Marhofn 212.12 - May 2010

Previous | Contents | Next

David Ethics

David Purchase

I was very interested in the question raised by Peter Simpson in Marhofn 196 and the editorial reply. I think there are two issues here which have become conflated: 'relocated summits' and 'additions and deletions'. Here are my thoughts on these issues. I use the word 'set' in its mathematical sense, to describe a group of hills (e.g. the Munros or Marilyns) or a subgroup (e.g. the English Hewitts or English Marilyns).

1. If you have climbed all the hills known to be in a set on your date of completion, then your claim is indisputable and remains valid whatever subsequent changes may be made to that set.

This is the rule that the SMC use for claims to 'Munroist' (or 'Munroist and Tops') status. For example, if (as has often happened) the precise location of a Munro summit has been moved, then there is no obligation to climb the hill again just to retain your status. Similarly, if one of John and Graham's surveys results in a new Munro being identified, there is still no obligation to climb it to retain Munroist status (though obviously one is encouraged to do so).

Of course any serious bagger will wish, if possible, to return and visit the new high point. But it would be absurd to require a Scottish hillwalker to make a special trip to revisit Botley Hill or Chanctonbury Ring to retain his Marilyn count. In each case, both points are on a 'ridge' with a negligible drop between them. I did actually take in all these tops on my visits, but on Botley Hill that was almost by accident.

To me, the 'Horse Head Moor / Birks Fell' and 'Thorpe Fell Top / Cracoe Fell' changes help to define the dividing line. In the first case, the arguments about the precise heights and locations of all the possible 'summits' convince me that a visit to any of the 'high points' is sufficient. In the second case, it is now clear that the true summit (Cracoe Fell) is significantly higher, and some distance from, the originally listed Marilyn. So I think it unreasonable to require Marilyn baggers to revisit the Birks Fell region, but fair enough to expect them to climb Cracoe Fell, if possible. Though I stick to my view, above, that once you have completed a list (e.g. the set of English Marilyns) then that should stand. If any change to a set is known before you complete, then you must visit the new hill if it is a significant change (e.g. Cracoe Fell), but not otherwise if you have already been there (e.g. Botley Hill).

I realise, of course, that other approaches are more rigorous than mine.

2. The other problem is the 'counting' one. My own rule is that if I climb a hill thought at the time to be a Marilyn, then it 'counts', i.e. it gains a 'Marilyn ascent number'. And if I revisit the summit (as I did with Cracoe Fell, long after I had been to Thorpe Fell Top) it does not get a new ascent number, because if it did I would be counting the same hill twice. But that leaves two problems:

a) Marilyns that are identified after I have climbed them.
b) Count changes if Marilyns are demoted.

In case a), which is usually because a hill I climbed as a SubMarilyn gets promoted, I adopt a method similar to that the SMC use for late reports of completion. In other words, I enter it in my Marilyn ascent list when I learn of its promotion, with the next available ascent number. Of course that isn't the correct ascent number, but it does keep my total count correct.

Case b) is more contentious. If I have climbed a Marilyn and given it an ascent number, then it jolly well stays in my ascent list. Of course this may mean in practice that my total count is one or two hills higher than it strictly should be, but in the context of 860 or so out of 1556, nobody is being seriously misled.

It is a bit different in the context of a set. My reported number of English Marilyns varies slightly from year to year as the total number of Marilyns there changes.

Occasionally, maintaining a full house requires another climb; in England recently I can think of Arnside Knott and Cracoe Fell only. Of course I do visit these new hills, though I reiterate that once a set has been completed, that status should not be withdrawn.

3. You may wonder why I operate in this way. Well, I list all the Marilyns I have climbed, and give them an order-of-ascent number. That number is then used in other places, e.g. walking diaries and databases. It would be quite impractical to change my ascent numbers just because my 476th Marilyn (Raw Head) has been demoted. Just as I shall always be Munroist 643, so Ben Rinnes will always be my 600th Marilyn, Whernside my 700th, and Dirrington Great Law my 800th.

So my system allows for new entrants, but not for (already visited) exits. I now realise that it is not in conformity with official RHB policy, but it works for me and I am sticking with it! It would not surprise me if other Hall of Fame members worked in the same way.

Previous | Contents | Next