Talk:Grand Bonhomme

Elevation concerns
After noticing two different elevations given on this page, I did a quick search to find out which was correct and found this surprising entry on a Peakery.com page. Petit Bonhomme is higher than Grand Bonhomme according to peakery? Doesn't sound right. And peakery's elevation for Grand B is far lower than either figure stated here. Can anyone shed some light? -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  01:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to be general confusion. When I made this page I got the height from a map of St. Vincent. The majority of web sources also seem to say 3193 ft: 3193 ft, 3193 ft, "318 ft, 970 meters"(?), "well over 3000 ft", 1520 ft (Peakery), 3193 ft, 970 m. Though far from universal, ther 3193 ft/970 m height seems to be the most widespread, including scientific papers and StV&G government reports. My guess is that the "318ft/970m" one is due to a misplaced decimal point in the imperial height. Where Peakery got its height, I've no idea. Grutness...wha?  06:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thanks for the reply and the input:-) I haven't gone through them all yet but at least a couple of the sites you listed are clearly wrong based on their own information. One implies that Grand Bonhomme is the highest peak on the island and another explicitly states GB as Saint Vincent's high point, which it most certainly is not. La Soufrière is the high point. I will look into it more later, but thanks again and I soon get back to you -- Racer X11  Talk to me Stalk me  07:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Quoting a few more sources: 454 m (1,490 ft), 740 m (2,428ft), 740 m (2,428 ft), 974 m (3,196 ft).


 * These "looked" the more reliable, but even among all the other sources I have glimpsed, I am not seeing much of a definite trend favoring one range of elevations or another, other than the 450 m range being the least represented as you have already noted. We should consider the possibility that a number of less reliable sources may have been getting their elevations from this page, thus skewing our sample in favor of 958m and 969m.


 * There are also significant discrepancies between all these sites regarding the heights of the other mountains on St. Vincent, and their rank to one another. So there is either major confusion or huge surveying errors (or both) with St. Vincent peaks.


 * I will keep working on it. I will try to find some more info and maybe organize it all better. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  00:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right about the potential for this being used as a source for some - thought he old map I used was pre-Wikipedia, as is this source which says "well over 3000 ft". It could simply be that St. Vincent isn't very well surveyed. For what it's worth, my original source (which I didn't reference as there was so little publication info on it) was an old Esso Road and Tourist map of the Caribbean from about 1960, which says 3193 ft. I've also checked a National geographic map from 1962 which says 3181 ft - so heights in that range definitely pre-date Wikipedia. Grutness...wha?  01:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. For right now I am thinking about changing the elvations in both the infobox and body to "973 m (3,193 ft)" to reflect your original source. BTW, I just noticed that in addition to the conversion being Imperial first, the conversion to meters (958m) is incorrect (assuming 3193 ft was the source figure, that would make it 973m). So then the page would at least be without the conversion error and without two conflicting elevations. I also may remove the dispute tags and replace them with more specific notes on the issue, linking this discussion as well. Does that sound OK to you? And like I said, I will try to did into this more later. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  01:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine by me - thanks for the effort you've put into this! Grutness...wha?  01:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)