Adrian Tupper said:Or perhaps a "side" is the region between "ridges". A
"ridge" being the route between two summits. Some summits
may be connected to only one "ridge" but others will be
hubs of any number of "ridges".
Yes, that's a better definition than my vague waffle.
Quoted message said:So are you suggesting a new category: a point which
looks like a summit from below but doesn't when you get
to the top?
I didn't say it didn't look like a summit from the top. It
probably doesn't from the connecting ridge but it does when
you stand on the top
IMO. It is higher than the rest of the ridge, it has a spot
height and it has it's own name, so even though
there's not much drop involved, it's definitely a
summit. It just doesn't have enough drop to get into
any lists.
I think anything with a spot height and a name is a summit,
but many are not significant. This one is a lot more
significant than a vague bump on a plateau or ridge though.
Quoted message said:When working out connecting "ridges" I took a summit to
be anywhere surrounded by two contour lines on a
1:50,000 map.
This has just one contour line so the drop may be less than
10m.
Quoted message said:Hill lists wouldn't normally bother with 20m of reascent
but for what you are talking about, i.e. at the end of a
ridge, it is more than enough for someone to be a point
of note.
Definitely a point of note IMO.
Quoted message said:Anyone wanting to walk the "complex" of ridges in the
system will need to take in this summit. Where did you say
it was again?
multimap.combrowse.cgiOpen ↗
3.381&scale=2500 0
Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗