Talk:Beacon Hill, Norfolk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What do you mean a col is "probable"? It either is, or isn't... Craighennessey 17:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what that means either, it is totally unrelated to the Beacon Hill article so should probably be somewhere else! Rob 06:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's not unrelated, since it is the col that determines the hill's prominence. It would be noice to be certain though! Grinner 11:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, I mean that the "A col of 26 metres above sea level at grid reference TM038790, at the confluence of the Rivers Little Ouse and Waveney, is probable." bit is totally irrelevant and unrelated to this article. The location is thirty to forty miles south of the Beacon Hill in the article so I don't see that it relates. See http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=603850&Y=279050&A=Y&Z=5 for the alleged col and http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=618350&Y=341450&A=Y&Z=4 for Beacon Hill. Any ideas?
- The col is likely to be some distance away, as Norfolk is generally flat. It is still releveant though, it is Beacon Hill's col, it is that which determines the Topographic prominence. Grinner 13:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for that, I understand now, it is the highest point of the strip of lower land that seperates the point in question from higher ground which would in this case be somewhere in Suffolk. Looking at it I think that the contributor is correct, i.e. it's actual rather than probable. I will check the other points between river sources over the next few days and when I have verified it (or otherwise) I'll remove the probable. Pleased to get that sorted in my head! Rob 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Cool, I suspect that it is correct too. Grinner 10:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Possible Cols and their heights for Beacon Hill, Norfolk are:
Between the rivers Bure and Stiffkey (@ circa 90 metres, fail, no other higher ground in Norfolk and higher than point in question),between the rivers Wensum and Stiffkey (@ circa 50M, fail, no other higher ground in Norfolk and higher than point in question),between the rivers Glaven and Bure (@ circa 50 metres, fail, no other higher ground in Norfolk and higher than point in question),between the rivers Nar and Wensum (@ circa 66 metres, fail, no other higher ground in Norfolk and higher than point in question),between the rivers Wissey and Yare (@ circa 60 metres, fail, no other higher ground in Norfolk and higher than point in question), between the rivers Little Ouse and Waveney (the point in question @ 26 metres) - with Great Wood Hill (126 metres) at Rede in Suffolk to the south. QED! Rob 13:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for that, I understand now, it is the highest point of the strip of lower land that seperates the point in question from higher ground which would in this case be somewhere in Suffolk. Looking at it I think that the contributor is correct, i.e. it's actual rather than probable. I will check the other points between river sources over the next few days and when I have verified it (or otherwise) I'll remove the probable. Pleased to get that sorted in my head! Rob 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- The col is likely to be some distance away, as Norfolk is generally flat. It is still releveant though, it is Beacon Hill's col, it is that which determines the Topographic prominence. Grinner 13:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, I mean that the "A col of 26 metres above sea level at grid reference TM038790, at the confluence of the Rivers Little Ouse and Waveney, is probable." bit is totally irrelevant and unrelated to this article. The location is thirty to forty miles south of the Beacon Hill in the article so I don't see that it relates. See http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=603850&Y=279050&A=Y&Z=5 for the alleged col and http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=618350&Y=341450&A=Y&Z=4 for Beacon Hill. Any ideas?
- It's not unrelated, since it is the col that determines the hill's prominence. It would be noice to be certain though! Grinner 11:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Top work, well done! Grinner 14:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Great Job on sorting that out, sorry not been back here to check on this! Craighennessey 19:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
