Harry Wyeth wrote:
� Thus,�it is easy to think "7000 feet, 7500 feet, 8000 feet" and so on.� On the other hand, the interval between, say, 2000 and 2500 m is rather large.
�
I wonder if anyone has a suggestion on how to deal with this problem.
Yes! It is so easy that I'm not sure why you think there is a problem.
It is very easy to discuss general mountain heights in metres. Just use 2000 m, 2100 m, 2200 m etc. One hundred metres is about 325 feet. That's close enough to 500 feet so that discussing mountain heights in terms of numbers like 2000 m, 2100 m, 2200 m, etc. is about the same as discussing them in terms of numbers like 6500 ft, 7000 ft, 7500 ft etc.
(The exact conversions of these numbers is: 2000 m = 6561 ft., 2100 m = 6889 ft., 2200 m = 7217 ft.)
Also, since the tallest mountains are only about 8000 m high, you never have to get into ridiculously long numbers like 26,250 ft. Indeed, metre heights for mountains can easily be converted to kilometres if smaller numerical values are desired. An 8000 m mountain is 8 km high. Just try that with feet and miles!
Intervals of 100 m is a bit finer than 500 feet, but the general size is about the same. If you are content with nothing more precise than 500 feet in discussing mountains, then you should be able to be satisfied with discussing them with a precision of 100 m.
Regards, Bill Hooper
PS
The first really high mountain that I ever "climbed" (by cable car) was the Nebelhorn in the Bavarian Alps. I still remember the sign at the top indicating the elevation as 2224 m, about 2.25 km. What a thrill that was. I have no idea how much that is in feet. (And I really don't want anyone to tell me!)
