English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

11 answers

There are no official definitions for generic terms as applied to geographic names. Every organization will have a definition that is application driven, and no one office definition is accepted as official. The difference is thematic and beyond that it is highly perceptive.

Many controversies exist, such as mountain/hill, which we call summit (as are 194 other generic terms applied to features with similar characteristics), and city/town that we classify as populated place, etc. It might be of interest that the British Ordnance Survey once defined a mountain as having 1,000 feet of elevation, and less was a hill, but this was abandoned sometime in the 1920's we believe. There was even a movie with this as its theme in the late 1990's - The Englishman That Went Up a Hill and Down a Mountain. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names once stated that the difference between a hill and a mountain in the U.S. was 1,000 feet of local relief, but even this was abandoned in the early 1970's.

2006-08-16 21:58:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted standard definition for the height of a mountain or a hill although a mountain usually has an identifiable summit. In the United Kingdom, a mountain must be over 600 meters (1969 feet) or over 300 meters (984 feet) if it's an abrupt difference in the local topography. However, some hills can be called mountains and some mountains can be called hills - it's just a matter of the original name given to the relief.
Many controversies exist, such as mountain/hill, which we call summit (as are 194 other generic terms applied to features with similar characteristics), and city/town that we classify as populated place, etc. It might be of interest that the British Ordnance Survey once defined a mountain as having 1,000 feet of elevation, and less was a hill, but this was abandoned sometime in the 1920's we believe. There was even a movie with this as its theme in the late 1990's - The Englishman That Went Up a Hill and Down a Mountain. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names once stated that the difference between a hill and a mountain in the U.S. was 1,000 feet of local relief, but even this was abandoned in the early 1970's.
There is no formal distinction between a hill and a mountain, although there are a good few informal ones. The only generally accepted definition is that a mountain is bigger than a hill and has steep slopes and a relatively confined summit; a hill isn't as big and tends to have a broad, poorly defined summit.

2006-08-17 00:23:06 · answer #2 · answered by Ashish B 4 · 0 0

The distinction between a hill and a mountain is unclear and largely subjective, but a hill is generally somewhat lower and less steep than a mountain.

A mountain is a landform that extends above the surrounding terrain in a limited area. A mountain is generally higher and steeper than a hill, but there is considerable overlap, and usage often depends on local custom. Some authorities define a mountain as a peak with a topographic prominence over a defined value.

2006-08-16 21:58:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A hill is less than 1000 feet above sea level.

2006-08-19 07:37:39 · answer #4 · answered by ALAN Q 4 · 1 0

All I know about hills is the delineation between those over twelve inches high and those under twelve inches. Those up to twelve inches high are known as FOOT HILLS...

(Sorry - I couldn't resist it - I know it's a daft answer but it might just raise a smile somewhere along the line ! ! !)

2006-08-16 22:18:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

not another one... you see at the top of your screen, where it says search.. well guess what , your not the first person, who finds google to difficult to use, use this instead, type in hill mountain, and stop wasting our time

2006-08-16 22:01:33 · answer #6 · answered by yeah well 5 · 0 2

there is actually a funny film about that....can't recall the name...but it has hugh grant in it...(and yes, it's still funny!)

there is a certain hight a hill has to be - but i haven't got a clue how much it is

2006-08-16 21:57:31 · answer #7 · answered by 42 6 · 0 0

Generally I think its about 1,000 feet above average surrounding terrain.

2006-08-16 22:00:07 · answer #8 · answered by eggman 7 · 1 0

over 500 metres

2006-08-16 23:56:54 · answer #9 · answered by sub-zero ide 2 · 0 0

Above tree level! (air is to thin for trees to grow) so many thousand meters!

2006-08-16 21:57:57 · answer #10 · answered by Macka 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers