Corbett or not?

Quoted message said:

Buidhe Bheinn, Kinloch Hourn. Is this a Corbett?

Hi Paul,
Great Question. Buidhe Bheinn is one half of a twin Corbett with Sgurr
a'Bhac Chaolais ( normally climbed from Glen Shiel ). Both tops are
given the height of 885m but the drop between them is just 122m and
not the 152.4m needed to separate them therefore only one can be a
Corbett. The OS cannot identify which summit is the higher so although
there are twin peaks you can only count this pair as one Corbett.
The SMC Corbett book lists this detail on page 10 of the notes
section.and recommends that " the prudent walker should visit both
high points to be sure of having visited the summit.
Did you do both peaks or have you climbed SaBC already ? Funny old
game innit !

Cheers
Graham

Graham Ingram said:

Both tops are
given the height of 885m but the drop between them is just 122m and
not the 152.4m needed to separate them therefore only one can be a
Corbett.

Why only one? I've changed my thinking about summits of equal height
with not enough drop between them. If they're both the same height then
they both qualify, not as a single summit obviously, but as "twin"
summits.

Quoted message said:

The OS cannot identify which summit is the higher

But you just said that they were the same height. I've noticed that
list compilers always seem to work on the assumption that one summit
must be higher than another, that one must qualify and the other not,
but why? If they're both the same height they should both qualify IMO.

Maybe one really is higher than the other, but by less than a metre, in
which case they are effectively equal in terms of the resolution of the
measurement unit. Look at any summit list, there are many summits
measured as being the same height, but this never seems to bother
anyone, except in a case like this.

Fan Frynych and Craig Cerrig Gleisiad are both listed as 629m. Alan
Dawson gives FF precedence, because it has a larger drop on the other
side, yet in old money, CCG was two feet higher. I used to give CCG
precedence because I knew the height in feet, but if I didn't, what
then? Given that many summit heights aren't that accurate anyway, even
in metres, how can I be sure that the heights in feet were correct in
the first place. Given the resolution of the measurement, I now
consider them to be twin summits.

Quoted message said:

so although
there are twin peaks you can only count this pair as one Corbett.

Again, why? They are two separate peaks. I'm not saying they *should*
count as two, just asking the question, what is the best way to deal
with twin summits? You can at least list them and tick them separately.
The only thing that the "count" affects is the total number of Corbetts.
For the bagger you still have to climb two different summits.

But then again, Fan Brycheiniog has two high points of identical height,
both 802m, not that far apart, connected by an almost flat ridge with no
more than a few metres drop between them. The second high point has
it's own name and it's own cairn. Are these twin summits? Or a single
summit with two high points - a "double" summit? How would one draw the
line between twin summits and double summits?

Quoted message said:

The SMC Corbett book lists this detail on page 10 of the notes
section.and recommends that " the prudent walker should visit both
high points to be sure of having visited the summit.

"The" summit? But there are two summits! Still the conviction that one
must be higher than the other! Why can't people accept that some
summits are the same height (at least according to the precision of the
measurement) and that they are thus of equal importance?

When we're all walking around carrying our ultra high accuracy GPS
receivers in 20 years time and can accurately measure the height of each
summit to the nearest millimetre, things may change, but until then?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Graham Ingram said:

Both tops are
given the height of 885m but the drop between them is just 122m and
not the 152.4m needed to separate them therefore only one can be a
Corbett.

Why only one? I've changed my thinking about summits of equal height
with not enough drop between them. If they're both the same height then
they both qualify, not as a single summit obviously, but as "twin"
summits.

Quoted message said:

The OS cannot identify which summit is the higher

But you just said that they were the same height. I've noticed that
list compilers always seem to work on the assumption that one summit
must be higher than another, that one must qualify and the other not,
but why? If they're both the same height they should both qualify IMO.

Maybe one really is higher than the other, but by less than a metre, in
which case they are effectively equal in terms of the resolution of the
measurement unit. Look at any summit list, there are many summits
measured as being the same height, but this never seems to bother
anyone, except in a case like this.

Fan Frynych and Craig Cerrig Gleisiad are both listed as 629m. Alan
Dawson gives FF precedence, because it has a larger drop on the other
side, yet in old money, CCG was two feet higher. I used to give CCG
precedence because I knew the height in feet, but if I didn't, what
then? Given that many summit heights aren't that accurate anyway, even
in metres, how can I be sure that the heights in feet were correct in
the first place. Given the resolution of the measurement, I now
consider them to be twin summits.

Quoted message said:

so although
there are twin peaks you can only count this pair as one Corbett.

Again, why? They are two separate peaks. I'm not saying they *should*
count as two, just asking the question, what is the best way to deal
with twin summits? You can at least list them and tick them separately.
The only thing that the "count" affects is the total number of Corbetts.
For the bagger you still have to climb two different summits.

But then again, Fan Brycheiniog has two high points of identical height,
both 802m, not that far apart, connected by an almost flat ridge with no
more than a few metres drop between them. The second high point has
it's own name and it's own cairn. Are these twin summits? Or a single
summit with two high points - a "double" summit? How would one draw the
line between twin summits and double summits?

Quoted message said:

The SMC Corbett book lists this detail on page 10 of the notes
section.and recommends that " the prudent walker should visit both
high points to be sure of having visited the summit.

"The" summit? But there are two summits! Still the conviction that one
must be higher than the other! Why can't people accept that some
summits are the same height (at least according to the precision of the
measurement) and that they are thus of equal importance?

When we're all walking around carrying our ultra high accuracy GPS
receivers in 20 years time and can accurately measure the height of each
summit to the nearest millimetre, things may change, but until then?

Too late to cut! Not for a Corbett, According to the definition of one 500'
rings a bell :-0

Regards,
Chris
--
Bird sightings based around 'Craven' Skipton, North Yorks.
http://www.craven-birds.co.uk/
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by the Norton auto-updated
anti-virus system.

Paul Saunders said:

Graham Ingram wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Great Question. Buidhe Bheinn is one half of a twin Corbett with Sgurr
a'Bhac Chaolais. Both tops are
given the height of 885m but the drop between them is just 122m and
not the 152.4m needed to separate them therefore only one can be a
Corbett.

Why only one? I've changed my thinking about summits of equal height
with not enough drop between them. If they're both the same height then
they both qualify, not as a single summit obviously, but as "twin"
summits.

One of them is higher than the other and thus gets the Corbett status.

Actually according to my 1:50k BB has a spot height of 879 and SBC one
of 885. So where does the 855 for BB come from? The online 1:25k at
get-a-map has 897 for BB so something is amiss.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The OS cannot identify which summit is the higher

But you just said that they were the same height. I've noticed that
list compilers always seem to work on the assumption that one summit
must be higher than another, that one must qualify and the other not,
but why? If they're both the same height they should both qualify IMO.

Maybe one really is higher than the other, but by less than a metre, in
which case they are effectively equal in terms of the resolution of the
measurement unit. Look at any summit list, there are many summits
measured as being the same height, but this never seems to bother
anyone, except in a case like this.

One of them *has* to be higher than the other even if it's only a
gnat's. The rule for a Corbett or Marilyn depends on relative height
and so the higher top overides the other.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Phil Cook said:

One of them is higher than the other and thus gets the Corbett status.

But the OP said they were the same height.

Quoted message said:

One of them *has* to be higher than the other even if it's only a
gnat's.

Why does one *have* to be higher? This is exactly what I was getting
at, there seems to be a great reluctance to accept that any two summits
can be exactly the same height.

Two points;

1. I know it's highly unlikely, but it's certainly not impossible that
they are exactly the same height (or two other summits, whatever, let's
be theoretical). Even at the microscopic level, the atomic level, it's
always theoretically possible that two summits are exactly the same
height. Why is this possibility never even considered by list compilers
and summit baggers?

2. Even if one is higher than the other, if the difference is below the
resolution of the measurement system, i.e. a metre, then to all intents
and purposes they are effectively the same height. Only if a finer
resolution is used can a justifiable difference between them be claimed.
If all summit heights were measured to the nearest 1/10th of a metre
there'd be far less chance of them being "equal" in terms of the
measurement unit used. But do we really want summit heights measured to
one decimal place? Even if it were practical? (which it currently
isn't given the errors that already exist).

I for one have no longer have a problem with "twin" summits. I used to,
until I decided to look at it from a different perspective. Now I
consider it to be a perfectly normal phenomena and one to be expected.
For such purposes it may be wise in future to specify not only a
threshold and a re-ascent, but also a measurement resolution. My new MM
list contains a few twin summits, and even instances of triplets! These
will be baggable separately, but of course you'll have to bag them all
to complete the list.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Phil Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders said:

Graham Ingram wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Great Question. Buidhe Bheinn is one half of a twin Corbett with

Sgurr

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a'Bhac Chaolais. Both tops are
given the height of 885m but the drop between them is just 122m

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not the 152.4m needed to separate them therefore only one can be

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Corbett.

/Snip /

Quoted message said:

Actually according to my 1:50k BB has a spot height of 879 and SBC

one

Quoted message said:

of 885. So where does the 855 for BB come from? The online 1:25k at
get-a-map has 897 for BB so something is amiss.

Both summits are given 855m in the SMC Corbett Guide. According to my
1996 Landranger 879m is the height shown however the 1996 SMC Corbett
Guide states " The spot height 879m is a SW top and not the siummit of
Bbuihde Bheinn which is shown with a tiny ring contour" ~ I have to
admit it is so tiny I cannot see it myself ! The same passage starts
off saying " these two hills have been given the same height by the
Ordnance survey. dont know where the 897 m you mention above comes
from though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The OS cannot identify which summit is the higher

But you just said that they were the same height. I've noticed

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

list compilers always seem to work on the assumption that one

summit

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

must be higher than another, that one must qualify and the other

not,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but why? If they're both the same height they should both qualify

IMO.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe one really is higher than the other, but by less than a

metre, in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

which case they are effectively equal in terms of the resolution of

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

measurement unit. Look at any summit list, there are many summits
measured as being the same height, but this never seems to bother
anyone, except in a case like this.

One of them *has* to be higher than the other even if it's only a
gnat's. The rule for a Corbett or Marilyn depends on relative height

Quoted message said:

and so the higher top overides the other.

Agreed, but if the highest cannot be readily identified and could
change then it is quite simply a case of climbing both.

Quoted message said:

Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Graham Ingram said:

Both tops are
given the height of 885m but the drop between them is just 122m

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not the 152.4m needed to separate them therefore only one can be a
Corbett.

Why only one? I've changed my thinking about summits of equal

height

Quoted message said:

with not enough drop between them. If they're both the same height

then

Quoted message said:

they both qualify, not as a single summit obviously, but as "twin"
summits.

As there is a set criteria for Corbetts having a 500ft drop all round
and the drop in this case is less than that then which ever way you
look at it just one summit has the right to be called a Corbett. (
Corbetts list so Corbetts criteria should stand in my view )

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The OS cannot identify which summit is the higher

But you just said that they were the same height. I've noticed that
list compilers always seem to work on the assumption that one summit
must be higher than another, that one must qualify and the other

not,

Quoted message said:

but why? If they're both the same height they should both qualify

IMO.

As above

Quoted message said:

Maybe one really is higher than the other, but by less than a metre,

in

Quoted message said:

which case they are effectively equal in terms of the resolution of

the

Quoted message said:

measurement unit. Look at any summit list, there are many summits
measured as being the same height, but this never seems to bother
anyone, except in a case like this.

Fan Frynych and Craig Cerrig Gleisiad are both listed as 629m. Alan
Dawson gives FF precedence, because it has a larger drop on the

other

Quoted message said:

side, yet in old money, CCG was two feet higher. I used to give CCG
precedence because I knew the height in feet, but if I didn't, what
then? Given that many summit heights aren't that accurate anyway,

even

Quoted message said:

in metres, how can I be sure that the heights in feet were correct

in

Quoted message said:

the first place. Given the resolution of the measurement, I now
consider them to be twin summits.

Quoted message said:

so although
there are twin peaks you can only count this pair as one Corbett.

Again, why?

Lack of drop between them

Quoted message said:

They are two separate peaks. I'm not saying they *should*
count as two, just asking the question, what is the best way to deal
with twin summits? You can at least list them and tick them

separately.

Quoted message said:

The only thing that the "count" affects is the total number of

Corbetts.

Quoted message said:

For the bagger you still have to climb two different summits.

Exactly and as this is a good day out ( ot two if you do them forom
different ends then who really cares if they are one or two Corbetts.
To me bagging the list is incidental to a good day out on the hill

Quoted message said:

But then again, Fan Brycheiniog has two high points of identical

height,

Quoted message said:

both 802m, not that far apart, connected by an almost flat ridge

with no

Quoted message said:

more than a few metres drop between them. The second high point has
it's own name and it's own cairn. Are these twin summits? Or a

single

Quoted message said:

summit with two high points - a "double" summit? How would one draw

the

Quoted message said:

line between twin summits and double summits?

Quoted message said:

The SMC Corbett book lists this detail on page 10 of the notes
section.and recommends that " the prudent walker should visit both
high points to be sure of having visited the summit.

"The" summit? But there are two summits! Still the conviction that

one

Quoted message said:

must be higher than the other! Why can't people accept that some
summits are the same height (at least according to the precision of

the

Quoted message said:

measurement) and that they are thus of equal importance?
When we're all walking around carrying our ultra high accuracy GPS
receivers in 20 years time and can accurately measure the height of

each

Quoted message said:

summit to the nearest millimetre, things may change, but until then?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Phil Cook said:

One of them is higher than the other and thus gets the Corbett

status.

Quoted message said:

But the OP said they were the same height.

Quoted message said:

One of them *has* to be higher than the other even if it's only a
gnat's.

Why does one *have* to be higher? This is exactly what I was

getting

Quoted message said:

at, there seems to be a great reluctance to accept that any two

summits

Quoted message said:

can be exactly the same height.

Two points;

1. I know it's highly unlikely, but it's certainly not impossible

that

Quoted message said:

they are exactly the same height (or two other summits, whatever,

let's

Quoted message said:

be theoretical). Even at the microscopic level, the atomic level,

it's

Quoted message said:

always theoretically possible that two summits are exactly the same
height. Why is this possibility never even considered by list

compilers

Quoted message said:

and summit baggers?

Possibly because in the great scheme of things does it matter ?

Quoted message said:

2. Even if one is higher than the other, if the difference is below

the

Quoted message said:

resolution of the measurement system, i.e. a metre, then to all

intents

Quoted message said:

and purposes they are effectively the same height. Only if a finer
resolution is used can a justifiable difference between them be

claimed.

Quoted message said:

If all summit heights were measured to the nearest 1/10th of a metre
there'd be far less chance of them being "equal" in terms of the
measurement unit used. But do we really want summit heights

measured to

Quoted message said:

one decimal place? Even if it were practical? (which it currently
isn't given the errors that already exist).

I for one have no longer have a problem with "twin" summits. I used

to,

Quoted message said:

until I decided to look at it from a different perspective. Now I
consider it to be a perfectly normal phenomena and one to be

expected.

Quoted message said:

For such purposes it may be wise in future to specify not only a
threshold and a re-ascent, but also a measurement resolution. My

new MM

Quoted message said:

list contains a few twin summits, and even instances of triplets!

These

Quoted message said:

will be baggable separately, but of course you'll have to bag them

all

Quoted message said:

to complete the list.

All interesting stuff above but the key point remains that is is the
heigt drop between them that is the crucial point

Quoted message said:

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

Graham Ingram said:

"Phil Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Graham Ingram wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Great Question. Buidhe Bheinn is one half of a twin Corbett with
>Sgurr a'Bhac Chaolais.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Actually according to my 1:50k BB has a spot height of 879 and SBC

one

Quoted message said:

of 885. So where does the 855 for BB come from? The online 1:25k at
get-a-map has 897 for BB so something is amiss.

Both summits are given 855m in the SMC Corbett Guide. According to my
1996 Landranger 879m is the height shown however the 1996 SMC Corbett
Guide states " The spot height 879m is a SW top and not the siummit of
Bbuihde Bheinn which is shown with a tiny ring contour" ~ I have to
admit it is so tiny I cannot see it myself !

You are looking in the wrong place just like me :-)

The summit is at NG96309, just by the E of forest, no spot on 25k or
50k. The 897 spot on the 25k must be a typo for 879

Quoted message said:

The same passage starts
off saying " these two hills have been given the same height by the
Ordnance survey. dont know where the 897 m you mention above comes
from though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The OS cannot identify which summit is the higher

They won't say which is higher...

I wonder if anybody fancies lugging a staff and level up there to
survey it. Or maybe even a laser level. Level from one to the other
and vice versa and we would know which was highest, Same goes for An
Stuc and Meall Garbh, one of which would be relegated to a Top.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

In message <[email hidden]>, Phil Cook
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The same passage starts
off saying " these two hills have been given the same height by the
Ordnance survey. dont know where the 897 m you mention above comes
from though.

Quoted message said:

>> The OS cannot identify which summit is the higher

They won't say which is higher...

How petulant can you get?

--
Martin Richardson
239/284 Munros - 15% to go 34/34 'Furths' & 439/439 Nuttalls - 0% to go
42/89 Donalds - 53% to go 0/? Himalayans - 100% to go
442/1552 Marilyns - 72% to go

"Phil Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Graham Ingram said:

"Phil Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

You are looking in the wrong place just like me :-)

The summit is at NG96309, just by the E of forest, no spot on 25k or
50k. The 897 spot on the 25k must be a typo for 879

Spot on Phil if you pardon the pun ! If I had bothered to unfold the
map correctly I might have worked it out by following the ridge from
the twinned summit.

thanks
Graham

Paul Saunders said:

Phil Cook said:

One of them is higher than the other and thus gets the Corbett status.

But the OP said they were the same height.

Quoted message said:

One of them *has* to be higher than the other even if it's only a
gnat's.

Why does one *have* to be higher? This is exactly what I was getting
at, there seems to be a great reluctance to accept that any two summits
can be exactly the same height.

Spot heights are so inaccurate that a twin to this degree may not be
obvious, could be a 885 and a 880 pair..

We just dont know - fun isent it? You cannot impose order everywhere -
enjoy!

Richard Webb

Paul Simonite said:

Buidhe Bheinn, Kinloch Hourn. Is this a Corbett?

Possibly!

Either that or Bhac caolais is a corbett but nobody knows which one.
The accepted practice is to do both and only claim one tick.

Oneday one will be found to be higher than the other - bit like An
stuc and Meall Garbh amongst the Munros.

Its one of my 13 remaining ones.

Twin peaks are a Corbett tradition - there was Carn Saobhaideh and
summat Lairiche Maoile in the Monadh Liath, and then
Gairbheinn/Coireyairack Hill.. These two have been resolved and then
somebody spotted a ring contour on Buidhe Bheinn and we have a new
pair.

They are both Yeamans!

Richard Webb

Phil Cook said:

Paul Saunders said:

Graham Ingram wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Great Question. Buidhe Bheinn is one half of a twin Corbett with Sgurr
a'Bhac Chaolais. Both tops are
given the height of 885m but the drop between them is just 122m and
not the 152.4m needed to separate them therefore only one can be a
Corbett.

Why only one? I've changed my thinking about summits of equal height
with not enough drop between them. If they're both the same height then
they both qualify, not as a single summit obviously, but as "twin"
summits.

One of them is higher than the other and thus gets the Corbett status.

Actually according to my 1:50k BB has a spot height of 879 and SBC one
of 885. So where does the 855 for BB come from? The online 1:25k at
get-a-map has 897 for BB so something is amiss.

Look again... That top is not the summit - Try the 1:25k

Buidhe Bhein was the Corbett until 1981, then Bhac Chaolais took over
until that ring was spotted and they are tied now. One is higher Who
knows? Who cares? do them both, after all its not the Monadh Liath

Richard Webb

Quoted message said:

All interesting stuff above but the key point remains that is is the
heigt drop between them that is the crucial point

Still need to know which one is which though - until that time its
Shroedigers Corbett!

Richard Webb

Quoted message said:

As there is a set criteria for Corbetts having a 500ft drop all round
and the drop in this case is less than that then which ever way you
look at it just one summit has the right to be called a Corbett. (
Corbetts list so Corbetts criteria should stand in my view )

In that case they are both Corbetts... See original list He had a
double too

We have moved on.. One is and one isnot We dont know

Richard Webb

Graham Ingram said:

(Corbetts list so Corbetts criteria should stand in my view )

Of course. Just speculating on the best way to deal with twin summits.
List 'em both and climb 'em both I reckon, until one or the other is
proven to be higher.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

Graham Ingram said:

Possibly because in the great scheme of things does it matter ?

Nothing really matters in the great scheme of things. We're just
playing games.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

RJ Webb said:

Spot heights are so inaccurate that a twin to this degree may not be
obvious, could be a 885 and a 880 pair..

Quite, perhaps we should measure hills in decametres instead. It should
be possible to measure those accurately.

Quoted message said:

We just dont know - fun isent it? You cannot impose order everywhere -
enjoy!

All part of the game.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749