Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think a mountain needs to have mass and width as well as height.
A butte can be quite a bit higher than its surroundings, but is so skinny you don't look at it and think "mountain."
Igor Blevin, this is a good point. The definition shouldn't just be how much it rises above the surrounding terrain, but the incline to reach the peak. Steepness counts - or at least it should.
I have no suggestion about what the rate of climb should be though.
Interestingly, there are many places in the Appalachians that have a steeper climb than the Rockies for example. For decades one of the steepest mainline railroad grades - Saluda - was in North Carolina until it was shut down due to cost vs using alternate routes around the mountains.
My definition is, "you know it when you see it". If it looks like a mountain, it is mountain. Or maybe, if it is easy to climb, it is a hill. If it is hard to climb, it is a mountain.
Interesting. I live and work in the Rockies and Rio Grande Rift for about half the year, and the other half of the year in a geographic region called the Hudson Highlands, a part of the Appalachian range, actually, one of its lowest parts.
The Hudson Higlands is, in my opinion, a rugged and rocky range of steep hills, with only a handful of peaks that I would classify as true mountains, albeit at the very lower end of the range of that classification as most of them rise a scant 1,500 feet from sea level. In fact they extend directly from sea level in a tidal area of the Hudson River in New York*.
But when I come out of them after a day of hiking 12-15 miles, 3,000-5,000 ft of elevation gain and loss, I unabashedly say "I spent the day in the mountains."
I think I've come to the consensus that a mountain is above 1,000 feet, but plenty of hills below 1,000 feet can give the impression of mountains if they are steep enough and rise above the area enough.
It's just like how many buildings that are too small to be "true" skyscrapers (lower than 500 feet) can give the impression if they are taller than most of the buildings there and are the right shape.
I didn't know about the 1,000 foot rule. I live just to the west of Roper Mountain (1168 feet) and a few miles to the east of Paris Mountain (1627 feet), and am surprised they both qualify as mountains. I tend to think of both of them as foothills rather than real mountains (the Appalachians are a little over an hour to the west).
Often, 1,000 feet is use to separate what is a hill and what is a mountain. However, there are definitely some mountains that have vertical rises under 1,000 feet that are definitely mountains (Sugarloaf in Maryland is an example). I would say that the mark is somewhere in between 500 and 1,000 feet. What do you all say?
What about the steepness of the rise? Can you have a hill with sheer rock? When you are in York County, PA, near the river at Peach Bottom, the only way to call that area "hills" is to go by a definition that uses rise compared to adjacent areas as the only criterion.
There has been no standard or consistency to these classifications. Just a matter of personal preference for who is naming them, I guess. Here we have Mt. Maria at 302 ft. and Jamestown Hill at 2175 ft.
I didn't know about the 1,000 foot rule. I live just to the west of Roper Mountain (1168 feet) and a few miles to the east of Paris Mountain (1627 feet), and am surprised they both qualify as mountains. I tend to think of both of them as foothills rather than real mountains (the Appalachians are a little over an hour to the west).
Paris Mountain appears to be a monadnock (like Sugarloaf in MD). Paris Mountain rises about 600 feet above the surrounding area.
Paris Mountain appears to be a monadnock (like Sugarloaf in MD). Paris Mountain rises about 600 feet above the surrounding area.
Yep - it's a monadnock and it's on an elevated plateau. Greenville is at an elevation of about 1000 feet. Which means Paris Mountain doesn't get bragging rights. It also explains why Paris and Roper Mountains feel like foothills rather than real mountains to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
