Re: Why is the Wenelian tradition anti-bird?

From: Todd Gardiner <todd.gardiner_at_vh9mgsxeyrzTgGvX0rLOYhzyziXO6kHAtn8NjE-LO8Yet0fVuQBccKlY5DBIwA>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:11:10 -0700

Jeff is exaggerating, I think.
Tiger mountain (outside of Seattle) is about 3000' and Cougar Mountain in Issaquah, WA is 1,595'. These, however, are considered the foothills of the Cascade Range in Washington. Passes through this range start at 3000' and most run higher and Wikipedia lists the range as being "4,000'-5,000'" in altitude, with peaks as high as 14,000 (Mt. Rainier).

That said, the West Coast United States has trouble agreeing with the rest of the US that the standard definition of a mountain is 1,000 feet. That does allow the eon-eroded hills called the Appalachians to be a mountain range, but in the Ring of Fire that incorporates the West Coast, we have fresh, new tall mountains.

I personally view the 100 mile radius around Glacier Peak in the Cacades to work for me when envisioning Sartar. [Take a look at 48.110016°N, -121.120884°W in Google Earth with terrain turned on.]

--Todd

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Jeff Richard <richaje_at_RM6aGhvab0rD2cFYC262hGM1EioZEJZRkKXnDlHfl-5YYKqj-7gd6N1956q9tGSik5JF1mMJFwU.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

>
>
> > Pity that the Starfire Ridges are described in the key as rough hills
> > then. Snowdon is a mountain and not the only mountain in Wales. Not
> > only that but less than a third of the area of Sartar is mountains or
> > rough hills.
>
> Snowdon is a mountain only by UK standards. Sorry to be cruel about it, but
> from where Greg and I come from (California and Washington), Snowdown is
> considered a hill. Anything under 5000 feet is not a real mountain.
>
> Jeff
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]