Talk:Peak District

I've flagged the caption for this image as 'disputed'. Whilst Derwent Reservoir was the site the real dambusters used for training, I can't believe for one moment that Ladybower Reservoir (sensu stricto) was used as a set location in the Dambusters (film). The 'Ladybower Reservoir Complex', yes, but surely the upper reservoirs of Derwent and possibly even Howden seem more likely to have been used in the filming. The citation given is now a dead link, so it best that others who know the film locations might wish to weigh in and change the image and/or caption used. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

-- Right, a job for locals. (Incidentally, many here know a little Chinese, but mirabile dictu a knowledge of Latin is rare. Please use English where possible.) Bmcln1 (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

This documentary about the making of the film says (about 23 minutes into the video) that filming took place at Windermere and "the Derwent Valley reservoir", adding that the latter was a good stand-in for the real dam that was bombed because it had "similar turrets either side of its dam wall" - something that Ladybower doesn't have (at least not today). But could be Howden. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

Second reference:

"Visitors: The Peak District National Park has 13.25 million visitors every year (STEAM, 2018) and is one of the most popular national parks in the UK. It is NOT the second-most visited national park in the world after Mount Fuji – this is an error which has been widely-repeated on the internet, but is not true." That's from the official Peak District website, item 5. They're almost certainly referring to (among others) that Lonely Planet guide factoid claiming visitor numbers at the Peak District as second only to Fuji's. I'm removing the Lonely Planet guide as self-evidently unreliable. That'll be at least the third time I've done so. Haploidavey (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

Managed to track down a google-scanned copy of the Waugh, D. (2000) book reference used for the first sentence of the Economy sub-section. Same edition (3rd) and ISBN - the requested page number is 592. The reason I've not added it is my complete incompetence when it comes to templates. So someone else will have to do that. Regretfully, another reason for not adding the page number is that the same book repeats the "more visitors than anywhere else, apart from Mount Fuji" legend. And it's hard to miss, as they've placed it on the same page as the numbers of those involved in working with tourists. The compilers of textbooks make mistakes, find new mistakes and happily circulate them as fact; so do we all! This is a mild error compared so some I've come across in History... but never mind that for now. Even paid researchers do it and once it's out there, it has a life of its own. It would be so nice if a wikipeda artcle could get it right where "reliable sources" have ballsed it up.

The link to the relevant book (and hopefully, the right page) is: https://books.google.co.uk/books?lr=&id=7GH0KZZthGoC&q=Peak+Distric+Tourism#v=snippet&q=Peak%20Distric%20Tourism&f=false

One of my reasons for posting here is that I reckon this a fine article, worked on by editors committed to doing the best possible, and to ask if anyone might have access to a more recent book whose author has done their own strenuous supervision and critical research on behalf of 'A' level students everywhere, rather than relying on what came before and just twiddling with it. A more recent edition of the same work, maybe? Haploidavey (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

Waugh's textbook references (and errors) are no longer in the article. Haploidavey (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Can anyone identify where the above image was taken, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

None of the maps in this page show the boundary of the Peak District itself. All maps show the boundary of the Peak District National Park. This would lead to the conclusion that - for example - towns such as Buxton or Matlock lie outside the Peak District when in fact they lie outside the National Park but firmly within the Peak District. D2180s (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The problem is that other than in the minds of individuals, the Peak District (as opposed to the Peak District National Park) does not have, and never has had, a definite boundary so no map could possibly show it. And even an individual might differ from time to time as to where they would draw the line. Same goes for the Lake District etc cheers Geopersona (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What Geopersona said. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

However, to partially address the concern, it would be possible to emphasise that the bounding lines or colour-wash shown on various maps indicate the PDNP as opposed to the PD per se. Worth also noting that the text of the second para of the Geography section does address the difference. Geopersona (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thankyou. Yes, the point that the actual boundary is less well defined is valid. However, the first map clearly does show the NP rather than the Peak District and does not label itself as such. For an article on the Peak District this is misleading to a casual reader. Thanks. D2180s (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Whether two maps showing the same thing are necessary is certainly a valid question. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Bit late into this discussion but one big issue I've got about these two images which I've come to notice is that they both include a significant portion of the area fringing the west & south-west parts of the Peak District. However, they both significantly exclude fringing areas in the east & south-east that are associated with the Peak District, such as most of the Lower Derwent Valley and Chesterfield (I would understand Sheffield not being featured as while it geographically/physically fringes the Peak District, its large built up/urban area means it doesn't bear a strong association with the Peak District).

Which makes me wonder if these two images are really needed if they both exclude significant parts of the east/south-east fringing areas that are associated with the Peak District and I think the paragraphs in the Geography section already do a good enough job in describing the general extent of the Peak area? Broman178 (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, I think it's true that more towns on the west side of the national park are shown than on east side. However the higher ground of the Peak District extends further beyond the national park boundary on the west side. So Macclesfield, Leek and Congleton and closer to the higher ground that Chesterfield. You can see this from this interactive map at https://en-sg.topographic-map.com/map-xbh3q/Great-Britain/?zoom=10&center=53.22412%2C-1.64795. I do also believe that visual representation of geographic information is often a very powerful, simple and quick way of conveying details compared to words. Douglal (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]