Difference between hill and mountain?

MiloDublin · 2012-11-19 17:17:03

I was reading a piece about the 'Wicklow Hills' and it just sounded wrong. I know that they are not that high but 'hill' for me has always meant something that you could climb quickly and easily. Are there any rules to define when a hill becomes a mountain or is it more subjective?

19-11-2012 06:17PM

#1

MiloDublin

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 80 ✭✭

Join Date: September 2012

Posts: 55

I was reading a piece about the 'Wicklow Hills' and it just sounded wrong. I know that they are not that high but 'hill' for me has always meant something that you could climb quickly and easily.
Are there any rules to define when a hill becomes a mountain or is it more subjective?

0

Comments

#2 20-11-2012 11:46PM

locum-motion

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,144 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2009

Posts: 4178

Ask Hugh Grant.

0
#3 21-11-2012 05:58PM

HavingCrack

Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2010

Posts: 2784

It's very unclear and objective. A lot of people think because of the Hugh Grant film that in the UK a hill becomes a mountain at 1000 feet according to the UK Ordnance Survey but it's just an urban legend. There's no official categorisation in Ireland anyway.

I think there may be in France but I'm not sure.

0
#4 27-11-2012 03:31AM

Geo10

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2011

Posts: 1534

I've always heard that generally mountains are over 600m and hills are under 600m. Also hills don't have distinct summits as mountains do, and the gradient of mountains tends to be a lot steeper.

0