ThePortForum.com

Posted: **15:03 Wed 07 Jun 2017**

flash_uk wrote: ↑14:56 Wed 07 Jun 20171420

2nd so far.

Posted: **20:35 Wed 07 Jun 2017**

1374 meters (Skardfjell)?

Posted: **21:10 Wed 07 Jun 2017**

Glenn E. wrote: ↑20:35 Wed 07 Jun 2017 1374 meters (Skardfjell)?

2nd so far.

Posted: **23:48 Wed 07 Jun 2017**

Posted: **05:24 Thu 08 Jun 2017**

flash_uk wrote: ↑23:48 Wed 07 Jun 20171299

Best so far.

Posted: **12:28 Thu 08 Jun 2017**

1,191m?

Posted: **12:32 Thu 08 Jun 2017**

idj123 wrote: ↑12:28 Thu 08 Jun 20171,191m?

Not there yet, but getting closer. Best so far.

Posted: **19:18 Thu 08 Jun 2017**

If it is below 1000 meters is it really a mountain?

990m?

Posted: **20:08 Thu 08 Jun 2017**

Glenn E. wrote: ↑19:18 Thu 08 Jun 2017 If it is below 1000 meters is it really a mountain?

990m?

A molehill or a mountain, same difference. If the name includes "fjell", it's a mountain in Norway. I have heard, however that all things are much bigger in USA.

Best so far.

Posted: **21:11 Wed 14 Jun 2017**

The "hills" by my house are over 4,000' (~ 13,000 meters). I ride my bike up them. The mountains in the U.K. Are bumps. Hiking in the Highlands wasn't that hard for me and they weren't that tall. It's all relative to what you're used to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **21:27 Wed 14 Jun 2017**

Andy Velebil wrote: ↑21:11 Wed 14 Jun 2017 The "hills" by my house are over 4,000' (~ 13,000 meters). I ride my bike up them. The mountains in the U.K. Are bumps. Hiking in the Highlands wasn't that hard for me and they weren't that tall. It's all relative to what you're used to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed Andy, but I think you would have difficulty cycling up this one. But then again, maybe not.
However, in Scotland it would qualify as a Munro.

Posted: **21:29 Wed 14 Jun 2017**

4,000' (~ 13,000 meters)
You might be a capable cyclist, but I am not impressed with your math/conversion skills.

Posted: **22:02 Wed 14 Jun 2017**

For the record, it's not my turn. Anyone? Bueller?

Posted: **22:10 Wed 14 Jun 2017**

Old Bridge wrote:4,000' (~ 13,000 meters)
You might be a capable cyclist, but I am not impressed with your math/conversion skills.

Yes darn phone. Should be 1,300. One too many zeros on that

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **17:16 Thu 15 Jun 2017**

Posted: **17:24 Thu 15 Jun 2017**

Re: One quiz at a timeQuote flash_uk
by flash_uk » 17:16 Thu 15 Jun 2017

899m

See my reply further back: "But then again, maybe not.
However, in Scotland it would qualify as a Munro."

So no cigar.

edit: But you are 2nd best now.

Posted: **18:07 Thu 15 Jun 2017**

Hmm... so 914 < OldBridgeFjell < 990.

Vornut? 962 meters?

Posted: **18:25 Thu 15 Jun 2017**

Glenn E. wrote: ↑18:07 Thu 15 Jun 2017 Hmm... so 914 < OldBridgeFjell < 990.

Vornut? 962 meters?

A Munro is 1000m+

962 is 2nd so far.

Posted: **22:40 Thu 15 Jun 2017**

A Munro is 3000+ ft (914 meters) according to Wikipedia.

Not my turn.

Posted: **23:12 Thu 15 Jun 2017**

My fault Glenn. You are correct. However there are also metric Munros, that rise above the 1000m mark.
OldBridgeFjell is qualified as a METRIC Munro.

Posted: **01:13 Sat 17 Jun 2017**

Old Bridge wrote: ↑23:12 Thu 15 Jun 2017 OldBridgeFjell is qualified as a METRIC Munro.

Who do we write to in Norway in order to petition for an official name change?

Still not my turn.

Posted: **01:16 Sat 17 Jun 2017**

And just for the record:

990 < OldBridgeFjell < 1191
962 is closer than 1191

Posted: **06:28 Sat 17 Jun 2017**

Glenn E. wrote: ↑01:16 Sat 17 Jun 2017 And just for the record:

990 < OldBridgeFjell < 1191
962 is closer than 1191

The situation in a nutshell.

Posted: **09:52 Sat 17 Jun 2017**