>
> In the particular case at hand, the mountains in question are the
> Olympic range on the Olympic Peninsula, in Mike's neck of the woods. Not
> particularly tall, relative to other Western ranges, but properly
> rugged, with steep slopes, sawtooth ridges, snow caps with several
> glaciers. And boy are they wet! They give real meaning to the term
> 'temperate rain forest'. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Mountains>
>
Absolute altitude isn't necessarily an accurate way of describing what a
"mountain" is. I prefer to really look at how much it rises from the
surrounding average terrain. In Colorado, there are some really decent
sized mountains in the University Range, but compared to surrounding
elevation they really aren't that impressive. There are "bumps" in the
4-corners area that you can walk up in five minutes without breaking a sweat
that would be called "mountains" based on absolute altitude.
What makes the western slope of the Sierras so impressive is the fact that
the rise from the valley floor is so great. This is also why the mountains
of Snowdonia, which in altitude terms can barely be called "hills", are
imposing because they rise almost directly from the sea.
To me, anytime you have a one-mile vertical rise, I consider that a
mountain. Anything less is just mountainous.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|