Talk:Mount Damavand

Damavand in Afghanistan?
Isn't there a mount in Afghanistan also named Damavand?

First ascent
Data on first ascent needs referencing. Abjad 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Still needs referencing: Damāvand was climbed by Iranians thousands of years ago, by shepherds and such. I believe you. Is there evidence? Haakondahl 13:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I updated this info, basing on SummitPost site. The article there references to other sources, which are not available to me. Would be great if someone double-checked it. Emesik (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Elevation
In most records the elevation of Mount Damavand is 5671m, if you serch "Damavand 5671" you will see hundreds of thoes.http://www.summitpost.org/image/326701//damavand-5671m.html I give you some examples: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=17099

I was there yesterday (5th July 2020), and my GPS (maps me) gave me 5606m and not more. Circling the crater I got one other elevation of 5611m.

http://www.hommes-et-montagnes.fr/pages/voyage-iran-monts-elbourz-et-ascension-du-damavand-(5671m).htm http://www.mountain-bookshop.de/de/dept_978.html http://alpinum.at/viewtopic.php?t=1687 http://pagesperso-orange.fr/toulaho/damavand/damavand2.htm http://www.zone-2000.net/arhiv/05/240damav/doc11.htm http://pagesperso-orange.fr/toulaho/damavand/damavand2.htm http://alpinum.at/viewtopic.php?t=1687 http://www.diamir.de/reseller.php? .... Do you need moor facts to beleive that the Damavand elevation is more than 5610 m ?!

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.61.94 (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Damavand is not higher than 5610m and that's all there is to it. 5671m is on websites that copy the traditional elevation, based on older measurement. The primary sources, official Iranian, a 2007 GPS measurement by a very experienced GPS user, and SRTM data all agree that 5610m is more accurate. See the footnote at Mount Damavand. Viewfinder (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

-Usually the facts and figures by Statistical Centre of Iran is not so accurate and reliable.

-Your extrnal link1 is broken ,if you mean this Mt.Damavand GPS measurement link, it does state that Damavand elevation could be up to 5660m which is much higher than 5610m and it is not a copy of the traditional elevation, but the latest measurement  31 Aug 2007.

-We better believe on more accurate and relaiable sourses like NASA, which indicates the elevation of Mt.Damavand is 5670m.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.52.186 (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not so fair to use the expression like "The most frequently given elevation on the web, 5,671 m, is definitely wrong" in the footnotes, it sounds that you would like to dictate your words to wikipedia , and by deleting others posts it means you do not like to listen to any other views !! I believe that we should have the right to answer your post in any page you comment about Mount Damavand Elevation, otherwise it looks like a censorship media and not the Wikipedia ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.52.124 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the copy of the above comments that was added to the main article. The right place to discuss the elevation is here. I would rather trust what appears to be an official Iranian information site, which is probably based on an accurate and up to date measurement by the Iranian national survey, than trust web sites that simply copy the older elevation. Neither of the external links are broken. From the first, click on GPS Landmarks. When I created the link, it stated only the 5626m GPS reading. The 5645m reading was added subsequently. The 5671m is not based on any GPS reading. The second link is to a report by a hiker who has used GPS to measure hundreds of mountains around the world. This report supports 5623m (5612m when adjusted to the Caspian Sea reference point) and clearly discredits 5671m. Finally, 5671m is incompatible with NASA SRTM data, where the highest three arc second cell is less than 5600 metres. This is not consistent with a high point of significantly more than 5610m, and definitely not consistent with 5671m.


 * Therefore, my sources are primary sources, containing information based on modern measurements. The websites that support 5671m are copying each other and the older elevation. There is no evidence that they are based on any up to date primary source or accurate measurement. Viewfinder (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, if you search on "Ulugh Muztagh 7723" you will get many hits, even though Ulugh Muztagh was accurately measured in 1985. Viewfinder (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me when and how Mount Damavand was measured at 5671 metres? It was measured at much closer to the official 5610 metres by a Norwegian professor and GPS expert in 2007. Viewfinder (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The 5671 metre elevation for Damavand is one of many old and inaccurate measurements that have been disproved by modern GPS measurements, but, like viruses, continue to get reproduced on the internet by authors, including authors who work for NASA and the CIA, who copy each other but supply no primary sources. These elevations should not by supported by Wikipedia. If we incorporate 5671m into the infobox, we will have to restore inaccurate values to many other mountain infoboxes, that would not be right. Still, there may be a case for making the footnote more neutral. On the specific subject of Damavand, I think there may be some vested interest in the claim that Damavand is higher than nearby and similar Mount Elbrus. Viewfinder (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have checked for further GPS readings from the summit.


 * http://www.ii.uib.no/~petter/mountains/5000mtn/Ararat/damavand-trip.html (12 August 2007; 5623m on summit, -17m at nearby Caspian Sea which has an accepted height of -28m)
 * http://damavandmt.blogspot.com/2006/07/damavand-mt-south-face-by-gps.html This link was sent to me in 2006 and now appears to be dead, but I downloaded it at the time and it showed a summit GPS reading of 5626m
 * http://damavandmt.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/damavand-elevation.html (31 August 2007; 5630m and 5645m on two separate devices.)

The third site strongly upholds the 5671m reading but gives no primary source; the NASA sources are not primary and have been copied from other sources by NASA employees. NASA's SRTM and ASTER data are both consistent with the official 5610m. The average of the two readings is closer to 5610m than 5671m.

So we have 4 GPS readings: 5623m, 5626m, 5630m and 5645m. The first three are in fairly close agreement; the fourth is out of line. The first suggests that there is a consistent 10m error in the geoid model used by hand held GPS devices in this area, implicitly upholding the official 5610m.

The 5610m can no longer be found at http://www.sci.org.ir/portal/faces/public/sci_en/sci_en.Glance/sci_en.land, this is now dead but still appears on this official site. I cannot find any geographic information at the new ISI site. Viewfinder (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have checked Wikipedia in several other languages, and almost all of them have accepted 5610m and hence the reliability of the given sources. Please don't let's revert to 5671m, which is less compatible with the GPS readings given at than 5610m. The 5645m GPS reading claimed by the above link is out of line with 3 other GPS readings and should therefore be regarded as suspect. Viewfinder (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on my own measurement, 5610 meters is 100% wrong. Surely it is 5671 meters. Farhoudk (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * When and how did you measure it? Viewfinder (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The plaque at the summit says it's 5610m (seen in 2022, I don't know how long it's been there). 212.224.231.241 (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Protection
I've full protected the article for three days due to the ongoing edit war. Please discuss the issue instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have discussed the issue in some length on the talk page. The problem is that my adversaries do not care to respond. They care only to edit both the main article and several others on which the height is mentioned. Viewfinder (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 January 2014
Please switch and the highest peak in Iran, has a special place in Persian mythology and folklore. with and the highest peak in Iran, and has a special place in Persian mythology and folklore.

buffbills7701 00:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why dont change the wrong and old information to the true and new information ??!!!!
Please convert this false and shameless 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 ))

Horamantarh (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Horamantarh, the reason why you've been reverted repeatedly (and the page protected) is that you are not supplying a source for your change. Please read WP:CITE to see what is needed.  If you can reply here with a source for your information then you and other editors can discuss the difference of opinion regarding the height.  Please also see the discussion in the sections above this one, other editors are looking at sourcing accurate height readings.  CaptRik (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A primary source is required, with a reference to when and how the figure you claim was measured. Sources that have merely copied other sources are insufficient. Viewfinder (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, these are some of reliable and main sites for true elevation of mount damavand
http://www.damawand.com

http://www.mountain-forecast.com/peaks/Damavand

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/debrief/Iss010/topFiles/ISS010-E-13393.htm

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=5267

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080503.html

+ ....

are those sufficient for converting the false information to reliable information ????!!!!

--Horamantarh (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion these are not sufficient, because none of them are primary sources, they have simply copied the elevation from other sources. Even people who work for NASA's websites do this. None of them tell us how and when Damavand was measured at 5671m. Modern GPS measurements and NASA satellite data support the lower and official Iranian elevation, which has been accepted by many other editors, both on English Wikipedia and those in most other languages. PS: please sign your edits with four tildes. Viewfinder (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here are NASA's SRTM data. The cell spacing is 3 are seconds (about 90 metres). The summit of Damavand is not nearly steep enough to be 76 metres higher than the highest cell. Viewfinder (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Damavand was measured by a Norwegian professor and experienced GPS user on 14 August 2007. He states here (summit day) "that all references to an elevation of 5671 meter should be changed, this is absolutely wrong". None of the other sources supplied, no matter how many there are, should take precedence over this primary source. Viewfinder (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Dear viewfinder 

all of viewers see our reasons and decide that what's of them are true ( your opinion or reliable sources!! ), your main source that you appointed your reasons on it is this link that be named with you ((( official Iranian site ))) and linked to this site : (((  http://iranembassy.com.my/en/?page_id=15   )))

But this is only one of the iranian embassy's sites in the world and this is iranian embassy site in malaysia !!!!

So please put your other and reliable source links as those links that i put them in up, ((( viewers are smart )))

HoramanTarh

--Horamantarh (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My principal source is the measurement by the Norwegian professor and GPS expert. Please calm down and find me an official Iranian site that supports 5671m and a source which tells us HOW and WHEN the summit was measured at 5671m. Viewfinder (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

After that your main and first link was about informations of iranian embassy in malaysia that any viewers laugh to that i went and saw your other link that is from norwegian professor, do you see that once ?!! this page is about the trips and travels that professor was going to those lands and writes in this page and one of his workes was measuring the elevations without any photoes and registeres or approveds. !! really is this source reliable for finding true information about mountain's elevation of the world or NASA and DAMAWAND and more reliable sites have true informations ??!! ''' Yes we see all of the reasons and pay attention to them for knowing TRUTH. '''

 please see again your cited site, (when viewers see that for first time know truth and ...) 

--Horamantarh (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have supplied an Iranian government site that gives a height for Damavand. Perhaps it is not reliable but sites of US government agencies are also not reliable. You can see that the Norwegian professor is an experienced GPS user who carefully measured Damavand. Hand held GPS is reliable to within 15 metres. I have repeatedly asked you for a primary source. How can you be so sure that 5671m is correct when you supply no information about how and when the mountain was measured? Please can you also find someone to help you with your English. Viewfinder (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Meaning
Damavand means in old Persian

Avand - vessle
It means the "vessle or holder of breath" because it is a volcano. It holds the breath of earth. I am surprised it has not yet been mentioned.

Elevation dispute
Based on my own measurement, 5610 meters is 100% wrong. Surely it is 5671 meters. Farhoudk (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * When and how did you measure it? Viewfinder (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You claim that Mount Damavand is 5671 metres based on your own measurement, but you supply no information about that measurement. When and how did you measure Mount Damavand? Have you published it on the web? See (August 14). The author has measured hundreds of mountains using GPS and his results have been widely accepted. He writes: We decided to take a walk around the entire crater, visit this opposite point and measure it carefully. The highest rock on the first (and likely official) summit had measured 5622 meter after a long period of sampling. The point across is located at N35:57.318, E052:06.553, and after 300 samples, the best average value read 5623 meter. From this viewpoint, we had a good view back across the crater, from left to the first high point, then further right along the rim towards the point where we were sitting. This difference is too small to decide, however, it is clear (see also the pictures) that these two points along the crater rim are indeed very similar in height. Again, with the assumption that the GPS is (consistently, see below) about 10 meter too high, this strongly supports an official height of Damavand at 5610 meter. In any event, all references to an elevation of 5671 meter should be changed, this is absolutely wrong.  Viewfinder (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding your cited NASA source, this is dated February 2005, before any GPS surveys had been published. There is no evidence that the author of that article did anything more than copy the old elevation. Viewfinder (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * First you claim to have measured the mountain yourself but you are unable to supply any details. Now you claim the 5671m is based on a 3D laser scan but supply no evidence for this. Viewfinder (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Farhoudk) Hi, I have measured the height of Damavand at west side of the crater and it was well above 5610 meters, in opposition to what is claimed by some sites. As you can see, the author you mentioned has failed to describe the orientation of the highest point at the summit and using words such as left and right are not technical. It is not useful to refer to my measurement or others due to lack of sufficient accuracy. For example, GPS has three times less accuracy in measuring altitude than measuring Lat and Long. This is why I did not mention any altitude for Damavand based on my measurements. The best reference would be NASA observatory data http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=5267 which mentions 5670 meters for Damavand. All the best 19:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The author of the 2007 survey is an experienced GPS user who has measured many mountains. He measured it in clear conditions, and took measurements on both sides of the crater. Any possibility that he missed the highest point can be ruled out. You have still not told us when and how you measured Damavand or given any reading. The author of the 2005 NASA article did nothing more than copy the elevation from an older source. Viewfinder (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have copied this thread to the Damavand talk page, where it belongs. Viewfinder (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Nowadays you can find so many experienced GPS user around the globe, thanks to the technology provided by even cell phone manufacturers! As you may know there exist even more accurate GPS/GLONASS devices inside iPhone or Galaxy. It is not useful to rely on our hand held GPS and leave NASA data. Aerial and space imagary has much more accurate data years before invention of GPS, GLONASS, LORAN-C, TACAN etc. Once again, I am just mentioning reliable data provided by well known organizations responsible for such tasks. Farhoudk (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You still supply no information about when and how you measured Damavand. Viewfinder (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Here are NASA's SRTM data. The cell spacing is 3 arc seconds (about 90 metres). The summit of Damavand is not nearly steep enough to be 76 metres higher than the highest cell. You claim that "aerial and space imagary has much more accurate data years before invention of GPS, GLONASS, LORAN-C, TACAN etc". Is there any evidence that the old Damavand elevation was based on aerial and space imagery? In any case, for snow covered mountain summits, old aerial and space imagery is not accurate. Viewfinder (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Farhoudk has reverted me four times today, in breach of WP:3RR. If I revert him again I too will be in breach of that rule. He makes a claim about having measured Damavand himself but posts no further information about this. He makes an unsourced claim about a satellite laser scan. The 2007 survey result was accepted at peaklist and peakbagger. It has also been accepted by the great majority of Wikipedia articles in other languages. If English Wikipedia's revert to 5671m at Mount Damavand becomes accepted, implying that it is higher than Mount Elbrus, then several other articles will also have to be changed. Are we to prefer to go by an old NASA page which has merely copied an elevation from an older source, rather than a primary survey published by an experienced GPS user, whose survey was consistent with official Iranian information? Viewfinder (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, I had just mentioned a reliable data provided by a well known organizations responsible for such tasks which is NASA with its own dedicated techniques, tools, assets, knowledge and experienced scientists. I am sorry to see my replies fragmented and it was better to start discussion, before undoing my edits for the first time.
 * Unfortunately you are right. Some editors in various languages of wiki rely just on a wrong information given inside English wiki as template:central Alborz, which refers itself to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AlborzCentralColoredNumbered.png in which the height of Damavand is wrongly mentioned as 5610 despite being 5671 in its reference http://chevalier.michele.free.fr/iran/photos_iran/map_alborz.jpg . You see how a bit of intentional or unintentional mistake propagates in wiki, especially when somebody tries to prove that Elbrus is higher than Damavand and do not care the reality.
 * You see the first link provided by your author is dead and the second one is not official Iranian site taking care of cartography. The main official Iranian organization taking care of these tasks in Iran, is National Cartographic Center of Iran (NCC) http://www.ncc.org.ir/ . Unfortunately, after failing to give a reliable information, your author refers to wrong and dead sites. Therefore it is still not acceptable to rely on his references and claims. So it was not fair to undo my edits for the first time without carefully thinking about what I had done. Farhoudk (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Farhoudk. You write that "it was not fair to undo my edits for the first time without carefully thinking about what I had done". I now accept that and apologise to you. I have written to NASA to ask for source information, they have responded that the author is long gone but are trying to get to the bottom of it. I will give them a bit more time before making any further comment, as a further response may settle the issue. Viewfinder (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi and thank you. I have found another reference from U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey which is about glaciers of Iran based on satellite and aerial photography. http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386g/iran.pdf The height of Damavand is again 5670. Meanwhile I am trying to contact NCC but it has some risks. :( http://www.ncc.org.ir Farhoudk (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this revealing reference. The author of the USGS article has probably done the same as the author of the NASA article - simply copied an old elevation. The map on page 8 of your reference cites a 1937 map, providing us with strong evidence that 5670, far from having been accurately calculated by NASA, is almost 80 years old! It is likely to based on a rough estimate of 18,600 feet. Someone then added 1m to make it look modern and accurate, hence the now more frequently claimed 5671. Viewfinder (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A map based on 1:50,000 maps with accurate elevations is downloadable from summitpost. Thanks Farhoudk for supplying this link at List of Iranian four-thousanders. For Damavand it gives an elevation of 5628 metres. This is a bit higher than 5610 but I would be OK to accept it. It surely must be better than a figure from a 1937 sketch map by a researcher whose primary aim was the study of glaciers for which he would have had no need for an accurate summit height. I am sure that it would not have been possible to calculate an accurate height from the satellite images supplied in the USGS document. Viewfinder (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Happy to hear that 5628 is more acceptable to Viewfinder than 5610. ;) Shows we are in correct course. Here is another reference by CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html It is again 5671. I am sure organizations like NASA, USGS or CIA do not just copy and paste old data. Farhoudk (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sometimes these organisations do more than copy and paste old data. They sometimes cite them too. The citation by the author of the USGS document proves that 5670 is old and that they have all copied it. GPS and SRTM data have shown up several national high point errors by the CIA. Three of them are more than 100 metres too high. Gabon is more than 500 metres too high. Is Farhoudk still unwilling to supply any more information about his own measurement of Damavand? Would there be any objection if I added links to the dispute tag? Viewfinder (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Same error, if exist, may happen for Elbrus or other summits. one can find here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3603 that the elevation of Elbrus mentioned as 5642 and here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3620 that the elevation of Mont Blanc is 4807. There should be no discrimination between Damavand, Elbrus, Mont Blanc, etc. Is it fair to criticize NASA for their data stated for Damavand but approve their data for Elbrus and Mont Blanc? Wikipedia articles must not contain original research WP:NOR. I can not cite my own measurement for the elevation of Damavand. Farhoudk (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * NASA's Earth Observatory does not measure summits, it only photographs them. The authors of the EO articles get their elevations from various sources, some of them more accurate than others. There is no dispute about Elbrus, it is agreed at 5642 by all sources that I know, including Russian topographic mapping. 5642 is consistent with SRTM data. Mont Blanc was measured at 4810 by a 2009 survey. Are you going to change it on Wikipedia to 4807 citing an older EO article written by someone who did not measure it? No, you are not. Then you should not have changed the elevation at Damavand either. That 5670 for Damavand is too high is not my WP:OR. 5610 was sourced to an Iranian government site and a modern GPS survey. It is consistent with SRTM data. The GPS surveyor has measured hundreds of mountains and been accepted by his peers at peaklist and peakbagger. His evidence is cited in several other mountain articles. You are the first Wikipedian who has ever challenged his evidence. The 5628 elevation on 1:50,000 Iranian topographic maps is higher, but is still consistent with GPS and SRTM. 5670 is consistent with none of these reliable sources. Even if you cannot cite your own measurement, you can give to us on this talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Viewfinder, You did not mention the objective of NASA for their expensive satellite imagery tasks! How do you know NASA get the elevation of Damavand from other sources? Do you now that SRTM is supported and spearheaded by U.S. NGA and U.S. NASA. Do you have access to Digital elevation models provided in SRTM about mount Damavand? No? Farhoudk (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also please take a look at Landsat program. Farhoudk (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Go to my website. I have SRTM data and Landsat images for the whole world, of course I know that they are from NASA. Landsat does not do DEM. SRTM is from the Space Shuttle Endeavour. Here again are NASA's SRTM data. The cell spacing is 3 arc seconds (about 90 metres). The summit of Damavand is not nearly steep enough to be 75 metres higher than the highest cell. I can also supply 1 arc second (about 30m) SRTM data for Damavand whose highest cell is 5599. Unfortunately the CIA and whoever wrote the EO and USGS (published in 1988) articles consulted a 1937 map, not SRTM. Viewfinder (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So we agree that NASA do imagery by itself for various goals like cartography and they produce original data. Another step to achieve consensus. But please note that there is no info about accuracy of radar used in SRTM at your site for measuring distance which can be later converted to elevation. In addition, you may know that the summit crater itself is about 150 m wide with the highest point of Damavand located at the edge of crater! Having just 90 m cell size and unknown accuracy for elevation of each cell, it is really difficult to accept that the given data belongs to the peak of Damavand with acceptable accuracy for elevation, let's say 10 m. Also you have mentioned in your site that: All 8000m and most 7000m summits and their surroudings have been accurately mapped, but elsewhere accuracy may not be up to SRTM standard. May I have a request? Would you give a reference for SRTM data about Elbrus, enabling us to compare its elevation with elevation of Damavand measured using the same technology with same accuracy? Just as an example and referring to Google Maps, the highest contour line for Damavand has 5580 m elevation  and the highest contour line for mount Elbrus has 5500 m elevation ! Therefore using same tools and assets it is obvious that Damavand is about 80 m higher than Elbrus with 10 m to 20 m accuracy provided that the contour lines differ by just 20 m. This would help us to get rid of useless competition between Damavand and Elbrus. Farhoudk (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Another Iranian official source is: . It is again 5670 m. Farhoudk (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I re-state my claim that NASA do not measure summit heights, but agree that their DEM data are original data. The RMS accuracy of SRTM data is claimed to be 6 metres but the error increases around mountain summits. The SRTM data that I uploaded is not inconsistent with a 5628 summit. Here are some more SRTM data for Damavand, supplied to me by special request. The nominal spacing is 1 arc second, about 30 metres but the effective resolution is about 50m. The highest cell is 5599 but the data are still not inconsistent with a 5628 metre summit. On the other hand, a 5670 summit is not consistent with a hand held GPS reading of 5623, so if we trust the competence of the survey, 5670 is disproved. I have also found a copy of the official Iranian map of the Damavand area. It is dated 1377 SH (1998-99 CE). Here is the summit area. There are four spot heights on the crater: 5628, 5624, 5610 and another 5628. The 5610 may explain the claim that was on the SCI site, but it does not refer the highest point. We should therefore not revert to 5610. If I had known about this map when I first posted 5610, I would have posted 5628 instead.


 * Regarding Elbrus, yes here are the summit 3" SRTM cells, covering both summits. The highest Google contour line is 5600, not 5500, please re-check your google map link. The contours are at 40m intervals with bold contours at 200m.


 * If you want to find a thousand references in support of 5670 or 5671 then I am sure you could. But I have only seen one - your USGS reference - that tells us anything about how and when it was measured. It was a 1937 estimate by a glacier researcher. Viewfinder (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Talk page was not available! Farhoudk (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected!! Farhoudk (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your claim against NASA needs some evidence!
 * Please take a look at my video of the crater taken from its west edge, which is evidently lower than the surrounding peaks, to better feel how large the crater is and feel the different elevation of several peaks around the edge of the crater. I measured 5624 m at this point using GPS/GLONASS inside my Galaxy S3 cell phone and Oruxmaps app. Despite a 105 minutes long stay at the top, I did not measure the peaks, because there was not planned. This is why I do not believe referring to my measurement is useful from technical point of view and NOR.
 * New SRTM data still is not sufficiently accurate. At least it is 29 meters off from what you believe the correct elevation is, which is not consistent with 6 m accuracy they claim. With 30 meters spatial resolution, the data should show the 150 m diameter crater. In fact after creating a 3D mesh plot and checking the contour plot in MATLAB environment using your new SRTM data by >>contourf(DEM(8:18,:),220) command, the crater is not recognizable (I used rows 8:18 of DEM data to have a 11x11 footprint and get rid of 6 void cells showing -32768 meaning -2^15). Therefore the SRTM data, despite being very valuable, is useless for sufficiently accurate measurement of the peak of mount Damavand and it seems there are some extra error sources here. You are right about the highest Google Maps contour line of Elbrus, it is 5600. Knowing that there are no evident crater at taller Western summit of Elbrus, perhaps the existence of the crater has some influence on inaccurate measurement of the elevation of Damavand using radars in SRTM.
 * http://gsi.ir is geological survey of Iran which could be considered as second most important official Iranian web site related to our context after NCC. Iranian embassy at Malasia has nothing to do with cartography and is irrelevant.
 * How have and  measured contour lines and the peaks? GPS? DEM? Satellite imagery? Aerial photography? Would you post a link for the whole contour map containing Damavand peak? Farhoudk (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your great video! I also thank you for your measurement info. I don't think the video shows anything more than 10 metres higher than your camera and I am certain that there is nothing anywhere near 40 metres higher. I have never met Petter, but I have been communicating with him for a long time and I am sure that his observations on 14 August 2007 were competently taken from the highest points. I would prefer not to upload the full topographic map link to a public website, there are possible copyright issues. I will e-mail it to you privately, let me know if you don't get it. It should answer your questions, you can translate them for non-Farsi speakers. The summitpost map is based on the same 1:50,000 topographic maps. Surely its authors measured the summit more accurately than the GSI; GSI likely copied the Smithsonian height, who in turn used the same old source as the USGS author. SRTM does not provide an accurate summit height. But I have been working with SRTM data for a long time, comparing highest cells with known summit heights. The difference is usually more than 6 metres, but the Damavand summit is surely not one where there would be a difference of 71 metres; even 29 seems high, but not impossible given that SRTM did not map the crater rim properly, it shows only a large plateau. Do you think that a DGPS survey would be possible? Viewfinder (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for email. The footnotes of the map shows in Persian that the 1:50,000 map is based on 1:250,000 map from unknown source. So please expect the 1:250,000 accuracy from this map and not accuracy of true 1:50,000 map. The crater is poorly visible. We need true 1:25,000 or 1:10,000 map of the summit; which their availability is unknown for me at present.
 * A daughter company of NCC offers DGPS/RTK services. The propagation of DGPS base station around Damavand looks good and one must use compatible GPS receiver capable of receiving GPRS data by its modem to get the correction signals from base stations. The accuracy is claimed to be decimeter. The problem is the availability of GSM signal at the summit which can be verified. Farhoudk (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Just for having some further details it maybe useful to know that the first time that the height of Damavand was mentioned as 5670 m was in the book: Allenbach P., "Geologie und petrography des Damavand und seiner Umgeburg (Zentral Elborz), Iran", Mittelung Nr. 63, Geologisches Institut, EHT- Zurich (1966) 114p. which was based on satellite imagery and later on changed to 5671 m. After translation of this book to Persian language at 1970, this figure became a widely accepted fact in Iran. Farhoudk (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The 1:250,000 map is probably the US military map NI39-3. I have this map. It gives 5671 for Damavand. The information is dated 1971. It may be the source of some information on the 1:50,000 map, but the level of detail on the 1999 1:50,000 map is much greater, the Iran national survey must have collected this detail itself. Why did they change the Damavand elevation to 5628? Because they re-surveyed it, surely. I think we have to agree that it is 5628, not 5670, that is compatible with modern GPS measurements. Viewfinder (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * On the ultimate source of 5670, it seems likely that Allenbach copied it from the same material attributed to Hans Bobek in the USGS document. It is not possible to calculate accurate heights from satellite images unless they are in stereo pairs taken from different angles. It seems very unlikely that height accuracy would have been possible from 1960's satellite imagery. Facts that become "widely accepted" are not always true. A DGPS survey reported by a reliable source should be acceptable. This should not be too hard to organize. Viewfinder (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The footnotes of 1:50,000 scale map No. 4641 IV RINEH indicates in persian that it is part of 1:250,000 scale map No. NI39-3 of k551 series. But in the map NI39-3 it is clearly mentioned 18,365 ft for Damavand summit which is 5,597.6 m and it is not 5671 m as you mentioned above! Also its poor quality can be understood from what are indicated in its footnotes: compiled in 1981 and revised 1997 in WGS 84 with 90% reliability of 165 ft or 50 m for contour line. How do you cite to 5628 knowing there is copyright issue with 4641 IV? Unfortunately in  the map 4641 IV RINEH published in 1999 the elevation of Damavand is 5670 m which is really confusing.
 * It is common practice to acquire 60% overlapped photos in aerial or satellite imagery and use stereoscopic viewing to provide elevation.
 * Agree about DGPS survey. Farhoudk (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 4641 IV RINEH 1999 covers an area that is part of NI39-3. NI39-3 is not the source of the contour lines on 4641 IV. You linked Edition 3 of NI39-3, I the map in my collection is earlier Edition 1. 5597 is definitely too low. I don't know that there is a copyright issue with 4641 IV. Perhaps you can tell me, you can read the footnotes, I cannot. Did you buy the 4641 IV map via [? If not, what is the source of your claim that it states 5670? As you know, my copy of the same map states 5628. [[User:Viewfinder|Viewfinder]] (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In the footnotes of 6461 IV RINEH at right side just below the logo it is mentioned that: All rights reserved for Armed Forces Geographical Organization (new name for National Geographical Organization or NGO with dead website http://www.ngo-iran.ir).
 * I have not bought 6461 IV RINEH from Geospatial but the map is online and one can find and zoom and by turning the features on check the elevation. Farhoudk (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reserved rights translation. The online map is from the Geospatial worldwide map server. Many of the Geospatial spot heights are in error, for example they have a 3998 spot height in Greenland where there is nothing over 3700. Viewfinder (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The standard way is to use aerial or satellite photography (with normally 60% overlap) and use existing powerful software like ArcGIS etc. to extract contour lines and elevation data. The aircraft in this practice commonly use DGPS/GLONASS/INS or DGPS/INS to measure its position with cm accuracy, just at the exposure time of the aerial high resolution camera. The camera and positioning device are installed at same frame with known 3D distance from each other and this shift is included in their calculations. The whole frame is installed on board as a complete aerial survey package. This is the well proven and well known technique around the world.
 * Organizations like NGO and NCC of Iran, same as other countries, have their own plan and program for the whole country to generate maps and prepare GIS data bases. They can do above mentioned tasks regularly as it is their job and this job is rather expensive and requires well trained and well equipped staff. NCC have some Dornier Do 228 aircraft and use them for aerial photography.
 * Other choice would be DGPS survey which is relatively good but time consuming technique. Farhoudk (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for telling us how national mapping agencies create accurate topographic maps. No doubt the above mentioned 6461 IV was created in this manner and that its contours and spot heights are reliable. But none of this is necessary to measure the height of a single point, like the summit of Damavand, to centimeter accuracy. It is sufficient for someone to be there with an appropriate DGPS receiver. Meanwhile, are we going with the verifiable evidence from a modern topographic map, supported by verifiable GPS and SRTM evidence? Or are we sticking with a height that can be traced at least as far back as 1966 and possibly as far back as 1937, because that is what still appears on so many webpages including some written by employees of government agencies :( :( ? That's not for me to answer. Other editors must decide that. Viewfinder (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree about the way 6461 IV RINEH was produced, but it is still not accurate enough. The hand held GPSs are not sufficiently accurate to be relied on as a surveying tool. And it is not cheap and easy for individual climbers to go out to measure the height of just a single summit using DGPS, and even if it is done by some professional climbers it is not acceptable from their records as they are not specialist in surveying. Climbers normally use handheld GPS not for geographical survey but just to measure their own location and follow a recorded track in bad weather or unknown places or ultimately to record a new track for their own use. Please refer to our previous discussion about lack of sufficient accuracy in SRTM data; especially at summit of Damavand, SRTM fails to recognize the 150 m in diameter crater! I think we must wait until a really reliable technical job happen and reported by organizations with good reputation and then do any editing for this disputed topic. And up to that time, it is preferable to leave the announced elevation as it is, i.e. 5670. Other editors would be better to participate. Farhoudk (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that the accuracy of the sophisticated methods used to produce 6461 IV is sufficient to disprove 5670, the difference (5670m - 5628m = 42m) is well outside its error margin. Likewise GPS, even if it is only hand held, the error margin is accepted at to be 15 metres, which puts 5670 out of the possible range of even the 5645 reading. Hand held GPS is used by climbers to estimate both horizontal and vertical distance to the summit, and if climbers set 5670m waypoints they will reach the summit sooner than they expect. SRTM (highest cell 5599) is less clear cut, yes the circular crater ridge is missing, but Damavand is not the kind of summit for which I would expect the highest cell to be more than 30 metres lower than the summit, and definitely not 70 metres lower. I have several colleagues who have conducted DGPS surveys in the UK. Their results have been recognized by the UK national mapping agency. I don't claim to have a centimetre accurate height for Damavand, there is an error margin of a few metres, but is there really not enough topographic and GPS evidence to convince you that 5670 is too high? I am not going to fight you, but I hope you will at least not remove the references I have added to the dispute tag. The utexas reference is at least as good as your references, and the GPS reference site has never been challenged on any other mountain page. Viewfinder (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What about List of peaks by prominence? With the new elevation (5671 m) Elbrus is no longer the prominence (and dominance) master of Damavand. All prominence-lists tell that Elbrus is the PM of Damavand. --Watzmann (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 5671m is not a "new" elevation. It is an old elevation, based on an estimate (5670m) by a glaciologist in the 1930's, plus 1 to make it look new and accurate. 5610m is based on a modern GPS survey by a prominence researcher, and a (now deleted) official Iranian website. But because the GPS survey was carried out after the cited U.S. government articles were written, those articles still state 5670/5671. Following that survey, the prominence listing community accepted 5610, which is why it appears on the prominence lists that are the source of those on Wikipedia and give Elbrus as the PM of Damavand. I hope it stays that way, but a note could be added to the Wikipedia lists. By the way, I understand that there has been a new official survey of Damavand, but as far as I know, the result has not been made public. Viewfinder (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You´re right. Iran itself states 5610 m (18,406 ft), see Natural regions on www.en.iran.ir. --Watzmann (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this official link. Would anyone mind if we reverted to 5610m, citing it? It looks more up to date than the references for 5670m. Viewfinder (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't mind, I support changing the elevation back to 5610m. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  15:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the elevation back to 5610 in hopes that it will either remain until we get better information, or the change sparks new input from other editors. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  21:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Further edit warning
Despite the protection which was given to the article earlier this year, the edit war has continued. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending their time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. If the edit warring continues, options to be considered are placing blocks for a considerable time (not just a day or two) on any editor taking part, and protecting the article for a much longer time. The latter will be a last resort, to be avoided if possible, because it will inconvenience legitimate editors as well as the edit-warriors, so blocking editors will be a preferable option. JamesBWatson (talk)


 * Point taken about reaching agreement in preference to edit warring but I beg to disagree with the implication above that elevation inaccuracies of 50-60 metres should not matter. We should strive to get our elevations at least to within the error margin of hand held GPS devices, which is about 15 metres, and it is notable whether or not Damavand is higher than Mount Elbrus. Viewfinder (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

A new survey of top Damavand, July 3rd 2016.
A new survey of top Damavand on July 3rd 2016, using a hand held GNSS : A French / Iranian team (of surveyors and others) has reached an agreement with NCC to collaborate with scientific GNSS receivers (Leica 1200) and personnel for the measurement of top Damavand with hours recording, base line processing and network adjustment (centimetre to decimetre level accuracy achievable). Due to further changes in this authorization, and probable conflict with some Iranian bodies involved in, this agreement was not valid any more. Top of Damavand has been then surveyed using a Garmin GPSMAP 64st GNSS (GPS+GLONASS), 12 GPS and 8 GLONASS were in view. The elevation was reduced to the AIRGeoid 2010 model (Adjusted Gravimetric geoid at GPS/Levelling points as a new Vertical Reference Surface for Iran) provided by NCC. The result : 5625 m, with an estimated standard deviation of 3 m. Previoulsly, top of Alamkuh has been surveyed as well, with a result of 4840 m. Bernard Flacelière, Senior Surveyor retired, Chief Editor of XYZ journal of French Association of Surveying. BernardFlaceliere (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Mount Damavand Surveyed by NCC (National Cartographic Center of Iran) in 2006
Having got in touch with NCC with regard to our Mount Damavand survey July 3rd, I may now publish the result of the NCC survey performed in 2006. This is not confidential as already published on numerous Iranian web sites dedicated to mountaineering and climbing (see here below). The published elevation is : 5609.2 m. The discrepancy with our 5625 result may come from the uncertainties in geoid model used in the reduction of ellipsoidal heights. By BernardFlaceliere (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Reference, one Iranian web site as an example: http://iranclimbingguide.com/


 * Thank you for this information. It would appear from your posts that 5625m is more accurate than the NCC's 5609m, and is consistent with other hand held GPS measurements. As you say, the problem seems to be the determination of the local geoid. It may be of interest that a hand held GPS reading on the nearby Caspian sea shore gave -17m, which is 12m too high. It is not clear what height should be posted to the article, although it is clear that we should not be reverting to 5671m, which was based on a rough 1930's estimate by a geologist, to which someone added 1m to make it look like an accurate measurement. Viewfinder (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not as active on Wikipedia these days and do not check it very often, but I was sorry to see that the elevation had been recently put back up to 5671m by editors without reference to the talk page. I thought that the above contributions from a new surveyor had settled the matter. I have restored the lower elevations, which had been stable since 2016, but I realise that 5671m is still widely quoted on the web. Viewfinder (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mount Damavand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150117111208/http://www.en.iran.ir/about/natural-regions to http://www.en.iran.ir/about/natural-regions
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311121019/http://www.sogol.com/WHP/IINFO/Ready%20%20INT/DAMAVAND%20MAP2.jpg to http://www.sogol.com/WHP/IINFO/Ready%20%20INT/DAMAVAND%20MAP2.jpg
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20070619021442/http://www.irandaily.ir/1385/2605/html/art.htm to http://www.irandaily.ir/1385/2605/html/art.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Source for last eruption
What's the source for Damavand last erupted in 5300 BC? Aminabzz (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a source from Global Volcanism Program which reports 5350 BCE ±200 years. Decided to leave the value as "around 5300 BCE" instead of changing to 5350 because of the uncertainty range. DJ Cane (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)