RECENT DEBATE on the latest revision of *Munro's Tables* has overshadowed the fact that past revisions have tended to be driven by resurveying rather than by subjective judgment on what is deserving of being designated a Munro or Munro Top. Older readers may remember the consternation when the OS remapped heights in metres rather than feet. Why can't the OS give a decimal place, some asked? - then we would know whether a peak mapped as 914 metres was over or under the magic 914.4 (the metric equivalent of 3000ft). Wouldn't we?

The reason why the OS declines to quote decimal places is that the measurements aren't that accurate. How accurate are they, then? When I contacted the OS, their Geodetic Advisor referred me to Chapter 11 of J B Harley's *Ordnance Survey Maps - a descriptive manual*. Harley gives a maximum error of +/-2ft for triangulation stations and +/-3.3m for spot heights from aerial plotting. *(Note that in a similar piece in TGO Baggerwatch April, an error crept in such that +/-2m was given for trigs; all other TGO figures were correct however - Ed.)* So a hill mapped as 913m, say, has a distinct possibility of being over 914.4m in reality. Take several such hills and the probability of at least one of them being over 914.4m becomes quite large. In fact, if someone has climbed only the 284 Munros in the SMC list, the probability that they have climbed all significant Scottish 3000ft hills is only 21%.

A lot of problems with lists can be resolved by changing the issue from "what hills are currently considered to be over 3000ft?", to "what hills should I climb to give a reasonable degree of assurance that I have climbed all hills over 3000ft?" The difference is that the second approach takes into account measurement error (and, *inter alia*, rounding error) while the first does not. Producing such a list requires an elementary statistical calculation, requiring only the assumption that the errors are normally distributed and that the quoted accuracy is to be interpreted as +/- 3 standard deviations, as elsewhere in Harley's book. For the benefit of numerate readers *(all TACers - Ed.)*, I illustrate the calculation in the case of Munros.

The first step is to compile a list of "near misses". In the case of Munros, these comprise Corbetts of 911m or above. (The probability of a hill mapped at 910m being above 914.4m is too remote to be worth considering). The only non-Corbetts meriting consideration are Creag na h-Eighe (913m) and Meall Gaineimh on Ben Avon (914m), both of which have c 69m of reascent. Although several Munros have less reascent than this, I have rejected both hills on the grounds that Creag na h-Eighe is listed as a Top in the 1891 edition of the *Tables*, and Meall Gaineimh lacks sufficient individuality to be a strong candidate - Creag an Dail Mhor to the south (972m and a Top) has a similar amount of reascent, for example.

The probability of any single hill mapped at *x* being above 914.4m is given by F((*x*-914.4)/*s*) where *s* is the standard deviation of the measurement error and F the cumulative normal distribution function. For example, Beinn Dearg in Torridon is mapped at 914m (here taken as 2998ft from the old imperial map). The standard deviation for a spot height is 1.1m, so the above formula gives a probability of 0.29 that Beinn Dearg is over 914.4m (on a scale of 0 to 1, where 1 equals certainty). Similarly, the probabilities of Sgurr a'Choire-bheithe in Knoydart (913m) and Beinn Bhreac in Atholl (912m) being above 914.4m are 0.10 and 0.015 respectively, and, for The Fara, 0.001. We can exclude the possibility of Leathad an Taobhain being over 914.4m because, despite being mapped at 912m, this is a triangulation point and the error much lower. Foinaven presents a slight problem: the recent mapping at 914m would give a Munro probability of 36%, but information given by the OS to the SMC in 1990 quotes a range of error of 913.8m to 915.2m, which implies the measurement was rounded down from 914.5m (a 914.5 measurement may be rounded up or down).

Assuming that the errors on different hills are independent of each other, the probability that *all* the aforementioned hills are beneath the critical 914.4m is given by [1-P**1**][1-P**2**][1-P**3**] [1-P**4**][1-P**5**], where P**j** is the probability that hill *j* exceeds 914.4m. This comes to 0.21, ie the 21% probability mentioned above. If you climb Foinaven, the probability that none of the remaining hills is over 914.4m is [1-P**2**][1-P**3**][1-P**4**][1-P**5**], or 63%. Adding Beinn Dearg increases this to 88%, and climbing Sgurr a'Choire-bheithe as well gives you 98.5%. Throw in Beinn Bhreac and the probability reaches 99.9%, enough to satisfy most baggers and to fulfil the more general usage of "probability". If you prefer to take Foinaven as 914m, then the 21% probability becomes 40%, ie still odds-on that you haven't climbed them all; the other probabilities are unchanged.

Similar calculations can be made for other lists. For example, neglecting sub-Murdos will give you only a 22% probability of having climbed all subsidiary peaks likely to merit the status of Munro Top - if you accept the Murdo criterion of >30m of reascent. To get a probability of 99.6%, you need to climb Carn na Caim S Top in Drumochter (914m), Sgurr na Ruaidhe E Top in Strathfarrar (913m), Meall Buidhe SE Top in Glen Lyon (912m and a Munro Top until 1974), Beinn a'Chlachair E Top (977m but 29m of reascent), The Chancellor on the Aonach Eagach (924m, 28m of reascent), and Bidean a'Ghlas Thuill N Top (919m, 26m of reascent), in addition to Creag na h-Eighe and Meall Gaineimh mentioned above.

For Corbetts, sticking to the published list gives a 51% probability of having climbed those hills meeting Corbett's criterion. "Near misses" include Grahams Beinn Talaidh, Sgurr a'Chorainn, and Cnoc Coinnich, all mapped at 761m, and Shee of Ardtalnaig, Beinn a'Chapuill, and Carn an Tionail, mapped at 759m. To these add Glas Mheall Mor (830m), Marg na Craige (834m), Beinn Gharbh (896m), and Kirriereoch Hill (786m), each with nominally 149m of reascent and an individual 1.4% probability of the actual drop being at least 152.4m (500ft). Climbing all these gives a "completion" probability of 99.98%; miss out the three 759m hills and it's still 99%.

Finally, there is a quite different source of error which I have not attempted to evaluate: the assumption the measurement is at the highest point. Spot heights are obtained by tracing an electronic pointer on a screen and reading off the co- ordinates; there is no guarantee that the operator has spotted the highest point (or lowest in the case of a bealach), particularly if the hill is not very "peaky". This accounts for some of the differences between 1:50000 and 1:25000 maps, as they are produced by different teams.

All this will doubtless seem pedantic to many - but isn't peak bagging pedantic by its very nature? If your objective is to climb Munros, or Corbetts, or some other named list, then fine; but if it is to climb all Scottish 3000ft hills, all English 2000s, or whatever, then a "probabilistic" approach will give a much greater degree of confidence of achieving your aim.

**Chris Crocker**