Harney Peak's Elevation

Mr. Penry,
Will this be available from Blue Mound Press?

Nice work, as usual. You might want to edit the initial reference to NAVD88, which is spelled out at "North American Datum of 1988" (the word "vertical" is missing). A minor quibble might be had with the CORS comparison; if the error in ellipsoid height and the error in geoid height are truly estimated standard errors, the compound error would be the square root of the sum of the squares of the two error estimates, rather than the sum of the error estimates themselves.

Once again, great stuff. This may be one of the best yet. Thanks for all that you do and of course along with Mr. Luebke and all the others involved for the land surveyor profession.

Outstanding work, as always. Thorough doesn't begin to cover it.

Some people REALLY enjoy their work, so much they do the hard parts on their time off. I wish I lived closer to them so I could beg to tag along on some of the expeditions. But then again, I'm not sure I could keep up carrying my share of the gear. That's some rugged territory. Their area has more interesting projects than I could imagine around here.

The field notes are textbook quality. I couldn't dry-lab something that nice, much less do it in the field. Tiny quibble with labeling: the 83 and 88 degree values are zenith angles, and the 1 and 6 degree values are vertical angles.

Now can you get this work recognized in the official publications?

Outstanding! Someone had some pretty good glass for those photos.

I never thought to stamp my name on any of my plumb bobs - great idea.

Thanks, very interesting, nice to see a Set 3 still going strong. Jp

Thanks for all your suggestions. I'll get things revised soon and please let me know if you see anything else. Did anyone notice that Kurt and I have consecutive LS numbers for South Dakota? Kurt got the jump on me when I was chasing monuments in Hawaii back in 2012 on my honeymoon and didn't get my application submitted as fast. :p

Would you approve adding this to Wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Elk_Peak

Professional but unofficial measurements in 2016 found the highest natural rock to be at 7231.32 ft (2204.11 m) NAVD88 and the nearby secondary peak slightly lower at 7229.41.
reference http://www.penryfamily.com/harneypeak/survey.html

Y'all look like brothers too

J. Penry, post: 404864, member: 321 wrote: Thanks for all your suggestions. I'll get things revised soon and please let me know if you see anything else. Did anyone notice that Kurt and I have consecutive LS numbers for South Dakota? Kurt got the jump on me when I was chasing monuments in Hawaii back in 2012 on my honeymoon and didn't get my application submitted as fast. :p

Y'all look like brothers too

Bill93, post: 404866, member: 87 wrote: Would you approve adding this to Wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Elk_Peak

Professional but unofficial measurements in 2016 found the highest natural rock to be at 7231.32 ft (2204.11 m) (NAVD88 and the nearby secondary peak slightly lower at 7229.41.
reference http://www.penryfamily.com/harneypeak/survey.html

I noticed that there was a permission disclaimer for reprinting text and photos

Robert Hill, post: 404871, member: 378 wrote: permission disclaimer for reprinting

That's why I'm asking. And I'd just link, not reproduce anything but the numbers.

Bill93, post: 404874, member: 87 wrote: That's why I'm asking. And I'd just link, not reproduce anything but the numbers.

I don't want to sidetrack but once it it published on Wikipedia...doesn't the whole wide world of Wikipedia users have the benefit to reprint for whatever reason. I don't know just asking.

If you put a picture or text on a Wikipedia page, you have essentially said you have a right to do so and are passing the rights to that picture or text to the public. Adding a link does nothing to change rights. My understanding of it.

Robert Hill, post: 404868, member: 378 wrote: Y'all look like brothers too

Y'all look like brothers too

That is funny that you would say that. Jerry and I first met about 6 years ago and have met up as much as possible with about 1200 miles between us and my wife swears that he and I are long lost brothers.

Bill93, post: 404866, member: 87 wrote: Would you approve adding this to Wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Elk_Peak

Professional but unofficial measurements in 2016 found the highest natural rock to be at 7231.32 ft (2204.11 m) NAVD88 and the nearby secondary peak slightly lower at 7229.41.
reference http://www.penryfamily.com/harneypeak/survey.html

I would be okay with that. If anyone wants to challenge our determinations, they are welcome to do so. Apparently there has already been someone challenging elevations in the Black Hills because they don't match what their cell phone ap is giving them.

Jim Frame, post: 404831, member: 10 wrote: Nice work, as usual. You might want to edit the initial reference to NAVD88, which is spelled out at "North American Datum of 1988" (the word "vertical" is missing). A minor quibble might be had with the CORS comparison; if the error in ellipsoid height and the error in geoid height are truly estimated standard errors, the compound error would be the square root of the sum of the squares of the two error estimates, rather than the sum of the error estimates themselves.

I'm confused Jim. NGS shows it as "North American Vertical Datum of 1988 and NAVD88". Or has Jerry already made the revision you suggested?

Cool photos and cool survey!

Ric Moore, post: 404889, member: 731 wrote: Or has Jerry already made the revision you suggested?

Jerry already got on it!

I wonder how this team's data compares to the position posted to the data sheet in a 2004 recovery. I'm not confident I could chase that XYZ CORS96 position through HTDP to compare to this project's result
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=OT0810

You could also submit a recovery.