Comments on: What is a “Mountain”? Mynydd Graig Goch and all that…

By: Frances Voelcker

Frances Voelcker — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:40:02 +0000

Mynydd Graig Goch is certainly a distinct peak. From where we live on its western flank the mountain rears up to its craggy summits. From the south, these summits can be seen as two distinct crags at the western end of and standing above the general height of the Nantlle Ridge.
The top 1/3 is mostly craggy outcrops; the next 1/3 down is mostly heather – hence the name (”Red Crag”) enclosed by extensive drystone walls of the Rhyolitic Tuff that the mountain is largely composed of; and below that both open and enclosed fridd, with boggy areas (Habitat for larks, curlews, sundews.) The river Nant Cyll (or Call) that appears in one of the tales in the Mabinogion rises from several springs on the north west flank of the mountain and skirts round separating the mountain from agricultural land before cutting away west through the fields. (Dragonflies, heron, bats.) Further round the mountain on the south west flank is the spring Ffynnon Wen that supplied water for many years to the town of Criccieth. Burnt mound, hut circles and ancient field systems. Mae bobl yn siarad Gymraeg o hyd. There is more to a mountain than its height….

By: Roddy Urquhart

Roddy Urquhart — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:39:10 +0000

Dan thanks for providing some useful links. Alan Dawson’s Relative Hills of Britain (list of hills with prominence over 150 metres) was groundbreaking as the first consistent list of hills in the whole of Great Britain. The Humps take that a stage further, though both lists cover much more than mountains e.g. hills in south eastern England.

However, I do not agree that in Scotland Murnos are synonymous with mountains. They are simply a popular list of the higher mountains. Most Scots would see the peaks of Arran e.g. Cir Mhor (799 m http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/240017) or the peaks of West Sutherland e.g. Suilven (731 m http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/451470) as “mountains” although they are not high enough to be in Munro’s Tables. These peaks are certainly very prominent compared with some on Munro’s list even if their summits are lower.

I also do not think that the Munro’s Tables are likely to be redefined. They have a clear heigh criterion (3 000 ft) but an undocumented “separation”. The tradition of Sir Hugh Munro is lovingly maintained by the Scottish Mountaineering Club despite them doing everything else in metric.

Incidently Alan Dawson also created a list which used the same height criterion but a metric prominence criterion which he called the “Murdos” (http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/murdos/).

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 13:59:56 +0000

Martin, your point is taken, but I believe that making exceptions is what will keep the muddle going and the imperialists empowered to demand more exceptions.

Even your idea to add imperial in parentheses is encourages the muddle. why not then do it everywhere?

In this case it looks awful to have a nonsensical metric number next to a rounded imperial number. The best thing for metrication is to redefine all the old rounded imperial limits into nice rounded metric limits where-ever they exist. Even if the majority of limits have already been redefined and this just leaves a few imperial limits, those few will be a thorn in the side of full metric usage and allow the muddle to continue indefinitely.

Presently the British definition of a mountain is 600 m, where formerly it was 609.6 m (2000 ft). This definition was changed, so there is no reason the Munro can not be changed. History and culture are no reason not to move forward and progress.

By: Alex Bailey

Alex Bailey — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:14:15 +0000

There is an interesting parallel to what Martin describes which is the road traffic rules. The rule states that an automatic speed limit of 30 mph exists where there is a system of street lights “placed not more than 183 metres apart”… almost exactly 200 yards. Interestingly the document also states “(in Scotland 185 metres)”.

By: Martin Vlietstra

Martin Vlietstra — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:17:04 +0000

I disagree with Dan’s comment that the definition of the Munros needs to be changed. It is a classification that was appropriate when it was first developed and as such that classification should be retained, but with the definition written in metric units with the imperial equivalent being givev in brackets. Thus the Munros would be defined as being peaks over “914.4Â m (3000Â ft)”.

I think that the use of dual units is justified here – “3000Â ft” shows that the classification was somewhat arbitrary while “914.4Â m” enables climbers to relate to modern-day maps.

As an aside, the concept of minimising the impact when a change in definition is made is fundemental to the development of the metric system. Whenever a definiton of any of the metric units is changed, the new definition is adjusted so as to minimise the impact of the change.

By: Victoria

Victoria — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:12:21 +0000

Fascinating – I always wondered what the official definition of a mountain was. I like hiking up mountains and hills, especially in the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:52:46 +0000

You might find these articles of interest:

http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/wm/explain.html

http://www.rhb.org.uk/marhofn/marhofn183/marhofn18308.htm

Humps and Bumps
Mark Jackson has compiled a 150-page ebook listing all 2994 British hills with Hundred Metre Prominence (Humps) in RHB format. This draws on work by Eric Yeaman, Rob Woodall, Clem Clements and others. It is available for download from the RHB newsgroup in PDF (with maps) and plain text format, along with Mark’s regional listings of hills with 30m prominence (relative height). So far he is up to 7082 hills and still going.

I like the way hump works out as HUndred Metre Prominence.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/consult/access/statut.htm

The UK may define a mountain as 600 m, but a the Scots still define a Munro as 914.4 m. This needs to be changed to 900 m.

By: Martin Vlietstra

Martin Vlietstra — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 07:55:49 +0000

The following is taken from the clause 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c. 37): â€œmountainâ€? includes â€¦ any land situated more than 600 metres above sea level. The definition does however have a few caveats which are related to freedom to roam rather than the formal definition of the word â€œmountainâ€?.

I also had a look at the Dutch version of Wikipedia â€“ the Dutch claim that they have a mountain on their territory. It is 323 m above sea level! I visited the site a few years ago – the peak itself is a few metres from the point where the Dutch, German and Belgian borders meet and is a popular picnicking spot with childrenâ€™s playgrounds etc.