What’s the difference between a hill and a mountain?
I recently saw Hugh Grant in “The Englishman Who Walked Up a Hill and Came Down a Mountain.” Got me thinking: out here in the mid-Atlantic, people are always talking about our “mountains.” And they are referring to topographic features maybe 400 feet above sea level!
Here’s a related thought: if the peak of a hill/mountain is 8000 feet above sea level, but the surrounding countryside is at 7,500 feet, is it a mountain or hill?
I (coming from Central Minnesota) tend to believe that that is a Mountain. Hills are generally more sloped, and grassy, Mountains are more peaked and tree-laden
I know the things we hiked through last summer were mountains, but they might’ve been hills… every step felt like 100 with a 75 lb pack on your back… then again, the Peaks were over 1,500 feet over Lake Superior, which was down below…
For the UK, from About.com:
I also found another cite somewhere else that generally agrees with that by saying “a mountain is considered to project at least 300 m (1000 ft) above the surrounding land, whereas a hill is generally considered to be less than 300 m high.”
According to this second definition, your final question’s answer would be no.
you can’t be too choosy. So you call Camelback Mountain (hill actually) a mountain. At 2,700 ft. it is, after all, 100 ft. taller than Squaw Peak. 
I went there to visit my brother a while back. They’re really proud of that hill, so if you’re ever there, don’t tell them any different. 
Peace,
mangeorge