Talk:Lugnaquilla
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the priority scale. | |
[edit] Height
Unless there is some evidence that Ireland has been resurveyed Lug has been 3039 ft/926 m for the last 30 years that I have been going there and using OSI maps of the area. There is however a page on the OSI website where the heights are different from those generally accepted but no evidence of any survey. I am going to Ireland very shortly and will look at the latest survey maps. I first came across this height issue when Timeineurope started changing several Irish mountain heights and I mentioned it on his talk page but he could not provide any evidence of any new survey confirming the height other then this page at the OSI which I suspect has errors in it. ww2censor 18:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- [1] is the newest OSi publication on the height of Lugnaquillia Mountain and as such should be trusted over older OSi publications. You suspect the page is wrong but have provided no evidence except obsolete OSi maps, which, needless to say, can't be trusted over the newest publication available from the same source. Timeineurope 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- You suspect the page is correct but have not confirmed it to be so with data from currently published maps. Why should this webpage be trusted? No reason at all, especially when many other mountain related website say otherwise. I will be in Ireland within the next 2 weeks and will check published maps to see if they coincide with the OSI web page you trust over older publications. Do you have access to any currently published maps? We shall see but I doubt that Lugnaquilla has lost 7 feet. ww2censor 19:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually now I look, I'm a little confused where the 926m figure is coming from - mountain related websites such as here and here all list it as 925m, and just to sound the death knell (!), the OSI 4th edition map I have to hand here also lists it as such. But I've no idea about the new 924m height... Schcambo 20:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I admit that most of my maps are older and list it as 3039' which converts to more than 926, but definitely moer than 924! As stated, I will check some new maps when I get to Ireland. ww2censor 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually now I look, I'm a little confused where the 926m figure is coming from - mountain related websites such as here and here all list it as 925m, and just to sound the death knell (!), the OSI 4th edition map I have to hand here also lists it as such. But I've no idea about the new 924m height... Schcambo 20:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- You suspect the page is correct but have not confirmed it to be so with data from currently published maps. Why should this webpage be trusted? No reason at all, especially when many other mountain related website say otherwise. I will be in Ireland within the next 2 weeks and will check published maps to see if they coincide with the OSI web page you trust over older publications. Do you have access to any currently published maps? We shall see but I doubt that Lugnaquilla has lost 7 feet. ww2censor 19:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
