3 ms·
Technically 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
by merijnv 7y ago
Technically 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.