This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I do not post or take part on any forums and tend to speak to friends about stuff that happens in the outdoor world.
Over the years the uping, downing, reclassification of this Munro, that Munro, is it a Munro top, or is it not and this is begining to irratate me and also most of the freinds I talk to.
The Munros and his tables are part of the mountaineering history of Scotland and I think they should be left well alone.
I do know Munro was a stickiler for accuracy and the mesurements were made with the best equipment availible at the time. The list should be left as Munro had calculated them. After all they are called the Munros and the Munro tables, the clue being in the title. The tick in the book is only part of the reason for bagging them.
I'd like to know why the Munro Society feel they can just interficker with this part of mountaineering history, accurate or not.
Dose anyone else feel the same or is it just me ?
Over the years the uping, downing, reclassification of this Munro, that Munro, is it a Munro top, or is it not and this is begining to irratate me and also most of the freinds I talk to.
The Munros and his tables are part of the mountaineering history of Scotland and I think they should be left well alone.
I do know Munro was a stickiler for accuracy and the mesurements were made with the best equipment availible at the time. The list should be left as Munro had calculated them. After all they are called the Munros and the Munro tables, the clue being in the title. The tick in the book is only part of the reason for bagging them.
I'd like to know why the Munro Society feel they can just interficker with this part of mountaineering history, accurate or not.
Dose anyone else feel the same or is it just me ?
In reply to wullclark: Sort of. They have an obsessive do gooding air to them although of course the Munros were revised many times before they existed.
In reply to wullclark:
I see your point but if you know that some of the hills in your list are not over 3000' then doesn't the list run the danger of just becoming a list of braw big hlls in Scotland?
...which would actually be a good list to make. The equivalent of three star routes, why shouldn't we come up with a list of three star hills?
I'll start with a few off the top of my head.
Beinn Eighe
Liathach
Foinaven
An Teallach
Stac pollaidh
Suilven
Cir Mhor
Dungeon Hill
I see your point but if you know that some of the hills in your list are not over 3000' then doesn't the list run the danger of just becoming a list of braw big hlls in Scotland?
...which would actually be a good list to make. The equivalent of three star routes, why shouldn't we come up with a list of three star hills?
I'll start with a few off the top of my head.
Beinn Eighe
Liathach
Foinaven
An Teallach
Stac pollaidh
Suilven
Cir Mhor
Dungeon Hill
In reply to wullclark:
I'm afraid Munro himself disagreed with you, he began the first revision of the tables almost immediately after they were originally published. I think they were meant more as an academic effort to establish how many 3000 foot mountains Scotland had rather than as a tick list for people to work through. So those like the Munro Society, SMC, OS et al who seek to clarify exactly how high a mountain is are continuing his work, not interfering with it.
The urge to tick every item on a list is understandable but should not be confused with the purpose of constructing the list in the first place.
You can continue to argue that 'Compleating the Munros' should refer to the original list but that shouldn't conflict with people trying to establish a more accurate answer to the original question. I'm sure that there must already be people out there whose aim is to complete a 'traditional' round.
> The Munros and his tables are part of the mountaineering history of Scotland and I think they should be left well alone.
> I do know Munro was a stickiler for accuracy and the mesurements were made with the best equipment availible at the time. The list should be left as Munro had calculated them.
> I do know Munro was a stickiler for accuracy and the mesurements were made with the best equipment availible at the time. The list should be left as Munro had calculated them.
I'm afraid Munro himself disagreed with you, he began the first revision of the tables almost immediately after they were originally published. I think they were meant more as an academic effort to establish how many 3000 foot mountains Scotland had rather than as a tick list for people to work through. So those like the Munro Society, SMC, OS et al who seek to clarify exactly how high a mountain is are continuing his work, not interfering with it.
The urge to tick every item on a list is understandable but should not be confused with the purpose of constructing the list in the first place.
You can continue to argue that 'Compleating the Munros' should refer to the original list but that shouldn't conflict with people trying to establish a more accurate answer to the original question. I'm sure that there must already be people out there whose aim is to complete a 'traditional' round.
In reply to Removed User: Like a hillwalking equivalent of Classic Rock? There are probably a few guide book authors out there who would like to think they've already written it. The alliterative opportunity of 'Braw Big Bens' should be considered. Your list looks nice (are you just back from a trip to the NW by any chance?), can I add Ben Lawers, Meall Nan Tarmachan and Schiehallion for a central highland section?
In reply to wullclark:
Munro's tables have nothing at all to do with the Munro Society. The tables are kept by the SMC.
But yes, my personal view is that changes to thee tables should only be made as a result of remeasurement (Sir Hugh would obviously have taken advantage of more accurate measurements). Subjective judgements on top or separate mountain status should be left as Munro made them; as you say, they are his tables! I think it is an absolute travesty that Carn Cloich Mhuillin which sir Hugh was keeping for his last Munro was demoted, however dubious its claims.
Munro's tables have nothing at all to do with the Munro Society. The tables are kept by the SMC.
But yes, my personal view is that changes to thee tables should only be made as a result of remeasurement (Sir Hugh would obviously have taken advantage of more accurate measurements). Subjective judgements on top or separate mountain status should be left as Munro made them; as you say, they are his tables! I think it is an absolute travesty that Carn Cloich Mhuillin which sir Hugh was keeping for his last Munro was demoted, however dubious its claims.
In reply to wullclark: Ya I don't agree. Although I think in the last big changes I was feeling the same. Maybe after Beinn a' Chlaidheimh went down.
The list was always meant to be as accurate as possible, thus the big man himself would probably have embraced the new measurements. Other demotions/promotions based on the peaks individuality is a sketchier issue, but I don't feel personally too hung up on this either, I suppose it's smoothing out the bumps and inconsistencies.
As someone said somewhere, sometime, if Beinn Eighe was in Glen Shiel it'd probably have 5 or 6 Munros.
Ultimately you could just do back to the absolute original list if you don't like the changes. That'd be some quality esoterica.
The list was always meant to be as accurate as possible, thus the big man himself would probably have embraced the new measurements. Other demotions/promotions based on the peaks individuality is a sketchier issue, but I don't feel personally too hung up on this either, I suppose it's smoothing out the bumps and inconsistencies.
As someone said somewhere, sometime, if Beinn Eighe was in Glen Shiel it'd probably have 5 or 6 Munros.
Ultimately you could just do back to the absolute original list if you don't like the changes. That'd be some quality esoterica.
In reply to wullclark: I'm all for it, getting more accurate measurements can only help make our excellent mapping even better. My only gripe is that they're mainly concentrating on hills with a potential outcome of promotion or demotion, which makes me wonder if its just a publicity stunt for the Munro Society. If they're ultimate plan is to measure them all then fair play to them, though that would take centuries at the rate they've been going.
In reply to wullclark:
Then it shouldn't matter much what labels are being applied to them.
Changing the label doesn't change the hill.
> The tick in the book is only part of the reason for bagging them.
Then it shouldn't matter much what labels are being applied to them.
Changing the label doesn't change the hill.
In reply to Robert Durran:
The two organisations are completely separate, agreed, and both are quite small - 400ish members of the SMC I think (Andy Nisbet will perhaps know the actual figure) and just a couple of hundred Munro Soc members (when there have been 6000-odd Munro completions). But the two have become connected in that the Munro Soc has successfully lobbied the SMC re several height-revision suggestions in recent years, with the involvement of the OS too, and to an extent the SMC doesn't now have as much control over the list as it did a decade ago.
There's probably some truth in Steve P's "publicity stunt" comment re the Munro Soc, although the downside for them is that because of the publicity on the BBC etc the wider public has come to see them as primarily a height-meddling society, while various other aspects of their work that used to be more prominent - eg research into the history of Munrobagging - have gone into relative decline. As a friend said to me just yesterday in the context of the Knight's Peak remeasuring, they've become the Demunroising Society. Not sure that was the intention when the society was set up a decade or so ago, and it could be argued that there has been a degree of entryism by the height-measuring faction (an even smaller grouping - tiny, in fact), not all of whom are Munro Soc members - they've sort of gradually taken over the society's agenda in recent years.
> Munro's tables have nothing at all to do with the Munro Society. The tables are kept by the SMC.
The two organisations are completely separate, agreed, and both are quite small - 400ish members of the SMC I think (Andy Nisbet will perhaps know the actual figure) and just a couple of hundred Munro Soc members (when there have been 6000-odd Munro completions). But the two have become connected in that the Munro Soc has successfully lobbied the SMC re several height-revision suggestions in recent years, with the involvement of the OS too, and to an extent the SMC doesn't now have as much control over the list as it did a decade ago.
There's probably some truth in Steve P's "publicity stunt" comment re the Munro Soc, although the downside for them is that because of the publicity on the BBC etc the wider public has come to see them as primarily a height-meddling society, while various other aspects of their work that used to be more prominent - eg research into the history of Munrobagging - have gone into relative decline. As a friend said to me just yesterday in the context of the Knight's Peak remeasuring, they've become the Demunroising Society. Not sure that was the intention when the society was set up a decade or so ago, and it could be argued that there has been a degree of entryism by the height-measuring faction (an even smaller grouping - tiny, in fact), not all of whom are Munro Soc members - they've sort of gradually taken over the society's agenda in recent years.
In reply to wullclark:
Having Munros demoted to non-Munro status sounds reasonable to me. I bet they become much quieter as a result
Having Munros demoted to non-Munro status sounds reasonable to me. I bet they become much quieter as a result
In reply to Dave Hewitt:
I am sure the SMC would adjust the list to take on board any height changes whoever did the meaasuring as long as the changes were ratified by the OS, but it is still the SMC's list; no one else can decide to change it though undoubtedly the SMC would lose credibility if it ignored ratified remeasurement.
Of course the Munro Society's remeasurement campaign is also a cunning form of self-promotion, which, as an upstart wannabe organisation, I suppose they feel they need.
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> The Munro Soc has successfully lobbied the SMC re several height-revision suggestions in recent years, with the involvement of the OS too, and to an extent the SMC doesn't now have as much control over the list as it did a decade ago.
I am sure the SMC would adjust the list to take on board any height changes whoever did the meaasuring as long as the changes were ratified by the OS, but it is still the SMC's list; no one else can decide to change it though undoubtedly the SMC would lose credibility if it ignored ratified remeasurement.
Of course the Munro Society's remeasurement campaign is also a cunning form of self-promotion, which, as an upstart wannabe organisation, I suppose they feel they need.
In reply to wullclark: I hadn't realised the Munro Society had such a miniscule membership.
In reply to kinley2:
I can't recall a recent precise figure, but when they invited various people (incl me) along to their very nice ten-year dinner a year ago, I think 260ish was quoted as the membership. It's a pretty high age profile - partly I guess because you have to have climbed all the Munros to qualify for membership, and although a lot of people now do that at a young age, on the whole the society appears to have a lot of "retired Munroists". I know that's a concern for them - there's a risk long-term that membership steadily declines due to youngish people joining at a slower rate than the old guard die off.
In my dealings with them (mainly the society proper, rather than the heightism faction) I've always found them a friendly and thoughtful bunch. There are a few impressively active members - eg the remarkable Robert MacDonald, eight rounds and counting despite being carless and based in Lancs - but they're generally not as active on the hill as might be hoped. In 2009 I was the speaker at their annual dinner in Pitlochry and next day joined their "president's walk" up Schiehallion. This was in reasonable weather, but despite there having been 80-odd at the meal there were only six of us - including me, a non-member - on the hill.
> I hadn't realised the Munro Society had such a miniscule membership.
I can't recall a recent precise figure, but when they invited various people (incl me) along to their very nice ten-year dinner a year ago, I think 260ish was quoted as the membership. It's a pretty high age profile - partly I guess because you have to have climbed all the Munros to qualify for membership, and although a lot of people now do that at a young age, on the whole the society appears to have a lot of "retired Munroists". I know that's a concern for them - there's a risk long-term that membership steadily declines due to youngish people joining at a slower rate than the old guard die off.
In my dealings with them (mainly the society proper, rather than the heightism faction) I've always found them a friendly and thoughtful bunch. There are a few impressively active members - eg the remarkable Robert MacDonald, eight rounds and counting despite being carless and based in Lancs - but they're generally not as active on the hill as might be hoped. In 2009 I was the speaker at their annual dinner in Pitlochry and next day joined their "president's walk" up Schiehallion. This was in reasonable weather, but despite there having been 80-odd at the meal there were only six of us - including me, a non-member - on the hill.
In reply to wullclark:
I believe the non-Scottish born, bred or domiciled Baron of Fisherfield sponsored the last Munro Society resurvey in his very own Fisherfield.
Is there an equivalent member of the nobility behind Knights Peak? Lets face it, awarding titles such as Baron of Fisherfield is a bit silly, I say that because if it wasn't silly it would be insulting. It's interesting to think that the taxpayer may have (indirectly) covered the cost of the Fisherfield resurvey
http://www.highland-news.co.uk/Home/LORD-WHO-5478072.htm
I believe the non-Scottish born, bred or domiciled Baron of Fisherfield sponsored the last Munro Society resurvey in his very own Fisherfield.
Is there an equivalent member of the nobility behind Knights Peak? Lets face it, awarding titles such as Baron of Fisherfield is a bit silly, I say that because if it wasn't silly it would be insulting. It's interesting to think that the taxpayer may have (indirectly) covered the cost of the Fisherfield resurvey
http://www.highland-news.co.uk/Home/LORD-WHO-5478072.htm
In reply to Steve Perry:
In fact the driving force is the enthusiam of the surveyors, and they drag the SMC and the Munro Society along with them. Most of the surveying is done in England and Wales.
> My only gripe is that they're mainly concentrating on hills with a potential outcome of promotion or demotion, which makes me wonder if its just a publicity stunt for the Munro Society. If they're ultimate plan is to measure them all then fair play to them, though that would take centuries at the rate they've been going.
In fact the driving force is the enthusiam of the surveyors, and they drag the SMC and the Munro Society along with them. Most of the surveying is done in England and Wales.
In reply to Andy Nisbet:
The SMC does seem to have been dragged along as you say, but the Munro Soc has been actively keen on the surveying/reheighting agenda for years now - eg, as drmarten says, one of its members has provided financial support for at least one of the surveys. As far as I'm aware there's been no similar financial backing from the SMC (not that I'm saying there should be).
Arguably the main question in all this, however, is the one that tends not to get discussed: the lack of interest from the OS in upland surveying over the past 15-20 years. This has created a kind of cartographic vacuum whereby keen amateur surveyors can get hold of high-quality GPS kit and produce results which the OS then check and verify rather than doing their own in-house professional surveying.
> In fact the driving force is the enthusiam of the surveyors, and they drag the SMC and the Munro Society along with them.
The SMC does seem to have been dragged along as you say, but the Munro Soc has been actively keen on the surveying/reheighting agenda for years now - eg, as drmarten says, one of its members has provided financial support for at least one of the surveys. As far as I'm aware there's been no similar financial backing from the SMC (not that I'm saying there should be).
Arguably the main question in all this, however, is the one that tends not to get discussed: the lack of interest from the OS in upland surveying over the past 15-20 years. This has created a kind of cartographic vacuum whereby keen amateur surveyors can get hold of high-quality GPS kit and produce results which the OS then check and verify rather than doing their own in-house professional surveying.
In reply to Dave Hewitt:
The new surveying being done relates to differences in height measurements of, say, 1m or so - doesn't it? I mean, nobody's discovering big *location* mistakes - are they? If that's the case, I don't think 'the lack of interest from the OS in upland surveying' is particularly scandalous.
> Arguably the main question in all this, however, is the one that tends not to get discussed: the lack of interest from the OS in upland surveying over the past 15-20 years. This has created a kind of cartographic vacuum whereby keen amateur surveyors can get hold of high-quality GPS kit and produce results which the OS then check and verify rather than doing their own in-house professional surveying.
The new surveying being done relates to differences in height measurements of, say, 1m or so - doesn't it? I mean, nobody's discovering big *location* mistakes - are they? If that's the case, I don't think 'the lack of interest from the OS in upland surveying' is particularly scandalous.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I don't think it's at all scandalous - just interesting in the way the playing field and the general dynamics have changed quite radically in recent years. I'm mainly just a bit uneasy about the small-margin claims of accuracy - 10cm, etc - being produced by non-professionals and without any second-visit verification. The readings could well be spot-on, but a second look from a separate measuring party wouldn't do any harm - checking stuff is standard procedure in a lot of areas.
Re Knight's Peak, the change in status that happened in 1997 came about after a rather mysterious SMC/OS survey (I've never really understood what happened, anyway, despite asking quite a few people), which produced a result to a higher degree of claimed accuracy than was normal at the time and which saw KP nudged above 3000ft and thus acquiring Munro Top status. Now the same kind of thing appears to have happened in reverse, again with a very small margin in play. It could be that a third visit would give another reading just above 3000ft again. It's all getting a bit hokey-cokey.
> If that's the case, I don't think 'the lack of interest from the OS in upland surveying' is particularly scandalous.
I don't think it's at all scandalous - just interesting in the way the playing field and the general dynamics have changed quite radically in recent years. I'm mainly just a bit uneasy about the small-margin claims of accuracy - 10cm, etc - being produced by non-professionals and without any second-visit verification. The readings could well be spot-on, but a second look from a separate measuring party wouldn't do any harm - checking stuff is standard procedure in a lot of areas.
Re Knight's Peak, the change in status that happened in 1997 came about after a rather mysterious SMC/OS survey (I've never really understood what happened, anyway, despite asking quite a few people), which produced a result to a higher degree of claimed accuracy than was normal at the time and which saw KP nudged above 3000ft and thus acquiring Munro Top status. Now the same kind of thing appears to have happened in reverse, again with a very small margin in play. It could be that a third visit would give another reading just above 3000ft again. It's all getting a bit hokey-cokey.
In reply to Dave Hewitt:
Ah, okay - point taken.
I agree that no changes should be accepted until the measurements are produced (and checked) according to agreed standards. I haven't paid attention to the details here, so I was assuming that's what was being done - but maybe not!
Ah, okay - point taken.
I agree that no changes should be accepted until the measurements are produced (and checked) according to agreed standards. I haven't paid attention to the details here, so I was assuming that's what was being done - but maybe not!
In reply to Rob Parsons:
The survey team do appear to be meeting standards the OS are satisfied with. There's a pretty full account of their methods and the associated checking which justify their claims of accuracy to within 5cm here: http://www.hills-database.co.uk/TMS_heighting_accuracy.pdf
The survey team do appear to be meeting standards the OS are satisfied with. There's a pretty full account of their methods and the associated checking which justify their claims of accuracy to within 5cm here: http://www.hills-database.co.uk/TMS_heighting_accuracy.pdf
In reply to wullclark: If wanting to read a report of the survey of Knight's Peak and the Basteir Tooth the following link will give access to our detailed Survey Rerorts http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/surveys.php
If wanting to see a video of each survey the following links should do the trick
Knight's Peak youtube.com/watch?v=f-PDSC1gzSU&
Basteir Tooth youtube.com/watch?v=QU5ehSA_x-0&
Myrddyn Phillips (G&J Surveys)
If wanting to see a video of each survey the following links should do the trick
Knight's Peak youtube.com/watch?v=f-PDSC1gzSU&
Basteir Tooth youtube.com/watch?v=QU5ehSA_x-0&
Myrddyn Phillips (G&J Surveys)
In reply to wullclark: There is nothing to stop you working on the list of your chosen vintage - even do some hills under 3000'.
Just remember, Munro's Tables have always responded to new mapping - right from the start and Sir Hugh himself was involved in two major revisions. There is no "historic" list.
Just remember, Munro's Tables have always responded to new mapping - right from the start and Sir Hugh himself was involved in two major revisions. There is no "historic" list.
In reply to wullclark:
I'm with you up to a point. I believe the word "self-appointed numpty" arose around about the same time Stob na Broige was made a new "Munro". I rest my case...
I'm with you up to a point. I believe the word "self-appointed numpty" arose around about the same time Stob na Broige was made a new "Munro". I rest my case...
In reply to wullclark:
No - totally agree with you. I'll be doing Munro's list and any other hills I feel like, and sod anyone who tells me I'm not a compleater (not that I'll be using that term, actually, but still).
jcm
No - totally agree with you. I'll be doing Munro's list and any other hills I feel like, and sod anyone who tells me I'm not a compleater (not that I'll be using that term, actually, but still).
jcm
In reply to Robert Durran:
Quite. Specially as it's a perfectly nice hill in a fantastic position.
jcm
> I think it is an absolute travesty that Carn Cloich Mhuillin which sir Hugh was keeping for his last Munro was demoted, however dubious its claims.
Quite. Specially as it's a perfectly nice hill in a fantastic position.
jcm
In reply to wullclark:
I think the keepers of the list of Munros should be revisionary about the height criterion, but conservative about the "independent mountain" criterion.
It's meant to be a list of hills of 3000ft or more in Scotland, so if our best information says that something, e.g. Beinn a'Chlaidheimh, is short of that height, then it should go out straight away.
That's fine, but mucking around with the lists as they did with the Mamores--redesignating something as a top when it was previously a Munro and vice versa, just on grounds of "judgement"--is just annoying. There's no quantitative criterion for independent mountains as there is with Corbetts. So it has to be a matter of judgement. So why not just follow Sir Hugh's judgements?
I was quite amused, when I completed the Munros on 14 August 2004, to be greeted and hand-shaken on the summit by the President of the Munro Society, Irvine Butterfield. He had his tie on and everything.
I think the keepers of the list of Munros should be revisionary about the height criterion, but conservative about the "independent mountain" criterion.
It's meant to be a list of hills of 3000ft or more in Scotland, so if our best information says that something, e.g. Beinn a'Chlaidheimh, is short of that height, then it should go out straight away.
That's fine, but mucking around with the lists as they did with the Mamores--redesignating something as a top when it was previously a Munro and vice versa, just on grounds of "judgement"--is just annoying. There's no quantitative criterion for independent mountains as there is with Corbetts. So it has to be a matter of judgement. So why not just follow Sir Hugh's judgements?
I was quite amused, when I completed the Munros on 14 August 2004, to be greeted and hand-shaken on the summit by the President of the Munro Society, Irvine Butterfield. He had his tie on and everything.
Post edited at 17:09
In reply to Tim Chappell:
He hadn't been invited?
> I was quite amused, when I completed the Munros on 14 August 2004, to be greeted and hand-shaken on the summit by the President of the Munro Society, Irvine Butterfield. He had his tie on and everything.
He hadn't been invited?
In reply to kinley2:
He was there (on top of Sith Chaillean) because he had been invited, by someone else, also called Tim, who was completing the Munros on the same day and same hill as me.
(Namely Tim Brett, who used to be i/c of NHS Tayside.)
He was there (on top of Sith Chaillean) because he had been invited, by someone else, also called Tim, who was completing the Munros on the same day and same hill as me.
(Namely Tim Brett, who used to be i/c of NHS Tayside.)
Post edited at 17:41
In reply to Tim Chappell:
And in the curious (but not unusual) way of these things, despite finishing on the same hill on the same day and being near-namesakes, the two Tims have ended up five places apart on the official list of Munroists: 3226 (this one) plays 3231 (t'other one).
And in the curious (but not unusual) way of these things, despite finishing on the same hill on the same day and being near-namesakes, the two Tims have ended up five places apart on the official list of Munroists: 3226 (this one) plays 3231 (t'other one).
In reply to Tim Chappell:
The Munro Society's revisions and seriously disgruntled munro baggers- It's all rather Asperger's Syndrome type behaviour, don't you think?
A group of people put a different label on it for whatever reason, but the hill itself remains the same, indifferent.
They are not passing legislation to say you can't climb it. They are, as Tim and others have pointed out, making quantitative AND qualitative judgements. Of course you may be dissuaded from climbing it if it doesn't make the list, but then the joke's on you for making that decision.
I wonder if those just starting out on the munros are at all bothered by revisions to the list. After all, it's just a list of some hills which may give you a goal to aim for, to commit in some substantial way to the hills. Having done so you'll likely have many fine memories to relive.
I say this as someone living in Wales without the usual Albacentric notion of 'the munros'. Here we have fourteen 3000'ers, more recently some say 15 , and others 16. It doesn't alter my appreciation of these hills. To me 'doing the munros' just gives me a pointer to where the mountainous bits are without it turning into an Excel spreadsheet.
This debate rather reminds me of Radio 4 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent_(game)
Finishing on a more upbeat note though, I have heard rumours that the Munro Society is filming a discussion between some of the pioneers of the 'continuous round'. I guess a DVD will be available. Armed with this and a copy of 'Hamish's Mountain walk' there'll be no excuse for the purists to re enact Brown's Variant of Munronington Crescent (1974 rules).
The Munro Society's revisions and seriously disgruntled munro baggers- It's all rather Asperger's Syndrome type behaviour, don't you think?
A group of people put a different label on it for whatever reason, but the hill itself remains the same, indifferent.
They are not passing legislation to say you can't climb it. They are, as Tim and others have pointed out, making quantitative AND qualitative judgements. Of course you may be dissuaded from climbing it if it doesn't make the list, but then the joke's on you for making that decision.
I wonder if those just starting out on the munros are at all bothered by revisions to the list. After all, it's just a list of some hills which may give you a goal to aim for, to commit in some substantial way to the hills. Having done so you'll likely have many fine memories to relive.
I say this as someone living in Wales without the usual Albacentric notion of 'the munros'. Here we have fourteen 3000'ers, more recently some say 15 , and others 16. It doesn't alter my appreciation of these hills. To me 'doing the munros' just gives me a pointer to where the mountainous bits are without it turning into an Excel spreadsheet.
This debate rather reminds me of Radio 4 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent_(game)
Finishing on a more upbeat note though, I have heard rumours that the Munro Society is filming a discussion between some of the pioneers of the 'continuous round'. I guess a DVD will be available. Armed with this and a copy of 'Hamish's Mountain walk' there'll be no excuse for the purists to re enact Brown's Variant of Munronington Crescent (1974 rules).
In reply to llechwedd:
But it doesn't stay the same, though - anything promoted to main Munro status will rapidly acquire at least one extra eroded path, quite possibly two (and in due course possibly a made path to compensate for the erosion). Conversely, anything demoted will either "grow back in" in path terms or acquire a skirting path - there's one short-cutting across the south side of Sgor an Iubhair, for instance, that I'm pretty sure wasn't there to anything like the same extent as when it was a Munro from 1981 to 1997. I haven't been to look at the Fisherfield situation since the recent-ish demotion, but for all the assertions that people would continue to climb Beinn a'Chlaidheimh anyway, I bet there's now an avoiding route that heads straight for Sgurr Ban.
And with isolated hills, if Foinaven ever became a Munro (possible) or Mount Keen was ever demoted (less likely), then there would be effects - quite substantial and far-reaching - on businesses such as B&Bs, bunkhouses, pubs etc in those areas - beneficial in the case of Foinaven, detrimental in the case of Mount Keen. And were Ben More on Mull ever to lose its place in the list (again unlikely) then there would be quite a marked downturn for the island's economy, given that one in ten of all Munro completions happen there and most of them see quite a lot going on in the spending department.
I agree with you about the Asperger's thing, though - there are plenty of those in the hill list world, for sure. The male/female split in terms of the more obscure list completions gives a clue, for starters.
> the hill itself remains the same, indifferent.
But it doesn't stay the same, though - anything promoted to main Munro status will rapidly acquire at least one extra eroded path, quite possibly two (and in due course possibly a made path to compensate for the erosion). Conversely, anything demoted will either "grow back in" in path terms or acquire a skirting path - there's one short-cutting across the south side of Sgor an Iubhair, for instance, that I'm pretty sure wasn't there to anything like the same extent as when it was a Munro from 1981 to 1997. I haven't been to look at the Fisherfield situation since the recent-ish demotion, but for all the assertions that people would continue to climb Beinn a'Chlaidheimh anyway, I bet there's now an avoiding route that heads straight for Sgurr Ban.
And with isolated hills, if Foinaven ever became a Munro (possible) or Mount Keen was ever demoted (less likely), then there would be effects - quite substantial and far-reaching - on businesses such as B&Bs, bunkhouses, pubs etc in those areas - beneficial in the case of Foinaven, detrimental in the case of Mount Keen. And were Ben More on Mull ever to lose its place in the list (again unlikely) then there would be quite a marked downturn for the island's economy, given that one in ten of all Munro completions happen there and most of them see quite a lot going on in the spending department.
I agree with you about the Asperger's thing, though - there are plenty of those in the hill list world, for sure. The male/female split in terms of the more obscure list completions gives a clue, for starters.
In reply to Dave Hewitt:
Fair point. OK then, maybe you need some sort of organisation that people respect the views of.
Perhaps if they proposed some sort of fallow period. Maybe a version of the angler's 'close season' would work on the hills.
Haven't worked out the details- Maybe 5% of munros demoted and mysteriously reinstated 10 years later?
As to selling the scheme, get someone like that Hugh Fearlessly- Eatsitall telling you that only neds and chavs go up endangered Ladhar Bheinn/that it's owned by the Ledgowan Estate, or some such, whereas stocks of Geal Charn ( chuck in another one, quick) are plentiful and have unparalleled views and car parks..
Or they could just mess around with the heights.
Maybe call it something like, I don't know, The Munro Society?
Fair point. OK then, maybe you need some sort of organisation that people respect the views of.
Perhaps if they proposed some sort of fallow period. Maybe a version of the angler's 'close season' would work on the hills.
Haven't worked out the details- Maybe 5% of munros demoted and mysteriously reinstated 10 years later?
As to selling the scheme, get someone like that Hugh Fearlessly- Eatsitall telling you that only neds and chavs go up endangered Ladhar Bheinn/that it's owned by the Ledgowan Estate, or some such, whereas stocks of Geal Charn ( chuck in another one, quick) are plentiful and have unparalleled views and car parks..
Or they could just mess around with the heights.
Maybe call it something like, I don't know, The Munro Society?
In reply to llechwedd:
Which is kind of what the SMC list editors have traditionally done down the years - being a little bit quirky, and treating it as a not-entirely-serious game. Personally, I like them for that - but generally they get pelters for it and it drives the pedants (and Asperger types) mad, as they can't cope with uncertainty and lack of clarity.
It could be argued that - as in many things - there's something of a Cavalier/Roundhead divide in terms of Munro listing (and hill listing generally). The reheighting crowd - who want everything standardised and slotted into neat and very precisely measured boxes - are definitely on the Roundhead side of the fence, while various influential people in the SMC camp have Cavalier tendencies, if I can put it like that. There's always going to be that kind of temperamental tension - but it's surely important that it's regarded as fun and not really all that serious in the grand scheme of things.
Overall, it's pretty clear that the Roundheads have gained ground in recent years - but, crucially, the Cavaliers retain control of the list of Munros, and long may that continue.
> Maybe 5% of munros demoted and mysteriously reinstated 10 years later?
Which is kind of what the SMC list editors have traditionally done down the years - being a little bit quirky, and treating it as a not-entirely-serious game. Personally, I like them for that - but generally they get pelters for it and it drives the pedants (and Asperger types) mad, as they can't cope with uncertainty and lack of clarity.
It could be argued that - as in many things - there's something of a Cavalier/Roundhead divide in terms of Munro listing (and hill listing generally). The reheighting crowd - who want everything standardised and slotted into neat and very precisely measured boxes - are definitely on the Roundhead side of the fence, while various influential people in the SMC camp have Cavalier tendencies, if I can put it like that. There's always going to be that kind of temperamental tension - but it's surely important that it's regarded as fun and not really all that serious in the grand scheme of things.
Overall, it's pretty clear that the Roundheads have gained ground in recent years - but, crucially, the Cavaliers retain control of the list of Munros, and long may that continue.
In reply to Dave Hewitt:
>Which is kind of what the SMC list editors have traditionally done down the years - being a little bit quirky, and treating it as a not-entirely-serious game. Personally, I like them for that - but generally they get pelters for it and it drives the pedants (and Asperger types) mad, as they can't cope with uncertainty and lack of clarity.
If it were just cavalierness I'd be right on their side (Long live the king! Down with Parliament!) but I'm afraid my suspicion is darker than that. It looks to me like they bugger about with the list in order to sell a new edition of the Tables.
>Which is kind of what the SMC list editors have traditionally done down the years - being a little bit quirky, and treating it as a not-entirely-serious game. Personally, I like them for that - but generally they get pelters for it and it drives the pedants (and Asperger types) mad, as they can't cope with uncertainty and lack of clarity.
If it were just cavalierness I'd be right on their side (Long live the king! Down with Parliament!) but I'm afraid my suspicion is darker than that. It looks to me like they bugger about with the list in order to sell a new edition of the Tables.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
It looks to me like they bugger about with the list in order to sell a new edition of the Tables.
Is it so wrong that the SMC use "the pedants (and Asperger types)" to fund cheap(er) climbing guides?
It looks to me like they bugger about with the list in order to sell a new edition of the Tables.
Is it so wrong that the SMC use "the pedants (and Asperger types)" to fund cheap(er) climbing guides?
Post edited at 10:10
In reply to MG:
There's obviously something bad about constantly changing the list for purely commercial reasons. It's cynical and exploitative. And if they share your attitude to "pedants and Asperger types", patronising.
There's obviously something bad about constantly changing the list for purely commercial reasons. It's cynical and exploitative. And if they share your attitude to "pedants and Asperger types", patronising.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
The last subjective changes were made in 1997, so it's hardly "constantly"! And I suspect sales of the Tables are tiny compared to other SMC publications. Maybe more likely due to Clerks of The List feeling a need to leave their mark on history....
> There's obviously something bad about constantly changing the list for purely commercial reasons.
The last subjective changes were made in 1997, so it's hardly "constantly"! And I suspect sales of the Tables are tiny compared to other SMC publications. Maybe more likely due to Clerks of The List feeling a need to leave their mark on history....
In reply to Mark Bull:
I suspect it is actually that coffee table book full of nice photos and maps with dotted lines showing the eroded standard baggers' routes that sells massively. It can certainly be viewed lying on the back seat of any car parked at the end of any of the dotted lines.
Very few people seem to own The Tables nowadays. This is a shame. we used to have a grid reference from the tables and an OS map and plan a route up a Munro accordingly. Nowadays it really is bagging by numbers (or more probably pre-programmed GPS).
> I suspect sales of the Tables are tiny compared to other SMC publications.
I suspect it is actually that coffee table book full of nice photos and maps with dotted lines showing the eroded standard baggers' routes that sells massively. It can certainly be viewed lying on the back seat of any car parked at the end of any of the dotted lines.
Very few people seem to own The Tables nowadays. This is a shame. we used to have a grid reference from the tables and an OS map and plan a route up a Munro accordingly. Nowadays it really is bagging by numbers (or more probably pre-programmed GPS).
Post edited at 11:14
In reply to MG:
I always thought they were being exploited to buy nice wood panelling and other luxuries and a bigger lock for the CIC to keep the bastard English baggers out. I shall resign my membership immediately.
> Is it so wrong that the SMC use "the pedants (and Asperger types)" to fund cheap(er) climbing guides?
I always thought they were being exploited to buy nice wood panelling and other luxuries and a bigger lock for the CIC to keep the bastard English baggers out. I shall resign my membership immediately.
In reply to Robert Durran:
And of course the Tables are readily accessible online in a number of places, including the SMC's own website.
And of course the Tables are readily accessible online in a number of places, including the SMC's own website.
In reply to Mark Bull:
Yes, but there's the Christmas present market to consider. (I wonder what time of year new editions of the Tables typically appear. Bet it's Oct/ Nov.)
Yes, but there's the Christmas present market to consider. (I wonder what time of year new editions of the Tables typically appear. Bet it's Oct/ Nov.)
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I'm not an out-an-out SMC fan, but they do much good and interesting work in publication terms and I've long felt they get unfairly pilloried in terms of the "tinkering to sell books" argument. For a start, my understanding (might be wrong) is that there are no plans to print further copies of the current edition of Munro's Tables - a bit sad if so, but understandable given that most baggers now seem to prefer the guidebooks and/or the online material. In terms of the future, it's always seemed only fair that a new list editor has scope to put his or her imprint on the list once they take over, so when eventually someone succeeds Derek Bearhop they could well make one or two "subjective" changes (add Glas Leathad Mor, kick out Beinn Tulaichean, whatever).
And anyway, the highest-profile proponent of the "tinkering to sell books" argument made himself look pretty silly when he trotted out that line a few years ago, given that his own list-related guidebooks (which appear in new editions whenever there are changes) outsell the SMC equivalents by a considerable margin and often bear an uncanny similarity, description-wise, to the SMC originals...
> There's obviously something bad about constantly changing the list for purely commercial reasons.
I'm not an out-an-out SMC fan, but they do much good and interesting work in publication terms and I've long felt they get unfairly pilloried in terms of the "tinkering to sell books" argument. For a start, my understanding (might be wrong) is that there are no plans to print further copies of the current edition of Munro's Tables - a bit sad if so, but understandable given that most baggers now seem to prefer the guidebooks and/or the online material. In terms of the future, it's always seemed only fair that a new list editor has scope to put his or her imprint on the list once they take over, so when eventually someone succeeds Derek Bearhop they could well make one or two "subjective" changes (add Glas Leathad Mor, kick out Beinn Tulaichean, whatever).
And anyway, the highest-profile proponent of the "tinkering to sell books" argument made himself look pretty silly when he trotted out that line a few years ago, given that his own list-related guidebooks (which appear in new editions whenever there are changes) outsell the SMC equivalents by a considerable margin and often bear an uncanny similarity, description-wise, to the SMC originals...
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Given the way SMC publications schedules seem to work, I doubt very much whether they could deliver with that much precision.
> Yes, but there's the Christmas present market to consider. (I wonder what time of year new editions of the Tables typically appear. Bet it's Oct/ Nov.)
Given the way SMC publications schedules seem to work, I doubt very much whether they could deliver with that much precision.
In reply to Dave Hewitt:
And the profits of both books - the SMC guide and the other one you're talking about - go to support Scottish mountaineering in one way or another, and don't line anyone's pockets.
> And anyway, the highest-profile proponent of the "tinkering to sell books" argument made himself look pretty silly when he trotted out that line a few years ago, given that his own list-related guidebooks (which appear in new editions whenever there are changes) outsell the SMC equivalents by a considerable margin and often bear an uncanny similarity, description-wise, to the SMC originals...
And the profits of both books - the SMC guide and the other one you're talking about - go to support Scottish mountaineering in one way or another, and don't line anyone's pockets.
In reply to Dave Hewitt:
Pedant alert! I assume you mean Glas Leathad Beag.
I've probably made off-the-cuff comments about selling guidebooks before, but to be fair, there haven't been any significant changes in almost 20 years (other than lopping off a couple of Munros that are no longer high enough to qualify).
I do sometimes wonder why Munro or his successors picked some hills to be Munros and not others, but ultimately it doesn't make any difference to the joy of being out in the hills. So list meddling doesn't bother me - it obviously keeps somebody somewhere amused.
> (add Glas Leathad Mor, kick out Beinn Tulaichean, whatever).
>
Pedant alert! I assume you mean Glas Leathad Beag.
I've probably made off-the-cuff comments about selling guidebooks before, but to be fair, there haven't been any significant changes in almost 20 years (other than lopping off a couple of Munros that are no longer high enough to qualify).
I do sometimes wonder why Munro or his successors picked some hills to be Munros and not others, but ultimately it doesn't make any difference to the joy of being out in the hills. So list meddling doesn't bother me - it obviously keeps somebody somewhere amused.
In reply to malky_c:
Right enough, thanks. I'm getting old and addled. GLM is the main Wyvis summit.
Which weren't driven by the SMC anyway, but by a group within the Munro Society, to bring the thread back to its initial point. Not sure there have been any SMC-inspired changes since the big 1997 revision. In a way, the objective changes prompted by the Munro Soc might in due course increase the chance of further subjective changes by the SMC given that it's their list and they might want to be seen to be retaining ownership of it.
> Pedant alert! I assume you mean Glas Leathad Beag.
Right enough, thanks. I'm getting old and addled. GLM is the main Wyvis summit.
> I've probably made off-the-cuff comments about selling guidebooks before, but to be fair, there haven't been any significant changes in almost 20 years (other than lopping off a couple of Munros that are no longer high enough to qualify).
Which weren't driven by the SMC anyway, but by a group within the Munro Society, to bring the thread back to its initial point. Not sure there have been any SMC-inspired changes since the big 1997 revision. In a way, the objective changes prompted by the Munro Soc might in due course increase the chance of further subjective changes by the SMC given that it's their list and they might want to be seen to be retaining ownership of it.
In reply to malky_c:
I don't think Munro was ever explicit his criteria. Perhaps had he lived longer he might have settled on a simple reascent rule (most likely 250ft). He seems to have been minded not to accord more than one separate summit in the cases where the range has a name as well as the individual tops (e.g. Buachailles, Bidean, Wyvis, Liathach, Alligin, Eighe).
The 1997 revision looks like it was intended to admit most of the biggest anomalies with respect to large amounts of reascent.
I'm sure Dave H will correct me if I'm wrong but I think the only subjective changes to main summits occurred in 1921, 1981 and 1997.
> I do sometimes wonder why Munro or his successors picked some hills to be Munros and not others.
I don't think Munro was ever explicit his criteria. Perhaps had he lived longer he might have settled on a simple reascent rule (most likely 250ft). He seems to have been minded not to accord more than one separate summit in the cases where the range has a name as well as the individual tops (e.g. Buachailles, Bidean, Wyvis, Liathach, Alligin, Eighe).
The 1997 revision looks like it was intended to admit most of the biggest anomalies with respect to large amounts of reascent.
I'm sure Dave H will correct me if I'm wrong but I think the only subjective changes to main summits occurred in 1921, 1981 and 1997.
Post edited at 15:11
In reply to Mark Bull:
> (In reply to malky_c)
He seems to have been minded not to accord more than one separate summit in the cases where the range has a name as well as the individual tops (e.g. Buachailles, Bidean, Wyvis, Liathach, Alligin, Eighe).>
> The 1997 revision looks like it was intended to admit most of the biggest anomalies with respect to large amounts of reascent.
>
Aye, but you can stand on Stob na Broige (new 1997 Munro) and look out over that view and admit to yourself it was worth hoofing it all the way along the Buachaille's ridge right to the end to bag this one. And then you turn around and look back along to BEMor and say what fecker considered Stob na Broige to be a Munro and not the higher (and more "up and downy") Stob na Doire in between? I agree with Tim C on this - maybe just stop applying new-listy type definitions to define a new Munro. > The 1997 revision looks like it was intended to admit most of the biggest anomalies with respect to large amounts of reascent.
>
> Aye, but you can stand on Stob na Broige (new 1997 Munro) and look out over that view and admit to yourself it was worth hoofing it all the way along the Buachaille's ridge right to the end to bag this one. And then you turn around and look back along to BEMor and say what fecker considered Stob na Broige to be a Munro and not the higher (and more "up and downy") Stob na Doire in between?
Yup, Stob na Doire is the remaining Top with most reascent (144m). I reckon the reviser(s) bottled out of adding two new Munros to BEM.
> I agree with Tim C on this - maybe just stop applying new-listy type definitions to define a new Munro.
They should have either gone the whole hog and introduced a strict reascent criterion (300ft has a nice roundness and would only alter the total by a couple), or else left alone. Easy to say with hindsight, though.
Post edited at 17:24
In reply to Removed UserMark Bull:
Without properly checking (sorry, I keep getting distracted by doing a jigsaw of Harlech Castle), I think that's right - although there might also have been some change of that sort in the early 1930s - the edition that appeared in the general guidebook of the time. Incidentally, one regular poster on this site is a big fan of the 1953 edition (which, curiously, sits on the lending shelves in Stirling library or did last time I looked). I believe he used it as the basis for his round which only ended in the mid-1990s.
In reply to Removed Userie Boy:
Depends to an extent, though, on whether one looks at separation chiefly in terms of drop/reascent (as has become the almost exclusively the modern way - eg Marilyns, Humps etc) or whether one takes the older view (as per Munro, Donald and to an extent Wainwright, not that he was list-producing as such) that it's a combination of drop+distance, ie time. I've looked at my timing notes for the last time I was on the Buachaille, in snowless conditions in Oct 2012. It took three of us - going steadily but not rushing - 45 mins to get from Stob Dearg to Stob na Doire - and a further 47 mins from there to Stob na Broige. On the previous visit (May 2010) the equivalent splits were 46 and 41. Different people go at different paces of course, but that tends to suggest the two gaps are roughly equal in time terms.
I've heard it argued that the Buachaille ought to have three Munros on it - presumably the two current ones plus Stob na Doire. I can see why the SMC might well have felt that would have been rather overdoing things, hence the compromise on two - and were the two to be Stob Dearg and Stob na Doire, then what you'd end up with is two Munros quite close together followed by a long straggly bit of ridge leading out to Stob na Broige. None of the solutions are ideal, but I don't think the current situation is any worse than having three Munros or having Stob Dearg plus Stob na Doire.
> I'm sure Dave H will correct me if I'm wrong but I think the only subjective changes to main summits occurred in 1921, 1981 and 1997.
Without properly checking (sorry, I keep getting distracted by doing a jigsaw of Harlech Castle), I think that's right - although there might also have been some change of that sort in the early 1930s - the edition that appeared in the general guidebook of the time. Incidentally, one regular poster on this site is a big fan of the 1953 edition (which, curiously, sits on the lending shelves in Stirling library or did last time I looked). I believe he used it as the basis for his round which only ended in the mid-1990s.
In reply to Removed Userie Boy:
> And then you turn around and look back along to BEMor and say what fecker considered Stob na Broige to be a Munro and not the higher (and more "up and downy") Stob na Doire in between?
Depends to an extent, though, on whether one looks at separation chiefly in terms of drop/reascent (as has become the almost exclusively the modern way - eg Marilyns, Humps etc) or whether one takes the older view (as per Munro, Donald and to an extent Wainwright, not that he was list-producing as such) that it's a combination of drop+distance, ie time. I've looked at my timing notes for the last time I was on the Buachaille, in snowless conditions in Oct 2012. It took three of us - going steadily but not rushing - 45 mins to get from Stob Dearg to Stob na Doire - and a further 47 mins from there to Stob na Broige. On the previous visit (May 2010) the equivalent splits were 46 and 41. Different people go at different paces of course, but that tends to suggest the two gaps are roughly equal in time terms.
I've heard it argued that the Buachaille ought to have three Munros on it - presumably the two current ones plus Stob na Doire. I can see why the SMC might well have felt that would have been rather overdoing things, hence the compromise on two - and were the two to be Stob Dearg and Stob na Doire, then what you'd end up with is two Munros quite close together followed by a long straggly bit of ridge leading out to Stob na Broige. None of the solutions are ideal, but I don't think the current situation is any worse than having three Munros or having Stob Dearg plus Stob na Doire.
In reply to wullclark:
I completely agree as well. What gets me is they call themselves surveyors, yet someone else does their processing,and there's no reference to the current height model they use. Its completely arbitrary. Just a bunch of retired auld fogies with time on their hands. They are Munro's tables, so its Munto's tables i'll use.
Besides, the ones that aren't on that list are much less frequented.
I completely agree as well. What gets me is they call themselves surveyors, yet someone else does their processing,and there's no reference to the current height model they use. Its completely arbitrary. Just a bunch of retired auld fogies with time on their hands. They are Munro's tables, so its Munto's tables i'll use.
Besides, the ones that aren't on that list are much less frequented.
In reply to Seocan:
What a grumpy post. The surveyors use the same equipment and techniques the OS would use themselves. The surveyors do run correction software themselves but the OS insist on doing their own corrections before accepting the results. It's all very scientific.
> I completely agree as well. What gets me is they call themselves surveyors, yet someone else does their processing,and there's no reference to the current height model they use. Its completely arbitrary. Just a bunch of retired auld fogies with time on their hands. They are Munro's tables, so its Munto's tables i'll use.
What a grumpy post. The surveyors use the same equipment and techniques the OS would use themselves. The surveyors do run correction software themselves but the OS insist on doing their own corrections before accepting the results. It's all very scientific.
Glas Leathad Beag.
There is a reason why that, the most obvious missing munro did not get put up with all the rather spurious promotions in 1997.
All eight were on, or partly on NTS land. I do not think that is a coincidence, even if four of them went up due to a misguided desire to turn Munro's Tables into a (then newly fashionable) prominence list. A certain "roundhead" has some influence there I believe.
Big thanks to the efforts of the surveyors - things have come a long way from buying up new OS maps and then writing to the SMC. One change that I found - swapping a summit and top was ignored for 8 years before being splashed all over High. I got a faster response when I found a corbett had been booted upstairs - thanks to bumping into Hamish Brown the day I bought the map. (Tables editor at the time).
Post edited at 18:08
In reply to Dave Hewitt:
Aye OK but thats just it - I don't think Munro did set a specification - and in one way that's the beauty of it all. You could also argue the SMC added Stob na Broige to either be sadistic for those of us who'd already been up BEMor a billion times to go up it again (yeah yeah you can hoof up for Glen Etive too) or to just make you enjoy the whole length of the ridge (that view from the end) and the walk back up the Glen - nowt against BEMor mind (is not the whole ridge a grand walk on a good day in October when the stags are out arguing about the Tables) - its also a good excuse to do BEMor (AGAIN) but go up via curved ridge etc!? We'll just have to agree to disagree...
> (In reply to Mark Bull)
> [...]
>
> Without properly checking (sorry, I keep getting distracted by doing a jigsaw of Harlech Castle), I think that's right - although there might also have been some change of that sort in the early 1930s - the edition that appeared in the general guidebook of the time. Incidentally, one regular poster on this site is a big fan of the 1953 edition (which, curiously, sits on the lending shelves in Stirling library or did last time I looked). I believe he used it as the basis for his round which only ended in the mid-1990s.
>
> In reply to Scottie Boy:
> it's a combination of drop+distance, ie time. I've looked at my timing notes for the last time I was on the Buachaille, in snowless conditions in Oct 2012. It took three of us - going steadily but not rushing - 45 mins to get from Stob Dearg to Stob na Doire - and a further 47 mins from there to Stob na Broige. On the previous visit (May 2010) the equivalent splits were 46 and 41. Different people go at different paces of course, but that tends to suggest the two gaps are roughly equal in time terms.
>
> I've heard it argued that the Buachaille ought to have three Munros on it - presumably the two current ones plus Stob na Doire. I can see why the SMC might well have felt that would have been rather overdoing things, hence the compromise on two - and were the two to be Stob Dearg and Stob na Doire, then what you'd end up with is two Munros quite close together followed by a long straggly bit of ridge leading out to Stob na Broige. None of the solutions are ideal, but I don't think the current situation is any worse than having three Munros or having Stob Dearg plus Stob na Doire.
> [...]
>
> Without properly checking (sorry, I keep getting distracted by doing a jigsaw of Harlech Castle), I think that's right - although there might also have been some change of that sort in the early 1930s - the edition that appeared in the general guidebook of the time. Incidentally, one regular poster on this site is a big fan of the 1953 edition (which, curiously, sits on the lending shelves in Stirling library or did last time I looked). I believe he used it as the basis for his round which only ended in the mid-1990s.
>
> In reply to Scottie Boy:
> it's a combination of drop+distance, ie time. I've looked at my timing notes for the last time I was on the Buachaille, in snowless conditions in Oct 2012. It took three of us - going steadily but not rushing - 45 mins to get from Stob Dearg to Stob na Doire - and a further 47 mins from there to Stob na Broige. On the previous visit (May 2010) the equivalent splits were 46 and 41. Different people go at different paces of course, but that tends to suggest the two gaps are roughly equal in time terms.
>
> I've heard it argued that the Buachaille ought to have three Munros on it - presumably the two current ones plus Stob na Doire. I can see why the SMC might well have felt that would have been rather overdoing things, hence the compromise on two - and were the two to be Stob Dearg and Stob na Doire, then what you'd end up with is two Munros quite close together followed by a long straggly bit of ridge leading out to Stob na Broige. None of the solutions are ideal, but I don't think the current situation is any worse than having three Munros or having Stob Dearg plus Stob na Doire.
Aye OK but thats just it - I don't think Munro did set a specification - and in one way that's the beauty of it all. You could also argue the SMC added Stob na Broige to either be sadistic for those of us who'd already been up BEMor a billion times to go up it again (yeah yeah you can hoof up for Glen Etive too) or to just make you enjoy the whole length of the ridge (that view from the end) and the walk back up the Glen - nowt against BEMor mind (is not the whole ridge a grand walk on a good day in October when the stags are out arguing about the Tables) - its also a good excuse to do BEMor (AGAIN) but go up via curved ridge etc!? We'll just have to agree to disagree...
In reply to Removed Userie Boy:
We're agreeing, are we not? I'm in the camp that reckons it's a good thing Hugh Munro didn't "set a specification", and I'm also fine about Stob na Broige being a Munro - it's a decent summit and a good excuse for walking the full length of the ridge, as you say. As FB2 says upthread, it's not a prominence list - if anyone wants one of those (eg the Murdos wot I edited and published for Alan Dawson years ago) then such things are not hard to find.
Incidentally, last time I totted up, of the two BEM Munros, Stob na Broige had overtaken Stob Dearg in completion-hosting terms, despite Stob Dearg having had around a century of a start. Dunno quite what that tells us, except that there's probably been an increase in people doing the full ridge since 1997, and they most often start at the Stob Dearg end and head west.
> We'll just have to agree to disagree...
We're agreeing, are we not? I'm in the camp that reckons it's a good thing Hugh Munro didn't "set a specification", and I'm also fine about Stob na Broige being a Munro - it's a decent summit and a good excuse for walking the full length of the ridge, as you say. As FB2 says upthread, it's not a prominence list - if anyone wants one of those (eg the Murdos wot I edited and published for Alan Dawson years ago) then such things are not hard to find.
Incidentally, last time I totted up, of the two BEM Munros, Stob na Broige had overtaken Stob Dearg in completion-hosting terms, despite Stob Dearg having had around a century of a start. Dunno quite what that tells us, except that there's probably been an increase in people doing the full ridge since 1997, and they most often start at the Stob Dearg end and head west.
In reply to Dave Hewitt:
OK we agree then. BTW, maybe theres prob. more compleations on Stob na Broige cos all us pre-97 OCD Munroldies have had to go back to Glencoe and erode our way up BEMor again!
Until the next one is added to the list then - wouldn't it be a hoot if it is Stob na Doire and Stob na Broige gets downgraded (SMC to note I did Stob na Doire anyway - just in case you are indeed thinking of doing this for a laugh).
OK we agree then. BTW, maybe theres prob. more compleations on Stob na Broige cos all us pre-97 OCD Munroldies have had to go back to Glencoe and erode our way up BEMor again!
Until the next one is added to the list then - wouldn't it be a hoot if it is Stob na Doire and Stob na Broige gets downgraded (SMC to note I did Stob na Doire anyway - just in case you are indeed thinking of doing this for a laugh).
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...