Talk:Cautley Spout

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers: Waterfalls Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Waterfalls task force.

Highest or not

Can anyone find a reliable source stating it's the highest in England? I haven't been able to. I removed the weasel words in the intro but think, in the absence of anything citable being found, that it should be changed soon to read merely that it's one of the highest. Rivertorch (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that Cautley Spout is 198 feet (60 metres), not 198 metres. The waterfall down Gaping Gill is certainly the highest in England at 340 feet (103 metres) and is a single unbroken fall, but is underground. Devon claims that their Canonteign falls are the highest in England at 220 feet (66 metres) however that is still a lot short of Gaping gill and is in any case a series of waterfalls rather than a single fall like GG or a cascade like Cautley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.10.234 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. What we need is a good reliable source for the article. Rivertorch (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Gaping Gill is the highest unbroken drop underground and Hardraw Force is the highest unbroken drop above ground. Cascade waterfalls are a problem because it is unclear which bits are part of the cascade, but the Spout is widely claimed to be the highest single cascade. See [1] for example. Somewhere, I have my GPS track from last time I climbed up there, so I'll check the exact height (though that would be OR, of course). Dbfirs 23:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Cautley Spout is definitely 198 m tall, not 198 feet - that's absurd.

Beyond that, it's more complicated. The tallest single section of Cautley Spout is 76 m, which is obviously much greater than Hardraw Force. The complication is that virtually all water passing over Hardraw Force unambiguously falls ~30 m, whereas at low flows some of the water passing over the tall section of Cautley Spout falls shorter distances between ledges and only some falls the full 76m in one drop. At moderately high flows, though, it's clear that most water falling over this section of Cautley Spout does so in a single drop. Ministry (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no correct way to determine "highest waterfall" because there are lots of differing definitions. Can you count Malham Cove that flowed only on December 6th this year? We can only report what is claimed elsewhere, and the English Lakes website makes the claim. Dbfirs 10:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cite says the tallest single stage of Cautley Force is 76 m (250 feet) tall, which is much greater than Hardraw Force! Sorted ;)

No, I wouldn't include rarely-flowing waterfalls, but to clarify (though I don't have documentary proof, so won't insist on it!), water doesn't fall 76m over the tall stage of Cautley Spout only occasionally: it happens all the time. The complication is that some water clings to the rock face at the same time as some falls the full distance. Ministry (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Cautley Spout is a cascade waterfall. It has no single drop anywhere near 76 metres. Hardrow is the highest genuine single-drop above ground, though Gaping Gill is the tallest underground. I've been up and down all three. Dbfirs 16:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cautley Spout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130709070504/http://www.walkingenglishman.com/dalesguide/waterfalls/master.htm to http://www.walkingenglishman.com/dalesguide/waterfalls/master.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]