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

[Dave Dunford]

> OS is on record as accepting the traditional convention

Still not convinced, I'm afraid.

a) that's the view of a single blogger with a story to tell, not an 
official OS position
b) the exact wording is "...2,000ft is *generally regarded* as the 
benchmark height in England and in Wales for when a hill is promoted to 
the dizzying ranks of a mountain." (my emphasis)

I don't deny that 2,000ft is often quoted (or "generally regarded") as 
the benchmark for a mountain in the UK (although sometimes the figure 
quoted 1,000ft, or sometimes 600m - for a "definitive" figure it's 
strangely indefinite). What I'm denying is that the OS recognises any 
such formal definition, and the blog, while interesting (and the nearest 
I've seen to an official acknowledgement), doesn't change that opinion. 
I think the rather cautious wording is quietly acknowledging the 
somewhat mythological nature of this widespread belief.

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

No it doesn't. It defines "mountainous areas" as over 600m. Not the same 
thing. And 600m <> 2000ft.

Dave

On 13/02/2024 14:23, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20240213/d69b9693/attachment.htm>