How High

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:30:26 +0100, "Dave" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| Heres a question that may have been discussed before but I cannot find a
| proper answer, so what are the views of this NG.
|
| I have heard a few different answers being quoted and there is certainly a
| place near where I live with the name "Mountain" which has a pub called
| "Summit"; but what is considered to be the minimum height above sea level of
| a mountain.

The definition of a mountain used to be more than 1000ft high.
"Mountain" is still a village near Queensbury a few miles from us.
More than 1000ft above sea level.

--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
Beware of anyone posting X-No-Archive yes,
they must have something to hide or something to be ashamed of.
Your task, should you wish to accept it, is to determine *what*.

As far as I am aware there is no actual height demarcation for a
mountain.

When I write up walks on my web site I use both hills and mountains
sometimes referring to the same mountain.

In Scotland a lot of use is made of the words Munros, Corbetts, and
Grahams to distinquish the height difference.

I don't think we will ever get a clear definition between a mountain
and a hill it depends on each individual.

www.caledoniahilltreks.com

Dave said:

Heres a question that may have been discussed before but I cannot find a
proper answer, so what are the views of this NG.

I have heard a few different answers being quoted and there is certainly a
place near where I live with the name "Mountain" which has a pub called
"Summit"; but what is considered to be the minimum height above sea level of
a mountain.

DaveB
UK

Controversial ground - pure height above sea level can be irrelevant.

As stated very eloquently by Mr Dawson, relative height in most cases
is far more applicable.

Perhaps this is where the Nuttalls enter the frame, must be more than
2000ft and be significantly higher than the surrounding area.

Also it is more of an issue in a relatively flat area like the UK. In
a relatively mountainous, hilly country most of our hills/mountains in
comparison are very diminutive and unworthy of any classification.

When I was being taken on holiday to Lakes as a child, my parents
always told that it wasn't a mountain unless it was over 2000 ft high
and had a cairn on top.

Whether this was just a cunning plan on their part to get me interested
in the higher fells (since 'climbing mountains' sounds more exciting to
a 7 yr old than 'climbing hills'😉 I don't know, but I have used this
definition ever since and passed it on to my children as well.

John

Dave said:

Heres a question that may have been discussed before but I cannot find a
proper answer, so what are the views of this NG.

I have heard a few different answers being quoted and there is certainly a
place near where I live with the name "Mountain" which has a pub called
"Summit"; but what is considered to be the minimum height above sea level of
a mountain.

DaveB
UK

Dave said:

Heres a question that may have been discussed before but I cannot find a
proper answer, so what are the views of this NG.

The OS used to have a webpage 'the classification of mountains' at
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite//freefun/geofacts/classificationofmountains.html
which has disappeared from their site.
However, Google still has it in its cache at:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:M2JR7PjIetUJ:www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/freefun/geofacts/classificationofmountains.html+classificationofmountains.html&hl=en%20target=nw
or http://makeashorterlink.com/?P20A1283B

I dare not pretend this is a definitive answer simply cos it's the OS:
just another alternative

Allan

In article <[email hidden]>, Dave
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Heres a question that may have been discussed before

Well, it does seem to have cropped up very occasionally 🙂

When does a hill become a mountain?
Jun 27 2003, by Paul Saunders - 462 messages - 41 authors

When is a mountain a mountain and not a hill?
Nov 7 2001, by Paul Saunders - 116 messages - 34 authors

What is a mountain?
Dec 15 2000, by Paul Saunders - 193 messages - 37 authors

The great 'hill or mountain' debate continues
Nov 9 1999, by N R Whitelegg - 20 messages - 14 authors

When does a hill become a mountain?
Mar 6 1998, by vht - 38 messages - 29 authors

Is it a hill or a ........
Apr 1 1756 45 parchments - 27 scribes

Or is this a cunning ploy to entice Paul S back into the fold? Who,
incidentally, I notice had one of his Brecon Beacons photos in the
Guardian last week.

--

Russ Clare

I've always taken it to be 2000 feet, with the local legend that Black
Combe is 'the biggest hill in Britain' at 1970 feet....there's sure to
be others closer to 2000'?

Sean McMahon said:

I've always taken it to be 2000 feet, with the local legend that Black
Combe is 'the biggest hill in Britain' at 1970 feet....there's sure to
be others closer to 2000'?

How about Illgill Head 1998' 609 NY169049?

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:30:26 +0100, "Dave" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| Heres a question that may have been discussed before but I cannot find a
| proper answer, so what are the views of this NG.
|
| I have heard a few different answers being quoted and there is certainly

a

Quoted message said:

| place near where I live with the name "Mountain" which has a pub called
| "Summit"; but what is considered to be the minimum height above sea

level of

Quoted message said:

| a mountain.

The definition of a mountain used to be more than 1000ft high.
"Mountain" is still a village near Queensbury a few miles from us.

That's the one, just a few miles from me too.

Quoted message said:

More than 1000ft above sea level.

--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
Beware of anyone posting X-No-Archive yes,
they must have something to hide or something to be ashamed of.
Your task, should you wish to accept it, is to determine *what*.

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Dave
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Heres a question that may have been discussed before

Well, it does seem to have cropped up very occasionally 🙂

When does a hill become a mountain?
Jun 27 2003, by Paul Saunders - 462 messages - 41 authors

When is a mountain a mountain and not a hill?
Nov 7 2001, by Paul Saunders - 116 messages - 34 authors

What is a mountain?
Dec 15 2000, by Paul Saunders - 193 messages - 37 authors

The great 'hill or mountain' debate continues
Nov 9 1999, by N R Whitelegg - 20 messages - 14 authors

When does a hill become a mountain?
Mar 6 1998, by vht - 38 messages - 29 authors

Is it a hill or a ........
Apr 1 1756 45 parchments - 27 scribes

Or is this a cunning ploy to entice Paul S back into the fold? Who,
incidentally, I notice had one of his Brecon Beacons photos in the
Guardian last week.

--

Russ Clare

The answer then I guess is that there isn't a proper answer. The old OS site
as referred to by Allan states one height and clarifies that too and DaveF
says another - which is what I had always been led to believe by my
grandfather and many others years ago.

Which of course means that the village of Mountain at a little under 1200ft
may not actually be one.

Incidentally, did anyone see the film "The Englishman that went up a hill
and came down a mountain", if so what was the conclusion there? (I know it
was only a film).

DaveB
UK

email hidden said:

Sean McMahon said:

I've always taken it to be 2000 feet, with the local legend that Black
Combe is 'the biggest hill in Britain' at 1970 feet....there's sure to
be others closer to 2000'?

How about Illgill Head 1998' 609 NY169049?

As kids we neglected Illgill Head for this reason, doing all the
others in the valley many, many times over the years - we too were
told by Dad that a mountain was 2000 ft!
Mind you, it's a bit of a boring walk - though the views are great. I
suppose you could make it more exciting by going up the front.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

Dave said:

Heres a question that may have been discussed before but I cannot find a
proper answer, so what are the views of this NG.

I have heard a few different answers being quoted and there is certainly a
place near where I live with the name "Mountain" which has a pub called
"Summit"; but what is considered to be the minimum height above sea level of
a mountain.

Yawn.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

In article <[email hidden]>, Russ Clare
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Or is this a cunning ploy to entice Paul S back into the fold? Who,
incidentally, I notice had one of his Brecon Beacons photos in the
Guardian last week.

Nice to see someone else spotted Fan Gyhirych
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

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

Quoted message said:

I have heard a few different answers being quoted and there is certainly a
place near where I live with the name "Mountain" which has a pub called
"Summit"; but what is considered to be the minimum height above sea level
of
a mountain.

Dunnoh but Dictionary.com reckons

Mountain: A natural elevation of the earth's surface having considerable
mass, generally steep sides, and a height greater than that of a hill.
Hill: A well-defined natural elevation smaller than a mountain.

Great so a mountain is bigger than a hill and a hill is smaller than a
mountain!

Thinking about the comments about it all being relative:
When im out on my bike (im not a good climber, ok i am a terrible climber)
what may be a bump in the road for the guys i cycle with is a hill to me and
what they might just call a hill is damn impossible to get up, therefore it
must be a mountain, yet when walking (with our without the bike being
pushed) these impossible hills are suddenly a piece of cake.

This leads me to a conclusion:

Hill:
Walking: A bit of an upwards slope for me to walk up
Cycling: Something steep that i can't get up
Looking: A lump in the groudn that doesn't inspire me much

Mountain:
Walking: Something interesting to climb
Cycling: Something for me to look at and convince me there must be a better
route
Looking: Something really impressive preferably with snow on the top

Niall

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:30:26 +0100, "Dave" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Heres a question that may have been discussed before but I cannot find a
proper answer, so what are the views of this NG.

I have heard a few different answers being quoted and there is certainly a
place near where I live with the name "Mountain" which has a pub called
"Summit"; but what is considered to be the minimum height above sea level of
a mountain.

There is not one...

Especially in Wales....

As for where I live now, they are all hills.

Richard Webb

"Dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Heres a question that may have been discussed before but I cannot find
a proper answer, so what are the views of this NG.

I have heard a few different answers being quoted and there is
certainly a place near where I live with the name "Mountain" which has
a pub called "Summit"; but what is considered to be the minimum height
above sea level of a mountain.

DaveB
UK

There is no official definition. How can there be?
And if there was, we'd all be debating its worth.

--
Adrian

In message <[email hidden]>

Niall Wallace said:

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

Quoted message said:

I have heard a few different answers being quoted and there is certainly a
place near where I live with the name "Mountain" which has a pub called
"Summit"; but what is considered to be the minimum height above sea level
of
a mountain.

Dunnoh but Dictionary.com reckons

Mountain: A natural elevation of the earth's surface having considerable
mass, generally steep sides, and a height greater than that of a hill.
Hill: A well-defined natural elevation smaller than a mountain.

Great so a mountain is bigger than a hill and a hill is smaller than a
mountain!

That sounds like the ideal definition to me. Trying to set hard and
fast rules for what a mountain is has never appealed to me - a
mountain is whatever you think should be a mountain!

--
Simon Challands

I was always taught as a lad (way back in the 60s and 70s) that a
mountain in Britain was a peak over 3000' high, so my first
"mountainous" ascent of Cadair Idris didn't count as a mountain. Hence,
I suppose, the Welsh 14 peaks and the Munros.
I would add that I have modified this opinion since being in Scotland
and starting to walk up here, and I would happily call Corbetts
mountains for practical reasons (i.e. they deserve the respect of any
mountain if you're going into them). I have yet to determine my own
local value of the term mountain, but am tending towards 2000' plus a
difficulty factor. I certainly wouldn't call the Quantock Hills in
Somerset (up to 1300'😉 mountains, for example, even though they would
meet the one contributor's definition.

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Russ Clare
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Or is this a cunning ploy to entice Paul S back into the fold? Who,
incidentally, I notice had one of his Brecon Beacons photos in the
Guardian last week.

Did he really? Coo, is there a URL available, or does it only appear in
the paper version?

--
/
Fran O(<|={
\