User talk:Jespinos/Archives/2006/November

Fitzroy border
Thank you for your information about the Fitzroy border.

The cited document mentions a 1:50,000 map. I have some accurate topographic maps of southern Chile, but these maps have many no data areas, and there are other areas, particularly around the border, for which I have not been able to get maps. For the Fitzroy area I have a tourist 1:50,000 map with no borders shown, but I have no Chilean maps. Also, I am trying to find out the exact elevation of Cerro San Valentin. Chilean mapping gives 3,911m but other sources give 4,058m and SRTM data supports the higher figure. Please see also Cordillera del Paine. I would like to have accurate elevations for these summits; official Chilean IGM maps show no elevations, and the most often given elevations, especially that of Paine Grande, are not compatible with photographic evidence. Any information you can supply would be greatly appreciated. Viewfinder 04:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am an amateur in these matters. In any case, I can give you some useful info. See the following link: Summits in border zones. That is official info, although not necessarily true. Recent maps and the most of the Chilean websites give 4,058m for Cerro San Valentin. In relation to Paine Grande, almost all the sources give 3,050m. See this article: and this another: Rolando Garibotti. Jespinos 23:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for these interesting links. The Garibotti photo from Paine Grande summit is particularly interesting, despite the low resolution. Assuming it shows Fortaleza in the centre (I am sure about this, what else could it be?) and the Torres on the right, then the heights that the border zones link gives, PG 3050m, F 2681m, Torre Sur 2850m, cannot all be correct. Consider the geometry, if they were all correct, the Torres would appear higher than Fortaleza, which they clearly do not. I am not alone in claiming the Torres are only 2500m, see summitpost. It seems to me that the 2,850m Torre Sur elevation was estimated on the basis of 3,050m for Paine Grande, and that the 3050m claim is at the root of the other errors in the Paine range. You are right that this is given by almost all sources, but perhaps they all copy each other. Also, my ChIGM 1:50,000 map of Cerro Macá (section XI) has no summit elevation or topography, and SRTM clearly shows that it is no more than 2,300 m. The northern Chile data looks good; here the IGM maps are in excellent agreement with SRTM, but I think that some of the Patagonian summits are in need of a new, modern survey. Viewfinder 07:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Evidently, most are copies of data from a few sites or sources. It never pretended to be a proof of true elevation. Jespinos 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A French group that climbed the San Valentin in 1993 included two surveyors, who calculated an elevation of 4,080+-20 m by using a Global Positioning System (GPS). A Chilean group measured  4,070+-40 m by using GPS too.


 * In the next photos, you can see the Cordillera del Paine from a different angle, near Monte Balmaceda. I calculate that Cerro Paine Grande is, approximately, at least 3 percent higher than Cerro Paine Chico and about of 30 percent higher than Cuerno Principal. What is your opinion?. Jespinos 02:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/South_America/Chile/photo318700.htm
 * http://obswww.unige.ch/~cramer/images-2/10-ultima.jpg
 * http://www.geocities.com/adelaide.geo/patagonia/ptrel1_e.htm
 * http://dgzmart.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_dgzmart_archive.html

Hi, thank you for these links. I have split and transferred this discussion to Monte San Valentin (which I have created) and Cordillera del Paine. Viewfinder 11:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I found information about Macá volcano. The Macá, according to the maps, has an elevation of 2,916 m, but the first ones and the second ones to climb it, consider that is not higher than 2,400-2,500 m. Jespinos 15:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.tecpetrol.com/patagonicos/cuaderno15/default.htm in Spanish


 * Thank you for this link too. It shows that the elevations shown on many maps of Patagonia are often much too high. But the errors are not generally found on official ChIGM maps, which merely show no data areas. Interestingly, the above link gives over 1,913m for Volcan Burney, but SRTM and ChIGM mapping agree that it is about 1,500m. The quality of high resolution ChIGM topo maps is usually very good. Viewfinder 15:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Looking at this, I was intrigued about the controversy over the listed heights of the Torres del Paine massif. I decided to measure from a photo of mine and with reference to the 1:100,000 scale tourist map that I got in Torres del Paine, the relative hights of the cuerno principal and paine grande. A smaller version of the image can be viewed at http://www.fractal-landscapes.co.uk/graphics/pictures/CL2005/1600/CPL3.jpg This was taken from the Hotel Explora beach viewpoint, which according to the maps is 14.1 km horizontally from the summit of the Cuerno Principal and 15.5 km from the summit of Paine Grande. Establishing the horizon line as the furthest visible extent of the lake (likely to be accurate to within 1 pixel, given the distance of 3 km to that shore), gave ratios of the tans of the angles of 490: 459 (Paine Grande: Cuerno Principal). This is assuming a planar projection, which is likely to be a very accurate approximation < 0.1% error. This gives a calculated height of 2598 m for the Cuerno Principal, which is within a single pixel quantisation error of the listed height of 2600, as given on the tourist map. Clearly, then, these peaks must be VERY CLOSE to this ratio of heights. By the same method, using the same map and photo, I established the distance to the Torre Central as 18.4 km, with a pixel height of 361. This gives a height for the Torre Central of only 2667 m, which is less than that listed on the Tourist map (which claims 2800). Given the consistency of the first two heights as a verification of the method, this means that the Torre Central is likely to be within a very small margin of error of this height, assuming 3050 for Paine Grande.

Sources of error:

Rotation of the image (less than 1 in 55 from true horizontal / vertical - from the line of the roof in the distance). Creates a maximum error of 27 pixels in the ratio of heights between Paine Grande and the Torre Central. {The true rotation appears unlikely to be more than 25% of this, from subjective observation.} Positional error on the tourist map, of the peaks and hotel. This is unlikely to be significant, because the map would have been made at the very least from a satellite or aerial photograph. Non-planar projection of the camera lens. This is also unlikely to be a significant source of error, because the lens is a high-quality aspherical sigma lens for an SLR, and not a compact camera lens. I've not observed any barrel distortion in images taken with it, which would indicate deviation from a planar projection. Horizon measurement error - this is less than tan (theta) = 1 / 1000 from the geography, which is sub-pixel accuracy.

-- The Ostrich

I beg to disagree with the above analysis, because it makes the assumption of 3050m for Paine Grande, which imo is a gross exaggeration. Viewfinder 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. As I said above, the assumption was only to establish relative heights. The above analysis was flawed for several reasons, not least of which a) it neglected the height above sea level of Pehoe. b) It neglected the curvature of the earth, c) I mismeasured the distance to the cuerno Principal from the assumed site of the photo and d) the assumed site of the photo was incorrect. Fixing these discrepancies results in more reliable relative heights. See Viewfinder's talk page for a more complete analysis Viewfinder.

-- The Ostrich 19:40, 27 November 2006 (GMT)

Isla Navarino
Thanks for your recent work on Isla Navarino. Your level of English seems to me to be better than "Basic"! :-) -- Writtenonsand 20:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you for your interest in articles about Chile. Jespinos 21:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

La proteccion de Chile
Es claro que siguio el "edit war" - y los dos lados violaron la regla 3RR. He reportado los dos a Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR, y voy a pedir que se proteccione el articulo. Me frustra tanto AntarcticWik como Al-Andalus; el segundo abiertamente ha dicho que no le importa 3RR en este caso porque "es el vandalismo". No me importa cual lado tiene razon, pero te sugiero que hagas los cambios antes de que se cierre el articulo. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Chile with 58% of Poverty??
A 58% POVERTY? That Percentage is absolutely false, and is ILLOGICAL with a HDI OF 0.859 please they eliminate that information Antarcticwik 05:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * La protección no implica necesariamente el respaldo a la edición actual. Tú eres uno de los causantes de esta situación y por lo tanto una de las personas con menos derecho a reclamar. Deberías tener una actitud más humilde. Jespinos 14:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

El unico causante del problema es Vandalus, yo solo me limitaba a proteger la pagina de ese vandalo. Además, tengo entendido que fuistes tú el encargado de corregir la última edición, la que tiene información falsa y tendenciosa en la sección de economía. Ademàs estoy sumamente molesto con la eliminacìón de las hermosas imagenes sobre geografía de Chile de la edición protegida.  Antarcticwik 19:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Laguna del Diamante
La imagen que cambiaste no era para nada la Laguna del Inca como vos decís. Vokoder 21:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * De que Laguna del Inca me estas hablando. Según mi opinión, la cual no ha cambiado, la imagen corresponde a Laguna del Inca, Portillo, Chile. Busca en google "Laguna del Inca". Jespinos 22:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Bueno eso según tu opinión pero el que tomó la foto fue mi papá y jamás lo hizo en Chile y menos en una "Laguna" que se llama del "Inca". Vokoder 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)