Reading 2

Walk Details:
Date: 5/11/2004
Total ascent: 1m/ 3ft
Total distance walked: 0.01 miles
Walk difficulty: 0/10
Enjoyment rating: 0/10
Best bits: Errm..
Worst bits: Discovering that it's not a county top at all…
Car Parking: We parked on the road as close as we safely could to the top.

Top details:
Name: Russett Glade, Emmer Green
County top number: 31 of 207
Grid reference: SU 72394 77366 MAP
Height above sea level: 102m/335ft
How nice was it?: 0/10 for the top, 0/10 for the ascent
Description/Notes: One of the two debated highest points in Reading Unitary Authority, the other being Tilehurst Water Tower. It's an unmarked point on a residential road.

The Walk:

This "top" was on a residential road in a housing estate to the north of Reading. We could not see any way that we could turn it into an even remotely interesting walk, so we decided to drive there on the way to the more exciting Pilot Hill and Walbury Hill.

It was a bit of an annoyance, really. We thought we'd already been to the highest point in Reading Unitary Authority - our first ever County Top walk had been to Tilehurst Water Tower. Unfortunately I'd found a website that suggested that Russett Glade might actually be higher. My pink Reading map showed an unmarked contour circle on the road, with the thickness of the line suggesting it was a 100m one. But an old Reading OS Explorer map showed a contour there marked with an unreadable number that might be "00". As our policy is to visit all county tops mentioned on any website, we thought we'd better check it out.

The OS maps show the contour as being at the southern end of Russett Glade, but the highest point is clearly at the northern end, so we parked there. Doubts began to rise over whether this was a county top at all. Nevertheless, we were determined to "do" it properly, just in case.

We sat in the car for a few minutes as the good residents of Russett Glade busied themselves around us. When the surprisingly frenzied pedestrian activity slowed, we quickly ran across to a nearby driveway that seemed to be the highest point and took the photo & the GPS location (incidentally, the GPS showed the altitude as a mere 94m as opposed to the 103m for Tilehurst). We ran back to the car before anyone saw us and headed off. Possibly the quickest and dullest top on record - even Slough's top was on a grassy verge with a dog poo bin as a highlight.

It did, however, spark a brief debate. The general view on the internet of what constitutes a "top" excludes modern (and therefore "temporary") man-made features. In this is the case then where would the highest point be in a completely urban environment such as Russett Glade? I would like to propose that the highest point can include artificial structures that you can't get inside or under (such as tumuli, pavements etc) but excludes such things as radio masts and houses.

Conclusion:
Frankly, I don't think that this is higher than Tilehurst Water Tower. The area enclosed by the contour is much smaller than that in Tilehurst, and seems to be in the wrong place on the map anyway. There are no significant rises within the confines of the contour. The GPS altimeter was 9m lower than Tilehurst (not that I trust the GPS altimeter). And frankly, Tilehurst Water Tower is much more impressive as a top than Russett Glade. But at least we've done it, just in case!

I think the contour shown should be a 90m contour, representing where Russett Glade dips at the southern end - this means that the pink map is wrong (needs a thin contour) and the number on the orange map needs clarifying. In the meantime, for anyone using this site for County Top planning - THIS IS NOT A COUNTY TOP!!! Stick to the much more exciting Tilehurst Water Tower!