Slovenian two-thousanders
|
| Trobec4. 07. 2026 07:50:59 |
I said that I didn't remember the numbers exactly 
Thanks for the info 
| (+1) |  | |
|
|
|
|
| DVas29. 07. 2026 10:49:06 |
So to start this debate a bit. Recently I came across the news that LiDAR data for the entire Slovenia are available in the 3D data viewer.
https://www.gov.si/novice/2026-06-03-lidarski-podatki-za-celotno-slovenijo-dostopni-v-pregledovalniku-3d-podatkov/
I sent a disk to GURS where they loaded DMR (digital relief model) for the whole Slovenia, about 90 GB of data. Then I loaded the data into QGIS with the aim of determining precise heights of two-thousanders which I presented on the website (352). I started from the coordinates of the peaks listed here on hribi.net. This turned out to be incorrect coordinates in quite a few cases.
Then I played around in QGIS.
1. First I determined the heights for all these two-thousanders that I have listed on the website. As said - the basis for the height were the coordinates I arrived at with the data on hribi.net. Immediately I noticed quite a few deviations from the actual height that most people know. I thought OK, probably the coordinates are not OK.
2. The second thing I did is that I determined the highest point within a radius of 20m from the coordinate. Here the picture regarding the heights themselves was much more realistic.
3. I also determined the highest point within a radius of 50m from the coordinate. For cases where the actual peak differs from the given coordinate by more than 20m.
4. Then I also loaded peak data from OpenStreetMap into QGIS and told the program that if the peak coordinate from hribi.net is not on the peak itself, it should search OSM data - and locate the peak coordinates within a radius of 150m from the given original coordinate. Then I determined the height for these new points as well.
5. To these new points I added the highest point within a radius of 20m.
6. To these new points I added the highest point within a radius of 50m.
Now I have to go through all this data and compare heights, coordinates, deviations etc.
I think for the website the best variant would be to take the exact coordinate of the peak itself as determined in OSM, then find the highest point within a radius of 20m. And use these points as the authoritative height of the peak and authoritative coordinate of the peak.
What do the others think? Is this the right approach? This is quite time-consuming work though. But once some rules are set it's much easier, otherwise I'm kind of fumbling around here.
Opinions more than welcome. Especially from those who know the topic better than me.
| (+3) | | |
|
|
|
|
| lynx30. 07. 2026 21:45:48 |
In OSM the coordinate is not necessarily accurate, because only some peaks and elevations were imported. Depending on the age of the data, the coordinates (and heights) may still be from before the DGPS era and therefore may deviate more than one would otherwise expect from today's devices.
|
|
|
|
| DVas31. 07. 2026 18:26:02 |
Now I have also tried to compile a list of two-thousanders with a minimum prominence of 30m. It was quite challenging and I'm not sure if I did it right but I got a list of 284 peaks. Based on this laser scanning.
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| cenc1. 08. 2026 14:37:49 |
In my opinion there are still more than 284 of them.
But it all depends on the criterion you choose. There is no official one, at least as far as I know.
For me the name and the "official" height on maps, guides and the Nomenclature of the Julian Alps were important.
Once you've already done most of them, you see that many a "peak", even if it has an official name and height, doesn't deserve a place on the list. On the other hand, another one is wronged because it has no name and height.
A good 300 definitely deserve to be on the list. Of course, if you also use the criterion that to reach a named peak you had to make a real effort (e.g. Oltarček, Vrh Rokavskega grebena, Široka peč, Rdeči kup, Mali Prisank...) and you don't insist on prominence...
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| lijaneja1. 08. 2026 21:30:04 |
Nice, you told "them", Vinko! Those who justify themselves with prominence are looking for an excuse in it and some kind of satisfaction. Your third sentence is gold. Whoever is only looking for 'their' two-thousanders is also right, although I doubt that he won't feel - somewhere deep down - at least a hint of bitterness.
|
|
|
|
| DVas3. 08. 2026 08:19:49 |
No, at least as far as I'm concerned, there was no intention of arguing or covering up here. I'm doing this out of curiosity and because I find it interesting. Otherwise, when I'm in the mountains, I also step on every peak that's on the map, if it's accessible to me. But I'm also aware that I will never stand on all two-thousanders, despite the desire. But it's also true what Vinko said, there is no official definition of a two-thousander and everyone can interpret them in their own way.
| (+5) | | |
|
|
|
|
| trilko4. 08. 2026 12:32:48 |
Hi,
I don't know anything about this, but just yesterday a link to the CLSS portal (http://clss.si) flew onto my screen, where you can download the following products and formats for the whole of Slovenia:
• GKOT: georeferenced and classified point cloud (format: .laz)
• DMR: digital relief model (format: .laz)
• DMP: digital surface model (format: .laz)
• nDMP: normalized digital surface model (format: .tif)
• PAS: analytical shading images (format: .tif)
• POF: complete orthophoto (format: .tif, RGB version)
• POFI: infrared complete orthophoto (format: .tif, BIR version)
If any of this is useful for your project... 
I'm sticking only to editing OSM
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| DVas4. 08. 2026 14:15:30 |
I was just writing about that above
|
|
|
|
| cenc4. 08. 2026 16:33:33 |
Tone and "DVas", there is no need for any bitterness when talking about hills.Everyone has their own wishes and opinions, which is completely understandable to me.
But based on experience, I am of the opinion that it is easiest to compile the "right" list when you have most of the peaks already in your "legs".
Then it is also easiest to judge which one belongs on the list and which one does not. And again this is a subjective assessment.
At least for me prominence is not the most suitable criterion, because according to it many well-known peaks can fall out of the list.
For example, on one of the first lists of two-thousanders (254) there was no Široka peč!
Dvas, do you have it on your list of 284 two-thousanders? And Oltarček, Mali Prisank,Veliki kup, Rdeči kup...
Enjoy the hills and return home safely.
Vinko
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| DVas6. 08. 2026 07:32:55 |
Of the listed ones, only Mali Prisank.
|
|
|
|
| dprapr7. 08. 2026 12:10:37 |
To get up there, you have to grow some balls.
|
|
|
|
| DVas7. 08. 2026 13:37:06 |
I have updated the height and coordinates of the two-thousanders on the website according to the latest digital relief model obtained with the above-mentioned cyclic laser scanning of Slovenia.
I am also attaching a list of 284 peaks with a prominence of 30 meters, if anyone is interested.
https://limewire.com/d/zZZA7#xpOUuevIVK
| (+2) | | |
|
|
|
|
| julya7. 08. 2026 14:12:00 |
Interesting, but it doesn't open for me...
|
|
|
|
| julya7. 08. 2026 14:41:06 |
|
|
|
|
| lijaneja7. 08. 2026 17:26:14 |
To me this list isn't the clearest, or rather how precise this scanning is. You mention prominence of 30 meters, but on the list you have double (even equally high) peaks, like Kanjavec, Rjavina, Planja..., but not, if I list just some of the highest: Mali Triglav, Rjavec, Mali Oltar, Široka peč...
Also, has the digital relief lowered Dovški križ by 25 meters for you?
Ah, no, now I see that it's written twice.
|
|
|
|
| asdf7. 08. 2026 20:08:16 |
As far as I see on freemap.eu, the saddle between Triglav and Mali Triglav is only about 20 m lower than Mali Triglav, meaning its prominence is also that much. The saddle between the two peaks of Kanjavec is for example about 40 m lower than both peaks, meaning the prominence of the lower one of them is about 40 m. The difference in peak heights doesn't matter here, what's important is how much higher the peak is than the lowest contour line that surrounds it and within which this peak is the highest.
| (+3) | | |
|
|
|
|
| mirank7. 08. 2026 20:58:43 |
Eh, that isn't a peak for me at all, since it doesn't deserve to be chosen for an independent ascent.
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| Loerst8. 08. 2026 00:10:13 |
@DVas Super, thanks for the post.
I quickly looked, due to time constraints only the Karawanks, because it's the fastest and I have four things:
a) How exactly did you arrive at the heights? Because according to the DMR1 model derived from LIDAR, at some peaks your data differs minimally from the model. E.g. Vrtača has 2179.32 m (on the list 2180 m), Krkotnik has 2114.72 m (2113 m), Tolsta Košuta 2056.73 m (2058 m)... Lidar has an estimated standard error +-15 cm, with you there is a bit more difference. I'm not claiming you're wrong, because nowhere does it say you have to start exactly from DMR1, you could go directly to points from the Lidar cloud, but you have larger values in some places, smaller in others.
b) Did you make a list of Slovenian two-thousanders or just two-thousanders? Because up there you also have Križnik and Velika glava on Peca, which are already quite concretely on the Austrian side. Additional check would also be needed for Grad and Ostrv, because maybe the highest point is a meter over the border.
c) Tolsta Košuta has two peaks and both have prominence more than 30 m (you have only the eastern peak on the list)
d) "Unnamed candidate" on the list is another Gamsovka. There are four in total, but your 30 m prominence criterion is met by two.
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
You must log in to post a comment:
If you do not yet have a username, you must first
register.