walkhighlands

How to... guides to Walkhighlands

Relative height

Relative height


Postby johnathanx » Thu May 04, 2017 10:00 am

Hello! New to this site, but had a small query.

When looking at the page for a mountain, the altitude is shown.

I don't seem to be able to find the relative height of the mountain though, does anyone know if that's displayed anywhere? If not, is there a reason for that not being present?
johnathanx
Wanderer
 
Posts: 2
Munros:60   Corbetts:11
Grahams:3   
Sub 2000:15   Hewitts:3
Joined: May 2, 2017

Re: Relative height

Postby prog99 » Thu May 18, 2017 8:02 pm

Because its not desperately useful?
User avatar
prog99
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 1603
Grahams:130   
Joined: Aug 14, 2013
Location: Highlands

Re: Relative height

Postby dav2930 » Fri May 19, 2017 10:30 pm

There is no single 'relative height' value that can be given for a hill, since every hill has a multitude of 'relative heights'. If you want to know the amount of ascent involved in walking up a particular hill, then that all depends on where you start from and which route you take. On the Walkhighlands page for a given hill the altitude above sea-level of the summit is shown, then if you click on 'Detailed route description and map' you'll see the amount of cumulative ascent for the particular route described (which may include the ascents of other hills as well). You can also plot your own route on the digital 'our route' map which is available in the 'new walk report' (or blog entry) section, and that will show a reading for the cumulative ascent of your plotted route (as well as one for the distance).
User avatar
dav2930
Ambler
 
Posts: 1524
Munros:242   Corbetts:13
Grahams:16   Donalds:45
Sub 2000:1   Hewitts:164
Wainwrights:214   Islands:2
Joined: Feb 13, 2015
Location: Cumbria

Re: Relative height

Postby jmarkb » Sat May 20, 2017 10:18 am

dav2930 wrote:There is no single 'relative height' value that can be given for a hill, since every hill has a multitude of 'relative heights'.


Relative height (or topographic prominence) can be well-defined: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence for several equivalent definitions.

The definitive reference for the British Isles is the Database of British and Irish Hills http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/, and keeping this site synced with all their updates would just be a pain, I would guess!
User avatar
jmarkb
Mountaineer
 
Posts: 5145
Munros:241   Corbetts:99
Grahams:81   Donalds:31
Sub 2000:46   
Joined: Oct 28, 2011
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Relative height

Postby dav2930 » Sat May 20, 2017 4:20 pm

jmarkb wrote:
dav2930 wrote:There is no single 'relative height' value that can be given for a hill, since every hill has a multitude of 'relative heights'.


Relative height (or topographic prominence) can be well-defined: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence for several equivalent definitions.

The definitive reference for the British Isles is the Database of British and Irish Hills http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/, and keeping this site synced with all their updates would just be a pain, I would guess!

Thanks jmarkb, fair comment since I should have realized that by 'relative height' the OP probably meant topographic prominence which, as you say, is clearly defined and actually very interesting. I suppose I took the term 'relative height' at face value and thought 'relative to what?' :roll:

Notwithstanding updating issues, I guess it would be interesting to see prominences listed alongside altitudes!?
User avatar
dav2930
Ambler
 
Posts: 1524
Munros:242   Corbetts:13
Grahams:16   Donalds:45
Sub 2000:1   Hewitts:164
Wainwrights:214   Islands:2
Joined: Feb 13, 2015
Location: Cumbria

Re: Relative height

Postby johnathanx » Tue May 23, 2017 10:55 am

Thanks everyone. That all makes sense, I understand that this number might be hard to decide upon depending on where one starts their walk.

I think my definition of 'relative height' was from the peak to ground level around the mountain, as opposed to sea level. I see now this definition isn't correct.

Just to provide some context: I'm doing these walks with my mum who is looking at the altitude listed on here as exactly how many meters she will have to ascend, and I'm trying to explain that the ascent will most likely be a fair bit less, depending on how high we park the car. I think I was just looking for a "closest car park to peak" sort of height.

Thanks for the responses and advice!
johnathanx
Wanderer
 
Posts: 2
Munros:60   Corbetts:11
Grahams:3   
Sub 2000:15   Hewitts:3
Joined: May 2, 2017

Re: Relative height

Postby Paul Webster » Tue May 23, 2017 10:59 am

If you look at our detailed walking routes, the ascent figure given there is the amount of ascent that that walk includes. I think this is the figure you are looking for.
User avatar
Paul Webster
Site Admin
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 5477
Munros:282   Corbetts:222
Grahams:71   Donalds:45
Sub 2000:119   Hewitts:133
Wainwrights:134   Islands:92
Joined: Jan 6, 2007
Location: Highland
Walk wish-list




Walkhighlands community forum is advert free


Your generosity keeps this site running.
Can you help support Walkhighlands and the online community by donating by direct debit?



Return to Help - how to use the site

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests