COMPILATION MISTAKES

Please, can you compile here what you discover as mistakes in the website (for instance difference between location maps/topos; altitudes generalities/profiles/maps/topos). Be careful that the cotations (europoints, %) will be sonn updated. This thing to simplify the job of the BIG's managers. Thanks.

Svp, pouvez-vous ici compiler ce que vous découvrez comme erreurs dans le site (par exemple les différences entre les cartes topos et Google, les différences d'altitude entre les généralités, les profils, les cartes et les topos). Ceci pour simplifier le travail des managers du challenge. Merci.

I went through BIG 19-30 and found the following inconsistencies (there may be more, but these were the ones I spotted).

BIG 19 Sognefjellshytta: The stated height of 1440 m.a.s. does not match neither of the values given by the profiles. Further, the profiles indicate a length of 27 km rather than the stated 30 km. I am not sure which values are correct.

BIG 20 Valdresflya: For the N approach, a height difference of 421 meters over 13 km would give 3.3% average rather than the stated 3.1%. However, I am not sure what the precision in the measurement of the length is. If the value is rounded to the nearest km (in which case the length really should be stated as 13 km and not 13.0 km), the value of 3.1% can be correct (given that the actual length is close to 13.5 km).

BIG 21 Tyin Osen: The data for the NW approach cannot be right at all. The start of the climb is in Övre Årdal, which is located more or less at sealevel. The profile has to be of some other climb, because this climb is nowhere near 1445 m.a.s. at the finish. The stated value of 1117 m.a.s. seems more reasonable. Further, for the SE approach, the profile indicates a maximum height of 1081 m.a.s. while the stated height is 1117 m.a.s.

BIG 22 Juvasshytta: I believe that the stated length of 14.8 km rather should be 13.8 km. The latter value is compatible with what is stated on salite.ch and climbbybike.com and also makes the average gradient value correct. Further, it better matches the data given for the climb when I did it during Viking Tour 2007.

BIG 23 Osen: The profile for the W approach indicates a length of 16 km while it is stated as 23 km. Further, the hieght at the start of the climb is stated to be 230 m.a.s. I am pretty sure that this figure is too low based on the terrain view of the map and also based on having climbed past that point on the former BIG climb up to Filefjell (the first mountain on Jotunheimen rundt).

BIG 24 Nystölen: The stated 6.6% average gradient for the SE approach is incompatible with the length of 13.0 km and the height difference of 747 meters.

BIG 25 Stalheimskleiva: The profile indicates a height difference of 258 meters which differs from the stated one of 215 meters. The former figure better matches the stated average gradient of 12%. Also, I wonder if the stated max gradient of 25% is correct. Figures I have seen elsewhere are in the range of 22-23% and I have to say that while the climb is steep I did not perceive it as 25% when I climbed it. Admittedly though, max gradients are a difficult subject.

BIG 30 Lysefjordsveien: The top is stated to be 888 m.a.s. while the profile indicates 858 m.a.s. If the latter value is correct, the height difference is incorrect as well. Further, the profile indicates a length of 13 km while the stated value is 9.2 km. Regardless of which of these values that are the correct ones, they are incompatible with the stated average gradient of 11.7%. This value is too high unless the climb is shorter than 9.2 km and/or the height difference is larger than 852 meters.

Looked at the climbs in Sweden and found a couple of strange things:

BIG 31 Luossavaara: I seriously wonder which if any figures are correct here. On the map of the terrain it seems like the start of the climb is located above 500 m.a.s. while the stated value is 341 m.a.s. and the profile indicates 348 m.a.s. Looking at salite.ch/climbbybike.com, the value 528 m.a.s. appears. As for the profile, I think it actually is the profile for some other climb since the length and max height are nowhere near any values that seem likely to be true. Given that the stated starting height is too low, the average gradient is too large and should be adjusted. Further, from the story in the Description sections, it seems like the max gradient may be more like 20% than 28%, but this is just a guess as the text does not explicitly state the max gradient.

BIG 33 Stekkenjokk: The stated length of the climbs do not seem to match the ones indicated by the profiles.

BIG 34 Flatruet: The profile for the N approach is, at least in my viewer, extremely cluttered with length and height figures on top of each other making them extremely hard to read. However, I think that the length of the climb as indicated by the profile may be larger than the stated value of 23 km.

BIG 35 Sälen Högfjällshotellet: The E approach is stated to be 9.0 km while the profile indicates a larger value although the scale is really confusing. As for the W approach, the stated length is 8.5 km while the profile indicates that it is perhaps 14.5 km. Regardless of which value is correct, the stated average gradient of 1% is too low.

BIG 36 Vemdalsskalet: The stated lengths and maximum heights for both approaches are inconsistent with what is indicated by the profiles. If the profiles are correct, average gradients need to be corrected. Looking at the profile on climbbybike.com seem to support the stated value for the length of the W approach, but not the height. Also, the story given in one of the Description links is not consistent with that profile.

BIG 37 Nipstugan Pass: Another climb with inconsistent data. The top of the climb is stated as being 1000 m.a.s. which seems reasonably consistent with the terrain view. However, the profile shows 772 m.a.s. while the climbbybike profile gives 844 m.a.s. Since the stated length is 13 km while the profile indicates 7 km I guess that the profile perhaps only shows the first half of the climb.

BIG 38 Bispbergs klack: Having ridden the climb, I can with 100% certainty say that the profile is incorrect. Further, it does not match the terrain map. However, I was involved in a discussion regarding whether this climb should at all be included in the list and Daniel seemed to agree with me that it may be worth replacing it with a more suitable one. This said, it may not be worth the effort trying to obtain correct data of this climb.

BIG 39 Tossebergsklätten: The stated length is 2.0 km while the profile suggests 2.7 km. Regardless of which value is true, the average gradient ought to be larger than 9.0% given that the height difference is correct. Also the max gradient has to be corrected.

BIG 40 Hunneberg: The N approach states 3.0 km length while the profile gives 3.7 km. Regardless of which, the average gradient has to be more than the stated 2% (correct rounding would give 3%).

BIG 41 Högkullen: The N approach is stated to be 4.0 km while the profile indicates 4.8 km. The latter value also makes the average gradient correct.

Hi, thanks Goran (thank to Marnix too!).
Nrs 19->26 have been updated in this way.
Some mistakes were coming from unwanted spaces between some gradients, other ones from mismatches between feet'heights.
I also tried that the page descriptions would be in agreement with the datas and the profiles.
Little by little, it'll become better.

More today, nr 30 and 31 have been done with new profiles.
Nr 33 has been updated (the feet weren't good).
Nr 34 has also new profiles.

Well, all the swedish climbs have been corrected.
Is this ok for you, dear Goran ?
Tell me your advices, you're a great help for us !
Can you eventually give me all the dats about Klevedalen, the one that will surely take the place of Bispbergs Klack (I haven't corrected currently the Bispbergs because it will surely disappear).

I'll have a look at it as soon as possible. Perhaps tomorrow night.

Absolutely an improvement! I don´t want to be picky, but I think there may still be a few inconsistencies, however. Perhaps some are related to lack of valid profiles. If that is the case, it may be better to not have any profile at all rather than an incorrect one.

Number 35: the length of the western approach still seems to be in conflict with the profile.

Number 36: The profiles indicate that the top is at 860 or 1071 m.a.s. while the text, which seems to match the terrain map, gives the value 710 m.a.s.

Number 40: The stated lengths of 9km and 11.8km do not match the lengths indicated by the profiles (look more like 3.6 km and 4.2 km).

Number 41: The length of the northern approach seems to have been changed from 4.0 to 4.3 km. To me, it still appears when looking at the profile that the climb is something like 4.8 km.

With regards to Klevaliden, which was the climb I gave as a suggestion for a climb to replace Bispbergsklack, I have to admit that I have not climbed it myself. It is just one of those climbs you typically would hear swedish cyclists mention if they start discussing climbs in Sweden. The following gives a description http://www.ikhp.se/cykel/norraklevaliden.aspx and states that the length of the climb is 1.3km, the average gradient is 10%, the maximum gradient is 15% and the total height difference to be 130 meters. However, the link to the profile (http://www.ikhp.se/upload/cykel/documents/Norra%20Klevaliden/backprofil%20N%20Klevaliden.JPG) does not seem to be in complete agreement with these data, so I think we really need someone to go and measure it properly. I'll see if I can come up with some better information, but I am afraid that is the best I can do for now. From what I have heard, the figures given above should at least be quite close to the truth, from what I have heard, so they could perhaps be used until some more reliable ones are available.

Thanks a lot for your congratulations and your remarks.
Marnix and I are still working on numbers 33 to 41. See the profiles and descriptions at the end of the week and tell us what about at that time. Everyhting normally will be updated.

For Klevaliden, I've measured on Google Earth. Here are the results. You'll see that the wall is in fact 1300m long but that the whole climb is 5km long with the wall in the middle part. It's an excellent swedish climb according to the video, the mediatic criteria, the steepness of the middle section and the good surface.

Foot at Norrängen - 2d name = Norra Klevaliden
Top at 57°49'27.80" N & 14°18'35.13" E
5km long
gradients (100m by 100m) :
3/-1/2/2/4/4/13/2/1/0/0/0/9/3/6/11/10/12/13/5/13/15/17/12/5/-1/-7/0/2/2/5/7/6/3/0/-2/-1/-7/-5/4/10/7/0/3/3/3/3/3/3/7

Europoints = 240,6
%moyen = 4,2 %
%maximum = 17 % on 100m.
Streets ridden : Järnvägesgatan - Sylviagatan - Nergslagsgatan - Norra Parksgatan - (begin of the wall) Bondegatan - Lundenvägen - Norra Klevaliden - (à g.) Smedstorpsgatan - (à dr.) no name. Top near the houses and tennis courts.

Oh, I am sorry. I thought you had finished the updating of the Swedish climbs. My mistake.

Regarding Klevaliden, I think that letting this climb replace Bispbergsklack is a real improvement to the list.

The given coordinates and therefore also the location of the top in google maps of BIG#833 Pereval Vyshkovskiy is about 10 kilometers off.

The right coordinates of Pereval Vyshkovskiy are:
48.70285,23.634424
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=nl&geocode=&q=Pereval+Vyshkovskiy&sll=48.748153,23.703003&sspn=0.052519,0.110378&g=Pereval+Vyshkovskiy&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Pereval+Vyshkovskiy&ll=48.7,23.633333spn=0.05257,0.110378&t=p&z=13

The Pereval Vyshkovskiy is also known as Вишківський перевал (Vyshkiv Pass) or Torunskiy mountain pass and seems to be 931m heigh
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/9763651

The topomap also does not show the Pereval Vyshkovskiy but a different mountain pass/col (about 25km to the west) with these coordinates:
48.758535,23.314533
http://maps.google.com/maps?source=s_q&hl=nl&geocode=&q=%D0%91%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B4&sll=48.767165,23.317795&sspn=0.02625,0.055189&ie=UTF8&hq=%D0%91%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B4&split=1&hnear=&ll=48.757377,23.313589&spn=0.02501,0.055189&z=14

Succes!

Google maps top location of Passo del Ghiffi shows the lower and 2 km south Passo del Bocco...

topo-map is right.

You're right for both, Joostov. Thanks a lot, we'll manage it in time.

There is some mistake regarding the height of the climb Puerto de Tudons.

The general information states that the top is at 1547 mas while the photograph says 1024 mas.
The map seems to support the 1024 figure.
Also, the profiles show the climb ending at either 1176 mas or 1547 mas depending on which approach you use.

For Puerto de Tudons, it's a very old problem .
What to choose between Puerto de Tudons (1024) and Aitana TV tower (1547). Aitana is a very often arrival in the professional tour Vuelta a España but is a military field and very often closed to cyclists.
We hesitated and sometimes we chose Tudons because some guys told us it was closed and afterwards Aitana because some other guys told us it was opened.
Well, it's the reason of the confusions.
But well, currently it's Tudons and we have to update the website in this way.

I see.

By the way, it sounds very reasonable to me to not include military areas.

The coordinates and therefor the place in Google Maps of BIGs 836 and 837 are incorrect.

836 should be: 50.75171691961117 15.54938793182373
http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=nl&geocode=&q=Vrbatova+Bouda&sll=50.751498,15.548945&sspn=0.081673,0.15398&ie=UTF8&hq=Vrbatova+Bouda&hnear=&t=p&z=13&iwloc=A&cid=12480573884993370822
Topo map is correct

837 should be: 50.762956403202075 15.63405990600586
http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=nl&geocode=&q=%C5%A0pindlerova+Bouda&sll=50.746123,15.811558&sspn=0.040841,0.07699&g=50.746938,15.822372&ie=UTF8&ll=50.763174,15.637836&spn=0.039469,0.07699&t=p&z=14&iwloc=A&cid=13903199840500338941
Topo map is correct

The general information states that the top is at 1547 mas while the photograph says 1024 mas.
The map seems to support the 1024 figure.
Also, the profiles show the climb ending at either 1176 mas or 1547
_______________________
search engine optimisation consultancy
siti e-commerce

The general information states that the top is at 1547 mas while the photograph says 1024 mas.
The map seems to support the 1024 figure.
Also, the profiles show the climb ending at either 1176 mas or 1547 mas depending on which approach you use.
_____________________
search engine optimisation consultancy
siti e-commerce