The true height of mount Everest

muzietto · 04-02-2005, 11:30 PM

Tonight I travelled to the Himalayas and followed the road from Kathmandu to the base camp of mount Everest. Absolutely fascinating. Taking snapshots of the mountains from all angles.

The only thing that does not fit is that, according to World Wind, the summit of the Everest is only 8100 meters high, insteat of about 8850. I am sure I did not make any mistake in aligning the view with the x-hair. In the whole area there seems to be no point higher than 8100 meters, and that is not correct.

Taking the discrete sampling from the satellite into account, the error of giving the summit a level of 8100 meters corresponds to a sampling grid of approx. 3 kilometers dimension. This looks something VERY coarse to me. Is this the case for Nepal? I would like to know it.

Any explanation of what I observed is welcome. Thanks in advance.

Have a nice day,
Muzietto

TomServo · 04-02-2005, 11:42 PM

Um.. where did you get an altitude out of WW for a mountain?

muzietto · 04-03-2005, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TomServo@Apr 3 2005, 12:42 AM
Um.. where did you get an altitude out of WW for a mountain?

Quoted post

I hover above a point, select it precisely with the crosshair (F9) and read the "Terrain Elevation". Am I correct?

Here is my snapshot of the Everest summit, and I must admit that indeed it looks like I made a mistake in my previous message! I now read an elevation of 8632 meters. According to my good maps this would imply a satellite sampling grid of about 150 meters. Not bad at all.

Best Regards,
Muzietto

TomServo · 04-03-2005, 12:10 AM

Ahh, ok. I am not sure what the +/- of the SRTM data is.. but I doubt there will be a shuttle mission any time soon to redo it. B)

Markus Weigand · 04-03-2005, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TomServo@Apr 2 2005, 03:10 PM
Ahh, ok. I am not sure what the +/- of the SRTM data is.. but I doubt there will be a shuttle mission any time soon to redo it. B)

Quoted post

The problem is that right now, it seems that there is one height square for 4^2 or 5^2 image pixels, which would mean that the height is averaged over an area MUCH larger than the peak (even worse if the peak is at a corner between heighfield pixels, in that worst case it would be averaged over 1/4 km^2)

5of0 · 04-03-2005, 02:02 AM

For clarification and an illustration, look at this FAQ.

04-02-2005, 11:42 PM	#2
TomServo God. Root. What is difference? Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Eastern Pennsylvania Posts: 2,856	Um.. where did you get an altitude out of WW for a mountain? __________________ Earth is Square blog PUBLIC NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW: Any use of this forum post, in any manner whatsoever, will increase the amount of disorder in the universe. Although no liability is implied herein, the consumer is warned that this process will ultimately lead to the heat death of the universe.

04-03-2005, 12:10 AM	#4
TomServo God. Root. What is difference? Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Eastern Pennsylvania Posts: 2,856	Ahh, ok. I am not sure what the +/- of the SRTM data is.. but I doubt there will be a shuttle mission any time soon to redo it. B) __________________ Earth is Square blog PUBLIC NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW: Any use of this forum post, in any manner whatsoever, will increase the amount of disorder in the universe. Although no liability is implied herein, the consumer is warned that this process will ultimately lead to the heat death of the universe.

04-03-2005, 02:02 AM	#6
5of0 Dabbling Geek Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Washington State, USA Posts: 1,624	For clarification and an illustration, look at this FAQ. __________________ Note: The above statement is probably an educated guess, derived from much forum reading, IRC chatting, general curiosity, etc. Use at your own risk. Before asking, check the FAQ or search, and Ask a good question. Having problems? Make sure you have Managed DirectX and .NET Framework. Then check the Video Card Compatibility List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anyone heard of Mount Everest?	Nigel (UK)	Suggestion Box	5	11-16-2005 01:14 AM
Is Everest the summit?	aussiepaul	Bug Reports	2	08-30-2005 04:51 PM
Label Mount Everest	Mercury Miner	Suggestion Box	0	02-13-2005 05:04 AM

04-02-2005, 11:30 PM	#1
muzietto Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6	Tonight I travelled to the Himalayas and followed the road from Kathmandu to the base camp of mount Everest. Absolutely fascinating. Taking snapshots of the mountains from all angles. The only thing that does not fit is that, according to World Wind, the summit of the Everest is only 8100 meters high, insteat of about 8850. I am sure I did not make any mistake in aligning the view with the x-hair. In the whole area there seems to be no point higher than 8100 meters, and that is not correct. Taking the discrete sampling from the satellite into account, the error of giving the summit a level of 8100 meters corresponds to a sampling grid of approx. 3 kilometers dimension. This looks something VERY coarse to me. Is this the case for Nepal? I would like to know it. Any explanation of what I observed is welcome. Thanks in advance. Have a nice day, Muzietto

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)