How High

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

Quoted message said:

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

Hi Fran,

It was illustrating a feature article on the Environment pages (Society
suppl.) No pics online.
--

Russ Clare

"PaddyPaws" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1118264574.858533.35920
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

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.

Is Black Mountain a mountain?

--
Adrian

In message <[email hidden]>, Adrian Tupper
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Is Black Mountain a mountain?

Which one? ;-)

The OS gazetteer lists these in England and Wales:

SN6817
SN7417
SO1677
SO1983
SO2427

I know of one at J2876 and when you add in Ben Dubh, Slieve Dubh and
variants...
--
Goalie of the Century

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

Quoted message 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!

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

As someone who spent time in Nepal, I was always astounded that the locals
considered anything without rocks at the top and snow all year at the
summits to be just hills - even if over 14000 ft high. I walked up many a
14000 ft "hill" and would gladly consider them mountains but my Nepali
friends and colleagues laughed at that.

It's all relative and The Cuillins are definitely mountains!

Bill Brabender

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:16:14 +0100, "Dave" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| 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.

The laugh is that the village called Mountain is that it is overlooked by
"Soil Hill" known locally as Mucky Mountain 403m. 1322ft. Not that anyone
would consider walking it because there is a road over it and a farm on
top. :-(

--
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*.

Goalie of the Century <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Adrian Tupper
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Is Black Mountain a mountain?

Which one? ;-)

The OS gazetteer lists these in England and Wales:

SN6817
SN7417
SO1677
SO1983
SO2427

I know of one at J2876 and when you add in Ben Dubh, Slieve Dubh and
variants...

There are a few Black Hills around too. Or Meall Dubhs if you prefer :-)
Is there anything we can glean from that?

--
Adrian (in "can't be bothered to do the stats" mood)

Adrian Tupper said:

Goalie of the Century <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Adrian Tupper
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Is Black Mountain a mountain?

Which one? ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I know of one at J2876 and when you add in Ben Dubh, Slieve Dubh and
variants...

There are a few Black Hills around too. Or Meall Dubhs if you prefer :-)
Is there anything we can glean from that?

I wouldn't mind betting there is a Gleann Dubh too. :-)

Yep, according to streetmap loads of em!

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

Adrian Tupper said:

There are a few Black Hills around too. Or Meall Dubhs if you prefer :-)
Is there anything we can glean from that?

That there were a lot more trees around before they started building
ships, smelting ore and mining underground?
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

Quoted message said:

That there were a lot more trees around before they started building
ships, smelting ore and mining underground?

Thanks to the iron smelters we still have some trees left. Its no
coincidence that some of the best wooded places in the Highlands are
old iron smelting places, Loch Etive, Maree etc,,,,

If the trees went, so did they, so they looked after them.

Richard Webb

Richard Webb said:

Quoted message said:

That there were a lot more trees around before they started building
ships, smelting ore and mining underground?

Thanks to the iron smelters we still have some trees left. Its no
coincidence that some of the best wooded places in the Highlands are
old iron smelting places, Loch Etive, Maree etc,,,,

If the trees went, so did they, so they looked after them.

But that would be true for the other two industries also.

And the same argument could be made for tourism and the environment
(or most of the economy and oil at that), but it doesn't always seem
to be convincing the relevant entrepreneurs.
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

[email hidden] (Rudi Winter) wrote in news:1118926504.881776
@leri.aber.ac.uk:

Quoted message said:

Richard Webb said:

Quoted message said:

That there were a lot more trees around before they started building
ships, smelting ore and mining underground?

Thanks to the iron smelters we still have some trees left. Its no
coincidence that some of the best wooded places in the Highlands are
old iron smelting places, Loch Etive, Maree etc,,,,

If the trees went, so did they, so they looked after them.

But that would be true for the other two industries also.

And the same argument could be made for tourism and the environment
(or most of the economy and oil at that), but it doesn't always seem
to be convincing the relevant entrepreneurs.

If it wasn't for the funicular, the Cairngorms would be gone by now...

--
Adrian