Hello 11900~ Goodbye 11887

Hello 11900~ Goodbye 11887

Joined: October 20th, 2005, 5:01 pm

November 5th, 2005, 5:53 pm #1

For this discussion you will want the Standhope Peak 7.5 min topographic sheet, and TL's guidebooks:pg 200 in the 1990 edition and pg 254 in the 2000 version. The so-called Peak 11887' has a south to north physiographic shape of hump, sag, point, and then a slight concave drop to its 11410' saddle with Standhope Peak. "Hump" has a spot elevation of 11887'. Both it and "point" have a highest enclosed contour of 11880'. "Point's" contour is a tad larger and I contend it is the highest point of the mountain. On occasion, spot elevations on USGS maps do not represent the actual high point. Accepted map reading procedure allows for an elevation estimation by halving to the next higher contour- in this case 11900~. I have made no other measurements other than visual. Yet, from several different angles, distances, and elevations "point" always looks higher than "hump".
Climbing over and around the many fin like short towers and narrow ledges of the north ridge you won't know you're on top of "point" until you get there. When you are there you will know it. On my 1993 visit I found 3 rocks neatly placed on the chest height summit ledge, but no other identification. I'm aware of a few others of the older generation who have since climbed it and it shouldn't be long before the new generation of cyber-climbers describe this mountain. I will place even money on Dan, IdahoKid, BigLost, and Brendon (though this is NOT a good 360 peak). Good luck guys!
By the way, my name calls on a double-entendre word play- HOPE TO STAND PEAK. Others use the descriptor THE FIN. Anyone who has experience on this guardian of Idaho's highest lake, please share. My apologies to White Cap Peak 11899' for getting bumped down a notch on the Idaho peaks ranking list.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 15th, 2004, 2:28 pm

November 6th, 2005, 7:45 pm #2

I had my eye on this one all summer but never got the chance to make it up there. Hopefully next year. If I make it, is there a tool I could take with to substantiate the statement that it is higher than 11,887'? And if I can, where would I get such a device?
Quote
Like
Share

brendon
brendon

November 6th, 2005, 10:57 pm #3

According to the 10 meter elevation model, the south point is 11,892 and the north point is 11,888. The north point may still be higher, though, due to the resolution. The DEM data for Leatherman only shows 12,217, so 11,887 could be over 11,900.

Quote
Share

Joined: October 20th, 2005, 5:01 pm

November 7th, 2005, 5:01 pm #4

Sean & Brendon,
The County Highpointers Assn website www.cohp.org has good information on various hand held levels that can be used to compare relative summit heights. Also, there is a good discussion on the use of levels by Bob Martin with regard to the identity of Montezuma County, Colorado, highpoint-Hesperus Mountain vs Lavender Peak.
The largest elevation discrepency I've seen in Idaho relates to Alcyone Peak in the southern Pioneer Mtns. The 1960 Muldoon Canyon 15' quad shows a spot elevation of 11258'. The 1991 Smiley Mountain 7.5' quad shows no elevation and a highest enclosed contour of 11200'. My own hunch is that the newer map is missing a contour. Brendon, maybe you could train your mapping software on that one , too.
The largest single mapping error I've come across on a current Idaho map is on the 1991 Copper Basin Knob 7.5' sheet. Copper Basin Knob el 10784' is mapped with two summit knobs when there should only be one. Incidentally, this is a short, fun peak to do. Just go up Charcoal Creek. This is a north approach. Ascend the west ridge, then pick your way up good holds on the dacite knob. Copper Basin Knob offers an engaging 360 view and is seldom visited. Has anyone else found mapping errors?
Quote
Like
Share

Judi Steciak
Judi Steciak

November 7th, 2005, 5:05 pm #5

For this discussion you will want the Standhope Peak 7.5 min topographic sheet, and TL's guidebooks:pg 200 in the 1990 edition and pg 254 in the 2000 version. The so-called Peak 11887' has a south to north physiographic shape of hump, sag, point, and then a slight concave drop to its 11410' saddle with Standhope Peak. "Hump" has a spot elevation of 11887'. Both it and "point" have a highest enclosed contour of 11880'. "Point's" contour is a tad larger and I contend it is the highest point of the mountain. On occasion, spot elevations on USGS maps do not represent the actual high point. Accepted map reading procedure allows for an elevation estimation by halving to the next higher contour- in this case 11900~. I have made no other measurements other than visual. Yet, from several different angles, distances, and elevations "point" always looks higher than "hump".
Climbing over and around the many fin like short towers and narrow ledges of the north ridge you won't know you're on top of "point" until you get there. When you are there you will know it. On my 1993 visit I found 3 rocks neatly placed on the chest height summit ledge, but no other identification. I'm aware of a few others of the older generation who have since climbed it and it shouldn't be long before the new generation of cyber-climbers describe this mountain. I will place even money on Dan, IdahoKid, BigLost, and Brendon (though this is NOT a good 360 peak). Good luck guys!
By the way, my name calls on a double-entendre word play- HOPE TO STAND PEAK. Others use the descriptor THE FIN. Anyone who has experience on this guardian of Idaho's highest lake, please share. My apologies to White Cap Peak 11899' for getting bumped down a notch on the Idaho peaks ranking list.
We summited Peak 11,887/11,888/11,900 this summer in a long day trip (about 11 hours RT from the trailhead, not bad for a beyond 45 couple with deteriorating knees). It was a gorgeous late July day with alpine flowers at Betty Lake. No snow left but we waded one stream barefoot (the others were log-rock hops). We avoided most of the loose scree on the hike to the col by staying high on the Standhope side as the guidebook suggests and eventually walked up a rib of bigger, more stable boulders. The scramble along the ridge from the col offered several choices. We followed the guidebook advice and also scouted around. With careful route finding we were able to stick to 3rd class terrain. The rock was reasonably secure. All in all a quality scramble and we've put this peak on our list of climbs to remember.
Quote
Share

brendon
brendon

November 8th, 2005, 6:34 pm #6

Sean & Brendon,
The County Highpointers Assn website www.cohp.org has good information on various hand held levels that can be used to compare relative summit heights. Also, there is a good discussion on the use of levels by Bob Martin with regard to the identity of Montezuma County, Colorado, highpoint-Hesperus Mountain vs Lavender Peak.
The largest elevation discrepency I've seen in Idaho relates to Alcyone Peak in the southern Pioneer Mtns. The 1960 Muldoon Canyon 15' quad shows a spot elevation of 11258'. The 1991 Smiley Mountain 7.5' quad shows no elevation and a highest enclosed contour of 11200'. My own hunch is that the newer map is missing a contour. Brendon, maybe you could train your mapping software on that one , too.
The largest single mapping error I've come across on a current Idaho map is on the 1991 Copper Basin Knob 7.5' sheet. Copper Basin Knob el 10784' is mapped with two summit knobs when there should only be one. Incidentally, this is a short, fun peak to do. Just go up Charcoal Creek. This is a north approach. Ascend the west ridge, then pick your way up good holds on the dacite knob. Copper Basin Knob offers an engaging 360 view and is seldom visited. Has anyone else found mapping errors?
Looks like it's just over 11,200



http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=12&n= ... ayer=DRG25
Quote
Share

Joined: September 15th, 2004, 2:28 pm

November 10th, 2005, 3:18 pm #7

Which one is this? I can't find any info about it anywhere.

http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=12&n= ... ayer=DRG25
Quote
Like
Share

brendon
brendon

November 10th, 2005, 6:38 pm #8

Good eye Sean. I must have skipped over this one somehow.

Google Earth Idaho 11ers (and 12ers) Updated here

Google Earth Image:
Quote
Share

Joined: October 20th, 2005, 5:01 pm

November 14th, 2005, 12:11 am #9

We summited Peak 11,887/11,888/11,900 this summer in a long day trip (about 11 hours RT from the trailhead, not bad for a beyond 45 couple with deteriorating knees). It was a gorgeous late July day with alpine flowers at Betty Lake. No snow left but we waded one stream barefoot (the others were log-rock hops). We avoided most of the loose scree on the hike to the col by staying high on the Standhope side as the guidebook suggests and eventually walked up a rib of bigger, more stable boulders. The scramble along the ridge from the col offered several choices. We followed the guidebook advice and also scouted around. With careful route finding we were able to stick to 3rd class terrain. The rock was reasonably secure. All in all a quality scramble and we've put this peak on our list of climbs to remember.
Hi Judy,
Old knees or not, doing that peak as a day outing makes for a good showing. Kudos! Sounds like you folks know your way around the mountains. What else have you done?
...Hope to Stand Peak was first sighted in 1894-95 by civil engineer Edmund T. Perkins who did the topography on the USGS Hailey one degree quad. Look carefully on this interesting old map and you will see an enclosed 11900' contour. From 1918-1967 this peak didn't exist in the eyes of mapmakers, or, at best it was grossly misplaced. The typical error, and one carried forward even today by the DeLorme Idaho Atlas, is to show Little Wood drainage apexing at Standhope Peak.
...Another reason to remember this peak: Hope to Stand is the high point of a wild ridge that stays continuously above 11000' for nine miles. In Idaho there is only one such 11000' ridge that is longer. Can you guess where it is located?
Quote
Like
Share

earl
earl

November 14th, 2005, 7:00 am #10

I'm guessing in the Lost Rivers somewhere. If not, maybe the Whiteclouds?
Quote
Share


Confirmation of reply: