| 49 |
| 66/1 |
RE
CE
NZ
IRA
NI
 ČL
AN
KI 
| P
EE
R-
RE
VIE
W
ED
 AR
TIC
LE
S
V
G 202
2
GEODETSKI VESTNIK | letn. / Vol. 66 | št. / No. 1 |
ABSTRACT IZVLEČEK SI 
 |  
EN
KLJUČNE BESEDE KEY WORDS
altitude, mountain, GNSS, LiDAR, triangulation 
measurements, historical map, measurement comparison
višina, gora, GNSS, lidar, triangulacijske meritve, zgodovinska 
karta, primerjava meritev
This study aimed to measure and validate altitudes 
from existing sources with direct GNSS measurements 
and airborne lidar data. For this purpose, 12 mountain 
peaks located in the south part of Polish territory were 
selected. Measurements were performed using a GNSS 
receiver using the Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) or static 
techniques enabling altitude measurements with accuracy 
of 10 cm. GNSS was treated as the primary data source, 
as the direct field measurements can determine the highest 
point on each peak. The obtained results were confronted 
with historical, internet sources, and official altitude data. 
Moreover, each altitude was determined using lidar data 
from an airborne lidar dataset of Poland from the ISOK 
program and provided by the national agency. Significant 
discrepancies in data were already detected during the 
analysis of internet materials and traditional maps, up to a 
few meters. The differences between measured and internet 
sources in altitude of mountain peak range from 27 cm to 
504 cm. This study has shown the need to re-measure the 
altitudes of the mountain peaks and determine the highest 
point correctly.
Namen raziskave je bil izmeriti in določiti nadmorske 
višine 12 gorskih vrhov s kombinacijo meritev GNSS in 
lidarskih podatkov. Izbrane gore se nahajajo na jugu Poljske. 
Meritve GNSS smo izvedli s statično ali kinematično 
metodo v realnem času (RTK) izmere GNSS. Izmero GNSS 
smo obravnavali kot primarni vir podatkov, saj lahko le 
z neposrednimi meritvami na terenu določimo najvišjo 
točko na vsakem vrhu. Dobljene rezultate smo primerjali 
z zgodovinskimi, internetnimi viri in uradnimi podatki 
o nadmorskih višinah. Poleg tega smo vsako nadmorsko 
višino določili še z uporabo lidarskih podatkov Poljske iz 
programa ISOK, ki jih je zagotovila nacionalna agencija. 
Že pri analizi internetnega gradiva in zemljevidov smo 
zaznali odstopanja v višinah vrhov velika do nekaj metrov. 
Razlike med izmerjenimi in internetnimi viri višin gorskih 
vrhov so med 27 cm in 504 cm. Z raziskavo smo pokazali, 
da bo treba ponovna višine gorskih vrhov Poljske izmeriti 
še enkrat, pri čemer bo treba posebno pozornost posvetiti 
določitvi najvišje točke gorskega vrha.
DOI: 10.15292/geodetski-vestnik.2022.01.49-59
PROFESSIONAL ARTICLE
Received: 27. 12. 2021
Accepted: 4. 3. 2022
UDK: 528.37:551.4.035:528.9 
Klasifikacija prispevka po COBISS.SI: 1.04
Prispelo: 27. 12. 2021
Sprejeto: 4. 3. 2022
Katarzyna Chwedczuk, Daniel Cienkosz, Michal Apollo, Lukasz Borowski, Paulina Lewinska,
Celso Augusto Guimarães Santos, Kennedy Eborka, Sandeep Kulshreshtha, Rosendo Romero-Andrade, 
Ahmed Sedeek, Aive Liibusk, Kamil Maciuk
CHALLENGES RELATED TO 
THE DETERMINATION OF 
ALTITUDES OF MOUNTAIN 
PEAKS PRESENTED ON 
CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES 
IZZIVI PRI DOLOČANJU 
VIŠIN GORSKIH VRHOV, 
KOT SO NAVEDENE V 
KARTOGRAFSKIH VIRIH
Chwedczuk K. et al. | IZZIVI PRI DOLOČANJU VIŠIN GORSKIH VRHOV, KOT SO NAVEDENE V KARTOGRAFSKIH VIRIH |  CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE DETERMINATION OF ALTITUDES OF MOUNTAIN 
PEAKS PRESENTED ON CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES | 49-59 |
| 50 |
| 66/1 | GEODETSKI VESTNIK  
RE
CE
NZ
IRA
NI
 ČL
AN
KI 
| P
EE
R-
RE
VIE
W
ED
 AR
TIC
LE
S
SI 
| E
N
Chwedczuk K. et al. | IZZIVI PRI DOLOČANJU VIŠIN GORSKIH VRHOV, KOT SO NAVEDENE V KARTOGRAFSKIH VIRIH |  CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE DETERMINATION OF ALTITUDES OF MOUNTAIN 
PEAKS PRESENTED ON CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES | 49-59 |
1 INTRODUCTION
The oldest geodetic points in the territory of Poland were established almost 200 years ago. The first 
triangulation network was set up in Congress Kingdom (1815–1832), especially industrial districts 
(Banasik and Bujakowski 2021). It consists of 3080 triangles measured in the period 1829–1835 (Olsze-
wicz 1921). The triangulation network was constructed as a three- or four- arc network, consisting of 
main, intermediate, and subordinate triangles. All angles were measured in the main and intermediate 
triangles. At the same time, the coordinates of the lowermost points were determined by cutting forward 
from three positions or by cutting back to four points. The accuracy limit for determining the position 
of a new point was assumed to be ± 5 cm with respect to the determining points (Ksawery 1959). The 
triangulation network in the former Austrian part included several mountain peaks, for example, Turbacz 
in the Gorce range or Hoverla in the Czarnochory range. To this day, a concrete obelisks which have 
replaced the old triangular towers have been preserved. 
When looking for information on the altitude of mountain peaks, one can use an internet search engine, 
internet maps, traditional maps, and other written sources. When comparing the most popular websites, 
it can be noticed that the desired information searched for is not comparable with each other. Usually, 
databases have old altitude information resulting from historical measurements obtained with low-
accuracy methods that are not used anymore at present. The importance of accurately determining the 
height of peaks is communicated not only by professional journals in the field of surveying but also, for 
example, by tourism (Apollo et al. 2020; Ziegler et al. 2021; Prokop, Nazarko, and Ziemiański 2021). 
The mountain peaks were measured everywhere in Europe since at least 1800 as part of basic triangulation 
measurements to enable the primary network for other measurements (later called coordinate systems). 
Such measurements started with Struve Geodetic Arc in 1816–1855 (Lamparska and Danch 2021). 
However, there is a little information in the current literature on similar past measurements. 
The historical trigonometrical measurements of mountain peaks that are still often referred to today 
are those of the most outstanding mountains, such as Mount Everest (Angus-Leppan 1982; de Graaff-
Hunter 1955), Mount Blanc (de Beer 1956), Kilimanjaro (Saburi et al. 2000; TeamKILI2008 2009) or 
Rysy Mountain (Poland) (Makowska 2003). Later those peaks have been thoroughly remeasured using 
the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) technique.
Moreover, terrestrial laser scanning or airborne laser scanning (lidar) has become more prevalent in recent 
years (Lenda et al. 2016; Prokop, Nazarko, and Ziemiański 2021; Tometzová et al. 2020)infrastructure of 
rail routes, or development of digital elevation models for a wide range of applications. These issues often 
require the use of a variety of scanning techniques (stationary, mobile. As we will later show, all peaks 
should have their altitudes verified due to either data obsolescence, use of different reference heights, or 
incorrect determination of the highest top of the peak. It is worth noting that often-erroneous informa-
tion is contained in tourist maps, websites, and other sources used to plan tourist routes. In recent years, 
digital terrain models (DTM) have become more popular due to the post-processing of point clouds 
based on airborne lidar, but there is still a lack of such measurement. In 2019 a project was conducted 
(AGH 2019), where authors measured the highest peaks and additional peaks, which could also be 
among the highest peaks in 28 Polish mountains mesoregions. Finally, 40 peaks were measured using 
both GNSS and LiDAR techniques for each. Firstly, it turns out that seven out of 28 peaks are not the 
| 51 |
GEODETSKI VESTNIK | 66/1 |
RE
CE
NZ
IRA
NI
 ČL
AN
KI 
| P
EE
R-
RE
VIE
W
ED
 AR
TIC
LE
S
SI 
| E
N
Chwedczuk K. et al. | IZZIVI PRI DOLOČANJU VIŠIN GORSKIH VRHOV, KOT SO NAVEDENE V KARTOGRAFSKIH VIRIH |  CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE DETERMINATION OF ALTITUDES OF MOUNTAIN 
PEAKS PRESENTED ON CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES | 49-59 |
highest. Secondly, the height differences between GNSS vs. LiDAR reached up to 2.4 m. Thirdly dif-
ferences between commonly known (catalogued) altitudes could reach up to 19 m because some points 
were incorrectly assumed to be on the top of the mountains, e.g., point marked at the top of the tourist/
GSM towers. In this paper, unlike the one mentioned above, the entire mountain range was analysed 
rather than the individual mountain peaks in different ranges. This methodology was intended to verify, 
if less known or less frequently visited mountain peaks had altitudes determined with greater error than 
mountain peaks that are more known.
The study aims to thoroughly analyse the available information on the altitude of selected mountain 
peaks, but with different types of cover land (i.e., grass, trees, or rocks). We sequentially measured these 
peaks using GNSS technique and analysed the obtained results to assess the reliability and consistency 
among the different data sources. The procedure to get available information, analyse the data, select 
the measurement sites, and the GNSS techniques, measurement procedure, obtaining results and the 
analysis of such results is presented. 
2 TEST AREA
Beskid Żywiecki is located in the south of Poland. It is the highest mountain group of the Polish Beskids 
and at the same time, the second-highest massif in the entire Western Carpathians (Solon et al. 2018). 
In this region, there are the peaks of Babia Góra and Pilska, the only ones in Western Beskids that rise 
above the forest line. This mountain range is made of sedimentary rocks known as flysch. Flysch is an 
alternating sequence of the grey colour of sandstones, and sometimes also conglomerates and clayey 
(Łoboz 2013). The selected 12 mountain peaks are located on the Polish-Slovak border in the Śląskie 
and Małopolskie voivodships (Figure 1, selected peaks – black dots).
Figure 1: Mountain peaks (black dots) location on the Polish-Slovak border (Map layer from (GUGiK 2022).
The mountain massif consists of 12 peaks located on the 31.3 km long route between mountains Babia 
Góra and Trzy Kopce. The altitudes of the selected peaks are between ~800 m and ~1730 m, as shown 
in the profile in Figure 2.
The selected peaks are characterised by different covers on the top of the mountain: Babia Góra (Diablak), 
Mała Babia Góra (Cyl), and Pięciu Kopców are covered by rocks. Jałowcowy Garb, Beskid Krzyżowski, 
Beskid Korbielowski (Westka) and Student (Zimna) have trees on the top, while Mędralowa, Munczolik 
have grass, Jaworzyna, Palenica and Trzy Kopce have trees as well as grass.
| 52 |
| 66/1 | GEODETSKI VESTNIK  
RE
CE
NZ
IRA
NI
 ČL
AN
KI 
| P
EE
R-
RE
VIE
W
ED
 AR
TIC
LE
S
SI 
| E
N
Chwedczuk K. et al. | IZZIVI PRI DOLOČANJU VIŠIN GORSKIH VRHOV, KOT SO NAVEDENE V KARTOGRAFSKIH VIRIH |  CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE DETERMINATION OF ALTITUDES OF MOUNTAIN 
PEAKS PRESENTED ON CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES | 49-59 |
Figure 2: Profile of selected route of measurement (https://mapa-turystyczna.pl).
3 METHODOLOGY
In this paper, each peak was measured by direct (field) measurements using dual-frequency GNSS 
receiver Leica GS16. On the peaks where a fix (precise) solution is available, RTK mode was used 
(six peaks) for three independent measurements of 30 s. Final altitude is a mean from these three 
values. In the case of obstructed view due to sky conditions and GSM signals, 1 h static GNSS 
measurements were made (six peaks). After that, in a post-processing using Leica Geo Office 8.4 
(LGO) software altitudes were determined. On the peaks where the highest point was covered by 
trees or was impossible to lay on it GNSS antenna, an eccentric point (with good sky visibility), was 
established. With the use of geometric levelling, altitude differences between the top of the peak and 
eccentric point were determined. When GNSS was placed on the geodetic mark (Figure 5b) altitude 
was also reduced by height of the geodetic mark, to enable comparison with other measurements. In 
an RTK mode, the authors used the ASG-EUPOS (http://www.asgeupos.pl). On the selected terri-
tory, the nearest station was ZYWI (Zywiec, blue dot), located 18 km to 26.7 km from the selected 
mountain peaks (Figure 3).
Figure 3: ASG-EUPOS reference stations (GUGiK 2022).
The levelling was used when the top of the peak was ambiguous (Figure 4). The highest point at the peak 
was then located using a levelling instrument and a level rod in the grass.
| 53 |
GEODETSKI VESTNIK | 66/1 |
RE
CE
NZ
IRA
NI
 ČL
AN
KI 
| P
EE
R-
RE
VIE
W
ED
 AR
TIC
LE
S
SI 
| E
N
Chwedczuk K. et al. | IZZIVI PRI DOLOČANJU VIŠIN GORSKIH VRHOV, KOT SO NAVEDENE V KARTOGRAFSKIH VIRIH |  CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE DETERMINATION OF ALTITUDES OF MOUNTAIN 
PEAKS PRESENTED ON CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES | 49-59 |
Figure 4: An ambiguous identifiable highest point in Mędralowa.
The levelling instrument was set between the potentially highest points, and the measurement was per-
formed in the same way. Then, after analysing the obtained differences, the highest point was selected, 
and a static or RTK measurement was performed.
The measurement trip took place on June 23, 2020; measurements were performed by two independent 
field teams using three Leica GS16 receivers. The first stage was to reach the top of each mountain, select 
the highest point, and proceed with the RTK measurement, if the sky visibility was sufficient. If the fix 
solution was unavailable, static measurement was performed, or the eccentric point was determined. 
Figure 5 shows the weather conditions during RTK measurement at the Babia Góra (left) and on the 
Jalowcowy Garb (right). The time difference between measurements at those two points is only 2 hours.
Figure 5: GNSS measurements at the Babia Góra (a) and the Jalowcowy Garb (b).
| 54 |
| 66/1 | GEODETSKI VESTNIK  
RE
CE
NZ
IRA
NI
 ČL
AN
KI 
| P
EE
R-
RE
VIE
W
ED
 AR
TIC
LE
S
SI 
| E
N
Chwedczuk K. et al. | IZZIVI PRI DOLOČANJU VIŠIN GORSKIH VRHOV, KOT SO NAVEDENE V KARTOGRAFSKIH VIRIH |  CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE DETERMINATION OF ALTITUDES OF MOUNTAIN 
PEAKS PRESENTED ON CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES | 49-59 |
Due to the location of the peaks on the Polish-Slovak border and dense forest and grass on the majority 
of the peaks, there were problems performing RTK corrections through the GSM service. Therefore, 
in half of the peaks, it was decided to proceed with a GNSS static measurement (Table 2). The static 
observations were post-processed by LGO using the final IGS orbit in a combination of ionosphere-free 
phase observations based on a GPS survey. Then, the average heights were determined based on the 
height anomaly from the PL-geoid-2011 quasi-geoid model on the WGS-84 ellipsoid (Kadaj 2012). In 
the case of RTK measurements, average heights were established directly from the model, as mentioned 
earlier. The published results were provided according to the national height reference system Kroonstad 
‚86, PL-KRON86-NH (Rada Ministrów 2012). Moreover, based on the DTM provided by the Pol-
ish government geodetic association called GUGiK (GUGiK 2022) and peak coordinates from GNSS 
measurement for each peak, altitudes from 1 × 1 m lidar grid were determined based on the airborne 
laser scanning ISOK project (Wężyk 2015). 
The ISOK program data (aerial laser scanning (lidar) of Poland was performed between 2011 and 2014) 
was intended to be used for early warning and monitoring of natural disasters, mainly floods. This data 
set consists of a lidar point cloud, a DTM, and a digital surface model (DSM) in raster format. The lidar 
point cloud was acquired using an airborne platform consisting of an LMS-Q680i RIEGL laser scanner, 
GNSS antenna, and a camera installed on a plane flying about 950 meters. The lidar point clouds were 
created by registering flat rooftop surfaces. The surfaces were defined by four corners that were measured 
using tachymetry. Tachymetric measurements were taken from two sites determined using real-time kin-
ematic GPS (RTK-GPS). The RGB colors were added to the registered point cloud from an orthomosaic 
of pictures taken during separate flights. The scanning parameters were as follows: the size of the laser 
beam on the surface was 0.29 m; the density of points varied, being denser in the direction parallel to 
the flight route at 0.45 m and less dense in the perpendicular direction of 0.47 m; and there was a 35 % 
the overlap between parallel scanning. The observed density varies within a typical inter-point spacing 
of 0.20 m to 0.45 m. During the 2011–2014 period, the research region was scanned with a resolution 
greater or equal to 12 pts/m2 for cities with a population greater than 50 000 people and less than 4 pts/
m2 for the rest of the Poland territory. Thus, data presented in this paper have a ≥4 pts/m2 resolution, 
which leads to <0.5 m distance between each point. Data were collected during leaf-off season (middle 
of October-middle to April) to avoid difficulties in penetration through the vegetation by laser beam. 
4 RESULTS
After selecting the mountain peaks, sources containing the peaks’ altitudes, such as websites, mountain 
guides, and maps, were identified and initially analysed (Table 1). Source [1] (column 3) from Table 
1 (Wikipedia) in Poland is treated as the official one, because it is constantly updated and monitored 
by the public and some moderators. Other internet sources, [2]-[5] ([2] https://mapa-turystyczna.pl, 
[3] http://igrek.amzp.pl, [4] https://zbgis.skgeodesy.sk, [5] https://mapy.hiking.sk), were developed by 
public or private companies or are sites created by private persons; thus, government or academic com-
munity has no direct influence on these sites and cannot be considered official. While all of the paper 
sources ([6]-[18], columns 8-20) are archival because they were up-to-date on the date of publication, 
and often the altitudes in these sources are directly copied from previous editions (compare sources [15] 
(Compass 2003) and [16] (Compass 2011) – no differences, one extra peak was added). It can be seen 
| 55 |
GEODETSKI VESTNIK | 66/1 |
RE
CE
NZ
IRA
NI
 ČL
AN
KI 
| P
EE
R-
RE
VIE
W
ED
 AR
TIC
LE
S
SI 
| E
N
Chwedczuk K. et al. | IZZIVI PRI DOLOČANJU VIŠIN GORSKIH VRHOV, KOT SO NAVEDENE V KARTOGRAFSKIH VIRIH |  CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE DETERMINATION OF ALTITUDES OF MOUNTAIN 
PEAKS PRESENTED ON CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES | 49-59 |
in the Table 1 that the year of source release has a significant impact on the completeness of the data for 
this route. The altitude differences of the same peaks from two different sources are within 10 m (e.g., 
Beskid Korbielowski). In most cases, the peak heights are usually rounded to the nearest 1 m, except for 
the Third Military Survey map where they are rounded to nearest 1 dm (Bargański et al. 2013). Even 
though there is no need to round the numbers in a mountaineering books, they are in most classes still 
rounded to meter as they are mainly copied from previous map sources. 
One of the most popular sources in Poland is the Tourist map – TM, (polish mapa turystyczna, (TM 2021)), 
a website that allows route planning based on OSM (openstreetmap.org). Still, a commercial company 
maintains this web page, being ad-supported. Altitudes in the TM webpage are mainly rounded to 1 m. 
Table 1: Comparison of the altitude of the examined peaks from various sources.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
No
Internet sources 1884 1934 1951 1957 1978 1986 1987 1993 1999 2003 2011 2013 2015
               No of source
Peak
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
1 Babia Góra 1725 1723 1724 1725 1725 1724 1724 1725 1724,8 1725 1725 1725 1724,6 1724,6 1725 1725
2 Mała Babia Góra (Cyl) 1517 1515 1517 1515 1517 1517 1517 1517 1514,6 1517 1517 1515 1515 1515 1517 1517
3 Jałowcowy Garb 1017 1017 1017 1017 1017 1017
4 Mędralowa 1169 1169 1169 1168 1169 1169 1169 1170 1168,1 1170 1170 1169 1169 1169 1169 1169
5 Jaworzyna 1047 1047 1050 1047 1047 1050 1050 1050 1046,5 1050 1050 1046 1046 1047 1047 1047 1047 1047
6 Beskid Krzyżowski 923 923 923 923 923 923,4 923 923 923 923 923 923 923
7
Beskid Korbielowski 
(Westka)
955 954 954 954 946 946 948 954,5 954 954 954 955 955 954 955
8 Student (Zimna) 935 935 935 935 935 935 935 935 935 935 935 935
9 Góra Pięciu Kopców 1534 1534 1542 1542
10 Munczolik 1356 1356 1356 1356 1350,5 1356 1356 1356 1356 1356 1356
11 Palenica 1343 1338 1343 1339 1343 1343 1338,8 1343 1343 1343 1343 1343 1338 1343
12 Trzy Kopce 1216 1216 1216 1216 1216 1211,4 1216 1216 1216 1216 1216 1216
Number of peaks in a source 12 12 7 6 7 9 9 7 9 4 4 7 7 7 11 12 11 12
[1] https://pl.wikipedia.org [2] https://mapa-turystyczna.pl [3] http://igrek.amzp.pl [4] https://zbgis.skgeodesy.sk [5] https://mapy.hiking.sk [6] III. MS: the Third Military 
Survey (1875-1884) (Bargański et al. 2013) [7] III. MS 1920-1934_reamb.: the Third Military Survey – updated in 1920-1934 (Bargański et al. 2013) [8] (Pagaczewski 
1951) [9] TM25 1952-1957: Military topographic maps 1:25 000 /1952-1957) (Bargański et al. 2013) [10] (Wojterski 1978) [11] (Miodowicz 1986) [12] (PPWK 1987) 
[13] (PPWK 1993) [14]  (Warzecha-Tober, Stańczyk, and Figiel 1997) [15] (Compass 2003) [16] (Compass 2011) [17] https://merlin.pl/beskid-slaski-i-zywiecki-mapa-
turystyczna-skala-150-000-expressmap/3066763 [18] https://goryiludzie.pl/mapy-online/beskid-zywiecki
The results obtained during the measurements are summarized in Table 2. They were compared with 
the most popular and accessible sources, TM and DTM. The comparison was made by calculating the 
difference in altitudes between GNSS measurement and the TM (which is the main result of the paper) 
and DTM altitudes (this is just quality control of lidar products by GNSS measurements).
Comparing the obtained results with the altitudes on the TM, the smallest difference in altitude occurs 
at the top of Beskid Korbielowski and is equal to 0.27 m, and the largest was at the Trzy Kopce, which 
is  5.04 m. The discrepancy is very large – the measurement on the Trzy Kopce was carried out using a 
static method and therefore, can be regarded as very accurate. Comparing the measurement results with 
the DTM with a 1 m × 1 m grid shows that the highest compliance is found at the two peaks, Palenica 
and Trzy Kopce, and is 0.06 m. The most significant discrepancy, equal to 0.60 m, is observed at the top 
of the Babia Góra. The remaining results are consistent within 0.17 m. Considering that the altitudes of 
| 56 |
| 66/1 | GEODETSKI VESTNIK  
RE
CE
NZ
IRA
NI
 ČL
AN
KI 
| P
EE
R-
RE
VIE
W
ED
 AR
TIC
LE
S
SI 
| E
N
Chwedczuk K. et al. | IZZIVI PRI DOLOČANJU VIŠIN GORSKIH VRHOV, KOT SO NAVEDENE V KARTOGRAFSKIH VIRIH |  CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE DETERMINATION OF ALTITUDES OF MOUNTAIN 
PEAKS PRESENTED ON CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES | 49-59 |
the peaks on the maps are rounded to 1 m, then when comparing the TM and GNSS measurements,  7 
out of 12 peaks (58%) are in range of 1m difference. No altitude on the TM is reported with a measure-
ment accuracy of 10 cm (Figure 6). Moreover, half of the peaks (six peaks) are in the range of rounding 
error of 1 m (dashed blue lines), and only three values are more than ±2 m, which is still very good, 
considering the classic statistical behaviour of errors when checking the accuracy with three times better 
measuring method. Only Gora Pieciu Kopcow and Trzy Kopce (error > 4 m) might be treated as obvious 
measurement errors or erroneously adopted top of the peak in a previous measurement.
Table 2: Comparison of the altitude from GNSS measurement vs TM and DTM.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Nr Peak
GNSS 
measurement 
method
Altitude [m] Different in altitude [m]
GNSS TM DTM
Airborne 
data
GNSS-
TM
GNSS-
DTM
GNSS-
Airborne data
1 Babia Góra RTK 1723.60 1723.0 1723.0 1723.2 0.60 0.60 0.40
2 Mała Babia Góra (Cyl) Static 1516.98 1515.0 1516.9 1517 1.98 0.08 -0.02
3 Jałowcowy Garb Static 1016.54 1017.0 1016.4 1016.5 −0.46 0.14 0.04
4 Mędralowa Static 1168.50 1169.0 1168.4 1168.4 −0.50 0.10 0.10
5 Jaworzyna Static 1047.38 1047.0 1047.3 1047.4 0.38 0.08 -0.02
6 Beskid Krzyżowski RTK 923.40 923.0 923.5 923.5 0.40 −0.10 -0.10
7 Beskid Korbielowski RTK 954.27 954.0 954.1 954.2 0.27 0.17 0.07
8 Student (Zimna) RTK 935.92 935.0 935.8 935.9 0.92 0.12 0.02
9 Góra Pięciu Kopców Static 1536.82 1534.0 1536.9 1536.9 2.82 −0.08 -0.08
10 Munczolik RTK 1351.43 1356.0 1351.5 1351.5 −4.57 −0.07 -0.07
11 Palenica RTK 1339.46 1338.0 1339.4 1339.4 1.46 0.06 0.06
12 Trzy Kopce Static 1210.96 1216.0 1210.9 1210.9 −5.04 0.06 0.06
 
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
Al
tit
ud
e 
di
ffe
re
nc
e 
[m
]
Mountain
Figure 6: Altitude differences GNSS measurements and altitudes from TM.
Comparing the DTM data with the GNSS measurement, it can be noticed that the differences on 8 out 
of 12 peaks (67%) do not exceed 10 cm (Table 2, column 9), while all differences are within 1 m. With 
| 57 |
GEODETSKI VESTNIK | 66/1 |
RE
CE
NZ
IRA
NI
 ČL
AN
KI 
| P
EE
R-
RE
VIE
W
ED
 AR
TIC
LE
S
SI 
| E
N
Chwedczuk K. et al. | IZZIVI PRI DOLOČANJU VIŠIN GORSKIH VRHOV, KOT SO NAVEDENE V KARTOGRAFSKIH VIRIH |  CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE DETERMINATION OF ALTITUDES OF MOUNTAIN 
PEAKS PRESENTED ON CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES | 49-59 |
this we just made a quality control of lidar DTM data by GNSS measurements. Such a result is most 
satisfactory, and the differences should be explained by the small resolution of the model (1 m × 1 m), 
not its accuracy. The difference between the GNSS measurement and the DTM at Babia Góra is 0.60 
m, which is different from the others, mainly due to the fact that its highest point was measured with the 
GNSS on the top of rock (Figure 5a), and not on the ground as with LIDAR. An interesting phenomenon 
is a fact that on five peaks: Mała Babia Góra (Cyl), Góra Pięciu Kopców, Munczolik, Palenica and Trzy 
Kopce, the differences GNSS-TM are the highest and in a range between 1.46–5.04 m, and at the same 
time at those peaks the differences between GNSS-DTM are the smallest, ranging from 0.06–0.08 m. 
This shows the need to change the altitudes of these peaks in the existing sources, as they do not contain 
reliable or up-to-date data. Table 2 column 10 shows the differences between GNSS measurement and 
the lidar data set from ISOK program. As shown those values are even smaller than GNSS-DTM, and 
only two values are greater than 10 cm. Comparing results from the DTM and lidar data, the results 
from the lidar data are much more similar to the GNSS measurements, most of them within 10 cm.
5 DISCUSSION
This paper presents the results of GNSS measurements of some selected peaks in the Beskid Żywiecki 
mountains. All measured altitudes are shown in a standard heights system, determined based on the height 
anomaly from the PL-geoid-2011 quasi-geoid model on the WGS-84 ellipsoid. The most comparable 
paper sources with TM are: [18]  (https://goryiludzie.pl/mapy-online/beskid-zywiecki) with 11 mountain 
peaks having the same altitude among 12 checked mountain peaks (92% compatibility), [15] (Compass 
2003) with 9 among 11 (82%) and [17] (https://merlin.pl/beskid-slaski-i-zywiecki-mapa-turystyczna-
skala-150-000-expressmap/3066763) with 9 among 11 (82%).  The most comparable internet sources 
with TM are: [3] (http://igrek.amzp.pl) and [5] (https://mapy.hiking.sk) with 5 among 7 (71% compat-
ibility). After analysing the results, significant discrepancies (up to several meters) were noticed between 
the most popular sources (TM and some papers) and GNSS results. The main factor influencing this is 
the difference between the measuring equipment used in the past and today. There may also be differ-
ences resulting from the relationship between different height reference systems. The minor differences 
can be observed when comparing the GNSS and lidar data because they were made in a similar period. 
Some difficulties with the availability of RTK fix solutions were encountered during the field measure-
ment. In this case, a static measurement were conducted. Another problem are sky obstacles where the 
eccentric points was created and levelled (e.g., on Jaworzyna). The next issue is how to establish which 
is the highest point on the top of mountain peaks (e.g., on Jaworzyna and Mędralowa), there we also 
performed geometric levelling. 
Due to such circumstances, the updating of the altitudes of the mountain peaks in Poland should be 
made by using DTM or lidar data. In case of significant differences, field verification by GNSS meas-
urement should be performed. The last but crucial conclusion from this work is that the altitude data 
of mountain peaks from Poland available on the internet, tourist maps, and different paper sources are 
already out-dated.
| 58 |
| 66/1 | GEODETSKI VESTNIK  
RE
CE
NZ
IRA
NI
 ČL
AN
KI 
| P
EE
R-
RE
VIE
W
ED
 AR
TIC
LE
S
SI 
| E
N
Chwedczuk K. et al. | IZZIVI PRI DOLOČANJU VIŠIN GORSKIH VRHOV, KOT SO NAVEDENE V KARTOGRAFSKIH VIRIH |  CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE DETERMINATION OF ALTITUDES OF MOUNTAIN 
PEAKS PRESENTED ON CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES | 49-59 |
Literature and references:
AGH. 2019. “Setka w Koronie.” http://koronagor.agh.edu.pl/.
Angus-Leppan, P. V. 1982. “The Height of Mount Everest.” Survey Review 26 (206): 
367–85. doi:10.1179/sre.1982.26.206.367.
Apollo, M., Andreychouk, V., Moolio, P., Wengel, Y., Myga-Piątek, U. (2020). “Does the 
Altitude of Habitat Influence Residents’ Attitudes to Guests? A New Dimension in 
the Residents’ Attitudes to Tourism.” Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 
31 (September): 100312. doi:10.1016/j.jort.2020.100312.
Banasik, P., Bujakowski, K. (2021). “Najstarsze Sieci Geodezyjne w Polsce – Sieć 
Triangulacyjna Na Obszarze Staropolskiego Okręgu Przemysłowego.” Roczniki 
Geomatyki 82 (3): 159–74.
Bargański, A., Drecki, I., Kucharski, J., Neugass, H., Niecikowski, K., Zieliński, M., 
Pluciński, T. (2013). “Archiwum Map Wojskowego Instytutu Geograficznego 
1919 - 1939.”
Beer, Gavin de. (1956). “The History of the Altimetry of Mont Blanc.” Annals of Science 
12 (1): 3–29. doi:10.1080/00033795600200016.
Compass. (2003). “Mapa Beskid Żywiecki 1:50000.” Kraków: Compass.
Compass. (2011). “Mapa Beskid Żywiecki 1:50000.” Krakow: Compass.
Graaff-Hunter, J. de. 1955. “Various Determinations over a Century of the Height of 
Mount Everest.” The Geographical Journal 121 (1): 21. doi:10.2307/1791803.
GUGiK. (2022). “Geoportal.” https://mapy.geoportal.gov.pl/imap/Imgp_2.
html?gpmap=gp0&locale=en.
Kadaj, R. (2012). “Algorytm Opracowania Modelu PL-Geoid-2011.” In Realizacja Osnów 
Geodezyjnych a Problemy Geodynamiki, edited by Dominik Próchniewicz, 26. 
Grybów, Poland.
Szyprowski, K. (1959). “Triangulacja Miasta Opola.” Przegląd Geodezyjny.
Lamparska, M., Danch, M. (2021). “‘Sucha Góra’ (‘Trockenberg’)—The Triangulation 
Point Doomed to Be Forgotten?” Land 10 (2): 109. doi:10.3390/land10020109.
Lenda, G., Uznański, A., Strach, M., Lewińska, P. (2016). “Laser Scanning in Engineering 
Surveying: Methods of Measurement and Modeling of Structures.” Reports on 
Geodesy and Geoinformatics 100 (1): 109–30. doi:10.1515/rgg-2016-0010.
Łoboz, W. (2013). “Skalne Atrakcje Polskich Karpat -Część 1 Beskidy Zachodnie,” 1–167.
Makowska, A. (2003). Dynamika Tatr Wyznaczana Metodami Geodezyjnymi. 
INSTYTUT GEODEZJI I KARTOGRAFII. http://bc.igik.edu.pl/Content/27/
SM_6_15320_839162160X.pdf.
Miodowicz, W. (1986). Babia Góra - Przewodnik Turystyczny. Warsaw-Krakow: PTTK.
Olszewicz, B. (1921). Polska Kartografia Wojskowa. Zarys Historyczny. Warsaw: Glowna 
Ksiegarnia Wojskowa.
Pagaczewski, S. (1951). Babia Góra, Gorce, Beskid Wyspowy. Spółdzielczy Instytut 
Wydawniczy “Kraj.”
PPWK. 1987. “Mapa Beskid Śląski i Żywiecki 1:75000.” Warsaw-Krakow: Państwowe 
Przedsiębiorstwo Wydań Kartograficznych im. E. Romera.
PPWK. 1993. “Mapa Beskid Śląski i Żywiecki 1:75000.” Warsaw: Państwowe 
Przedsiębiorstwo Wydań Kartograficznych im. E. Romera.
Prokop, A., Nazarko, P., Ziemiański, L. (2021). “Digitalization of Historic Buildings Using 
Modern Technologies and Tools.” Budownictwo i Architektura 20 (2): 083–094. 
doi:10.35784/bud-arch.2444.
Rada Ministrów. 2012. Rozporządzenie w Sprawie Państwowego Systemu Odniesień 
Przestrzennych. Dziennik Ustaw. Poland: Baza Internetowy System Aktów 
Prawnych - ISAP.
Saburi, J., Angelakis, N., Jaeger, R., Illner, M., Jackson, P., Pugh, K. T. (2000). “Height 
Measurement of Kilimanjaro.” Survey Review 35 (278): 552–62. doi:10.1179/
sre.2000.35.278.552.
Solon, J., Borzyszkowski, J., Bidłasik, M., Richling, A., Badora, K., Balon, J., Brzezińska-
Wójcik, T., (2018). “Physico-Geographical Mesoregions of Poland: Verification 
and Adjustment of Boundaries on the Basis of Contemporary Spatial Data.” 
Geographia Polonica 91 (2): 143–70. doi:10.7163/GPol.0115.
TeamKILI2008. (2009). “Precise Determination of the Orthometric Height of Mt . 
Kilimanjaro.” In FIG Working Week 2009, 11.
TM. 2021. “Mapa-Turystyczna.Pl.” https://mapa-turystyczna.pl.
Tometzová, D., Hlavňová, B., Drevko, S., Pukanská, K., Bartoš, K., Bieda, A., Kseňak, 
Ľ (2020). “The Development of Geotourism with the Use of 3d Digital Cave 
Model. A Case Study of the Bear Cave, Slovakia.” Geomatics and Environmental 
Engineering 14 (2): 83–105. doi:10.7494/geom.2020.14.2.83.
Warzecha-Tober, A., Stańczyk, W., Figiel, S. (1997). Beskidy 2 : Mały, Makowski, Babia 
Góra : Przewodnik. Bielsko-Biala: Pascal.
Wężyk, P. (2015). “ISOK. Informatyczny System Osłony Kraju Przed Nadzwyczajnymi 
Zagrożeniami. Podręcznik Dla Uczestników Szkoleń z Wykorzystania Produktów 
LiDAR.” Kraków.
Wojterski, T. (1978). Babia Góra. Wiedza Powszechna.
Ziegler, A. D., Wasson, R. J., Sundriyal, Y., Srivastava, P., Sasges, G., Ramchunder, S. J., 
Ong, C.E.,– (2021). “A Call for Reducing Tourism Risk to Environmental Hazards 
in the Himalaya.” Environmental Hazards, October, 1–28. doi:10.1080/17477
891.2021.1984196
| 59 |
GEODETSKI VESTNIK | 66/1 |
RE
CE
NZ
IRA
NI
 ČL
AN
KI 
| P
EE
R-
RE
VIE
W
ED
 AR
TIC
LE
S
SI 
| E
N
Katarzyna Chwedczuk
Department of Integrated Geodesy and Cartography
AGH University of Science and Technology
Al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow, Poland
chwedczuk.katarzyna@wp.pl
Daniel Cienkosz
Department of Integrated Geodesy and Cartography
AGH University of Science and Technology
Al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow, Poland
danielcienkosz1@interia.pl
Michal Apollo, Ph.D.
1) Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Silesia in Katowice, 
Katowice, Poland
2)  Hainan University-Arizona State University Joint Internatio-
nal Tourism College, Hainan University, China
3) Global Justice Program, Yale University, USA
4) Center for Tourism Research, Wakayama University, Japan
e-mail: michal.apollo@us.edu.pl
Lukasz Borowski, Ph.D.
Department of Geotechnical Engineering
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture
Lublin University of Technology
St. Nadbystrzycka 40, 20-618 Lublin, Poland
e-mail: l.borowski@pollub.pl
Paulina Lewinska, Ph.D.
1) Department of Engineering Surveying and Civil Engineering, 
AGH University of Science and Technology, Al. Mickiewicza 30, 
30-059 Krakow, Poland
2) University of York, York, UK
e-mail: lewinska.paulina@gmail.com
prof. Celso Augusto Guimarães Santos 
Federal University of Paraíba
58051-900 João Pessoa, Brazil, 
e-mail: celso.santos@academico.ufpb.br
Kennedy Eborka, Ph.D.
Department of Sociology
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lagos, Nigeria, 
e-mail: kennedyeborka@gmail.com
prof. Sandeep Kulshreshtha, Ph.D.
Director Academics MP Bhoj Open University Bhopal, Ex-Director 
Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management, India, 
e-mail: sankul7@rediffmail.com
Rosendo Romero-Andrade, Ph.D.
Faculty of Earth and Space Sciences
Autonomous University of Sinaloa, Mexico, 
e-mail: r.romero11@info.uas.edu.mx
Ahmed Sedeek, Ph.D.
Faculty of Petroleum and Mining Engineering
Suez University, Suez, Egypt, 
e-mail: Ahmed.Sedeek@pme.suezuni.edu.eg 
Aive Liibusk, Ph.D.
Estonian University of Life Sciences, Estonia
e-mail: aive.liibusk@emu.ee
Kamil Maciuk 
1) Department of Integrated Geodesy and Cartography, AGH 
University of Science and Technology, Al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 
Krakow, Poland
2)  Hainan University-Arizona State University Joint International 
Tourism College, Hainan University, China
e-mail: maciuk@agh.edu.pl
Chwedczuk K., Cienkosz D., Apollo M., Borowski L., Lewinska P., Guimarães Santos C. A., Eborka K., Kulshreshtha S., Romero-Andrade R., 
Sedeek A., Liibusk A., Maciuk K. (2022). Challenges related to the determination of altitudes of mountain peaks presented on cartographic 
sources. Geodetski vestnik, 66 (1), 49-59.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15292/geodetski-vestnik.2022.01.49-59
Chwedczuk K. et al. | CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE DETERMINATION OF ALTITUDES OF MOUNTAIN PEAKS PRESENTED ON CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES | IZZIVI PRI DOLOČANJU VIŠIN GORSKIH 
VRHOV, KOT SO NAVEDENE V KARTOGRAFSKIH VIRIH | 49-59 |