(no subject)

[bellinghman]

It doesn't take much to tempt me.

Ryanair are again doing one of their free flights offer (closes tonight, not including 'charges' and 'taxes'), so we looked at their destination list. Top, naturally, came Århus (also written as Aarhus), a city in Jutland.

Having seen major_clanger's trip report, we looked at each other, said "OK", and went for it. So, early next year, as a birthday treat, that's where we're going.

I like the way that one of the local high points is Himmelbjerget (or Sky Mountain), at 147 metres high. Hmm, that's a single metre higher than the highest point in Cambridgeshire, not exactly notorious for its hilliness. Guess Denmark is not for mountaineers, then.

Comments

[knell.livejournal.com]

Hills are relative things, though - 145m drop off all sides relative to the surrounding country and you've got quite a view, while a 1000m mountain that's only 20m higher than the surrounding plateau is most likely to be very dull. It also depends on what you've got to look at from the lofty heights of 145m - the muddy fens of Cambs aren't actually exciting unless you're a fen person.

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

Ah, so you're a Marilyn afficionado.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

I believe the highest point in Denmark is now the top of one of the towers of the Great Belt Bridge. I find this very amusing.
If you get bored you can go to Copenhagen on the fast train, too.

[bellinghwoman.livejournal.com]

I'd quite fancy that (I have a ghost or two to lay), but have just checked and it takes 3 hours each way :-(

[artela.livejournal.com]

*LOL*
Our house is at 144 metres above sea level, but then we're only part way up the mountain!
Anyway - there are rules for height before something can be officially classed as a mountain, and it's a deal more than 147 metres!

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

Are they actually written down anywhere?

I suspect such rules have a certain tendency to be localised. By Nepalese standards, you're probably not on a mountain. By Danish standards, well, they don't use the word mountain anyway. We just happen to translate a Danish word as mountain, just because it happens to mean the bump bigger than a ???, where ??? is the word we translate as hill.

[artela.livejournal.com]

Minimum height of a mountain in England, Wales and Ireland is 610 metres. If it is smaller than this height, it is not a mountain. Scotland has different classifications.

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

And if Scotland has different classifications, I think we may assume Denmark to have too.

"A mountain is a landform that extends above the surrounding terrain in a limited area. A mountain is generally much 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 an arbitrary value: for example, the Encyclopædia Britannica requires a prominence of 2,000 feet (610 m)."

I'd hate to consider Denver, Colorado, where by that definition, every molehill is a mountain. I suspect that the EB decision is a particularly parochial one designed such that there is a number, but not too large a number, of mountains on this island.