New Munro?

[Tom282]

http://www.scotsman.com/regions/inverne ... -1-4452544

Saw this article on The Scotsman website. Would be a shame for me having Tom282 as my username if there was a 283rd Munro

[jmarkb]

You needn't worry: that's shoddy journalism. If confirmed it will be a new Munro Top, not a new Munro: before the resurvey it had 35m of reascent, so maybe 41/42m now, nothing like enough to warrant separate mountain status.
And if you've done the Stob Ban to MnC traverse, you will have climbed it anyway.

[jmarkb]

Sorry! Above post of mine overlapped your post and repeats your point about it being a new Munro top.

No problem, I have no objection to people agreeing with me

[Tom282]

You needn't worry: that's shoddy journalism. If confirmed it will be a new Munro Top, not a new Munro: before the resurvey it had 35m of reascent, so maybe 41/42m now, nothing like enough to warrant separate mountain status.
And if you've done the Stob Ban to MnC traverse, you will have climbed it anyway.

That makes sense. I was confused when I read the article and baffled as to why it could be classified as a separate Munro when I looked at the maps. Cheers for clearing it up.

[prog99]

The scotsman are quoting an article in Scottish Mountaineering which I dont think is right. I think they mean the west top Meall a' Charorainn which has a 910 ring contour. The east top has always (at least since I paid attention) had top status.

[Sunset tripper]

The scotsman are quoting an article in Scottish Mountaineering which I dont think is right. I think they mean the west top Meall a' Charorainn which has a 910 ring contour. The east top has always (at least since I paid attention) had top status.

I agree the southeast top is already marked as 917m. The small bump in between the 917 and the munro has a ring contour of 890m so I doubt if it's that one they are talking about. On my map Meall a'Chaorainn has a ring at 900m and a spot height at 910 so it looks more likely to be that one if any. So it will be a new hill for munro top baggers as it is not on the usual munro circuit.
I was on Meall a Chaorainn last month and never thought about it.
I also agree very shoddy journalism. Very confusing.

[Sunset tripper]

I agree the southeast top is already marked as 917m. The small bump in between the 917 and the munro has a ring contour of 890m so I doubt if it's that one they are talking about. On my map Meall a'Chaorainn has a ring at 900m and a spot height at 910 so it looks more likely to be that one if any. So it will be a new hill for munro top baggers as it is not on the usual munro circuit.
I was on Meall a Chaorainn last month and never thought about it.
I also agree very shoddy journalism. Very confusing.

CORRECTION! ........After re-reading RTC and jmarkbs comments I see the east top, east of the 917 top, with the 910 contour.
It's getting late is my excuse.
Panic over for munro top baggers

[prog99]

So it is , the far east east top has a 910 height on the 1:25k

[Jim777]

//The following post has been merged into this thread as it is the same topic - MODERATOR//

Noticed this article in The Scotsman on Sunday 21st May which said that the East top of Mullach nan Coirean in the Mamores which had originally been measured at 910 metres / 2,986 ft had now been measured by a company called Pedantic Surveys at 916.6 metres / 3,007 ft.. The top which they are referring to is Meall a' Chaorainn which isn't to the East but actually South West of Mullach nan Coirean and I would imagine not done by many people on a round of the Mamores. I estimate the col between the Munro Mullach nan Coirean and Meall a' Chaorainn to be about 870 metres. This would give a rise of 56.6 metres to the summit of Meall a' Chaorainn from the col and 69 metres to the summit of Mullach nan Coirean. Considering the vast majority of Tops have a topographic prominence of over 150 metres / 492 ft
I would hope that this summit is not given Munro status.

[jmarkb]

Full survey report (from 2014!) here: https://www.rhb.org.uk/surveys/C725.pdf.

[chigton]

I'm assuming from the comments and reading the report that the area circled in red is the top in question. Would there be enough height loss/gain between the south-east and east tops for them to classify as two separate munro tops? Surely the east top (surveyed at 916.612m) would have to be higher than the south-east top (surveyed at 917.475m) for the munro top to be reassigned? Certainly a "new munro" as claimed by the article seems a bit far fetched.

[jmarkb]

Would there be enough height loss/gain between the south-east and east tops for them to classify as two separate munro tops?

Almost certainly yes: the survey report gives the prominence of the east top as 38.6m. There are over 100 current Munro Tops with a prominence of less than or equal to this, and no 3000ft+ summits with more than 30m prominence that are not Munro Tops.

[teaandpies]

Clickbait.

[prog99]

Clickbait.

?

[jupe1407]

Clickbait.

It's not really clickbait tbf, just poor research resulting in a shambles of a newspaper article.