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

4 answers

You know, I don't think there is any set rule for that. I think it largely depends on people's perspective. I live in Alabama now and they talk about their "mountains" but compared to what I grew up with in Virginia, they seem like "hills" to me.

In my mind, hills always just seemed to be where there was an accumulation of sediment and rocks to make a rise, where as mountains are a result of tectonic activity. That's just me, though.

Maybe there is some set elevation difference. If there is I'd like to know, too.

2007-12-15 09:19:04 · answer #1 · answered by Lady Geologist 7 · 0 0

There doesn't appear to be any agreed rule based on elevation - although there have been in the past.

"The British Ordnance Survey once defined a mountain as having 1,000 feet of elevation and less was a hill, but the distinction was abandoned sometime in the 1920's. 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. Broad agreement on such questions is essentially impossible, which is why there are no official feature classification standards" - from USGS

More a question of how we view it.

Mountain - bare rock, steep cliffs, crags etc - think ropes

Hill - more gentle slopes, vegetation - think pleasant (if strenuous) walk

2007-12-15 10:08:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Dictionary of Geologic Terms defines "mountains" as any landform which rises prominently above the area surrounding it. I have heard some geologist claim a the difference is in the way in which the landform was formed.
A landform thought to be formed by tectonic forces is considered to be a mountain, while hills are thought to be purely erosional features. The difference here would be the Ozark Plateau, being a erosional landform would be a set of hills, while the Rocky Mountains are thought to have been formed by tectonic forces.
The dictionary on geology.com says
Mountain: A general term used in reference to an area that is at a conspicuously higher elevation than surrounding lands. Mountains are larger than hills and are significant enough in relief that they are given names by local residents.
This definition sounds good to me except there are plenty of hills out there with names given them.

2007-12-15 10:42:59 · answer #3 · answered by TheBodyElectric 3 · 0 0

In Britain, the highest hill is Crag Hill, in England, about 2750 feet. The smallest mountain is Bangor Mountain, in Wales, which is only about 385 feet.

In Scotland, we usually think of hills being up to 2000 feet and mountains being higher, but there are plenty of exceptions, for example Tinto Hill in the Southern Uplands which is 2330 feet.

I rather think that the word used for a peak depends not only on its absolute height, but also on its prominence relative to its surroundings, and on local usage.

2007-12-15 10:18:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers