Other SOTA sites: SOTAwatch | SOTA Home | Database | Video | Photos | Shop | Mapping | FAQs | Facebook | Contact SOTA

After 1 year intensely work


#21

Hi Tom, M1EYP,

Perhaps there exists a possibility of developing a programme under the existing SOTA programme which count all hills that have a min.100 m. altitude or higher. All these hills must have a official name on the geographical card of the participating country. No prominece necessary.

The aktivators get only 1 point the chasers 2 points.

Counts only for the low land regions !!!

73
Luc ON6DSL


#22

Perhaps Luc, but probably not something that would be developed and managed within the existing SOTA programme. Maybe you could try and set something up yourself? Alternatively, look at the website http://www.summitsbase.org.uk - here you can add all your summits to the Wiki, and they can then be included in the Summit-to-Summit Awards run by that website.

73, Tom M1EYP


#23

In reply to G8ADD:

I don’t know why I should value a pure ascent more highly, after all mechanical access is great for the old and >disabled, but I do. It is part of a streak of romanticism that I am not ashamed of.

Hi Brian,
this discussion never ends until every summit only counts 1 point.
Btw, I am very romantic too I am doing 99,9% CW.
Should we because of this personal favour only count CW-activations to SOTA :wink:

In reply to M1EYP:

Perhaps Luc, but probably not something that would be developed and managed within the existing SOTA >programme. Maybe you could try and set something up yourself?

Hi Tom,
It can´t be the right way to let the activators run away to make their own programmes.
That can´t be within the spirit of SOTA.

Vy73 Fritz HB9CSA,DL4FDM


#24

In reply to All:

It can´t be the right way to let the activators run away to make their
own programmes.
That can´t be within the spirit of SOTA.

Fritz is right, we must gather than leave each country make their own program, remember Italy…

Well, well, well…

It seems that we are now far from Luc’starting thread… but
we must admit that actual SOTA rules are not perfect.
There are

  • problems with points scale in each country
  • problems with prominences
  • other problems such as points for a summit :
    for activators only once a year and once a day for chasers.
    Is it to encourage activators to climb new summits ?
    May be somebody can explain to me ?
    I don’t realy understand why Tom (EYP) gives 1 point every day to chasers
    and earn only one point a year ! who is doing the job, Tom or chasers ?

Don’t you think that once again, we (or we and MT) have to try to find fair solutions ?

And don’t think that I am speaking for myself ! I’m more interessed by summits than by points.

73
Alain F6ENO


#25

In reply to HB9CSA:

To my way of thinking ham radio is a very romantic hobby, anyway!

I think I know what Tom means. SOTA is what we are doing, a new program such as proposed above would not be SOTA, in a sense it would be vying with SOTA in that a SOTA activation would count towards this proposed program but most of the summits on this program would not count for SOTA. In addition much of the energy of the MT is directed to maintaining SOTA and extending it to new continents and countries, and setting up a new and possibly competing program would diffuse our effort.

The rules of SOTA permit Associations to set up their own additional award programs, there is no reason why any Association shouldn’t set up and run a program such as you describe if the AM is prepared for the extra work. If such a program is set up and turns out to be a popular success, there is no reason why it should not extend to an international program by either being adopted by other AMs or by the MT when the present expansion phase is slowing down. However, setting up such a program would involve a LOT of work, with many times more summits than SOTA to be listed!

73

Brian G8ADD


#26

In reply to F6ENO:

In reply to All:

Well, well, well…

It seems that we are now far from Luc’starting thread… but
we must admit that actual SOTA rules are not perfect.

But then, nothing is!

There are

  • problems with points scale in each country
  • problems with prominences
  • other problems such as points for a summit :
    for activators only once a year and once a day for chasers.
    Is it to encourage activators to climb new summits ?
    May be somebody can explain to me ?

No, it was set up that way to ensure that the activators would always have chasers looking for them: otherwise after working a summit for the first time in a year, the chasers might not bother again, preferring to spend their time looking for scoring contacts.

I don’t realy understand why Tom (EYP) gives 1 point every day to
chasers
and earn only one point a year ! who is doing the job, Tom or
chasers ?

Tom explained once that he was climbing this hill each morning as a cheaper and more pleasurable way of keeping fit compared with going to a gym.

Don’t you think that once again, we (or we and MT) have to try to find
fair solutions ?

The MT is always looking for fair solutions, the difficulty is that one man’s fair solution is another man’s blazing injustice. The whole program is a collection of compromises in an effort to please the maximum number of people in the maximum number of countries.

And don’t think that I am speaking for myself ! I’m more interessed by
summits than by points.

Agreed, the love of mountains is a major driver in the program for many if not most participants.

73

Brian G8ADD


#27

In reply to G8ADD:

I have given a lot of thought into how to add some input into this thread. Due to my recent ban I have to word all posts carefully. I am not siding with anybody, but feel I have some valid points to add which are worth thinking about.

  1. We were all happy to join the programe knowing the rules involved in SOTA.

  2. The rules were made years ago when only the UK was involved.

  3. As SOTA has grown extensively, the rules can’t suit all associations.

  4. We should never encourage any association to form their own schemes.

  5. Some have mountains and walking as their 1st love, others have radio.

  6. Times change, maybe rules need to change with the times.

  7. we are in an era where petrol/diesel is very expensive.

  8. World finances are in dire straights.

  9. Green issues should be looked at with more responsibility.

  10. We should do everything possible to prevent the award scheme from disintergrating, it’s unlike any other scheme.

  11. What is of more value to the scheme, to worry about getting more associations on board or to look after the present associations and do what’s neccessary to stop the possible imminent disaster as 2009 approaches?

These are just some of the questions I find myself thinking about, I have said it many times before, SOTA is my life, but I am genuinely in fear for it’s future.

Mike GW0DSP


#28

In reply to G8ADD:

No, it was set up that way to ensure that the activators would always
have chasers looking for them: otherwise after working a summit for
the first time in a year, the chasers might not bother again,
preferring to spend their time looking for scoring contacts.

My idea was to give points to chasers AND to activators.

Tom explained once that he was climbing this hill each morning as a cheaper > and more pleasurable way of keeping fit compared with going to a gym.

Yes I remember that, but with one point for each climbing, it would be better for him…

Thanks for your answer Brian

73 Alain


#29

In reply to F6ENO:
I agree Alain - I’ve never understood the logic behind activating only once a year for points. Perhaps someone could explain?
It’s logical, however, to limit winter bonus points to once a year.
To Mike 'DSP et al I see no need to change the rules on prominence except to make it universally 100m :slight_smile: That to me in my present state of (or lack of) fitness is about right for ‘a suitable climb’.
Must be nearly a year since James gave me the HUMP :wink:

Roger G4OWG


#30

In reply to G4OWG:

I’m not suggesting dramatically changing the rules Roger, maybe just looking at them to see where a happy medium can be found to suit all.

I agree with you on P100 universally. Under the present system, we are told that we in the UK can have P100, but we are also told that we can’t. That’s a crazy situation in my opinion. I think that making P100 available universally, no strings, would me a giant leap forward. Just my opinion.

Mike GW0DSP


#31

In reply to GW0DSP:
G P100 would not be a mammoth task to implement Mike,
But having put all the GM Humps on Summitsbase in basic format I don’t think Andy will be best pleased :slight_smile:

Ce’st la Vie

Roger G4OWG


#32

In reply to G4OWG:

Indeed, Andy would be a busy man.

It’s not our decision anyway, but without such debate change won’t happen. It makes good sense in a lot of ways to adopt P100.

Anyway, we can’t do anything about it until the 12 month period set by James has run it’s course, only then will James look at any further evidence in favour of change to P100.

Mike GW0DSP


#33

In reply to GW0DSP:

Very well said Mike, I agree 100%.

I am really sad to see the end of SOTA in Germany, the many wonderful summits in Italy without SOTA-references and maybe Belgium to follow.

In my eyes SOTA should be the roof over all summit-activations.

Vy73 es gl de Fritz HB9CSA,DL4FDM


#34

In reply to GW0DSP:

In reply to G4OWG:

I agree with you on P100 universally. Under the present system, we are
told that we in the UK can have P100, but we are also told that we
can’t. That’s a crazy situation in my opinion. I think that making
P100 available universally, no strings, would me a giant leap forward.
Just my opinion.

Mike GW0DSP

Lets clarify this, Mike, P100 is in fact an option. The reason that this option has not been taken up in the G Association is that the AM held a poll and there were more people against than for at that time. If another poll was held the outcome might or might not be different, I really don’t know, and although my own opinion on P100 for G is no secret I prefer at this point to keep it impersonal. I also think it is a good idea to keep some flexibility here, though: it could be argued that P100 is a better option for some Associations and a higher value for others, this would depend on the geography in that if the summits are more tightly packed then a higher prominence value would keep the numbers at a manageable level. I do, however, think that P100 should be an absolute minimum, I can’t give a rigorous reason for this belief other than that a 100 metre rise seems to me to be in the changeover point from a minor bump to a significant rise, but there has to be a prominence value and it might as well be that.

Roger and Alain: I seem to remember reading that the once a year rule was instituted to encourage people to activate over a wider area, and it certainly works that way. Whether it is desirable to retain that rule at a time of high fuel prices is open to discussion, yet with petrol locally down to 92.9 some of the urgency might be thought to have gone out of that part of the discussion. I certainly think that the MT should keep such rules under observation and if the situation warrents it, revise them, and in my experience that is what seems to happen.

One thing that occurs to me, and I throw it out for you to think about rather than state it as a warning. I think that discussions like this are very useful indeed, but I think we need to keep them tightly focussed. If we start to examine every rule in the book, we are spreading our attention too thinly and not concentrating on catching every nuance of the effects of possible changes. We also run the risk of destabilising the program by giving the impression that everything is in a state of flux. This is no here today and gone tomorrow program and it needs a sense of stability. That is why in my contributions I try to concentrate on what I see as the most critical areas of discussion and seem to ignore some points that are made that might be thought to warrant more attention.

73

Brian G8ADD


#35

Fritz, et al

The individual associations do indeed set their own prominence value for their association. So far, some have set P100, some (most) P150. I have activated 199 unique summits in the UK (all P150 associations), so I feel I am qualified to comment. I do feel that P150 is appropriate for the UK associations. This is the correct threshold that appropriately includes the majority of worthwhile hills, and excludes some “non-hills” or some totally inaccessible areas.

That is not absolute of course. There will remain some “peculiar” hills in the programme (TW-004, TW-005 et al), and exclude some good 'uns. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and the current line (and forgive me for repeating - having climbed 199 of them) I feel is spot on.

There is nothing to prevent associations from setting the criteria at P250, P300, P500 etc, although none have yet done so.

And with regard to whether I should have a point from The Cloud G/SP-015 up to 150 times a year? No thank you! That would be dreadful, and would spoil the achievement of Mountain Goat. I am very proud of my Mountain Goat award, and I am grateful that it wasn’t achieved via unwelcome assistance from multiple points from The Cloud or availability of P100 summits!

Jimmy and I are doing mainly uniques these days, and it is adding to the fun and experience, not detracting from it. And we’ve still got loads to go. And as they run out, I’m still more than happy to put 20 or so QSOs on from The Cloud G/SP-015 a few times a week, but please - no points for that!

Tom M1EYP


#36

I’ll save you all the bother of worrying about or discussing the GM association. The only changes to the GM list will be those required to keep it in sync with the RHB Marilyn list.

Andy
MM0FMF


#37

In reply to G8ADD:

In reply to GW0DSP:

In reply to G4OWG:

I agree with you on P100 universally. Under the present system,
we are
told that we in the UK can have P100, but we are also told that
we
can’t. That’s a crazy situation in my opinion. I think that
making
P100 available universally, no strings, would be a giant leap
forward.
Just my opinion.

Mike GW0DSP

Lets clarify this, Mike, P100 is in fact an option. The reason that
this option has not been taken up in the G Association is that the AM
held a poll and there were more people against than for at that time.
If another poll was held the outcome might or might not be different

73

Brian G8ADD

Brian, that’s exactly the same statement that I made, but I added that James, quite rightly, asked for 12 months before revisiting the issue.

Just to clarify, yes, without doubt, MT have given the option for P100 for all, but then James, the G AM (or should I say those who voted) took the option away. Hence my comment, we were told we can have it, we were told we can’t.

After witnessing the poll on another forum I predict a reversal of the vote next time. Maybe the next vote can take place openly for all to witness, just as the poll did.

73
Mike GW0DSP


#38

In reply to MM0FMF:

I’ll save you all the bother of worrying about or discussing the GM
association. The only changes to the GM list will be those required to
keep it in sync with the RHB Marilyn list.

Andy
MM0FMF

…even if a very large majority of GM participants asked for P100?

Mike GW0DSP


#39

In reply to GW0DSP:
im just a little bit conserned over this issue, why do we need to have this P100,

Is it the Chaser or Activator who needs this changing,

now im putting my life on the line.

Steve m0sgb


#40

In reply to M0SGB:

It would be beneficial to chaser and activator Steve. P100 means more unique summits for activators, possibly nearer to where they live, so they will save on fuel costs, b+b expenses etc. The chasers get more summits to chase. The SOTA programe gets more activity.

Time for me to bow out of this debate now, I have nothing more to add.

Mike GW0DSP