Jump to content

Talk:Ojos del Salado/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Andes Magazine expedition

The results of the surveys have just been published, which have been validated by the Chilean IGM. Monte Pissis was also surveyed. Ojos del Salado was determined to be 6,891 metres (22,608 ft) above the sea level, and Monte Pissis was determined to be 6,762 metres (22,185 ft) above sea level. GPS ellipsoidal heights obtained were respectively 6,934 metres (22,749 ft) and 6,833 metres (22,418 ft). See [1] (Spanish). Jespinos 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that I have understood the Spanish correctly (correct me if I am wrong!), the expedition got ellipsoid (as opposed to geoid, i.e. adjusted to extrapolated sea level) elevations of 6934m and 6833m for Ojos del Salado and Monte Pissis. This implies geoid adjustments of 43m and 71m respectively. The two summits are less than 100km apart; a geoid difference of 71m for Pissis, 28m more than Ojos, seems very unlikely. I think that the guys behind this new survey should re-check this; 6762m is more than 30m lower than SRTM data and several recent GPS surveys that have come to my attention. Still, it is surely the final nail in the coffin of official Argentinian claims that Pissis and Ojos are 6882m and 6864m respectively! Viewfinder 07:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Further to the above comments, I do not think we should be supporting these new elevations without verifiable evidence to show that they are officially supported and recognised by the relevant national survey authorities. My Spanish is not good enough, please can someone translate the relevant section in the link provided? Changing elevations by small amounts (less than 10m) every time there is a new survey means frequent changes; this is not desirable. Viewfinder 07:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right in your analysis, there was an error on the first News Bulletin. The correct figure is shown on the following page [2] (6792.532m for Pissis). Additionally is given a margin of error between 5 and 10 metres. The preliminary data were processed by Chilean IGM (Instituto Geográfico Militar), which gives it an official status. In any case, it is more prudent to wait for additional info. Another issue, Aconcagua was not surveyed, and hence is erroneous the information on the main page of the article. Jespinos 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I changed the link in the main article. I think that this needs to be done on Spanish Wikipedia, too. Viewfinder 18:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Summit Peaks

Does anyone know for sure what course the international border takes with respect to the summit peaks? If it passes over both peaks, which, according to a source with local knowledge, it does, then the names "Chilean" and "Argentinian" are confusing, and the situation should be clarified. Viewfinder 01:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Simple reason: Both summits are shared, but the Chilean is accessed via the chilean route/side, while the argentinian does by the respective route. Cheers--81.210.246.232 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Motorised Ascent section

I did major editing on the long recent addition to the motorised ascent section. First, it was too long; its length put undue importance on this event relative to the rest of the article. It is still quite possibly too long, but I didn't want to edit it any more than I did right away. Second, it was not neutral, and I cut out/rehprased the non-neutral parts specifically. Third, it is unreferenced, so I put in the tag. This needs a reference from a reliable secondary source. I should also note that there is a conflict of interest since the author was one of the participants. Hence all the more reason for references and a careful look at the details and tone of the section. -- Spireguy 02:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's reported in a blog here but blogs are insufficient per WP:RS so a better source is needed. The blog photograph is interesting because it shows the vehicle on what seems to be a subsidiary summit. I would be interested to know the exact coordinates of the summit. Viewfinder 04:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

More info can be found here and here (photos). Apparently, the point reached is not a subsidiary summit. Jespinos 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Still needs to be pared down, it reads like a Vanity rub. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the material is of sufficient notability but the level of detail in the article was excessive. I repaired the external link and deleted the excess detail. Viewfinder (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a reliable source for this achievement other than the forum listed above (forum). The izook link is broken. Why doesn't this appear on guinnessworldrecords.com? Anskrev (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Some sources that may be worth using

For future usage...

...this may be a decent source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ojos_del_Salado/Archive_1&oldid=1051568215"