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

Another one bites the dust?


#1

Quote from RHB reflector site:-

"Thorpe Fell Top and Cracoe Fell have been on our survey agenda for
some time and we finally had a go at it last week.
We did the Survey in 3 parts:-

  1. View from Thorpe Fell Top to Cracoe Fell.

We set up the Leica Level on its tripod about 150m from Thorpe Fell
Top so that it was level with the base of the trig. and then viewed
Cracoe Fell. We took two sets of digital photographs of each hill
from which we could measure the height difference. In fact you cannot
see the exact summit location of Cracoe from Thorpe as it is on the
rock base of the obelisk on its NW corner. (We subsequently "staffed"
around the rock on Cracoe to work out a correction for this). These
photos showed that Cracoe was 2.0+/-0.2 metres HIGHER.

  1. View from Cracoe fell to Thorpe Fell Top

We managed to perch the Level on its tripod on the NE corner of the
rock on which the obelisk sits, staff to the summit of Cracoe and
also photograph as above to Thorpe Fell Top. Visually the horizontal
level line was about one trig point height above the top of the trig.
Again from the photos we measured Cracoe Fell to be 1.9+/-0.1m
HIGHER. In this measurement and 1), because we are surveying over a
distance of about 1.7km, we made a correction of 23cm for earth
curvature.

  1. Line Survey from Cracoe fell to Thorpe Fell Top.

This was the serious bit. We “triple wire” line surveyed the whole
1.7km distance. The results showed that Cracoe Fell was 1.833m
HIGHER. This took a long time and so we did not have a chance to
repeat in the reverse direction to get a closing error. However, we
have a lot of experience at this now and we find we get roughly a 1mm
error for every reading set. In this case we had to do 27 sets so I
would expect the error to be no more than +/-0.030m. No corrections
for earth curvature are needed here.

  1. Conclusion.

Three independent sets of measurements are consistent and showing
unequivocally that Cracoe Fell should be the new Marilyn with a
height of 507.8m. (from FB on Thorpe Fell top at 506.2m OS4)
Unfortunately Thorpe Fell Top disappears from the list!!! A shame
really since I wrote an article on this hill in MARHOFN 2005 as my
1000th Marilyn which must now move to Yarlside climbed on 15 August
2004!

The col/bwlch/bealach between the hills his a wide area and would
take a lot of survey effort to find its “exact” position. So in the
line survey we came down by the wall running NE on the “left” side of
the line between the two hills. There is a path there that gave us
better level and staff placements. Before ascending we dropped 31.6m
so this raises the question “Do we have two Deweys here?” I think we
dropped below the true col and if the lowest measurement had
indicated a drop significantly less than 30m in our survey, then we
would be sure Thorpe Fell was NOT a Dewey. However, it does look very
close but I think my money would be that Thorpe Fell would NOT
qualify.

John Barnard"

Roger G4OWG


#2

If this was the case, NP-025 would be lost from SOTA. As indicated in the piece from John Barnard, it is difficult to locate and indeed determine the height of the true col. However, from the 1:25000 sheet, we can see that the col must be lower than 480m ASL, which means that Thorpe Fell Top and Cracoe Fell cannot exist in each others’ activation zones (unlike the recent summit move from Chanctonbury Hill to Chanctonbury Ring, where a new SOTA reference was not required). So, once confirmed, it looks like we will be waving goodbye to NP-025 and forming an orderly queue for NP-032!

Grrr. This was one I was happy to see the back of once I had revisited it with a licensed Jimmy!

Tom M1EYP


#3

In reply to M1EYP:

Here we go again. If these changes keep coming maybe it’s time to start looking at other lists of hills, or be men enough to decide for ourselves for once and for all what stays or goes as a qualifying SOTA summit.

1 or 2 metres, so what!! Looks as if RHB are going to make changes within SOTA again, it really makes you wonder who is in charge.

73

Mike GW0DSP


#4

In reply to M1EYP:

Grrr. This was one I was happy to see the back of once I had
revisited it with a licensed Jimmy!

Look on the bright side Tom - with 1.7km separation, I am sure Jimmy can find a route for you from the other side so it won’t feel like a repeat. The bogs on Cracoe Fell might be more pleasant as well. You could fall in and do a comparison!

73, Gerald


#5

maybe it’s time to start looking at other lists of hills

Do you have any suggestions Mike?

decide for ourselves for once and for all what stays or goes as a qualifying SOTA summit

Moving from an independent objective definition to in-house subjective criteria would be a big backwards step.

Looks as if RHB are going to make changes within SOTA again

Never happened and never will. Fact is, that GB and IOM associations have adopted RHB Marilyns definition as their summit criteria, so those Association Managers will follow the accurate independent surveying of the RHB people with interest. As does the Ordnance Survey, might I add.

As time moves on, and technology (and technique) improves, there will always be updates of more accurate measures of all geological and geographical features, the world over. We are very fortunate to have RHB keeping on top of all such things in Great Britain, and fortunate that they give us, at no cost, permission to use their copyrighted lists and data.

Tom M1EYP


#6

In reply to G4OIG:

Don’t worry Gerald, we’ve been looking. So far, I can’t find an atractive route from the other side. A route exists - I’ve found it on internet descriptions of circular walks in this area - but it looks a bit of a slog. It looks better to use the usual bridleway up from Thorpe, and then turn left and follow the track and wall to Cracoe Fell, rather then the ankle-twisting heather plod across to the Thorpe Fell Top trig point. Potentially a nicer walk actually.

Birks Fell NP-031 was much easier to devise an entirely new route for, when it took over from Horse Head Moor NP-021.

Never mind my earlier ‘Grrr’; I’m rather looking forward to this surprise new unique!

Tom M1EYP


#7

In reply to M1EYP:

Hi Tom,

As for the NP-021 / 031 change, I assume we’ll get a bit of notice, assuming RHB do the update in their list. It wouldn’t be good to have to queue up in Thorpe village for a parking spot on the verge… could create a quagmire and alienate the locals!

73, Gerald


#8

Well, that’s really up to James M0ZZO as G-AM, and of course, as you say, depends on whether this becomes an official change in the RHB Marilyns list. It would probably be good to have the start date on a Monday, to minimise the risk of the problems you describe.

73, Tom

BTW, looks like we could be copying your A27 Five trick next week!


#9

In reply to M1EYP:

maybe it’s time to start looking at other lists of hills

Do you have any suggestions Mike?

No point, several others have made suggestions on this reflector before, which fell on deaf ears, the same would happen again.

decide for ourselves for once and for all what stays or goes as a
qualifying SOTA summit

Moving from an independent objective definition to in-house subjective
criteria would be a big backwards step.

In your opinion maybe, I’ll decide for myself what I deem to be a backward step, thank you.
It would have been better in normal language though Tom instead of something resembling the C.O.D.

Looks as if RHB are going to make changes within SOTA again

Never happened and never will.

I can’t believe you have quoted that. It happens every single time they move the goalposts. If we depend solely on RHB lists, the we are governed by them, end of. The list that governs what is a SOTA summit is beyond the control of the MT!!

Fact is, that GB and IOM associations

have adopted RHB Marilyns definition as their summit criteria, so
those Association Managers will follow the accurate independent
surveying of the RHB people with interest. As does the Ordnance
Survey, might I add.

Well they were not so accurate with this summit were they? or others before it which have been changed. Maybe this new measuring will be deemed wrong in time to come.

We are very fortunate to have
RHB keeping on top of all such things in Great Britain, and fortunate
that they give us, at no cost, permission to use their copyrighted
lists and data.

Hallelujah, praise the good old RHB

Mike GW0DSP


#10

In reply to M1EYP:

“We are very fortunate to have RHB keeping on top of all such things in Great Britain, and fortunate that they give us, at no cost, permission to use their copyrighted lists and data.”

This interests me. Can you copyright a list of natural features and measurements? I can quite understand that the designations other than long-accepted names can be subject to copyright, but copyrighting a list of summits which must have been at least initially compiled from OS data? It seems odd and even perhaps a little unethical to me.

73

Brian G8ADD


#11

In reply to G8ADD:

Nice one Brian. As if they can. Actually I think I’ll claim copyright to the Irish Sea, it is a rather nice sea after all, so hands off, it’s mine.

73

Mike GW0DSP


#12

In reply to G8ADD:

Of course you can copyright it. It’s not just a list of names and heights, but a list of names and heights that meet a set of strict criteria. The analysis of OS data produced the list of Marilyns.

In essence this list is no different than a list of log or sine tables. The mathematical relationship that allows you to calculate sine for example is a fixed natural item. You can’t copyright the fact that sin(90) = 1. But you can calculate all the sines between 0 and 90 and publish a table of them with interpolation guides etc. That table is your copyright even if anyone calculated the same data from first principles themselves. They could publish their list as long as they can show they worked it out themselves and are not simply copying your work.

Andy
MM0FMF


#13

Perhaps J K Rowling can’t copyright her Harry Potter books, because they were mostly composed of everyday words in common usage? No, the RHB is Alan Dawson’s work, and is copyright by him in 1992, as I presume are his update sheets since then.

Mike, the only alternative hill list mentioned to any significant degree was the HuMPs. That received some support in England, but also some objection. The result being that James M0ZZO, for the time being, opted not to persue the idea. In Scotland, it met with widespread opposition from the principle activators, resulting in Andy MM0FMF rejecting any possibility of adoption. I don’t know of any representations being made at all, or subsequent deliberations in the GW, GD or GI associations.

BTW, the HuMPs list, like the Marilyns, is owned and maintained by RHB, or at least by RHB associates and participants!

Tom M1EYP


#14

In reply to MM0FMF:
As you say, the analysis of OS data produced the list of Marilyns. Therefore the copyright should belong to the OS since their data indicates the compliance or none compliance with the criteria. The criteria were first laid down, if I remember correctly, for Corbetts, and merely expanded to the rest of the country, so I would reckon that the criteria are not copyrightable. Also, where the OS data has not been resurveyed in the last fifty years it is now out of copyright.

I remember reading that the copyright problem with tables of functions was originally overcome by changing one digit at the fourth decimal place, but of course tables of functions are now out of copyright, too.

I am not saying that we should abandon the list of Marilyns (unless, of course, at any time we change to P100) it is just that I find the concept of copyrighting a list of natural features, whether it is Marilyns, stars in the sky or swallow holes above Cheddar Gorge (to add random examples) distasteful.

73

Brian G8ADD


#15

Most lists are of real-life entities. And lists can be copyrighted, protecting the work of the compiler. TV listings and league football fixture lists are two other examples. Alan Dawson defined the Marilyn, compiled the lists and wrote the book. Are you saying he’s not justified in copyrighting that work? No-one else did it. He isn’t claiming ownership of the fells, just protecting his work in writing about and listing according to his own definition.

Tom


#16

In reply to M1EYP:

Tom, the J. K. Rowling example is, I am afraid, frivolous. I can accept that Dawsons words are copyright, and justly so, what I find extraordinary is that someone can establish ownership of a list of physical features. The RHB as a copyright work is not at issue, here, it is the idea that making an ordered list from somebody else’s published work becomes intellectual property.

73

Brian G8ADD


#17

In reply to G8ADD:

Hear hear Brian, that’s what I wanted to say but I worded it wrongly.

Getting back to the point I was making, you can dress it up any way you like but the fact is, RHB control what is a sota summit and what isn’t. If they change a summit, then we do as they say and follow suit.

73

Mike GW0DSP


#18

In reply to G8ADD:

In reply to M1EYP:

The RHB as a copyright work is not at issue, here,
it is the idea that making an ordered list from somebody else’s
published work becomes intellectual property.

73

Brian G8ADD

In fact, why don’t MT look at the OS data and select all of the summits with 150m prominence and compile a list of such said summits and call them “SOTA’s” then copyright the list.

At least we would have control of the summits ourselves instead of RHB dictating to us.

73

Mike GW0DSP


#19

In reply to GW0DSP:

Well, to be fair, Mike, I see no problem with that. We need an objective summit list, and unless we are prepared to go to the trouble of creating our own we have to use an off-the-shelf one. There are not many choices and the attraction of the RHB list for me lies in their willingness to correct it where it turns out to be incorrect.

73

Brian

PS Crossover, there, Mike! But making our own list imposes on us the obligation to ensure that it is accurate and I think we have enough on our hands without going out with a staff and level to see if we can, say, squeeze Earls Hill onto the list (it only being one metre out!) Let RHB do the survey work and we can concentrate on the SOTA part.


#20

the idea that making an ordered list from somebody else’s published work becomes intellectual property.

It does so, because he has done it according to criteria he himself has invented. And used that criteria in how he selects the appropriate data and compiles the lists. The raw data might well be already there, but turning that raw data into the Marilyns list is Alan Dawson’s work.

Anyway, why are we arguing about it on here? The fact is that he DOES have the copyright for those lists, whether you think that is right or wrong. No debate on here will ever change that.

And Mike, just a question. How would you prefer to deal with the Thorpe Fell Top/Cracoe Fell question? It is (or appears to be) established that Cracoe Fell is higher than Thorpe Fell top, but there is insufficient drop between them for them to be considered as separate hills. Do you believe we should keep NP-025 regardless, even though we now know it not to be the summit of the vicinity? Do you believe that a delegation from SOTA should travel into the area to undertake its own independent survey? I would be interested to know what your approach would be.

Tom