Another one bites the dust?

Summit Info
41

In reply to M1EYP:
“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”.”

Since you cannot invert the remark to “…that you are in favour of HuMPS” I feel that my sentence was semantically correct and an acceptable contraction of a concept that would otherwise have taken many words to expound. The sentence was in no way intended to be a criticism of James even if I did express a different viewpoint, so fairness doesn’t enter into it. Although I might sigh for the might-have-beens, I made it clear that I accepted the majority viewpoint.

Never the less, I still sigh for the might-have-beens!

73

Brian G8ADD

42

In reply to M0ZZO:
At least it’s not as bad as us WAB’ers. Complete re-write of awards from 1/4/09 due to many county and UA boundaries changing from then, spread over a period of 3 years…

Andy, when you’ve finished with the hitman wanted in another post - send him to Westminster, please!

Graham G4FUJ

43

No problem Brian. As you know, I have quite a soft spot for the idea of HuMPs, with the prospect of adding Mow Cop, Shutlingsloe, The Roaches, Chinley Churn, Eccles Pike etc, being rather appealing to me. I am also aware of a much greater percentage of ‘drive to’ summits and ‘no access’ summits which make it less appealing, both personally and for the Programme as a whole.

I’m just glad it’s not my decision! We can still do the might-have-beens though Brian. I usually go for a walk up Shutlingsloe every year, SOTA summit or not, and a circular I have planned in LD this summer will cover many more miles (and mountain route traverses) than if I was just activating the included SOTA summits as quickly as I could! There’s nothing to say we can’t do those excellent mountain routes, but I take your point that this would have encouraged more to do it that way.

HuMPs could still come in in the future if the concensus shifted. If it did, I feel I would have to walk the Pennine Way again. I can’t decide if that would be a bad thing or a good thing either!

Cheers, Tom M1EYP

44

In reply to M0ZZO:
A quick analysis of humps at work revealed the following figures (I only looked at England)
Adoption of Humps would provide another 264 summits in England worth a total of 433 points. Broken down as follows:-

10 pts - 2
8 pts - 5
6 pts - 11
4 pts - 12
2 pts - 25
1 pt - 209

In my opinion, the attraction of another 264 unique summits far outweighs the “diluting the program” argument. If someone was to do all the new summits, it would take them nearly 3 years to obtain Mountain Goat status. Or more likely if someone activated an average of 3 new summits per week, it would take them a very long time. Therefore I contend James`s statement “eventually we would end up with mountain goats who had never seen a mountain let alone activated one.” may be a bit of an over reaction.

45

In reply to M1EYP:

One possible way forward would be to designate the “no access” summits as not scoring for SOTA. The same might go for the “drive to’s”. The only disadvantage is that we would need to monitor the access situation so that “no access” summits could be restored to the roster if the situation changed. This is suggested irrespective of whether or not a change to P100 takes place (is it just me, or do others find HuMPS a particularly inelegant name!) I hasten to add that I’m only suggesting it for England, I know that on the continent there are many good hills with roads/funiculars/ski lifts etc to the summit!

A favourite none scoring hill for me is Earls Hill (known amongst climbers as Pontesford Hill) in Shropshire. I love the thought of doing Oak Tree Wall or Stoats Chimney and then going on to activate the summit, the best of all worlds! It only fails by one metre!

Before doing the Pennine Way again you should practise with the West Highland Way, I think the best footpath of all with lots of Marilyns along the route!

73

Brian G8ADD

46

In reply to G8ADD:2E0KPO:G1INK

I agree too, I cannot understand what the problem is in seriously considering HuMPS.

James says :

” the use of HuMPS, while expanding the geographical availability of hills and increasing the overall number, would result in a dilution of the programme.”

I disagree, why would it dilute the programme? We are not talking of many hundreds of extra summits (for England).

“…we would end up with mountain goats who had never seen a mountain let alone activated one.”

The implication here would seem to be that if someone eventually managed to achieve Mountain Goat status simply by having activated 1 or 2 point summits, this would somehow diminish the award because these do not count as ‘real’ mountains or that because there would be more summits, it would be a lot easier to achieve. Is this what you mean James ?. If not what did you mean please ?

“I believe this would lead to the eventual demise of the programme.”

I think exactly the opposite James, it would enhance the programme.

Tom writes:

“It is clear that James has weighed up all the pros and cons, as well as consulted widely with participants”.

Can we have some idea about how many participants have been consulted, and by participants are we talking about chasers as well as activators ?

“I’m just glad it’s not my decision!”

But it is your decision Tom (at least partially). James cannot ‘run’ with it without MT approval, and you are part of the MT last time that I checked HI.

IMHO adding HuMPS would have more advantages than disadvantages, but that is just my opinion and I appreciate that not everyone will agree. However I would like my opinion to be considered, not just dismissed. So, as far as the England Association is concerned, I ‘vote’ for the inclusion of HuMPS please.

Either way, let James know your views so that he at least has something to work with.

Mike G4BLH

47

In reply to G4BLH:

Mike, how nice to see you voicing your opinion on the reflector. I agree entirely with your post.

You have offered your “vote” for Humps in your post, but have you emailed James M0ZZO directly with you “vote” and another point we are voting for P100 and not humps, just to make sure the wording is accurate and leaving nothing in doubt.

73

Mike GW0DSP