[Talk-GB] A moutain range in Cornwall??

[Mark Goodge]

On 13/02/2024 13:32, Dave Dunford wrote:
> Definitions of "mountain" based on elevation seem to be apocryphal, as 
> far as I can tell. I've had several debates on Wikipedia with people who 
> claim that "the Ordnance Survey defines anything over 2000ft as a 
> mountain",  and otherwise reputable sources such as the BBC and the 
> Guardian repeat the same claim, but no-one can produce any official 
> expression of this convention in any OS publication. "The Englishman Who 
> Went up a Hill but Came down a Mountain" notwithstanding, I think it's a 
> myth.

OS doesn't define mountains because OS doesn't define anything. Like 
OSM, OS maps what is there and labels it according to what other people 
call it, either canonically if there is an official name or colloquially 
if not. But OS is on record as accepting the traditional convention that 
a mountain in the UK starts at 2,000ft (610m) and will therefore label 
it as such unless there is a reason to do otherwise. See, for example, 
this (now archived) blog post:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210211221249/https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2016/09/calf-top-englands-last-mountain/

More specifically, the government does define a mountain for the purpose 
of open access and rights of way as being land above 600m:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/section/1

But, apart from that one item of legislation, there's no official 
definition of a mountain in the UK, and there are various different 
definitions used by hillwalkers and climbers based on different values 
for elevation and prominence. As far as OSM goes, I think we should 
broadly stick with the convention followed by OS, because it's well 
known and relatively uncontroversial. But that doesn't mean we can't tag 
something else as a mountain if there's good evidence that local usage 
calls it a mountain. As always, it's what's on the ground that counts.

Mark