1000 feet above sealevel?
I live in a place where pretty much everything is 1000 feet above sealevel.
I guess it’s the same discussion as with the question of how deep the shoulder between two peaks has to be to call it two separate peaks. That kind of thing bothers people who want to count how many mountains with elevations above (let’s say) 8000m there are.
There’s pretty much no definition. Particularly when you consider there can be two peaks separated by a high strip of land - does that count as one mountain or two? Also depends on the country you’re in - the highest peak in Britain is only 4400 feet.
“What the hell?” thought I as I reached behind my desk. “Let’s see what the Dictionary of Geological Terms, 3rd edition, prepared by the American Geological Institute and edited by Robert L. Bates and Julia A. Jackson has to say!”
Hmmm, I don’t think there can be a hard and fast definition of 1000 ft above the surrounding terrain. Because if there is, upstate New York is nearly literally filled with mountains: the Catskills region and Adirondacks region are clearly mountains and are much greater than 1000 feet, but I would estimate that nearly %50 of the rest of the state is filled with what I would call hills that rise nearly exactly 1000 feet. Then again, I wouldn’t argue with someone who wanted to call them mountains, they seem to be on the edge.