Re: Walking the coast of the UK
- From: Stewart Robert Hinsley <{$news$}@meden.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:54:29 +0100
In message <g6qpn6$67m$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nick Maclaren <nmm1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
In article <WifBJLGaHOkIFw6G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Martin Richardson <martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
|>
|> Another person who does not know the difference between UK and GB. He
|> claims to have walked the coast of the UK, his itinerary only covers
|> mainland GB.
Well, given the status of the UK, it doesn't really have a coast :-)
In any case, its meaning depends on context - the Isle of Man and the
Channel Islands sometimes being in and sometimes out.
But even sticking with "mainland GB", the term is still ambiguous!
With or without the area north of the Caledonian Canal, and including
or not including Anglesey, Skye, St Michael's Mount and so on?
Why would you draw a limit at the Caledonian Canal, and not the Forth and Clyde Canal, which also runs from sea to sea, and has a lower summit? At least the Crinan Canal is a sea level canal.
There are coast to coast routes in the English canal network as well.
If the bridges mean that you have to add Anglesey and Skye, you can get the distance back and more, pedestrian access permitting, by using the Severn, Erskine, Connel, Ballachulish, Kessock, Tay Road, Forth Road and Humber Bridges. What about the Mersey and Deptford Tunnels?
Add Lindisfarne, Rough Island, and the various islands of Essex and Kent to the questionable bits.
This could go on for ages :-)
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Walking the coast of the UK
- From: Nick Maclaren
- Re: Walking the coast of the UK
- Prev by Date: Re: Lindsay's Caledonian Treks
- Next by Date: Re: Walking the coast of the UK
- Previous by thread: Re: Walking the coast of the UK
- Next by thread: Re: Walking the coast of the UK
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
