This reminds me of the distinction between a "ship" and a "boat", which I learned from the captain of a 900-passenger cruise ship. He told me

"Any vessel that you can carry on another bigger vessel is a 'boat'; anything too big to be carried by a larger vessel is a 'ship'."

And anything that can be carried on a boat is a dinghy...

Unless there is a bigger ship...

there's two real tests for me:

1) does this bit of ground have a name on a map somewhere? Mountains have names.

2) can you see the top from where you start on the climb? yes? then it is a hill. On a mountain, the road just keeps winding up and up and you don't see the end of the climb for a while.

Hill:

Mountain:

丘 (oka): hill
山 (yama): mountain

I've seen some hills called (whatever)山, but don't think I've ever seen it the other way around.

So what I gather from everyone's responses is... the difference between a mountain and a hill is completely subjective .

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.

"Hills are round on top, mountains are pointy."

Then explain "Round Mountain" out by Loveland in CO. And a whole host of similar roundy-topped mountains. (I note that Mt. Massive, at El. 14,421', appears to be fairly rounded, and some of the other 14'ers are as well.) Pointy hills might be a bit scarcer, but I'll be they're out there, too.

from dictionary.com

that's just a bump in the road.

Having hiked some official mountains in my day, namely the White Mountains of New Hampshire, I've been reluctant to use the word mountain climbing when refering to my rides in the Santa Monica Mountains. I mostly use the word hill instead. This thread has given me the confidence to call them mountains. Saddle Peak, at 2800 ft, deserves to be called what it is, a mountain. It has a pointy peak and everything. The ride takes you to near 2500 feet, but that's still technically a mountain climb.

Perhaps another approach would be more meaningful. If you read the description of some organized rides, it will tell you the the ride difficulty will be "moderate" or "difficult". Its about the slopes, their duration and frequency.

People don't believe me anymore when I say a ride will be moderate. Depending on the people I'm with that either means so difficult I'm going to drop them and leave them in my dust, or so damn easy they can pick flowers while they wait for me. On hills especially, moderate and difficult have such wide ranges they are essentially meaningless.