Talk:Cross Fell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Cross Fell has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
July 23, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
This article is supported by WikiProject British and Irish hills, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the hills and mountains of Great Britain and Ireland. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] GA passed

Nice little article. I wikified a few technical geology and geography terms to make it more accessible. Nice work. Oh and it's so nice to see an article with an empty talk page! Pascal.Tesson 06:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] images

JPS. The images contribute significantly to the GA status and were present when it was a GA candidate. If you can replace them with something better, then that is fine. Otherwise, please leave them be. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ps. Just out of interest. You removed images containing either myself or my son. Yet you left the image containing my daughter. Why was that?. best wishes Bob BScar23625 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the images would contribute to the article. Unfortunately the subject of the pictures are people. Perhaps you'd like to show me a similar instance of this occurring on Wikipedia? I left the reservoir picture because the figure was less prominent (looking away from the camera, for instance). I felt that this image was the more about the landscape rather than emphasising the subjects standing within it. Knowing your appreciation of photography, perhaps have images without family subjects? The JPStalk to me 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
And please assume good faith. Branding genuine edits as vandalism, as you did here, is to be avoided. The JPStalk to me 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

JPS. The images contribute significantly to the article. Take them in turn :

  • Cross Fell summit - a significant image.
  • Summer snow on Cross Fell North face - a significant image.
  • Scree slope - a significant image also used in the Scree article.
  • Cow Green Reservoir - a significant image setting Cross Fell in context.
  • Carboniferous limestone bed - a significant image that comments on geological structure of North Pennines.

The people that appear in them are incidental. If you want to go up there and take replacement images without people in them, then that is fine by me. But please replace the images, do not just remove them. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ps As an aside, there was a similar discussion on the Helvellyn article, when two of my images were replaced. I have no problem with people improving on images I have inserted - but arbitrary deletion is another matter. Bob BScar23625 18:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

pps As a further aside, the next time there is fair weather on a weekend, I plan to go up to Cross Fell summit. If you wish, I will meet you at Kirkland and we can go up together. You can bring your camera and take pictures without people in them. Let me know. Bob BScar23625 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, images that show features of the landscape should not focus on people in the foreground. This is distracting. However, until we get better images, we can use these. I’ve removed the people from Image:Cf1.JPG and Image:Crossf4.JPG (using GIMP and [1]) and I think Image:Crossf3.jpg may be OK, simply to give the viewer a sense of scale. I realise my modifications mean some loss in quality (and, in the first case, also an extra bit of artistic freedom in adding some rocks to the pile), but I think this is viable until somebody makes replacements. By the way, if somebody is going to make new photographs, a higher resolution would be nice. Even if the images in the article itself are small, some people might want to see more details. —xyzzyn 01:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

xyzzy. People in images are often essential in order to give scale. For example take the following image which appears in bothe the Cross Fell and Scree articles.

Ascending the scree slope on the west flank of Cross Fell
Ascending the scree slope on the west flank of Cross Fell

The image is of a geological feature known as "tallus", which is a form of scree composed of large boulders. Take out the person (which happens to be me) and you couldn't tell whether the rocks are 3 metre boulders (which they are) or only 2cm pepples. That is the extreme case - but much the same could be siad of the other images (with one exception).

In any event, I don't like fake images. So, perhaps the images can stay as they are until someone can substitute better ones?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 07:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Geograph has several good photos of Cross Fell, including one of Simon Ledingham's excellent aerial shots (another example of which can be seen on Helvellyn). It should be possible to replace most of the people shots with Geograph images; I'll upload some today if I have time.
Editing pictures to remove people or other objects is not acceptable IMO; it may be relatively harmless in this instance, but it sets an unwelcome precedent. Readers should be able to have confidence that what they are seeing is what the camera saw. Modifications to levels and colour balance are of course fine, especially to improve deficiencies in the photographic process, but leave the content alone. --Blisco 08:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
What, no paintings? Anyway, I’ve cropped Image:Crossf4.JPG so that the features that are actually relevant to the article are at the centre. Is that an acceptable modification? —xyzzyn 10:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

xyzzy. Your adjustments are just distortions. Sorry to put it like that, but .... . I make the same offer to you that I did to JPS. I will guide you up to the summit and you can take your camera. E-mail me if you want to take me up on this. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what exactly is the problem with
  1. not having people in an image that is supposed to show distant hills and
  2. having those hills in the middle of the image, rather than in the background and at the top
after Blisco’s concern about not having anything in the image that was not ‘seen’ by the camera is satisfied? —xyzzyn 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blisco. As per our earlier discussion on the Helvellyn article, I have no problem with my amateur efforts being replaced by good, professional standard images. I am not too keen on aerial photographs, but that may be just a personal preference. I agree with you that "doctored" images should never be used. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 09:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] doctored images and aerial photographs

Chaps, some general comments.

My view is that doctored images should never be used in any form of publication. You can move mountains around, add trees, add smoke and adjust the position of the sun in an image - but the result emerging from this process is a fake. It is worthless.

The position on aerial photographs is also unsatisfactory. An aerial photograph of a mountain amounts to little more than a map and rarely does justice to its subject. The aerial photograph in the Helvellyn article could be that of any mountain. It looks bland, low and lacks any context. A proper mountain picture should be taken from ground level - which is where 99.9% of people see it from and from where its proper context and atmosphere are apparent. regards. Bob BScar23625 16:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

xyzzy. The problem with your adjustments is that what you produce is not real. You may remember the recent case of a news journalist who produced an image from the Gulf War showing the aftermath of an American air strike in northern Iraq. He produced an image being a composite of 3 pictures and then embellished it with some extra smoke and flames. He sold the product of this exercise for a substantial sum to various newspapers. But when the facts became known he was sacked and blacklisted.

If you want to take some good pictures, then I will be happy to guide you up to the summit of Cross Fell. There have been a few casualties up there in recent years, but I am a reliable guide and you can trust me to get you up and down safely. You will then have the personal satisfaction of knowing that you have taken real images as a product of your own efforts. regards. Bob BScar23625 16:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My last ‘adjustment’ to Image:Crossf4.JPG did not add anything. I only removed one third of the image. I am unconcerned about the possibility of being sacked or blacklisted over this image and its effect on Iraq. I am definitely not going to England just so I can take pictures of this place, especially if I can simply edit yours and get a reasonably good result. —xyzzyn 16:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

xyzzy. Well, if you don't want to come to England, then perhaps you should avoid such a peculiarly English issue?. The trouble is that your edits of my pictures are just distortions. If you can substitute better images, then that is fine - but as it is .... . best wishes. Bob BScar23625 17:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don’t see how that last edit was a distortion. And I don’t care for your opinion on what I shouldn’t edit. —xyzzyn 17:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

xyzzy. The problem with your latest effort is that not only is it fake, but .... it is almost unviewable. If you want to create pictures of Cross Fell, then you should take the trouble to climb it yourself. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't see any problem with cropping images in general or xyzzy's cropped version of Cow Green in particular. The original would be fine for an article on the reservoir, but as the subject is Cross Fell it makes perfect sense to crop the image to focus attention on the subject. Cropping is not dishonest per se, and does not fall in the same category as digitally removing people. However, I would suggest you upload your cropped version as a new image, not over the top of the original. Notwithstanding WP:OWN, it's not considered polite (in fact I'm sure there's a guideline to this effect somewhere) to upload an image over someone else's except in the case of obvious and uncontroversial quality improvements. Bob's picture has every right to remain on Wikipedia, even if only to illustrate swimming or some such article.
Incidentally, xyzzy, you ask above if I object to paintings. Of course not, in the right context - in fact I put one in the Helvellyn article. The big difference is that a photograph carries an implicit claim that it is an accurate representation of what the eye can see, whereas a painting makes no such claims. I would not, however, use a painting to illustrate a geographical subject unless it contributed in a way that a photo could not - e.g. it was of historical interest, or represented the subject's influence on art and culture (c.f. Helvellyn again). --Blisco 12:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There's an article about image manipulation in Buses Yearbook 2007 (I bought it for my brother -- honestly). They subtly manipulate images. I think it, along with cropping, is fine so long as it's not for ideological purposes. Thus, removing a person from a location where they are not normally present does not pose an ethical problem. It might not be an accurate representation of the definitive moment, but there are no ideological consequences. Conversely, removing figures from a political demonstration/meeting, or such, is clearly motivated to shape knowledge, and would be unacceptable in an encyclopedia. The JPStalk to me 13:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaps. This could run and run, but let us leave it there for now. As far as I am concerned, the lead image on the article is a fake. I will put a health warning on it to that effect. Bob BScar23625 15:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ps. Actually, I am not so sure that the image now shown in the article is an altered version of mine. It looks different and purports (in its licensing) to have been taken by one Charles Rispin on 26 September 2006. I guess that Charles Rispin must have stood on exactly the same spot that I did (the top of the summit shelter) to take the image. Can anyone enlighten me?. If it is a real image (and not just a brilliant fake), then please remove my health warning. Bob BScar23625 16:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

pps. I am now sure that the summit image now shown is a genuine one - and not a fake. I have removed the health warning. I don't know how this image got there, but I am not arguing. It is better than my original. I have banned myself from editing this article for 28 days. Bob BScar23625 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, for information, Blisco posted a link to a website with free images of this place, so I uploaded two of them to Commons (see commons:Category:Cross Fell). This is one of them. I replaced your image with it. The only thing I did to this image was to increase brightness and contrast to correct a poorly adjusted camera. I said so on the description page. Please do try to assume good faith in the future. —xyzzyn 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sketch Map

Is the sketch map alligned correctly? Little Dun Fell is broadly southeast of Cross Fell, but Great Dun Fell is south-southeast of Little Dun Fell. The sketch map makes them look closer to east-southeast, and gives the impression (to me at any rate) of being a predominately east–west ridge rather than a predominately north–south ridge. Also Cow Green is in the wrong place — it's shown as north of the ridge, in fact it's a little south of east. I don't mind loosing some accuracy by using stylised sketch maps, but this one seems misleading. — ras52 09:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ras52. You are probably right. It was me that drew and inserted the sketch map and I will correct it some time. Thanks for mentioning the matter. Bob BScar23625 07:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helvellyn as "Parent peak"

Sorry Mark, but I do not see how Helvellyn can be described as the parent peak of Cross Fell. The two are visible from each other in conditions of good visibility, but they are about 30km apart and separated by the Eden Valley. Cross Fell does not fall within the "territory" of Helvellyn for drainage purposes. Have you ever climbed Cross Fell?. best wishes Bob BScar23625 17:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't, but I'd love to (and I have climbed Helvellyn!) The thing is, part of the definition of 'parent' is that the 'parent' must be higher (and have more relative height) than the 'child.' Helvellyn is the nearest peak to Cross Fell that has more relative height. Got me? Mark J 09:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

BScar23625, you might like to know that some general issues with the use of the 'Parent peak' infobox field are currently being discussed here. (Incidentally, although there are several different definitions of 'parent mountain' used to varying degrees, in this case all definitions agree that Helvellyn is Cross Fell's parent.) — ras52 13:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Chaps. The relevant section from Topographical prominence (recently revised by Mark) reads "It is common to define a peak's parent as a particular peak in the higher terrain connected to the peak by the key col". One might only decribe H as CF's parent peak if the two were in the same block of higher terrain, which they are not. Bob BScar23625 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The definition on that page is perhaps not phrased as well as it could be, but Helvellyn is definitely Cross Fell's parent peak. In this context, "higher terrain" is referring to northern and eastern parts of the Lake District: relatively nearby terrain that it is higher (in places) than Cross Fell. The definition you quote does not say a mountain and its parent have to lie in the same block of higher terrain, though I accept the wording could perhaps be taken that way. What it's trying to say is that you have the mountain itself (Cross Fell), a nearby higher peak (Helvellyn), and they are connected by a ridge that passes through the mountain's key col. Although at its lowest point, it is barely perceptible, there is a ridge connecting the northern Pennines to the eastern Lake District — it forms the watershed between the Lune and Eden valleys. And the lowest point on that "ridge", the key col of Cross Fell, is at about NY709053 at 242 m.
In the case of Cross Fell, it's not clear how useful the idea of a parent peak is. Saying that the parent of Great Dun Fell is Cross Fell has more obvious relevance as they're next to each other, and it perhaps serves to locate Great Dun Fell so someone unfamiliar with it. But when a mountain is some distance from higher ground (as with Cross Fell), it is probably only of interest to those of a mathematical bent. Nevertheless, in this case, there's no doubt that Helvellyn is Cross Fell's parent. — ras52 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with everything you've said, ras52, thanks for stating that so eloquently. Mark J 17:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Chaps. I don't accept that it is even mathematically correct to claim that H is the parent peak of CF. The two are in entirely different blocks of high ground and one might just as easily claim that Ben Nevis is the parent peak of CF. Bob BScar23625 17:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's like denying that Cross Fell's height is 893m or that its relative height is 651m! (OK well, maybe not quite, but you get my point. Or maybe you don't. :-)

Anyway, I understand your suspicions over the fact that Cross Fell and Helvellyn are clearly on different mountain ranges. However, in many areas the boundaries between mountain ranges are not so easily drawn and decisions about where one range ends and another begins have to be largely arbitrary. This would inevitably lead to arguing over whether a peak 'deserves' to have a parent or not. To avoid such arguments, the rule was made (not by me, I hasten to add!) that every peak has a parent. And going by that, the parent of Cross Fell quite simply is Helvellyn (as ras52 demonstrated above.) So there you go.

I hope we can settle this. Any thoughts you two? Mark J 20:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Bob, If you read the page on Topographical prominence, you'll see there are three commonly-used variants of the "parent peak" in use: island parent, prominence parent, and height parent (sometimes called line parent or "next nearest neighbour", although the latter name is misleading). The concept of the nearest piece of higher land is sometimes also used, but I've never seen this described as the "parent peak" (simply because it is almost never a peak). The three types of parent are all defined on the prominence page, and in more rigorous detail on this website (see in particular chapter 6.1). If you want to properly understand the concepts involved, I definitely recommend reading that website.
In the specific case of Cross Fell (and indeed most British Marilyns), the prominence parent is already present in Wikipedia here. This is quoted from a verifiable spreadsheet on the [rhb] Yahoo group called "Marilyn's parents.xls". (You need to register to access this, but I don't see that this affects its verifiability any more than it would in the case of a book in library that requires registration to gain access.)
It turns out that Cross Fell's prominence parent is clearly and unambiguously Helvellyn. Cross Fell has a prominence of about 651 m; Helevellyn has a prominence of 712 m and is higher than Cross Fell: I hope these facts are not in dispute. As you follow the the watershed bewteen the Lune and Eden valleys, it reaches its lowest point at about 242 m near Newbiggin-on-Lune (NY709053) which is Cross Fell's key col (also verifiably stated in the spreadsheet). The watershed then rises into the Shap Fells and eventually the High Street range. The High Street range does not contain anything higher than Cross Fell — it's highest point is 828 m. Continuing west, the land drops down to the Kirkstone Pass (454&nbps;m) and rises, over Fairfield (again, lower than Cross Fell) to Helvellyn. As Helvellyn is the first peak encountered that is both higher and more prominent, it is the prominence parent.
The obvious question is: why did we head west from Cross Fell towards the Lake District, rather than (say) southwest towards Snowdonia or north to the Scottish Highlands? The reason is that the col between Cross Fell and the Lakes is higher than either of the others: it was 242 m, whereas if you head towards Snowdon, the col is 66 m at SJ630333, and the col towards the Scottish Highlands is even lower — 47 m at NS760781.
An easier way of looking at it is in terms of the island parent (which is also Helvellyn). Imagine an immense flood covering Britain to a depth of 893 m so that the water is just lapping around Cross Fell's summit. From the summit, you can imagine seeing a few islands in the distance where a few Lakeland peaks puncture the waters; further afield the Snowdonian summits are dry as are many peaks in the Scottish Highlands. Now imagine the waters subsiding. Nearby, the summit of Great Dun Fell becomes clear and as the water level continues to drop, the islands of Cross Fell and Great Dun Fell get larger and eventually merge into a single, larger island. This will repeat as more distant islands merge with Cross Fell, but for quite a while, Cross Fell will remain the highest point on its island. Eventually, however, the water will have fallen back so much that the Northern Pennine island merges with a higher island — and the first time that happens will be when the water level reaches 242 m and the Nothern Pennines merge with the northern and eastern Lakes. At that point, Cross Fell is no longer the high point of its island — Helvellyn is. And so Helvellyn is also Cross Fell's island parent.
You might ask whether we can be sure the Scafell Pike's island hasn't already merged with Helvellyn's. This doesn't happen until the water drops to 238 m when Dunmall Raise (NY327117) becomes clear. Although only 4 m lower, the best available mapping (and every source I've seen) agrees that this is lower. If it weren't (for example, if the ill-defined Newbiggin-on-Lune col were found to be significantly lower than thought), this would only affect the island parent (which would become Scafell Pike); the prominence parent would remain Helvellyn as you still have to pass Helvellyn to reach Scafell Pike.
The final sort of parent is line parent (aka height parent). It's definition is very similar to prominence parent: we follow the ridge to the key col and beyond, but instead of stopping when we encounter a peak that is both higher and more prominent, we only require it to be higher. But the answer is still Helvellyn. (Nethermost Pike, at 821 m, is two meters too short to count.)
Are you now convinced that Helvellyn is unambiguously the parent peak of Cross Fell?
As I said before, we can question how relevant this fact is, and whether it's worth mentioning here, but I don't see how the fact itself can be disputed. With the exception of the highest point on an island (where things become slightly confused), every peak will a parent peak — potentially several different ones depending on the definition one adopts.
— ras52 08:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark. Where has this "rule" that every peak must have a parent come from?. Is this a Wikipedia rule or what?. I can only repeat that CF and H are in ranges that are both topographically and geologically separate. Please do not be offended if I ask whether there is any link between you and ras52. You both live in Cambridgeshire, and I wonder if you are father and son?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 08:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We both live in the same county, but that's the extent of any link between us. To the best of my knowledge I have never met Mark. — ras52 08:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ras52. Thankyou for your swift response and I repeat that no offence was intended in my question to Mark. I just wanted to be sure that the two of you are not from the same household.

This rule you describe sounds far too complicated to make any sense. I think we both agree that there is no obvious meaning in describing H as the parent peak of CF. So, does it make any sense to .... . Bob BScar23625 09:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, no, Ras52 isn't my parent, although he is probably higher and more prominent than me. :-) Can I ask for your opinion now, Ras52, as to whether the line should go back in the article now you've stated its certainty beyond all possible doubt? It probably should for consistency. Mark J 18:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The definition of parent peak seems to give Helvellyn, fair enough, but to me that shows that the parent peak metric is meaningless and useless in some situations. Oddly enough, the High Willhays article gives Cross Fell as the parent peak of that! (seems rather unlikely, as I'd have thought something in Wales would probably have qualified). 90.52.119.72 (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The parent is only some far away peak when you are looking at the highest peak in range. I accept that the parent is less useful in such cases, but I certainly don't accept that it is "meaningless and useless". In the same way that nearby parent peaks give you an idea of the ridge structure nearby, a remote parent gives you an idea of the watersheds between the mountain and its parent. Cross Fell is definitely correct as the parent of High Willhays. The River Severn forms a very low divide separating most of England from Wales and the Welsh Marches. — ras52 (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
What use is it to suggest that there's any connection between Cross Fell and High Willhays at all? IMO parent peaks should only be given when they are unarguably in the same range of mountains. To do otherwise suggests there is some meaningful linking between the two. Looking at the example below, it gets even more absurd when you go from Scafell Pike to Snowdon, then to Ben Nevis (possibly going back over Scafell Pike's summit en route?) In these cases I can't think of any reason other than idle curiosity why anyone would want to apply the idea to two completely separate hills and mountains in two very widely-spaced and geologically distinct areas. Oh, it was my unsigned comment, must've forgotten to log in, sorry about that. -Riedquat (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do we want to know the height of a mountain other than idle curiosity? Or its prominence? Or who first climbed it (where that is known)? Or what its name means in modern English? If an encyclopaedia were to remove all information that was likely to be only of interest to satisfy "idle curiosity", it would be a very small encyclopaedia indeed. And to answer your question: no, the watershed from Snowdon to its parent, Ben Nevis, does not pass back over Scafell Pike—it follows the Pennines as you'd expect it to. — ras52 (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the parent field (with its correct value: Helvellyn). This is one of very few articles on British mountain that lack this field, and in the name of consistency, I feel it should be included. Even with other mountains where the parent is quite distant (more distant than Cross Fell to Helvellyn), the parent is generally included. For example, start at Dunkery Beacon, the highest point of Exmoor, and follow the chain of parent peaks: High Willhays, Cross Fell, Helvellyn, Scafell Pike, Snowdon, Ben Nevis. The only one missing a parent field in the info box is this one. — ras52 (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard. I will look forward to the day when we have a biblical flood. And I can stand on the Cross Fell summit shelter with the water lapping around my feet and I look out to see four small islands in the distance to the south west. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical flood

ras52. Your idea of a biblical flood with the sea level rising to a point where it is lapping around the top of Cross Fell is really great. Standing on top of the summit shelter (to keep your feet dry) there would be water on all sides - apart from 4 small islands being the tops of Helvellyn, Skiddaw, Scafell and Scafell Pike visible at a distance of around 25-50km. And as the waters fall, there would come a short-lived moment where CF and H would be connected as a single island while still just separate from Scafell island.

But do you realise that an 890m rise in sea level would require the volume of water in the oceans to increase by at least 35%? (my "back of envelope" calculation). I mean, it would require a lot more than the melting of the polar ice caps to achieve this result. I cannot even see a freak tsunami wave (caused by a meteorite strike) doing it. Bob BScar23625 14:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but that doesn't matter. The flood is just a way of conceptualising the idea of an encirclement (or island) parent. The fact that such a flood is clearly impossible isn't important. — ras52 16:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GDF Private Road

This is the second time I have recitifed the private road status of GDF, as a NATS employee I think if anyone should have the final word on wether the public are permitted on driving up said road it should be me. In the future if you wish to change this area please contact me in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andehtw (talk • contribs) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided a source, so your changed version is no more verifiable than the previous version. And why did you remove the sentence about the ridge to Cross Fell? I have reinstated the paragraph about the ridge, and modified the wording of road status to make it more neutral and to conform to what I can find a proper citation for. (Specifically, the Nuttalls say "It used to be possible to drive much further up [the private road], but this is now discouraged".) — ras52 (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)