The High Ground

07 Apr 2016 23:15 - 07 Apr 2016 23:27 #67738 by intrepid
Replied by intrepid on topic The High Ground

Coeta wrote: Are there plans to advertise (for lack of a better term) this endeavour to the broader SA hiking\climbing\mountaineering community? If only for the record. Unlikely as it seem, there might be an unknown parallel project of similar scope? (Devil's advocate)

Definitely. Ideally this initiative should be broadly engaged. Complete consensus cannot always be reached, but we would like it to as open as possible, and even the end result will need to go through a maturing and settling period. Ideally the end result should be one which people accept and feel a sense of ownership and pride over. I would be surprised if there is a parallel project, the Berg having a relatively small community of user groups, but yes, we would want to avoid that. Tabelling it on this forum is a start for now, followed by posting some tangible material and ideas first, so that there is something real to present. From there, several mailing lists can get the word out to clubs/groups that have a Berg interest, bearing in mind that many on this forum, and in the work group, are already members of those.

Coeta wrote: How do the panel of members foresee the naming of the unnamed to work? If recent history is anything to go by, emotions and egos would have to be traversed.

The naming is not a primary objective of the current project, rather this project will highlight the need for naming, and hopefully that can arise as an off-shoot initiative from this. Naming definitely needs to be handled very carefully and responsibly, agreed. It would probably require input from a larger range of people and organisations than the initial project, and should be given generous time for proper research, consultations, debates and related processes. The unfortunate origins of the name "Mafadi", and the switching of the names for Mponjwane & Cathedral Peak, are mistakes which are noted here and we definitely wish to avoid that kind of thing. Ideally a generous portion of new names will have meaningful and appropriate Zulu and Sotho origins.

We also need to distinguish between official names (which is ultimately not even up to us) and common or colloquial names, which are names that we typically just use among ourselves. If I may even suggest a third category of names, that being temporary names. In this work we have to call the summits something initially, because referring to them as a number or by technical description can be cumbersome. In many cases it is easy to draw on existing names of surrounding features such as other peaks, rivers, passes and areas. Several of the nameless peaks belonging to a current list of 3300m+ peaks of SA, which is in circulation, were assigned temporary names drawn from nearby rivers. There are also several associated summits of Thabana Ntlenyana and Makheka for example, which for now can be referenced as Makheka II, Makheka III, Makheka IV etc. That these initial names can easily become the accepted, and possibly even the official names, is of course a possibility, so care needs to be taken even in this. We also have to remain open to the possibility that a peak may have several accepted names.

As an aside I will add that temporary names are subject to proper scrutiny & critique and they are always up for debate and easy to change. Colloquial or common names should also be open to debate if research has been conducted suggesting something more appropriate, or if factual errors can be demonstrated, for example. These can be successfully changed in cases where a general consensus is reached and people actually start using the new name. The changing of official names is something which can be motioned by us as the public, but again it isn't up to us. I mention the latter point merely for completeness, not that I envisage this.

Take nothing but litter, leave nothing but a cleaner Drakensberg.
Last edit: 07 Apr 2016 23:27 by intrepid.
The following user(s) said Thank You: tonymarshall, Coeta

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Apr 2016 09:44 - 08 Apr 2016 09:53 #67746 by Viking
Replied by Viking on topic The High Ground
Stijn has pretty much summed up exactly what I was going to say so I'll just add a few points and whilst they may seem negative, my intention is not to "pooh-pooh" anyone's ideas or suggestions but merely to offer an alternative view for the sake of tackling all angles and even perhaps to play devils advocate.

Prominence has in my mind always been an important factor, especially when considering it's widespread use elsewhere. Perhaps I am wrong but it seems that prominence has only have been considered recently for Khulus but I am glad that it has.
I am also not sure where the 50m idea came from but I concur that it should be a lot more. I also realise that every small suggestion possibly creates a whole new set of difficulties and that it will take some time to thrash everything out.

My main concern or issue is validity of data and unfortunately none of this is going to be 100% unless it is all surveyed - and I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
Surely whether you take 1 or 5 hand-held GPS's won't make much difference as I don't believe your chance of accurate readings increases when the devices all have a similar capacity for errors - you'll only have a greater concurrence of the same error.
Maybe someone with more knowledge and experience can allay my concern here.

Measuring differences as with AndewP's example of prominence may be more accurate but having said that, I supposes that precise accuracy matters less as you deviate either side of the required threshold: e.g. 3000m, 3200m etc

Another issue is that of naming but I think intrepid has covered that quite well.

Lastly, and this is more to do with naming than allocating Khulu's but it is closely linked, what significance would be given to historical peak names? What I mean is that in the early days many peaks and prominent features would have been identified by their appearance from below (Not always but in many cases) and as such found their way onto the maps.
So let's say for example Historical peak X (named on the maps) sits on the escarpment edge. In this case let's say it happens to be a khulu. We now come along and find that it's high point sits some 100's of metres away. What happens when it comes to allocating the name of the new high point? Consider that a new set of maps is being produced. Do you move the name of the featured peak? Do you give it a new name? Do you ignore that new point? Does the historical peak lose it's khulu status but keep it's name and we allocate a new name to a random bump a few hundred metres away? Which takes precedence at naming time, the historical peak or the new khulu?
A good example of this, I think, is Mlambonja Buttress. It's high point is pretty far from it's "named spot" on the map but at the high point it is no longer a buttress but a wall so you can't really allocate the name to the high point, so what do you do?

As mentioned already, it will take much deliberation and discussion to thrash out all the details!

“Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting, So… get on your way!”
Last edit: 08 Apr 2016 09:53 by Viking.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Apr 2016 22:27 #67763 by intrepid
Replied by intrepid on topic The High Ground
Thanks for the responses so far guys. I appreciate the consideration shown in the way in which some thoughts and concerns have been expressed, but none of these are viewed as negative so far. It is precisely this kind of input we need. As many will know the rules and spirit of this forum are that Debate is encouraged, but Dissent is not tolerated - there is a world of difference between the two. Constructive debate will shape and mature what we are trying to achieve here.

@Viking the point about accuracy of GPSes is something to consider. For now it as least something to go by and between all the members of this forum running around with GPSes in the Berg we have a massive database to draw from. Bobby may be able to help us on more accurate and scientific methods, and we are open to more input from everyone on this.

The question about historical peak names and overshadowing nameless peaks is a very good one. It gives a good idea about the complexity of what we are dealing with here. There is no concrete answer at this point, it has yet to be worked out.

Let me add that it is easy to get lost in the details and enormity of this project. If you take a step back however and look at what we do know and what we do agree on, the gaps, questions and debates have a better context and will become more manageable. Once properly seen, the gaps will theoretically become bridged and smaller as we tackle them and thrash it out. What we can start on is simply a good list/database of all relevant summits regardless of what label they may have. I think its an inevitable result from this project. From that I think many of the significant peaks will start standing out for themselves, and what is left we need to look at and ask ourselves why they didn't stand out or why we disagree on them, which will reveal the different philosophies or lenses that are being used to look at them. Also, once a proper database is place, complete with data on prominence, we can empirically work out what is what by experimenting with different cut-offs in altitude, prominence and the like. So even though you are working with scientific data, you are still experimenting and working out the end results backwards from the different result sets you get - I hope I'm making sense?

Take nothing but litter, leave nothing but a cleaner Drakensberg.
The following user(s) said Thank You: tonymarshall

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 Apr 2016 19:26 #67775 by ghaznavid
Replied by ghaznavid on topic The High Ground

Stijn wrote: I found that the Khulu concept never really appealed to me due to the large number of very arbitrary lumps that end up getting Khulu status by using the 50m prominence rule. I'd suggest that even if the prominence were to be increased to 100m, there would be a huge reduction in the number of Khulus, but an overall increase in their quality and would make each ascent more worthwhile. Or perhaps there is some other factor that can help eliminate some of the more arbitrary summits (very subjective, I know!).

The cutoff point is a tricky topic.

If we use 3000m and SA peaks only, everyone will agree that Ngaqamadolo and The Hawk should make the list, and conversely that Stimela Ridge, Mbundini Buttress and Yodler's Peak (3323m) should not make the list. But at what point do you cut it off? To some Erskine will be a must, and to others Caboose will not be big enough. We all seem to agree that anything under 50m is too little (I think Andrew must have gone up 50+ of these to be sure that we are thorough) - peaks like Rockeries Spur, that little free-stander near Mponjwane Cave and various other little bumps suddenly make the list. According to peakbagger.com, Mafadi only has 111m (they use contours to determine prominence) - so I imagine most of us will agree that we mustn't use a number high enough that Mafadi doesn't make the list. At 50m, Injisuthi Dome just makes it on and Trojan Wall just misses the cut.

One of the funnier problems we have had is with the 3338m Yodeler's. Murch only had 1 entry (U-Bend), Intrepid has 2 peaks. Our handheld GPS devices have disagreed on which one is higher, but the survey is 3338m on both - so prominence thus has to come off a higher peak (in this case, Champagne - @AndrewP: can't recall if you found a higher peak in Lesotho). The saddle between them isn't that far down, but if they are equal height, neither can disqualify the other.

Right now we are simply collecting data so that we can make an informed decision.

What becomes tricky is that even the Middle Ridge has peaks above 3200m near the town of Sehonghong, and that is properly in the middle of nowhere! I rate a 150-200+m prominence list of all 3000m peaks would make a properly challenging but epic quest - but imagine the fieldwork required to get that! If Bobby is able to use a software based mechanism to detect all of these, it would be interesting!

Source of Middle Ridge peak is the map at eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdb_archive/EuDASM/Africa/images/maps/download/afr_lshyp1.jpg

Viking wrote: Surely whether you take 1 or 5 hand-held GPS's won't make much difference as I don't believe your chance of accurate readings increases when the devices all have a similar capacity for errors - you'll only have a greater concurrence of the same error.

Remember that we aren't using this to determine height. So if the GPS gives us a reading on the summit that is, say, 50m out - it should still be close to 50m out at the saddle - thus giving us a reasonably accurate prominence. If the signal is bouncing off a cliff and causing an incorrect reading, we would expect to get wildly different answers. Naturally we can't assume great accuracy on saddles that are far from peaks (e.g Pampiring, which gets its off Champagne as the saddle with Yodelers is lower - IIRC), but these are usually well above any cutoff we are likely to use anyway.

I always refer to a 10% margin for error - i.e. a peak could come out at 45m but actually have 50m prominence, or could come out at 55 when it actually doesn't. Observation error is also an issue - sometimes a wide saddle can be hard to pick. Putting a GPS down on a summit, but not putting it down in the saddle etc. - these are all possible issues that could give false readings. At the end of the day - when a cutoff is selected, anything close to the cutoff will have to be viewed with suspicion. I seem to recall there being some 10ft survey error that is noted Munroes in Scotland, and that is with proper survey equipment. My point being - we will never have something that is perfectly accurate and not subject to dispute, but we should have something that is at least fairly accurate. Margin for error has to be accepted in any matter, this will never be an exact science.
The following user(s) said Thank You: tonymarshall, Viking

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Apr 2016 19:59 #67849 by Hobbitt
Replied by Hobbitt on topic The High Ground
Im definitely interested in joining the team....

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Mar 2017 20:48 #71067 by intrepid
Replied by intrepid on topic The High Ground
A project update:

  • We continue to work towards a list of summits, complete with a prominence for each peak. Once there is a complete list we can start looking at what kind of lists we land up with using different cut-offs for prominence. Maybe we can land up with a list that is reasonably close to Murch's original Khulu list, but that is based purely on prominence. Ideally the decision on what the final criteria are, and what prominence cut-off to use, is one which is exposed to the broader community. For now the workgroup is working towards some presentable options.

  • In order to calculate the prominence of a peak, we need to identify the parent peak and the saddle/low point between the two. Bobby has been working with a program called WinProm which uses DEM data to identify these saddles and thus calculate prominence. Easier said than done though - he has produced the first series of maps and results but the program identified too many saddles to be of practical use and thus the work continues. At the same time we also continue to collect data from measurements taken out in the field. Measuring saddles seems to have become as important as measuring summits, and the likes of AndrewP can be seen to be energetically collecting these measurements.

  • We have a working list of peaks up on a spreadsheet. I am also developing a database which will eventually house all this data, making it available to the public through a web interface. It will also allow us to capture and store data from the broader community.

  • It is becoming increasingly evident that this study cannot be conducted without the context of peaks in Lesotho. The database is being developed to cater for all peaks in the Maloti-Drakensberg mountains.


  • In closing, I recently noticed that the data from my list of 3300m+ South African summits published in 2007 has found its way into the Open Street Map project. This is evident by the unique set of names which were used at the time for summits that didn't have a name - all drawn from the names of nearby rivers. I don't know who sent the list to them, but I'd like to mention that this is all a work in progress, and the data is subject to change. Please be careful with how you use this data. It isn't ready to be submitted to projects such as Open Street Maps. Bear in mind too that any names mentioned on this site are not necessarily authoritative or official and that we need to be careful in how we handle these.

    Take nothing but litter, leave nothing but a cleaner Drakensberg.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    More
    Powered by Kunena Forum