Talk:Hasselwood Rock

Area
300m^2 seems like far too much for only 13m diameter... Beccaviola (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Pi*r^2 would seem to give c.130 m^2 - I think that's right? I'll change it anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture
The photo claiming to show Hasselwood Rock is identical to the one shown in the Rockall article. Comparing to other photos, I believe it actually does show Rockall, so it's clearly misplaced here. Nasobema (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The photo does indeed show Rockall; the clue is in the caption. Hasselwood Rock can only be depicted as an area of breaking ("white") water aspected to the right of Rockall which necessarily functions as the locater thereto.Gamelyn Chase (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Elevation
This is given as 1m in the box but the text states that the skerry surface only rises 1m above low tide level so unless there is negligible tidal range, it will be submerged at high tide and likely at half tide which, according to elevations measured on the British mainland which use Ordnance datum would surely mean it had a negative elevation and not 1m. cheers Geopersona (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)