Foinaven

"Simon Daniels" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Media Announcement
Following the announcement this morning, Friday 8th June 2007, at the
media
presentation held at Falkirk Golf Club, CMCR is pleased to release the
following co-ordinate for the highest point of Foinaven which has been
checked and ratified by the Ordnance Survey as:

231519.451 Easting; 950698.611 Northing
and a height of 911.046 metres.

This means that Foinaven is a Corbett, failing to reach the required
height
in excess of 914.4 metres to become a Munro.

But, is going up Foinavon a sport if it is "only" a Corbett ???

Following up to 'Simon Daniels said:

This means that Foinaven is a Corbett, failing to reach the required height
in excess of 914.4 metres to become a Munro.

probably not a bad thing. I'd still like to do it though.
--
Mike Reid
Cutty Sark appeal"http://www.cuttysark.org.uk"
to email remove clothing.

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon
Daniels <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Media Announcement
Following the announcement this morning, Friday 8th June 2007, at the media
presentation held at Falkirk Golf Club, CMCR is pleased to release the
following co-ordinate for the highest point of Foinaven which has been
checked and ratified by the Ordnance Survey as:

231519.451 Easting; 950698.611 Northing
and a height of 911.046 metres.

This means that Foinaven is a Corbett, failing to reach the required height
in excess of 914.4 metres to become a Munro.

Well at least we won't now have a debate about if it should be a Munro
on not. Given the error in the original OS height perhaps they should
check the height of the shortest 10 or so Munros to see if any need
demoting!

--

Dominic Sexton

Rab C Nesbitt said:

But, is going up Foinavon a sport if it is "only" a Corbett ???

Went up it about 4 years ago, we were all thinking "it's just a Corbett,
shouldn't be too serious!". We admitted our mistake afterwards...

A fine mountain, and an altogether more serious undertaking than many
(most?) Munros.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Following up to "Rab C Nesbitt" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But, is going up Foinavon a sport if it is "only" a Corbett ???

only if the baggers wear numbers :-)
--
Mike Reid
Cutty Sark appeal"http://www.cuttysark.org.uk"
to email remove clothing.

Following up to Peter Clinch said:

and an altogether more serious undertaking than many
(most?) Munros.

Ah, thats why I havent done it, too "sporting".
--
Mike Reid
Cutty Sark appeal"http://www.cuttysark.org.uk"
to email remove clothing.

Following up to Dominic Sexton said:

Well at least we won't now have a debate about if it should be a Munro
on not. Given the error in the original OS height perhaps they should
check the height of the shortest 10 or so Munros to see if any need
demoting!

i'm all for blasting out the col to a "top" to make a new one, its
good for the economy!
--
Mike Reid
Cutty Sark appeal"http://www.cuttysark.org.uk"
to email remove clothing.

"The Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Following up to Peter Clinch said:

and an altogether more serious undertaking than many
(most?) Munros.

Ah, thats why I havent done it, too "sporting".
--
Mike Reid
Cutty Sark appeal"http://www.cuttysark.org.uk"
to email remove clothing.

I've never understood the idea that only mountains over 3000 feet are worth
doing. To quote but one example, in Snowdonia Cadair Idris (less than 3000
feet and a great mountain) is a far more interestiung mountain that Foel
Fras (over 3000 feet and not at all interesting).

"Dominic Sexton" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Well at least we won't now have a debate about if it should be a Munro on
not. Given the error in the original OS height perhaps they should check
the height of the shortest 10 or so Munros to see if any need demoting!

I see the height on the 50000 was 908m. If they'd have averaged the
50000/25000 heights it would have saved a lot of bother!:-)
I wonder if there is a trend? Hmm, no Arkle is the same on both.

Graham

Michael said:

I've never understood the idea that only mountains over 3000 feet are worth
doing. To quote but one example, in Snowdonia Cadair Idris (less than 3000
feet and a great mountain) is a far more interestiung mountain that Foel
Fras (over 3000 feet and not at all interesting).

If you have a list of 284 mountains you want to do, and the whole
may be viewed as more than the sum of ther parts, perhaps is the
basis? I don't take that view myself, I've had benchmark days on
lower peaks, but I can see why people do.

What /is/ bizarre, and I've seen, is people coming off a fine ridge
early becasue the end points weren't Munros. Their loss...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Michael" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I've never understood the idea that only mountains over 3000 feet are
worth doing. To quote but one example, in Snowdonia Cadair Idris (less
than 3000 feet and a great mountain) is a far more interestiung mountain
that Foel Fras (over 3000 feet and not at all interesting).

I don't think people believe that only mountains over 3000ft are worth
climbing, more that once you get the bug to tick lists it can be difficult
to stop. I haven't got a chance of climbing all the Munros, or any other
list of mountains so I'm in the enviable position of being able to just
climb the best ones :-)
I must admit Foinaven looks good. I'd love to do it one day.
I'm leaving Liathach until I'm 60. I hope my knees hold out.

Graham

The message <[email hidden]>
from Dominic Sexton <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Well at least we won't now have a debate about if it should be a Munro
on not. Given the error in the original OS height perhaps they should
check the height of the shortest 10 or so Munros to see if any need
demoting!

Might get the total back to 277, or 276 even.

According to a newspaper cutting a friend kindly passed on to me on
Sunday the new height is 2989 feet. Accessing another friends stock of
1" maps I found that back in those days the peak was only 2980 feet high
so it hasn't shrunk at all. On the contrary it has actually grown since
Corbetts day. :-)

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Graham Seed" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

I see the height on the 50000 was 908m. If they'd have averaged the
50000/25000 heights it would have saved a lot of bother!:-)
I wonder if there is a trend? Hmm, no Arkle is the same on both.

You have a first series (AKA blown up 1"😉 1:50000.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

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

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Graham Seed" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

I see the height on the 50000 was 908m. If they'd have averaged the
50000/25000 heights it would have saved a lot of bother!:-)
I wonder if there is a trend? Hmm, no Arkle is the same on both.

You have a first series (AKA blown up 1"😉 1:50000.

No, it's second series.

G

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Graham Seed" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see the height on the 50000 was 908m. If they'd have averaged the
50000/25000 heights it would have saved a lot of bother!:-)
I wonder if there is a trend? Hmm, no Arkle is the same on both.

You have a first series (AKA blown up 1"😉 1:50000.

No, it's second series.

But 908m is a direct translation of the 2980 feet that appears in my
earliest copy of The Tables.

The only 1:50000 I have of the area is digital Fugawi and that has the
height of Foinaven as 914 metres so what does the small print on your
map say? Was it a [censored] map like the so called second series
Caernarvon & Bangor sheet 115 (derivation of contours: from 1" to one
mile seventh series maps)?

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

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

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Graham Seed" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I see the height on the 50000 was 908m. If they'd have averaged the
> 50000/25000 heights it would have saved a lot of bother!:-)
> I wonder if there is a trend? Hmm, no Arkle is the same on both.

You have a first series (AKA blown up 1"😉 1:50000.

No, it's second series.

But 908m is a direct translation of the 2980 feet that appears in my
earliest copy of The Tables.

The only 1:50000 I have of the area is digital Fugawi and that has the
height of Foinaven as 914 metres so what does the small print on your
map say? Was it a [censored] map like the so called second series
Caernarvon & Bangor sheet 115 (derivation of contours: from 1" to one
mile seventh series maps)?

It says derived from contours surveyed at 1:10000 with 10m vertical
interval. I suppose when they produced the new Explorer Series to cover the
whole of the UK there was a fresh lot of contours to go with it, which
pushed up the height to 914m. The latest figure pushes it back towards what
we had before (twice by the look of it). Old aint necessarily always bad!

Graham

Peter Clinch said:

What /is/ bizarre, and I've seen, is people coming off a fine ridge
early becasue the end points weren't Munros. Their loss...

....especially when the end points are 'promoted' to Munros in the next
revision of the list :-)

S.

--
Stop ID cards and the Database State
http://www.no2id.net/