Mountain Cache??

[+makerofthingsup]

One of my caches in just over 2000 feetCache and some of the visitors have asked if this makes it officially a mountain cache? Is there such a thing?

[Deego]

I belive that any hill over 2000ft can be classed as a mountain. but I have been wrong before :huh:

[+Teuchters]

Your hill might be a "Nuttall". There is a comprehensive list of hills in lists at this site here which includes the more familiar Munros, Donalds and Corbetts.....

Nuttalls are hills in England which are at least 2000 feet high with (I think) at least 15m of reascent on each side. Now all you have to consider is whether a hill is a mountain. Often, even in Scotland, when asked "where have you been today?", you may get an answer "On the hill" which could mean any "hill" or "mountain". This can even extend to Everest if you were asked if you were at the base camp or "on the hill"

So how about calling it a hill which can be any height you like!

[Deego]

I was close

[+Haggis Hunter]

Request Hugh Grant to do your cache. By the time he gets back down from the hill it will be a mountain.

[+snaik]

Request Hugh Grant to do your cache. By the time he gets back down from the hill it will be a mountain.       

Actually the Victorians built a large cairn on Ben Lawers 3983ft, to take the height to 4000ft ensure it kept its head above 4000ft. This has not survived the passing years, and would not be counted towards the mountain's height even if it had.

 

[+Papakas]

Quote dictionary:

 

Hill: A mound of high land, less high than a mountain.

 

Mountain: A large hill.

 

Dictionary now in bin!

[+Geoki]

But in scotland a hill can also carry the name bin, just to add to your confusion!

[+TartanT]

What ever size it is it's still a brae to me.

[+douglouse & geocache jeremy]

The British Mountaineering Council defines a mountain as any peak with a true summit that is over 600m, sorry i dont do imperial.

 

Hope this helps

 

Douglouse

[+t.a.folk]

That will be 1968.50393700 ft ish.I think

[Deego]

Told you I was close with 2000ft B)

Edited September 14, 2004 by Deego

[+The Forester]

The Civil Aviation Authority, which is very pernickity about definitions and altitudes, defines a mountain as being 2,000' or more.

 

If civil aviation in the West were ever to go metric in altimetry, I guess they would change over to the British Mountaineering Council's definition of 600 metres.

 

Cheers, The Forester

[+Haggis Hunter]

The Civil Aviation Authority, which is very pernickity about definitions and altitudes, defines a mountain as being 2,000' or more.

 

If civil aviation in the West were ever to go metric in altimetry, I guess they would change over to the British Mountaineering Council's definition of 600 metres.

 

Cheers, The Forester

In this case does it really matter if it is a mountain or a hill, it still hurts if you hit it!!

[+The Forester]

In this case does it really matter if it is a mountain or a hill, it still hurts if you hit it!!

That is exactly why they have a definition of mountain. Slightly different rules apply to flying in mountainous area from flying over the flatlands. The CAA is obsessed with definitions, especially with regard to altitudes (they don't call them heights).

 

You're quite right though about it hurting if you bump into them. There is one notorious cloud type which is known to pilots as CumuloGranite, otherwise known as a hard centred cloud. That stuff can mess up your whole day.

 

There's a wonderful Gary Larsen cartoon which shows two pilots peering through the clag. Directly ahead of them is a mountain goat. The caption reads: "Say, what's a mountain goat doing way up here in a cloud bank?"

 

 

Cheers, The Forester

[+makerofthingsup]

That's all well and good but it doesn't answer my question. Is there such a thing as a "mountain cache"? If not then there should be, it could have it's own special little symbol and everything.

[+snaik]

There isn't a type cache as a "Mountain Cache" you could always rename your cache to "Shirfare's Point - Mountain Cache". Dont think we need a new type for caches over 2000ft as the Difficulty / Terrain should reflect this.

 

Snaik

[+Haggis Hunter]

There isn't a type cache as a "Mountain Cache" you could always rename your cache to "Shirfare's Point - Mountain Cache". Dont think we need a new type for caches over 2000ft as the Difficulty / Terrain should reflect this.

 

Snaik

Yep, I think I can agree with Snaik on this. There are a lot of caches that are officially on mountains. So far no one has had a problem with noticing that the cache is a bloody long way up.

[+The Forester]

Dont think we need a new type for caches over 2000ft as the Difficulty / Terrain should reflect this.

 

Very slightly off-topic, but I've always thought the the person who sets the cache is one of the least suitable to assess the difficulty.

 

I think a better way to "score" the difficulty of terrain and finding would be for all the finders who log find to 'vote' their preferred number of stars. The average of all the votes would be a good indicator of what level of difficulty the average geocacher might expect.

 

For an ex-military man, or an MRT-trained mountain guide, or a very fit geocaching couple such as FoF/Roolku, a cachesite which might banjax the ordinary geocacher might seem to be very easy. By averaging out the opinions of many cache-loggers, a better balance of opinions could be formed.

 

 

Cheers, The Forester

[+Haggis Hunter]

For an ex-military man, or an MRT-trained mountain guide, or a very fit geocaching couple such as FoF/Roolku,

I guess I must have made up the ex-military man, for the threesome that we had last week. Perhaps Highland Nick can come along next time to make up the MRT-trained mountain guide part.

 

I suppose this is the innevitable thing to happen when you get together for a days caching.

People get the wrong idea

[+snaik]

I think a better way to "score" the difficulty of terrain and finding would be for all the finders who log  find to 'vote' their preferred number of stars.  The average of all the votes would be a good indicator of what level of difficulty the average geocacher might expect.

Just a suggestion would be to grade the route to a cache! if it is in Wild Country!

 

Grade 1 - An easy walk over straightforward ground with no significant height gain or loss.

 

Grade 2 - A walk over more uneven ground or with more strenous objective factors such as height gain or loss.

 

Grade 3 - A walk with more severe height gain or loss. Navigation skills may be required. Harder terrain. In mountainous areas some scrambling may be required.

 

Grade 4 - Significant height gain or loss. Harder navigation particularly in poor weather. More remote or at least a less popular route perhaps so help may be harder to get if you get into trouble. Navigation skills may be required or navigation may be harder. In mountainous areas scrambling may be required, or some routes exposed. Poor or intermittent mobile phone signal

 

Grade 5 - Much more serious walking proposition. Significant height gain or loss. Perhaps significant navigation required. In mountainous areas the routes would require scrambling. Perhaps significant objective considerations such as exposed routes, potential for severe weather changes. Little or no assistance available locally if problems arise. No mobile phone signal.

 

If the Cache Page has the Handicaching Logo it gives you a chance to rate the Cache, you can then work out an average rating for the cache from the Handicache Rating.

 

 

Edited: due to spolling mostooks du to Beans still in Keyboard

Edited September 22, 2004 by Snaik

[+Firth of Forth]

or a very fit geocaching couple such as FoF/Roolku

 

The Forester is clearly much more knowledgeable than the rest of us, as he knows things that noone else does!!

 

Hmmm, go out caching for a day with two guys, ergo I must be having a relationship with one of them. Logical innit?

Edited September 22, 2004 by Firth of Forth

[+Firth of Forth]

QUOTE 

or a very fit geocaching couple such as FoF/Roolku

 

 

The Forester is clearly much more knowledgeable than the rest of us, as he knows things that noone else does!! 

 

Hmmm, go out caching for a day with two guys, ergo I must be having a relationship with one of them. Logical innit? 

 

Just had a big giggle when I realised the caching name of the person who started this thread!! What an appropriate thread for this nonsense!

 

Apologies to the author of the thread for taking it so far off topic!

[+snaik]

or a very fit geocaching couple such as FoF/Roolku,

 

Old Celtic Saying

 

May you have the hindsight to know where you have been and the foresight to know where you are going and the insight to know when you are going too far

[+Flyfishermanbob]

Another Gaelic proverb :- Even God cannot make two mountains without a valley in between.