Hmmmn, I wonder if the best method would be to assume that the height at any point would be the weighted average of all the spot heights, where the weights are in inverse proportion to the distance ( or perhaps distance squared or some other weighting scheme )?
32.
:: I was going to put a quick stub together, but Peakery . com-Cedar Mountain gives a height of 7, 644 ft / 2, 330 m, whereas the map showing the Topographic Map of the Cedar Mountain Trail, Grand Canyon National Park shows a Cedar Mountain with a spot height of 7, 061 ft ( 2152 m ).
33.
In fact I am going to use a further refinement-instead of just using the square, I am going to estimate the exact power to use by disregarding each of the ten spot heights in turn, and finding what the power is that best predicts the disregarded spot height from the nine known spot heights, and then calculate the arithmetic average of these ten powers.
34.
In fact I am going to use a further refinement-instead of just using the square, I am going to estimate the exact power to use by disregarding each of the ten spot heights in turn, and finding what the power is that best predicts the disregarded spot height from the nine known spot heights, and then calculate the arithmetic average of these ten powers.
35.
In fact I am going to use a further refinement-instead of just using the square, I am going to estimate the exact power to use by disregarding each of the ten spot heights in turn, and finding what the power is that best predicts the disregarded spot height from the nine known spot heights, and then calculate the arithmetic average of these ten powers.
