Munro Classification

[harkinchristopher]

Hey guys,

Bit of a basic question here but bear with me. I was wondering about the classification of Munros. I climbed Buachaille Etive Mor this week (superb fun) but I'm confused as to why Stob Dearg (1022ft) and Stob Na Broige (956ft) are classified as Munros, but the other peaks Stob Na Doire (1011ft) and Stob Coire Altruim (941ft) aren't.

I've seen them referred to a few times as 'Munro tops' but not entirely sure what this means.

Anyone have any information on this?

Much appreciated

[johnkaysleftleg]

I'll have a go at explaining. All mountains over 3000ft with a drop of at least 500ft on all sides are classed as separate Munro's. This means that the ascent, no mater where you climb from is 500ft or more. Also included are other mountains classed as sufficiently removed in terms of distance or difficulty with less than 500ftof ascent. Am Bastier on the Isle of Skye for example has a drop of only about 150ft but as attaining the summit is difficult its classed as a separate mountain. All other tops over 3000ft but with a drop of at least 100ft are Munro tops.
Hope this helps!

[johnkaysleftleg]

I'll have a go at explaining. All mountains over 3000ft with a drop of at least 500ft on all sides are classed as separate Munro's. This means that the ascent, no mater where you climb from is 500ft or more. Also included are other mountains classed as sufficiently removed in terms of distance or difficulty with less than 500ftof ascent. Am Bastier on the Isle of Skye for example has a drop of only about 150ft but as attaining the summit is difficult its classed as a separate mountain. All other tops over 3000ft but with a drop of at least 100ft are Munro tops.
Hope this helps!

Sorry. There is no 500 foot drop rule for Munros. The difference between Munros and Munro tops is purely subjective.

If a 3000ft top has a drop of 500ft it is a Munro no mater what. That's why several mountains were classed as one Munro in the original list now have two or more. I agree entirely that for tops with less than a 500ft drop the classification is subjective. I obviously didn't make this clear.

[johnkaysleftleg]

Sorry, but you are wrong about the 500 foot rule which only applies to Corbetts. here is a quote from the 1980 SMC "Munro Tables." [I know this is from 1980 but the Munros are a historic list.]
"The Munros do not have a clear definition beyond the "Separate Mountain" and "Subsiduary Top" split. There is no specific re-ascent laid down as there is with the Corbetts."
Here is what Munro himself said in his introduction to the list of Munros. "The exact number cannot be determined, owing to the impossibility of deciding what should be determined distinct mountains."

Whether there is a rule or not what I'm saying is true. The Munro top with the biggest drop is Stob na doire with a drop of 472ft. Every 3000ft marilyn is a separate Munro. I made a mistake on the tops however, they are totally subjective.

[cmarcol]

Two that spring to mind are Tolmount and Tom Buidhe. Nothing between them (barely 150ft) but both Munros. Across the Glen- Beinn Iutharn Bheag which is further away and has a bigger drop from Beinn Iutharn Mhor than Tolmount and Tom Buidhe is only a top!

I've stopped trying to work out the logic and just enjoy the walking

[Sgurr]

Take a look at the Munros in the South Glen Shiel Ridge. The total ascent is 5964 feet. The first hill is 3106 feet, which leaves 2858 feet of ascent to share between the remaining 6 hills, so the average drop per hill is 476....less than 500. Not all of the Munros have a 500 feet difference, although all the Munros which are Marilyns do, Or am I mistaking Johnkay's point?

[IamAJMiller]

There you go Chris, hope that's cleared things up for you!

[harkinchristopher]

Thanks for all of the feedback folks. I'm still slightly baffled but feel a bit better

[simon-b]

Thanks for all of the feedback folks. I'm still slightly baffled but feel a bit better

I hope this can simplify things, Chris. To be a Munro, a mountain has to be in Scotland, and have a height above sea level of 3000 ft (914.4 metres) or greater. Which Scottish peaks with this height are classified as Munros is decided, as RTC says, by the SMC, who make a subjective decision as to whether such a peak is the summit of a separate mountain (therefore a Munro) or a subsidiary (therefore not having full Munro status).

I believe what johnkaysleftleg wrote also happens to be true, even if it's not a rule of classification.

[foggieclimber]

Summary of hill classification definitions:
http://www.hills-database.co.uk/database_notes.html#defs

[mrssanta]

the easiest way is to look at the map and see where the red balloons are this week.
Next week it might be different.

[gman]

It's a bit of a muddle. The SMC wanted to find out how many Scottish hills were over 3000 feet so Sir Hugh Munro went out with his barometer, took measurements and decided which hills seemed like separate mountains and which were just subsidiary tops.

His original list of measurements could be improved/revised in a couple of ways: more accurate measurements using modern equipment; and setting objective criteria for deciding what exactly is a separate Munro - more recent lists like Corbetts use prominence for this. But if the SMC make a rule for Munro prominence they'll lose their official status as keepers of the list, since anyone could go out and measure the hills more accurately and update the table. And it's a nice wee earner .

It now looks like the Munro Society is continuing the spirit of Sir Hugh's work by accurately measuring hills, while the SMC lag behind (eg taking over a year to accept the height of Beinn a'Chlaidheimh).

[KeithS]

This should clear up the matter up once and for all:

I have had many a discussion with non hillwalkers regarding the difference between the top of a Munro, which can mean the top, which is the highest point, and the top of a Munro which is a sticky up bit which is attached to the Munro, and is above Munro height, but is not as high as the top of the Munro, which is the summit, and therefore the top, or Munro. The top of the top is not the top of the Munro, so if you say you have reached the top, this could mean you have reached the top of the top, or it could mean you have reached the top of the Munro, which also is classed as a top, although most people would not class it as a top in itself, but the top of the Munro, as opposed to a separate top.

I hope that clears up any confusion.

[gaffr]

That just about says it all ....I even refer to bigger mountains as being tops.
Oh! something else...are there not some of the Munros with Corbett tops somewhere in the muddle?

[Essan]

It is quite simple:

All summits listed in Munros Tables as being a Munro are Munros
All summits listed in Munros Tables as being a Munro Top are Munro Tops

That is all there is to it

Other than having to be over 3,000ft, what defines a Munro or Munro Top is entirely arbitary.

Corbetts, Grahams, Marilyns etc have a more specific definition (500ft or 150m of reascent), which is why some prefer them. But even they are subject to change due to re-surveying.

The best thing is to climb a hill because you want to. Not because it is in someone elses list ....