Phil Cooper: I was on this in September 2002 and felt that the summit was not the 650m point on my map, but within the larger 640m contour area just to the west, about NN196316 instead of NN198316. As the summit area is not flat within the larger ring, it could be a metre or so higher.
Richard Webb: I remember wandering about up there looking at several potential summits. I thought that it was at the NN196316, on an old overgrown ruined dyke. The lowlight of the day was having to wade the Orchy as the suspension bridge at NN232305 was locked.
Trevor Littlewood: We were on this hill in April 1999 and took the summit to be the westerly one at the cairn on the grassed dyke. We climbed the gate going up and coming down but as we drove away I noticed people with children going through it. Perhaps it was secured in some way we couldn't fathom.
Alan Dawson: I re-checked this on the 1:10000 map, which shows two small 650m contour rings. The larger one is at NN198316, which is currently listed as the summit. Given this evidence, I have to leave the position as is unless someone comes up with better evidence.
Les Cunningham: After visiting the 601m top of Sgorach Mor I went on to the other top more than a kilometre to the SE. On LR56 it has a small 600m contour ring, and a 600m spot height about 100 metres further SE. The highest point in this area was at NS10598434, whch corresponds to the contour ring. I did not try to locate the spot height with any precision, but it must be 2m or 3m lower. So, if the map is accurate, this top would have to be at least 602m. Anyone bagging this hill should visit both tops to be safe.
Eddie Dealtry: The Landranger map gives an extra five metres to Cacra Hill over Stand Knowe, but Stand Knowe definitely looks higher from Cacra and looks far higher from Stand Knowe to Cacra. The effect is subject to the 'round dome looks lower than sharp peak' rule: Cacra is roundy and Stand Knowe is sharpy. Nevertheless, I suspect someone has transposed the figures or else it's a fantastic illusion.
Jim Bloomer: From observations on the ground (looking south) it is very apparent that the new summit is well below (2-3m) a straight line joining the original 338m summit and the southerly 334m hill. I made allowances for cairns, walls and trig points. There can be no doubt that the original 1992 publication is correct and the update sheet is wrong.
David Purchase: My own view from my 1999 visit is that the highest point is at SD919761 at an old building, but all the possible summits must be only a few centimetres different in height. I suspect that without a very accurate OS survey specifically to resolve the issue (and what reason do they have to do one?), we shall never know whether SD893768 or some point near SD919761 is higher, nor whether either summit reaches 2000 feet. Perhaps it would be better to list Horse Head Moor and Birks Fell as twin peaks.
Jon Metcalf: Have you considered the alternative OS name Bagborough Hill? Shame Bagworth isn't a Marilyn.
Gary Honey: The top of this hill is almost certainly not the trig at 267m. The land at TQ395558 is at least as high and to me seems about 2m higher. Also, there is another 267m spot height on the road at TQ392549.
