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.
So, you are arguing are you Tom? I was merely debating.
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
Well I see two questions in that lot.
To answer your first question, I would have to accept being dictated to by RHB because that is what MT have decided for me.
To question number 2, I refer you to my answer to question number 1.
In the spirit of open debate Mike, take the open floor. In your ideal world, without any such constraints, how would you prefer to deal with this issue? If you have an alternative solution to the admittedly formulaic approach usually adopted, then please share it.
The best way to evaluate it will be to share it on here and subject it to a little peer review.
A little unfair, Mike, the German question arose from recognition of a distortion of the rules, whether deliberate or due to a misunderstanding it had to be put right so that we were all singing from the same hymn sheet. Furthermore the MT allowed them to adopt P100 to soften the blow, which sounds like a substantial sway to me. We could not go further than that without seriously compromising the principles of SOTA.
I also offer my personal word that any suggested alternative to RHB would get a dispassionate evaluation from me, and I’m certain from the others, too. I would go further. No suggestion to do with any aspect of SOTA from any source would ever be dismissed without consideration and discussion.
That said, I’m for my pit. I stayed up to see if 5 megs is performing but even the Yanks are down in the noise tonight!
A little unfair, Mike, the German question arose from recognition of a
distortion of the rules, whether deliberate or due to a
misunderstanding it had to be put right so that we were all singing
from the same hymn sheet. Furthermore the MT allowed them to adopt
P100 to soften the blow, which sounds like a substantial sway to me.
We could not go further than that without seriously compromising the
principles of SOTA.
Brian G8ADD
No more unfair than the post it was in response to Brian.
I would really like to elaborate here, but we all know what that would result in don’t we?
At the end of the day the six know better than the thousands, I suppose!
No more unfair than the post it was in response to Brian.
The post it was in response to invited you, openly, to suggest your alternative way of dealing with this issue. How can that be unfair?
As Brian has said, any suggestion or proposal you make wil be considered properly. But we can’t do that if we don’t know what it is. You have my email address if you prefer to do that away from the reflector.
I really don’t understand what the problem is here! Surely anyone can see as to why an ‘official’ list of summits has been adopted for SOTA.
I totally agree with MT adopting a list from a third party, as this removes (or should do!) arguments arising as to whether a summit should be added or not. If there is a strictly defined set of rules as to whether a summit qualifies or not, then it is fair to everyone. If the summit list has to change due to more accurate measuring, then so be it! (it will add another unique as well - surely this is also a bonus for some!)
SOTA at the end of the day is meant to be a fun activity, in which a set of rules has been added in order to measure your own performance against your OWN goals.
As in any sport etc, if your don’t like the rules, don’t take part!
In reply to M1EYP:
Not looked Tom but there must be a route up from Cracoe as the Armistice service is held at the war memorial on Cracoe fell each November.
In reply to M0CGH:
Well said Colin.
Some seem to think that constant moaning makes them into a majority.
If I hear the same record being played over and over again I soon stop listening.
I have been following the discussion on the RHB reflector and will make the decision on when to change the summits over, based on the date they choose to make their change.
As SOTA in England have chosen to use this list then we have to be guided by it. I will allow a decent period of time to elapse so that people (including me) get a chance to activate Thorpe Fell before it disappears.
I note the comment on not having the changeover at a weekend to avoid queues on the grass verge. I would rather have it at a weekend to allow lots of people an early opportunity to activate the new one. I would be interested in other views as well.
I also note the comments on this and other topics about expanding the list oh hills we use. These comments have not fallen on deaf ears (or indeed blind eyes as I have been reading them). There is a very small minority of SOTA activists posting to this reflector, but a very large majority reading it. The views of those who read are as important as the views of those who write.
The majority of personal e-mails received are still in favour of the status quo. I have considered the matter on 3 or 4 occasions and looked at a variety of scenarios and still come to the conclusion that the system we have in England at the moment is as good as we can have.
Creating our own list of hills is probably a non starter as it would either be subjective and therefore subject to constant arguing or be replicating work someone else has done.
With the exceptions of County Tops and HuMPS all other lists would be almost exclusively northern.
County Tops does not have the bulk to make it interesting and HuMPS have been discussed to death
My opinion remains that the use of HuMPS, while expanding the geographical availability of hills and increasing the overall number, would result in a dilution of the programme. We may attract a few more southern activators but we would also be introducing a huge amount of “drive ups” and eventually we would end up with mountain goats who had never seen a mountain let alone activated one. I believe this would lead to the eventual demise of the programme.
I must admit to be somewhat disappointed that you are against using HuMPS: I appreciate the point about “drive-ups” but my personal opinion is that this disadvantage is outweighed by P100 giving an increase in the number of really worthwhile full day mountain excursions involving multiple summits without the need to descend and drive. These mountain circuits are meat and drink to hillwalkers and I feel that increasing the number available to SOTA would tend to reduce the present dependence on the “quick up and down” and lead to more of an expedition orientation. Still, if the majority prefer the status quo, so be it.
In reply to G8ADD: “These mountain circuits are meat and drink to hillwalkers and I feel that increasing the number available to SOTA would tend to reduce the present dependence on the “quick up and down” and lead to more of an expedition orientation.”
BTW James (m0zzo) is there a quantifiable number of “votes” you would need to consider Humps? If so, you can count me as a “for humps”. What with diesel approaching £1.30 a litre, more meticulous planning is now needed before any activating trip.
There would be more circuit expeditions. There would be more excellent local hills. There would be more drive-ups. There would be more hills on private land, where even asking for advance permission would not be welcomed.
It is a balancing act, and James is doing exactly that, as well as canvassing opinion from the activating community. It is clear that James has weighed up all the pros and cons, as well as consulted widely with participants to arrive at his present view. It is not fair to compress all that down to “…that you are against HuMPs”.
I agree with most of James’ comments. The HuMPs have advantages such as widening participation, adding more summits of interest, perhaps offering more consistency with some EU associations and setting up some excellent circular routes in the main mountain regions. Disadvantages include diluting the programme, lowering the level of achievement for MG, introducing lots more “drive tos” and introducing significantly more summits on private land.
The only thing I disagree with in James’ comments is the preference to effect the changeover from NP-025 to NP-032 at a weekend to encourage lots of activations. This is not a good idea in my opinion, for reasons of environmental impact. This is particularly so in this area, where these tiny villages have very limited parking, usually relying on asking a local resident if it is OK to park on a verge or in a yard. I have always experienced goodwill from local residents in Thorpe (for instance), and don’t think we should put that to the test.
