If we want to get into this, in Law in England and Wales then we start looking at Tort and civil liability. Unless criminal damage can be proved such as breaking fences or leaving litter, the civil law act of trespass is meaningless unless the land owner incurs a loss. There’s a whole bunch of things they can get you for if you refuse to leave, but if you smile sweetly, apologise, pack up and walk away then no magistrate would touch this. In theory you can be pursued for damages, but these are based on the damage you do - which if you just walk on the grass is none.
Now clearly, as I have said before, if I know access is problematic then I will avoid exacerbating the issues. For example 20 years ago I avoided climbing at a North Wales crag when the landowner very publicly removed permission. I would not try access to contended hills such as Upper Park. BUT, if no one is actively complaining about access to a rural or mountain area then I’ll use it. As Steve G1INK points out, without this attitude we wouldn’t have the access we have now in the UK. The Scots have gone much further of course and formalising this attitude in their access law.
If we REALLY want to get into details then we can all pack up and go home, because even on a PROW or CROW Act Land we don’t have the right to erect antenna systems and operate radios, without express permission. So you would need to seek permission every time someone operated. Of course we don’t do this, we use common sense, which I suggest needs to be applied to general access!
Tread carefully, try not to cause offence, but don’t get too hung up on common law (Tort) that is really there to stop individuals depriving others of their rights over land, or profiting from it when they shouldn’t.
In general I think you are right, Gerald, but in this particular case where a vast industrial site is involved it is likely that matters would be complicated by health and safety legislation - oh dear, I might have pressed another button, I think I’ll go to bed!
Common sense would surely deter anyone from accessing an industrial site with “Keep out” notices, put there because of potential danger to life? Because that’s what we’re talking about with Hensbarrow Downs, not a historical “right to roam” movement.
Let’s not conflate the two concepts. Soon enough, we will learn whether or not it is feasible to activate, either from the summit, or a suitable part of the AZ. Failing that, then there’s every likelihood in future years that the site does become available to access. No need to be getting militant about it now.
What if no such closed contour exists? Consider the case of a summit which lies at a high point along a cliff edge.
What if the contour described does exist, but part of the area enclosed by it is more than the permitted maximum vertical distance below the summit? For example, the AZ is basically a plateau which includes some deep depressions.
The “closed contour” rule is neither necessary nor sufficient to describe what I believe to be the actual intended definition of the AZ. It works for a simple convex shape, but the real ground often isn’t.
In your first example the closed contour line still exists but the closure line will run across the cliff face.
We have long been aware of the likelyhood of your second example existing, for instance swallow holes in limestone, but the closed contour still exists and the concept is continued in the rule because it helps in visualising the idea.
You are welcome to come up with a better definition of the activation zone, without going into advanced topology, if it is suitable I’m sure it would be adopted.
Well you can draw a mathematical line anywhere but I think a “contour line” is generally understood to be on the ground surface, or on a map which represents the ground surface.
Contours on an OS map end abruptly at a cliff.
A point lies within the activation zone if and only if a continuous line can be traced on the natural ground surface between it and the true summit which never falls more than the permitted vertical distance below the summit height.
This is because in plan view they are all in the same place, in the appropriate oblique view they would traverse the cliff face at the appropriate height. This vertical part of the AZ could still be utilised for an activation, all that would be needed is ropes and pitons to set up a “hanging belay”, indeed there are recorded instances of climbers on multi-day ascents of big cliffs using handies from their hanging belays to keep in touch with ground parties. Improbable, yes, but not impossible!
But mathematically, a closed contour always exists. There might not be a continuous contour line on the the map, but that is because of the map resolution.
Of course you are correct that the contour always exists as the intersection of the surface topography with an equipotential surface. However if you are using this intersection as the basis for a definition, you next need a rigorous definition of what it means for a ground surface point to be “inside” it.
Isn’t it obvious? I don’t think so. A closed curve separates a 2-dimensional surface into “inside” and “outside” but it does not separate 3-dimensional space - you need a surface to do that.
Consider again the summit which is at the highest point of a cliff edge. Now let the cliff overhang a bit - they often do. The contour line we’re talking about now disappears underneath the summit. Looked at in plan view, we could have the absurdity of a summit which was outside its own activation area. So that won’t do.
I think there is a valid definition of activation area based on contours, but I think it would end up very convoluted. It would almost certainly entail an even/odd counting rule to account for depressions within the encircling contour. Messy.
I think the definition I proposed is simpler, and offers a straightforward practical test that can be done on the ground and in most cases on a map. In the vast majority of cases, it yields an instant answer that the operating point is in the activation area without the unnecessary work of finding the actual boundary. I am not aware of any cases in which it gives the wrong answer.
I think discussions like this are a symptom of cabin fever!
For the vast majority of SOTA summits the current definition is adequate. There are not many Strone Ulladales (Sron Uladal) in the world (see Sròn Ulladale stalkers' path (Walkhighlands) if you haven’t heard of this hill) so there is no great urgency in changing the GR. However, I think it is safe to say that the next edition of the GR will contain Martyn’s suggestion, slightly modified to remove the ambiguity!
I am no wiser now after all this discussion. Is the new activation zone at Hensbarrow on os land? who will decide if it is or not, the RHB, SOTA or an activator with a gps.
I thinks discussions like this are by frustrated activators who have travelled hundreds of miles, followed the SOTA rules to the letter to be told go back and do it again because of rule changes by another group.
Martyn, thanks for the input. Your wording, or something similar, has much to recommend it.
As for 3-d surfaces, consider the summit in question. Our normal consideration of raising new summit references depends upon the intersection (or not) of the AZs of new and old positions. What to do when you redefine the land surface and even though the projected 2-d areas intersect you could drive a double-decker bus between the 3-d surfaces! You can really tie yourself in knots with this stuff (or have endless fun).
The current situation is that the new summit position is on private ground and the only public domain info is that the owners are unlikely to grant access permission.
Now the next thing to evaluate is whether the AZ extends onto Access Land. If it does then there is no problem. To know that you need accurate maps showing the contours. But as this hill is a restoration of a spoil tip, the OS have not published accurate contour maps.
So there is no map of known provenance and that suggests that at this point you cannot be within SOTA rules if you activate the summit. And we wont know till there is further surveying. Who does that is unknown.
However, it will be the MT who decide whether activations are valid and nobody else. Of course what we want most is for open access to the summit. Next best would be some part of the summit is open. But if it is the case that none of the AZ is open then this summit becomes like thousands of summits in SOTA worldwide, it’s a valid summit if you can arrange permission to access the private land.
