Squaw is definitely much more difficult to do. Things are not outlined at all, and it feels as though it has more sprawl. I used two programs. The one you are probably referring to is dlgv32 Pro.

"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

Back to top

#25 liftmech

lift mechanic

Administrator II
5,918 Posts:

Interests:Many.

Posted 05 May 2004 - 03:54 AM

Crystal pads their stats as well... They claim (and have since I can remember) to have a 3100' vertical, but there is no possible way to ski that in one run. The most you can get (and this includes some traversing) is 2960. This isn't much of a difference, but still. If you stay in the 'normal' area (not including the North or South Back) the vert drops to 2600'.
The only way to get all 3100' is to hike to the top of Silver King, 15-30 minutes depending upon how you feel, and then ski to the base and follow the access road for three miles to the Northway shuttle stop.

Member, Department of Ancient Technology, Colorado chapter.

Back to top

#26 CAski

Established User

Member
363 Posts:

Posted 05 May 2004 - 05:18 PM

Interesting... according to the method just used, Squaw comes in at 2440 acres.

"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

Back to top

#27 KZ

Multipurpose Machine

Industry II
2,087 Posts:

Interests:Howdy folks, Im Zack and I live in California.

Posted 05 May 2004 - 05:52 PM

can you post your outline of squaw, cause it is quite easy to slip up there, but still its wierd. Are you sure your calculations are correct?

Zack

Back to top

#28 KZ

Multipurpose Machine

Industry II
2,087 Posts:

Interests:Howdy folks, Im Zack and I live in California.

Posted 05 May 2004 - 05:52 PM

can you post your outline of squaw, cause it is quite easy to slip up there, but still its wierd. Are you sure your calculations are correct?

Zack

Back to top

#29 CAski

Established User

Member
363 Posts:

Posted 05 May 2004 - 06:05 PM

If you want me to, I will post my entire method with Squaw, as done with Heavenly. Just allow me a few minutes. If anything, I made the borders too large at Squaw and too narrow at Heavenly.

"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

Back to top

#30 CAski

Established User

Member
363 Posts:

Posted 05 May 2004 - 06:14 PM

The area of Squaw: 1.13 "square miles"

Shoot... it isn't displayed on the screen, but it is 1.13 "sq. miles".

Attached File(s)

Squaw_Area.JPG (0bytes)
Number of downloads: 8

This post has been edited by CAski: 05 May 2004 - 06:15 PM

"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

Back to top

#31 CAski

Established User

Member
363 Posts:

Posted 05 May 2004 - 06:16 PM

Length of the Funitel

4853 "feet"

Attached File(s)

Squaw_Funitel.JPG (0bytes)
Number of downloads: 4

"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

Back to top

#32 CAski

Established User

Member
363 Posts:

Posted 05 May 2004 - 06:20 PM

The actual length of the funitel is 9065 feet.

Thus, 9065/4853 is 1.868 feet/"foot"

1.868 miles/"mile"

3.489 square miles per "square mile".

Thus, 3.489x1.13 is 3.943 square miles.

x640 is 2,523 acres.

"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

Back to top

#33 CAski

Established User

Member
363 Posts:

Posted 05 May 2004 - 06:25 PM

Hmm... there is definitely a problem with accuracy using this method (I guess that I am a bit careless). I would trust the first figure of 2440 more, as I spent more time and effort to receive the correct value than the second, which I just threw together.

Overall, I would say that Squaw has an overall acreage of 2400+-100 acres and Heavenly has 2600+-100 acres.

"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

Back to top

#34 Powdr

Established User

Member
204 Posts:

Posted 06 May 2004 - 11:08 AM

Just used your method (DLGV32 area measurment) on the Park City East & Brighton DOQs to measure PCMRs acreage (it spans over two quads). It came out to 3227 acres. Not far off from the claimed 3300 acres! Seems very accurate. Thanks for pointing to me to a great tool.

Powdr

Back to top

#35 KZ

Multipurpose Machine

Industry II
2,087 Posts:

Interests:Howdy folks, Im Zack and I live in California.

Posted 06 May 2004 - 03:07 PM

Very interesting. Since it appears to be semi-accurate, most every tahoe area is no where near their claimed sizes. It would be interesting to see the true size of say vail or whistler/blackcomb.

Zack

Back to top

#36 CAski

Established User

Member
363 Posts:

Posted 07 May 2004 - 03:29 PM

How accurate were my boundries? How accurate were the length measurements? I'm not so sure that I outlined them properly. I just can't see how the Tahoe resorts can get away with overstating their acreage so much.

Yes, I end up with the same amount every time...

Can anyone else duplicate my results or find an error?

This post has been edited by CAski: 07 May 2004 - 03:44 PM

"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?" -Cicero

Back to top

#37 Powdr

Established User

Member
204 Posts:

Posted 07 May 2004 - 05:42 PM

I thought I had this posted before, but now its gone. I used actual DOQs from the USGS, which don't require adjusting the units. Your baoundaries are pretty good. I followed the boundaries on various maps and images (inlcuding Sun Bowl for instance) and came up with about 2200 acres too. Maybe Squaw is stating permited acres rather than developed acres.

Powdr

Back to top

#38 SkiBachelor

Forum Administrator

Administrator II
6,242 Posts:

Interests:Hi, I'm Cameron!

Posted 07 May 2004 - 05:54 PM

Powdr, you did post that message earlier but it was deleted with some hosting error that we encourted while our host was moving this site to another sever. It looks like all images have been deleted too that were uploaded in the past. :(

- Cameron