Nah. It'd be more accurate to say that the difference between hill and mountain depends upon what it is you are doing. Universally accepted formalised 'standards' don't exist. Various 'conventions' do exist, for various purposes and types of activity.


Some people have mentioned the guidelines they learnt in Geology classes. Those are 'conventions' which will have come from texts written about the field. Formal geological survey institutions, attached to State, ditched the use of them decades - nearly a century - ago. The distinction is useful, in that context, as an academic exercise but there's little purpose in any practical sense, and so much variance in naming application exists that it'd be a huge, wasteful and rather meaningless task to retrospectively alter all the namings so they adhered to some formalised Standard.

Someone else mentioned 'Standards' which supposedly exist in the UK. The definition quoted comes from a website devoted to the outdoor activity of hiking/walking in the UK. Again, conventions rather than genuine 'Standards'. Those websites also refer to other, rather quaintly named prominences there. 'Bridgets'. 'Corbetts'. 'Wainrights' and others. There's mention, at go4awalk.com, of an activity described as "Walk all 214 Wainrights in just 59 walks!" Again, useful to have conventions.

No doubt there'll be various conventions adhered to within the field of cycling also, in various places, and those will differ from place to place.