It does beg the question of why anyone else in the world should give a toss about the local Californian definition of anything. A very quick google finds that while there is no formal definition of "mountain", the generic US definition is "Highest point 1000 feet or more above base." Quite how one measures "base" is an open question, but that agrees with the British definition, too, I believe, where 1000 feet is the limit. There's a rather lovely film called "The Englishman who came up a hill and went down a mountain" than hinges on this point. Any Australians out there?
The final definition given by the Wikipedia article (yes, I know, that's why I want to hear from Joerg) is "Local (radius 7 km) elevation greater than 300m, or 300-1000m if local (radius 7 km) elevation is greater than 300m" Which sounds better, covering more cases of things that obviously should, and obviously shouldn't be mountains. "Radius 7km", incidentally, is something you can get about two abreast of in the Stormwalks...
Anyway, if two people are working to one definition, and the rest of the creative community are working to another that's also a near-international standard, those two are, by definition, wrong. We just trust anything they say on the subject even less than before. End of problem.
Whether this is Gregging or just incompatable assumptions I'm not sure but there's been some discussion on the World Of Glorantha group about mountains etc.
It turns out that Greg and Jeff have been working to the Californian definition of a mountain which is a peak over 5,000 feet. How this affects anything we're doing here I'm not sure but I thought it best to let people know.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/ ------------------------------------ 'Weni, Widi, Wiki.' I came, I saw, I added to the story. The WhiteWallWiki can be found at: http://www.whitewall.info Yahoo! Groups Links
Powered by hypermail