writeup and well written, and the points are well made. USGS Topo maps are not the gospel even if you choose to treat them that way.
The only rule in this game is that you should be satisfied for yourself that you have accomplished the objective you have in mind.
Alameda County in CA has two possible COHPs, though a lot of folks seem to accept the easier one and bypass the other. I seriously doubt those individuals made the COHP convincingly, but it doesn't matter. For me, however, I went to both to convince myself.
Similarly there are a lot of folks that think they completed Placer County and the state as a result (or that they are 'grandfathered' in, which to me is a laughable concept). As far as I'm concerned if someone visited Granite Chief and not the correct point on the north side of Tahoe they still have one left to go.
Bottom line... you make your own rules. No one else's matter.
phillinley - Nov 9, 2011 10:05 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)LIDAR will change a lot of things. Which is why I'm purposely steering clear of 20+ point counties for the next five or so years til the technology gets good enough to rule out most of the grey areas.
Bob Bolton - Nov 9, 2011 11:24 pm - Voted 1/10
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)Yes, I mean like Buckner. I still plan to join Adam Helman on his climb, whenever that happens.
Bob Bolton - Nov 9, 2011 11:58 pm - Voted 1/10
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)You may note that I put quotes around the word "rules". I am referring to the so-called rules that have been established by the county highpointing forum. It is true that one can claim anything one wishes based upon one's own rules. There are some who simply like to base their claims on a standard established by a body, however loose-knit, that recognizes the achievements one seeks. You wouldn't get very far in golf or tennis or baseball or basketball or soccer if you made up your own rules and argued that your rules are as good as any others. You used the right word -- it's indeed a game, but I happen to prefer games that have rules, not games that are based on anarchy.
Having said that, however, Andy Martin didn't write the rules. They were decided on in a forum of people pursuing common objectives. Andy merely did a huge share of the research required to find the highpoints. If we have to research each situation such as this to the extent that Paul did, you might as well kiss goodbye to the county highpointing game until Lidar answers all questions, if it ever does. Meanwhile the game has reasonable "rules" that I choose to live by as best I can, not being the anarchist sort of person.
As for the grandfather rule, it is actually very reasonable, and it has been applied by many individuals in a respectable manner, IMO. As a hypothetical example, would you be willing to remove a person from the list of folks who completed the state highpoints if they had died or become infirm before Mt. Arvon was discovered to be the highpoint of Michigan? Maybe you know of an example of someone who refuses to return to Placer County because of the grandfather rule, but those who I respect have always maintained that if a person is able, s/he should return to pick up the corrected HP even if s/he has already "completed the list". The folks I know from the list of California completers have all held to this philosophy. But that doesn't mean to me that the grandfather "rule" isn't valid. It was human error, after all, that caused people to visit Mt. Curwood instead of Mt. Arvon, and the Curwood visitor did so in good faith, actually putting out more effort than Arvon visitors need exert today. I have no problem with allowing a deceased or infirm highpointer to retain his recognition based on Mt. Curwood. I can't imagine having any other attitude.
mrchad9 - Nov 10, 2011 10:47 am - Voted 10/10
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)I guess I am an anarchist. :-)
I think the difference here is that in the sports 'games' it is a competition, whereas I do not see COHPing as a competition at all, at least not one between individuals. It's just yourself and your goals. I think people can police themselves to some extent and if some like Paul want to be more thorough then that just enhances their own experience. As I mentioned I do not think most are thorough enough in Alameda County, but I'm not going to bother trying to take it away from them. They did what suited them.
BTW- if the 'rules' are not Andy's, then why did you specifically address him when you wrote a note to the COHPers saying the 'rules' were being messed with?
WRT your question... yes. As far as I am concerned if someone died having completed the incorrect HP, then they definitely did not complete the COHPs of that state. That isn't even debatable. You can still choose to recognize them, but then what you are maintaining is a list of people who believe they climbed the COHPs of a state, not a list of people who actually did it. This is what the COHPers do today, and that's fine. You just have to acknowledge the difference.
If Sir Edmund Hillary had climbed K2, thinking it was the HP of the earth, and then died still thinking that, we would not remember him for having climbed the highest point on earth. We'd remember him for having climbed K2, and whoever ACTUALLY climbed the true HP for having done that. Participants dead or not.
Klenke - Nov 10, 2011 4:25 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)You make good points, mrchad.
And thanks for voting for my wife's mother, even if she didn't win. :)
Bob Bolton - Nov 12, 2011 12:36 am - Voted 1/10
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)Well, I guess you may need to take this up with the Highpointers Club so they can right a horrible wrong -- the person recognized by the club as the first 50-state completer never did visit the true Iowa state HP, yet because of the grandfather clause he is still recognized as the first completer. He "completed the states" in 1966. He died in an avalanche on Dhaulagiri in 1969 before he was able to return to Iowa to touch the true HP. I'm guessing this rankles you (??), but the way I reconcile it in my own mind is to remember that this is a game with rules, and if a body wants to recognize a person's accomplishment based on their rules, they have every right to do that. You may be able to understand my comments better when you realize that this is their context. If you don't care about being recognized by a body, of course you can claim anything you wish that makes you happy -- it really doesn't matter one way or the other if you're just doing it for your own entertainment. But I think you can agree that recognition by a body would HAVE to be based on rules. And the rules are very well defined for this game.
Klenke - Nov 12, 2011 1:26 am - Hasn't voted
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)Bob, were you attempting to respond to Andy's last email or to mrchad9?
Anyway, I don't care about the rules in this case. I care about the truth. And that's it.
Bob Bolton - Nov 12, 2011 2:18 am - Voted 1/10
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)I was replying to mrchad9. Of course I already knew you were only interested in the truth, and that is noble and right. My only concern is that highpointing as we know it is seriously challenged by this because now we can't trust anything where there is not an obvious and clearcut winner. I for one don't have time or inclination to research these situations to make sure we have the right spot, which discourages me from pursuing the hobby because of the possibility that someone may come along later with new information challenging my costly and time-consuming effort that has already been expended. Your research just opens a can of worms, and that's it.
Klenke - Nov 12, 2011 6:18 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)It is also noble to follow the rules. But the truth doesn't need rules. You might say that "the truth" is transcendental.
Don't be discouraged because of the can of worms I opened. I think to question the validity of some CoHPs is a good idea. It gets us thinking about things we may not have necessarily thought about before. Also, honestly though, did you really assume that all determined county highpoints are infallible (excluding those that are already in question, such as Buckner)? There are a lot of counties in America. It seems improbable to me that not a single one could be in error. As for Washington, I've compiled a list of other counties where there "could be" another contender. By "could be" don't take that necessarily as "is" at this time. I'll send that compilation along in an email soon.
mrchad9 - Nov 12, 2011 6:34 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)Actually I don't think the 'rules' are that well defined. If you read them you will notice it is full of phrases like 'probably', 'would be willing to', 'significantly', 'good enough', and 'in my opinion'. These are not phrases of very well defined rules in my opinion. btw- I don't see anything in the rules that you linked to that indicate anything about 'grandfathering'.
That said, there is one in there that for me is the only one that matters... 'If you don't climb to the highest point, you can not claim the county.' Everything else is moot if you truely accept that one.
And like Klenke, I am only interested in the truth. Nothing else. I think we agree on your last points, of course an organization like the COHPers or state highpointers is free to make its own rules. And others can follow the truth as they see it for themselves. As far as I am concerned this fellow who didn't climb Iowa still lacks one state HP. It is fine if the club recognizes him... as I said before "You can still choose to recognize them, but then what you are maintaining is a list of people who believe they climbed the COHPs of a state, not a list of people who actually did it. This is what the COHPers do today, and that's fine. You just have to acknowledge the difference." It sounds as though this statement applies to the state group... and that's also fine. I think you believe this too to some extent, there is an asterisk on this fellow in the mind of everyone who is aware he didn't climb Iowa's HP, that is why you put 'completed the states' in quotes right?
And also like Klenke says, don't be discouraged. You can be just as free to apply one set of rules to your endeavor as I am another to mine and he is another to his.
Bob Bolton - Nov 19, 2011 3:18 am - Voted 1/10
Re: So why do I always come off looking like the lazy bum? :-)Grandfathering is a carryover from the state highpointing rules. Mr. Lobdell apparently didn't deem it necessary to restate all of those rules -- they are implied because most of the original county highpointing crowd came from the state game and those rules were already implied.
Redwic - Nov 9, 2011 2:02 am - Voted 9/10
How accurate is the SRTM-based data?I am not convinced that the SRTM-based data is without errors, itself.
The flaw I found in your theory lies within your own resources. Your theory appears to be totally based off of one resource (SRTM-based data/Shetter map) showing the summit elevation of "Benjamins Butte" being 1624' instead of the USGS-mapped elevation of 1640'-1656' (500-504.9 Meters). The SRTM-based data you are trusting for "Benjamins Butte" also shows the summit elevation of Washtucna BM as 1630', yet the USGS data you researched showed that summit elevation might actually range from 1633.8'-1643.7' (or 498-501 Meters). So immediately you have shown your resource of the SRTM-based data to be flawed (at least when compared with "official" USGS data).
Hence, the SRTM-based data for "Benjamins Butte" also cannot be trusted, as a result. In my opinion, that context of your research actually *improves* the status of "Benjamins Butte" as the most likely CoHP contender of Franklin County because it raises doubt about the reliability of your resources.
Your trip report basically suggests trusting USGS data over SRTM-based data for Washtucna BM, but trusting SRTM-based data over USGS-supplied data for "Benjamins Butte". So it is good one way, but not the other? Unlikely.
Also, if the summit elevation of the Washtucna BM has "grown" by two meters (from 499 to 501) then who is to say that the "Benjamins Butte" summit elevation has not also been similarly incorrect/underestimated? Plus, how likely is it that the "Benjamins Butte" elevation/contour has been suddenly dropped by 16'-26' elevation? At least the "Benjamins Butte" summit contour has a defined mapped summit contour above 500 Meters, unlike the Washtucna BM.
Also, judging by your photos, the Washtucna BM area appears to have been thoroughly plowed and subject to a lot of regular agricultural activity through the years. That would probably lower its summit elevation over time, not raise it. In contrast, the summit elevation of "Benjamins Butte" has not been regularly subject to agricultural activity.
------------
Personally, I have to agree with BB on this one, not only because of the size of the "Benjamins Butte" summit contour but also because multiple people (myself included) had GPS devices that showed summit elevations there that were higher than the Washtucna BM elevation and not at all close to 1624'. Also, from my own standpoint, your data comparisons raise more doubts about this COHP contender theory than enhance its likelihood.
I am not poo-pooing your theory, and I respect your efforts and research, but I am trying to look at this as logically and completely as I can. There seems to still be too much room for error with this particular CoHP contender theory. But, heck, you can believe what you want. ;-)
Klenke - Nov 9, 2011 2:42 am - Hasn't voted
Re: How accurate is the SRTM-based data?The point would be that we can't really trust anything we read and think we know and the reality "on the ground" may be something completely different.
Either way, I found this Franklin County anomaly intriguing, and thus worth visiting and then writing about.
This is no different than having error range summits for the GPP list, per Edward Earl's webpage, only the data sources are expanded.
Redwic - Nov 9, 2011 2:49 am - Voted 9/10
Re: How accurate is the SRTM-based data?If you are (or if anyone is) proposing this as a possible CoHP contender, then there is nothing wrong with good, healthy debate and analysis about it. I am not suggesting that this is not intriguing, as I am a big fan of anomalies and obscure details. You made some compelling arguments and analyses. However, there just does not seem like enough proof to convince me this is a true CoHP contender (yet). I am interested in seeing other opinions from the CoHPers out there. Heck, with enough debate and further research, it is possible that even I can be convinced otherwise.
Also... EE's GPP list is based completely off of USGS/mapped/contoured data, not a combination of different resources as you have done here. That is the difference. If you kept the argument to the USGS data showing a reference to the Washtucna BM being 501 rather than the mapped 498, while the "Benjamins Butte" summit contour is 500+, then that could be argument enough without bringing any other resources into the equation. But bringing up the SRTM-based data immediately raised doubt for me.
I might explore this further the next time I am near that general area, assuming I have some other measurement devices and people with me.
Redwic - Nov 9, 2011 11:45 am - Voted 9/10
Other Observations-> The data for “Washtucna No 3 1950” (SA1892) and “Washtucna 1950” (SA1893), not surprisingly, are each from 1950. Old data.
-> Unlike the first two Washtucna datasheets you listed, each of which have more recent elevation and USGS data compiled using what appears to be non-map-based methods, for each of the “Washtucna No 3 1950” (SA1892) and “Washtucna 1950” (SA1893) elevations "the orthometric height was scaled from a topographic map." That topographic map was unlikely from 1950, but even if it was there is a definite chance it was incorrect.
-> Also, because it is not currently mentioned in the report, did either you or JR take an altimeter reading at the proposed CoHP contender? If so, what did it say? If not, why not?
-> "MrChad9" is correct. Each person has to decide for himself or herself if a peakbagging list has truly been satisfactorily completed. As an example, I personally do not believe the NE summit of Buckner Mountain is the highest point of Skagit County, and I will satisfactorily finish the WA CoHPs on Mount Baker even if that NE summit of Buckner is not yet attained. I might return later, but that will be up for me to decide if/when that occurs. As another example, after finishing the WA CoHPs you (PK) felt compelled to return to Klickitat County and, now, Franklin County to feel satisfied with completing the WA CoHPs. Are you and JR going to change the records books? My guess is not, but that is totally up to you to decide. Either way, I appreciate the effort you made in this report and it might prove valuable to others and in the future.