|
Feb 2023
1:50pm, 27 Feb 2023
10,791 posts
|
Fragile Do Not Bend
Looking good!
I had to Google Vandeleur-Lynam as I thought that was the EU president 😅
|
|
Feb 2023
1:51pm, 27 Feb 2023
28,820 posts
|
fetcheveryone
Oh, yes - thanks FDNB, you've reminded me:
7) started adding descriptions to the various collections 
|
|
Feb 2023
2:01pm, 27 Feb 2023
45,678 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
That's 3 out of 3 of my suggestions. You are a whizz Fetch! G
|
|
Feb 2023
2:33pm, 27 Feb 2023
11,098 posts
|
Dave W
I have already got "distance markers" set as a default for my training, but I can't see any way of setting "conquercise" and the new "points" as a default. Can anyone tell me how, or even if you can do it.
|
|
Feb 2023
2:35pm, 27 Feb 2023
28,821 posts
|
fetcheveryone
It's not defaultable at the moment.
|
|
Feb 2023
2:38pm, 27 Feb 2023
11,099 posts
|
Dave W
Thanks F. I'll stop looking. Until it is
|
|
Feb 2023
2:56pm, 27 Feb 2023
2,352 posts
|
paulcook
Any update on the errant number / categorisation of Marilyns and Simms? I can't vouch for the other hill categories.
That said it doesn't take away from the overall scope. Thank you.
|
|
Feb 2023
3:14pm, 27 Feb 2023
28,822 posts
|
fetcheveryone
Looking at the numbers, there are 247 sub-Marilyns, which when added to the 2011 Marilyns gives the figure you see.
Here's what the DoBaIh has to say about these sub-peaks:
"Subs" are hills in certain prominence based lists falling short on drop by 10m or less. The term originated in the TACit Tables published from 1995 onwards and the principle has been adopted by other list authors. The database lists subs of Marilyns, Humps, Simms, Dodds, and 490-499m Tumps.
In the TACit booklets the "sub" categories include hills falling short on height, and there are additional categories for Subcorbetts and Subgrahams. The new definitions appeared in Marhofn in May 2006. The rationale for the change, as explained on the rhb forum, was that hills falling short on height had been subsumed into larger lists.
The statistical error associated with heights on OS maps means that some marginals have a non-negligible probability of qualifying for a list. Serious baggers who wish to legitimately claim ascent of all hills meeting the list criteria will need to climb some subs, in addition to hills falling short on height. As a rough guide, for hills whose height and drop have not been accurately surveyed and lack LIDAR data you should climb those within 3m of the qualifying height and 6m of drop; for more detailed guidance see section 4 of Accuracy of heights from OS maps. It would be wrong, incidentally, to assume that hills falling short on both height and drop have an insignificant probability of qualification, as the two are correlated. Birks Fell was at one time listed with height 608m and drop 29m. The name "double sub" was once coined for such hills; the DoBIH's s4 category, for 490-499m hills with 20-29m drop, is a legacy from that period.
With the increasing availability of LIDAR data, and the growing number of hills surveyed to centimeter accuracy, the original concept of subs as "near misses" of interest by virtue of the possibility that they might qualify for the main list may soon become irrelevant. However some baggers enjoy climbing them in their own right.
I've no personal qualms about dropping the sub-peaks from these lists. What do the thread followers think?
|
|
Feb 2023
3:23pm, 27 Feb 2023
2,353 posts
|
paulcook
Ah I see. That explains it.
I was surprised to see one Marilyn in the list, but then more surprised to see it was only about 1.8m shy of being a Marilyn. Thanks for the explanation.
|
|
Feb 2023
5:09pm, 27 Feb 2023
28,823 posts
|
fetcheveryone
8) Restored the notification when you hit a new hill or trig.
|
