3 ms·
>> (we don't have mountains). Woah, you forgot about the Vaalserberg?
by ddnb 7y ago
>> (we don't have mountains).
Woah, you forgot about the Vaalserberg?
- neals 7y agoAlso, what about that boterberg I used to hear about?
- labnl 7y agoAre you referring to an actual butter surplus or the eastern peak of Storm King Mountain in New York (Butter Hill, but known as Boterberg when the area was a Dutch colony)?
- merijnv 7y agoTechnically not a mountain, since mountains start at >500m and Vaalserberg is only 322m high... On the other hand, we do (technically) have mountains, as Saba has Mount Scenery (887m) and Sint Eustatius has The Quill ( 601m)...
- tom_mellior 7y agoThere is no universally accepted definition of what a mountain is. For whatever it's worth, Wikipedia says things like "official UK government's definition of a mountain, for the purposes of access, is a summit of 600 metres or higher", and "At one time the U.S. Board on Geographic Names defined a mountain as being 1,000 feet (300 m) or taller, but has abandoned the definition since the 1970s".
- benj111 7y ago"is a summit of 600 metres or higher" I didn't think this had been officially metricised (metricated?), I was wrong. Anyway, found an interesting related article. http://metricviews.org.uk/2008/09/what-is-a-mountain-mynydd-graig-goch-and-all-that/ http://metricviews.org.uk/2008/09/what-is-a-mountain-mynydd-...
- black_puppydog 7y agoBroken link, has a quote at the end that's too much. Here's the right one: http://metricviews.org.uk/2008/09/what-is-a-mountain-mynydd-graig-goch-and-all-that/ http://metricviews.org.uk/2008/09/what-is-a-mountain-mynydd-...
- benj111 7y agoThanks, fixed mine also.
- vectorEQ 7y agowe just call that a mountain :')... it's hardly a hill :D