Large Mountain Average Elevation Discussion

[Zaratthustra]

So, as the title suggests we have no measurement for ''large mountains'' to use in our calculations if no statement/visual feat is given. While on our Mountain and Island level requirements page tell us from what elevation a landform is classified as a ''Mountain'' - which is on our wiki as 2000 feet or 609.6 meters, even if most geologists say that is starting from 1000 feats (304.8m), would be a kinda too big revision to go through all calculations that use our current value and change it.

Anyway, I made this thread so we can decide on a height to be settled for Large Mountains when they are destroyed/created in fiction and no given values are stated. Such a height can't be found on google as what may be a large mountain in a country, will likely not be the same in another one: Example: The biggest mountain in my country Romania is Moldoveanu Peak which is 2,544 meters (8,346 ft) tall while in China is Mt. Everest which is 8,849 meters (29,032 feet) tall. If you ignore Mt. Everest as its presence is in other countries too there are still other 73 mountains that are taller than the one in my country.

Another point is since we are not given the height then likely we aren't given the diameter too which is a must when we calculate the feats. What should we accept as its diameter: A half of its height? A third of it? Maybe twice its size or just one and a half its height, etc.

Some may say but we have calculations for Large Mountains in the above linked paged (Mountain and Island level requirements), why not use them? Because these heights/values are calculations that show how big a mountain needs to be classified to get a rating of ''Mountain Level (7-A) or Large Mountain Level (High 7-A)".

Tdlr: What height should be the standard height and diameter for a ''Large Mountain'' in our calculations if no values are given.

 

[KLOL506]

In no shape or form is 300 m considered to be the norm for a mountain even by the majority of geologists. In fact, the the United States Geological Survey (USGS) concludes that these terms (Mountains and Hills) do not have technical definitions in the US anymore, that they are too ambiguous at best. The UK itself also uses 610 m as the standard definition for a mountain height (The same link by the USGS states the British Ordnance Survey once had mountains to be at least 300 m tall but that it was abandoned in the 1920s).

But the Large Mountain level argument holds some merit. I will tag some calc members to look at it.

 

[KLOL506]

@Mr._Bambu @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir What do you guys think?

 

[Zaratthustra]

In no shape or form is 300 m considered to be the norm for a mountain even by the majority of geologists. In fact, the the United States Geological Survey (USGS) concludes that these terms (Mountains and Hills) do not have technical definitions in the US anymore, that they are too ambiguous at best. The UK itself also uses 610 m as the standard definition for a mountain height (The same link by the USGS states the British Ordnance Survey once had mountains to be at least 300 m tall but that it was abandoned in the 1920s).

But the Large Mountain level argument holds some merit. I will tag some calc members to look at it.

In the ''Glossary of Geology by Jackson, Julia A." an elevation of a platform starting from 300m above the sea level is classified as a Mountain. They are also classified by classes in the Mountain Watch by UNEP. In most cases (searching on google), you'll find that 300 m is the value given while in the UK yes it is 610 m. But like I said above this is not about what we consider a mountain but for large mountains.

At the same time, I have a degree in Geography at University, so I would like to say that I know things regarding it good enough.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Large mountain is at least mountain height. 'Large' is much too subjective of a term to conclude anything more from that.
What diameter is concerned, I usually assume that the average steepness of a mountain is at most 45°. What's backing that up is that the angle of repose of most materials isn't higher than that. Over long times most mountains should, on the large scale, be eroded to have an average angle of that or even less.
That's of course not a strict rule, though. Exceptions probably exist.
Still, even 30° is widely considered a (very) steep slope, so I think 45° is usually fine.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

There is classification for mountains. Perhaps this could be useful?

The UN Environmental Programme's definition of "mountainous environment" includes any of the following:[9]: 74 

• Class 1: Elevation greater than 4,500 m (14,764 ft).
• Class 2: Elevation between 3,500 m (11,483 ft) and 4,500 m (14,764 ft).
• Class 3: Elevation between 2,500 m (8,202 ft) and 3,500 m (11,483 ft).
• Class 4: Elevation between 1,500 m (4,921 ft) and 2,500 m (8,202 ft), with a slope greater than 2 degrees.
• Class 5: Elevation between 1,000 m (3,281 ft) and 1,500 m (4,921 ft), with a slope greater than 5 degrees and/or 300 m (984 ft) elevation range within 7 km (4.3 mi).
• Class 6: Elevation between 300 m (984 ft) and 1,000 m (3,281 ft), with a 300 m (984 ft) elevation range within 7 km (4.3 mi).
• Class 7: Isolated inner basins and plateaus less than 25 km2 (9.7 sq mi) in area that are completely surrounded by Class 1 to 6 mountains, but do not themselves meet criteria for Class 1 to 6 mountains.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Aye, but we can't really use any of that as baseline "large", I think. Doing so would create an arbitrary standard.

I agree with DT, essentially.