Talk:Snaefell

Not quite a mountain

Should the article not mention that the mountain was resurveyed a few years ago by the Ordnance Survey, and found to be slightly lower than 2000 feet (and therefore not a mountain)? To save embarassment and tourism, the older higher value was retained. I don't have a reference for this, but one must exist. HairyWombat (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Later. I did some digging, and have concluded that this is an urban myth. The Ordnance Survey have established a GPS station on the peak, and report its height as being 2037 feet. This is close to the accepted height of Snaefell of 2034 feet. (I guess the concrete marker pillar must be 3 feet tall.) HairyWombat (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Even later. I have corrected the height in the article to 2034 feet. HairyWombat (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actual height

Ordnance Survey are responsible for measuring. They have stated that the height is 621 metres (on 1:50000 scale mapping, more precisely 620.9 metres in their data set) not 620. This article says the two different heights in two different places. The height that OS state is for the natural surface of the mountain, not the top of the trig point - the height is recorded at the reference mark inside the base of the trig point, not the brass plate on the top. The true height of the mountain should therefore be 621 metres, not 620. TarquinWJ (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Translation

Shouldn't the translation of the name be "snow mountain", since fell is Old Norse for mountain? -- Robina Fox (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Fell is a well accepted English loan word from Norse meaning high hill or peak. See Scafell or Goat Fell for other examples. Dabbler (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is, of course, though I've heard it more often used to mean a high moorland, but if you are translating why not use the simpler, more explanatory word rather than reiterating part of the name itself. -- Robina Fox (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)