Archives

User_Talk:Viewfinder/Archive 1: November 2005 – September 2006

Archives

User_Talk:Viewfinder/Archive 2: September 2006 – April 2013

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made some modification. Let me think what do you think. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Viewfinder. The first citation in the Mount Damavand article contains the footnote on the elevation. The first sentence reads: "The 5,610 metre height given here is from the Statistical Centre of Iran, which states that "the highest point in Iran is Mount Damāvand being 5,610 metres high"." That particular link to the SCI is dead and currently the website for Statistical Centre of Iran doesn't contain any information at all on geographic facts that I could find. I have added another link to the end of that statement that sources the exact quote, but it's from an Iran Embassy site.

Do you know how best to fix this? I know you are not the original author, but you have contributed that footnote (which was a section originally) in the past and I thought I would ask before tagging the link.

BTW, I have made the first steps in getting the elevation corrected in virtually all languages of Wikipedia that have an article on the peak. It may help me to be armed with that SCI source. Wish me luck. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the SCI link no longer supplies any geographic information but you have found another official site which still has this information. This page vigorously upholds 5671m but its author implicitly admits that his own GPS readings are more consistent with 5610m than 5671m, even if 5610m is a bit too low. While there is a GPS consensus around 5625-5630m from GPS, the 2007 GPS survey by Petter Bjorstad included a reading of -17m taken from the nearby Caspian Sea which is actually -28m, which suggests that the geoid model used by 2007 GPS devices is locally more than 10m too high. The highest 3" cell in SRTM data is 5595m and in 1" ASTER data is 5604m, that is clear evidence that 5671m is too high. Viewfinder (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that article before and it is strange that the author supports 5671 when his own data is closer to 5610. I suspect myself that 5610 may be a little low but it seems that many reliable sources are quoting 5610 and I assume we both agree that's still the best one to go with. I was just checking if you happen have that SCI link. Thanks for the info. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 5671 author is a local guide who probably does not want to face up to the fact that Damavand is lower than Elbrus. Viewfinder (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, maybe, but I have a great deal of respect for anyone who gears up and climbs a mountain, especially in an effort to settle something like this. So I will refrain from bashing him too hard:)

Forgot to mention before that you cleared up another little mystery. I can't remember where but I have seen 5604m pop up couple of times in my research and I was wondering where that one came from. The ASTER data is likely the source, but I if understand it correctly, that highest 1" cell only indicates that the peak is at least that high, though unlikely to be much higher. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK Soltani is a respected guide who does a good job of getting western customers safely to the summit in a country which calls western countries "Great Satans". But his 5645m GPS reading baffles me, maybe he was using it in barometric mode not satellite mode. His 5626-5630m readings are in line with Petter's but fall >40m short of the 5671m he upholds, compared with the +/- 15m GPS error margin that he mentions. Yes I recall the 5604m and traced it to an earlier edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. The current EB version claims that it may be as high as 5800m which is typical EB nonsense. "At least" that high though unlikely to be much higher, yes that is true. SRTM 5595m is averaged over a 3"x3" area - unless there are local no data areas which for Damavand there are not. For a volcanic cone the summit likely to be about 10-20m higher; for an ice-chiselled ridge or horn the difference may be greater. Viewfinder (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please convert this false and shamless information of damavand elevation to the correct and new elevation that's NASA and so many competent organizations that have been calculate that , (( 5610m is false and 5671m is correct )) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horamantarh (talk • contribs) 08:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source for your claim that 5671m was "calculated by NASA"? No. 5671m is old, inaccurate and incompatible with the modern GPS and NASA's SRTM data. Unfortunately it still appears on sites who copy each other. No primary sources have been supplied in support of it. Viewfinder (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have been unable to find a free-to-use photograph of the hall, which is a pity because it would be good for readers to see what it really looks like. Have you any access to such a photograph? Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I have a photograph. I was often there when my grandparents lived in the converted stables but I have only made occasional visits since my uncle built the new hall. The last time was in 2008 for the funeral of his first wife. Meanwhile this looks authorized: [1] Viewfinder (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm no expert in copyright, but would not like to use it without further confirmation from the source. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]