Reply With Quote
to me, a hill is something that doesn't rise more than about 2000 feet.
good question!
The British Ordnance Survey once defined a mountain as having 1,000 feet of elevation and less was a hill, but the distinction was abandoned sometime in the 1920's. There was even a movie with this as its theme in the late 1990's - The Englishman That Went Up a Hill and Down a Mountain. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names once stated that the difference between a hill and a mountain in the U.S. was 1,000 feet of local relief, but even this was abandoned in the early 1970's. Broad agreement on such questions is essentially impossible, which is why there are no official feature classification standards.
Source of this FAQ:
http://gnis.usgs.gov
Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Click the "Create Account" button now to join.
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Thread: What is the difference...
-
06-24-2007, 10:01 AM #1
wannabe submarine gazelle
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- Switzerland
- Posts
- 2,032
What is the difference...
To disable ads, please log-in.
... between a hill and a mountain?
for ride descriptions... I'm just wondering.
Distance? Steepness? amount of trees left on top?
So where do you draw the line?It's a little secret you didn't know about us women. We're all closet Visigoths.
2008 Roy Hinnen O2 - Selle SMP Glider
2009 Cube Axial WLS - Selle SMP Glider
2007 Gary Fisher HiFi Plus - Specialized Alias
-
06-24-2007, 11:04 AM #2
I like bikes
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- Seattle
- Posts
- 8,548
-
06-24-2007, 11:38 AM #3
Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Boise, Idaho
- Posts
- 1,104
I found these definitions at answers.com:
Hill: A well-defined natural elevation smaller than a mountain.
Mountain: A natural elevation of the earth's surface having considerable mass, generally steep sides, and a height greater than that of a hill.
Either one of these makes me wonder where those invisible hills my legs keep finding fit in!
When searching google for "hill versus mountain" I found this article discussing the issue: http://www.mtnforum.org/rs/bulletins...in-2001-09.pdf
I still don't know!
Karen in Boise
-
06-24-2007, 01:57 PM #4
Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 317
Hills don't kill people. Mountains do.
A rise is anything too small to be a hill.
-
06-24-2007, 07:56 PM #5
Ride your ride.
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Md suburbs of Wash. DC
- Posts
- 2,131
If it makes you hurt, then it doesn't matter how you designate it
"How about if we all just try to follow these very simple rules of the road? Drive like the person ahead on the bike is your son/daughter. Ride like the cars are ambulances carrying your loved ones to the emergency room. This should cover everything, unless you are a complete sociopath."
David Desautels, in a letter to velonews.com
Random babblings and some stuff to look at.
-
06-24-2007, 08:03 PM #6
Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- San Antonio, TX
- Posts
- 2,024
Hill climbs are of relatively short duration vs mountain climbs. While the grades encountered can be similar, mountain climbs just seem to go on forever.
-
06-24-2007, 08:27 PM #7
Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Location
- Sonoma County, CA
- Posts
- 658
My personal definition is the presence of switch backs. Every mountain climb I've done seems to involve some sort of switch backs, hills don't.
"Bicycling is a big part of the future. It has to be. There's something wrong with a society that drives a car to workout in a gym." -- Bill Nye
-
06-24-2007, 10:17 PM #8
zippadee-doo-dah
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Limbo
- Posts
- 8,769
There you go. It's all relative.
Originally Posted by Kalidurga
If it makes you hurt, then it doesn't matter how you designate it
I also think it depends on your locality. There are places here that are officially named mountains but to a westerner they'd be hills.2008 Trek FX 7.2/Terry Cite X
2009 Jamis Aurora/Brooks B-68
2010 Trek FX 7.6 WSD/stock bontrager
