And you are all in one country so all have access to all the summits in question.
And there is no potential political aspect.
Rod
[quote=“M0JLA, post:53, topic:9662”]And there is no potential political aspect.[/quote]But amateur radio generally tries not to be political as far as is practically possible.
[quote=“SQ6GIT, post:51, topic:9662”]And we would avoid potential tensions between associations, countries, licence holders, etc.[/quote]If a summit on a border happens to be in the other association is that really going to discourage folk from activating it? The summit’s still there, and, provided the activation zone’s accessible it can be activated, whatever name you give it.
[quote=“SQ6GIT, post:51, topic:9662”]we provide solution which will produce more complaints… Hm… 
[/quote]At present, I guess, complaints come in just about every time there’s a multiple activation. I figure that wouldn’t change much if there was a “one summit, multiple references” solution, but with a “one summit, one reference” solution the adjustments will generate some complaints for a short while, and they’ll then be forgotten. So, in the end there will be fewer complaints…
73, Rick M0LEP (who grew up with Kilimanjaro on the horizon…)
Yes, I think Andy explained it in post #43, first paragraph, saying “In the UK we have 3 licence levels, 2 levels only allows operation with the UK and are not valid for CEPT with 1 that is CEPT standard. In the US, I think only Extra Class is CEPT and the other 3 levels are not CEPT.”
Rick, definitely fewer complaints on multiple-reference activations, that goes without saying. I obviously meant opening other problems by resolving this one.
What makes you think that the complaints on new problems will be “for a short while” and “they’ll be forgotten”?
EDIT: Rick, please note that the alternative, and less intrusive (as they seem to be) solutions have been presented above, and they also remove the potential complaints about multiple-reference activations, plus they don’t create more divisions at all.
I changed my thinking on multi-region summits when I realized that a SOTA summit is an area, not a point.
A point can be on a border and in two regions simultaneously. A SOTA summit is really the activation zone (AZ). When the AZ is across two regions, I can think of three options.
-
Split it along the region boundary into two separate AZs, and add multi-AZ rules like are used for grid squares in the Fred Fish Memorial Award.
-
Make the whole AZ simultaneously in two regions. This only works if the regions have exactly the same AZ rules. I’m sure there are cases where that is not true.
-
Make the AZ in one region. This requires no new rules and no map-making. It does require manually going through the border summits and making database changes.
wunder
I have just checked on my atlas, and there is only one Mont Blanc.
(etc)
After this change, activators will still be able to activate border summits from within their own country, or country of choosing, with their home call or appropriate prefix of choice, provided that said country extends into the AZ as defined by the modal vertical 25m AZ rule.
So suppose there is a summit on the border between association XX and association YY. Suppose it currently has two SOTA references - XX/AA-001 and YY/BB-001. After the change it might just have one valid reference, say XX/AA-001. But activators would still be able to activate it from the BB side of the border with their BB prefix. There simply is not a problem.
The good thing is that we would get rid of silly ideas like ONE mountain having TWO or more SOTA references, and activators moving themselves a few centimetres to do a “new” activation for double (or triple) points.
I may have been one of the first to activate from one SOTA association while using the callsign prefix of another, when I activated Black Mountain G/WB-001 (as it was then) from the Welsh side of the border using MW1EYP/P many years ago. Of course that summit was deleted from the English association and became GW/SW-041, but it would still be possible to activate it either as M1EYP/P or MW1EYP/P depending on where I set up.
Nobody loses anything, or the opportunity to do anything with this change, it just makes the programme a whole lot simpler and clearer. We’ve discussed this ad infinitum on the MT over the years, and had border summit rules (many versions of) and the current free-for-all. None were/are satisfactory, and the obvious solution is, well, obvious. And yes, the concept of programming the Database so that a summit can only exist once, but could have two or more valid references, has been thoroughly examined, but it just has too much that could go wrong with it, and too much confusion it will cause for years to come, to be worth the hassle.
Apart from the fact that the MT allowed this situation to happen in the first place and the proposed change will cause an upset to some.
I like this idea - surely a KISS principle if ever there was one.!
Gerald G4OIG
Just as well we (MT) acknowledge we shouldn’t have allowed it. But we did allow it. And now we’re going to unallow it. The rules will be the same for everyone.
Yup, ain’t life a bitch.
This is putting right an error that goes right back to the beginnings of SOTA, before the time of the present MT - and it is not a proposed change!
Brian
[quote=“SQ6GIT, post:51, topic:9662”]1) link the summits in DB so the server scoring would allow just 1 score?[/quote]I suspect (based on Andy’s comments further up) that this would be a messy solution to implent in the database. Also, it would merely change the nature of the queries geterated by “one summit, multiple references” activations.
[quote=“G4OIG, post:58, topic:9662”]I like this idea - surely a KISS principle if ever there was one.![/quote]To me, the “one summit, one reference” solution is most definitely way ahead in the KISS stakes.
[quote=“SQ6GIT, post:55, topic:9662”]What makes you think that the complaints on new problems will be “for a short while” and “they’ll be forgotten”?[/quote]Because they’ll come, for the most part, at the time when the association changes happen. Once the changes are done and the explanations given, the situation will settle down. That’s how it’s worked in the past. I can’t see any reason why this set of changes should be any different.
73, Rick M0LEP
Actually it was more of an accommodation than an error. At the time it seemed a sensible compromise for border summits and was the one most likely to get new associations onboard. As the thread above indicates, there may well be no perfect answer but I, for one, am happy to let the MT sort it out (and take the subsequent flak of course).
PS are there any summits on the border between North and South Korea?,
Rick, I do see the differences in both solutions, I presented before. English is not my native language, so apologies if I didn’t state this clear. I mean - we all know what the MT is trying to fix and I see no-one objects this as such? Both solutions will achieve the primary target, so I see not much sense in any extended argumentation for that.
We should rather concentrate the discussion on potential ricochet for both (or more) solutions, in my view. Why don’t we simply analyse this better, with an inventory of cost/benefit? Including how much manual work it needs to be done in most of associations? Why not asking Association Managers to do a quick research withing their associations and come back with it? Again, I am talking about variants of the solutions, not justification to make the change we all seem to agree now.
And finally, I agree - KISS rule most of the time pays back. I never administrated the DB, so I might be wrong, but my assumption is - apart from other arguments presented before - changing the DB server formulas by matching the double references for a summit, and allowing scoring just once per year or so - sounds to me easier than reviews by dozens of ARM’s (measuring square meters?) of AZ’s in a country/association, one by one - seems to me a bit more effort consuming.
I could even step back more. Tom (M1EYP) - guess what - in my Atlas there is also one Mt. Blanc. I learnt it at primary school, and settled it up a few times later in my humble life. But we are talking about SOTA rules, and the Atlas for them is the SOTA GR handbook (Issue 1.16 2010); and guess what? Nothing mentions not to activate the same summit in more than one association. So, maybe it will be worth first stating the rule in SOTA Atlas first, just communicate the expectation first, instead of letting the dissatisfaction of not following unwritten rule for at least 4 years? I do not complain, but to understand the whole spirit took me a while, and this aspect is a vacuum in the GR as of now. Maybe it is even simpler than we all think - just to write one sentence in the GR? Without a clear statement on that, it leaves room for own interpretations.
I perceive it is always best to follow the order:
- Set the expectation/rule clearly
- Execute or resolve a problem if appears
versus:
- Expect something as granted, but undefined in the rules
- Allow the problem escalate to an elephant size, then reach out for an elephant rifle.
1 Like
I share completely the concerns of Konrad, SQ6GIT, that deleting existing SOTA-summits will produce severe complaints.
Isn’t it the wrong signal to spend effort in reducing the number of SOTA summits, while the number of SOTA participants is continually increasing? Wouldn’t that lead to a discouragement of the participants?
If the intended solution is now “one summit = one reference”, then the ancient mistake wasn’t to allow that a summit can be part of several associations and therefore can have several SOTA references.
Instead, the true mistake was to arrange summits into associations. A border summit is per-se part of two or more countries and consequently part of several associations.
For my understanding the complaints were not against multiple SOTA references of a border summit, but against the high uncertainty, whether a double activation of a border summit has been performed according to the rules and whether chasers can claim there points with good feelings.
And in my humble opinion this uncertainty is caused by the relevant SOTA rule, which can be interpreted within a wide scope.
So, why not clarifying the rule for activating a border summit, instead of removing already long available SOTA summits references?
1 Like
Quite. The situation that has arisen is not good and there’s no easy way out of it. MT is holding its hands up and accepting responsibility for this - and we’re fixing it.
There might be some disenchantment with our approach in the immediate term but the long term outcome for the programme and its participants will be the best available.
1 Like
Stefan - no summits will be removed in this process!
Stephan, no summits are being deleted, there will be no reduction in the number of SOTA summits. There will be a reduction in the number of summit reference numbers but there will be the same number of summits. This change recognises that a mountain is a single entity that should not be divided on political lines, and removes an opportunity to get something for nothing. That is all. And after all, do the rules not say that a summit can only be activated once for points in any year? If we look at the summit as a mountain rather than as a reference number, isn’t rule 3.7.1.13 a contradiction?
A new issue of the rules is in preparation.
Brian
My point wasn’t to raise any accusation against the MT, but to rethink whether removing the SOTA references will really solve existing problems.
Corrected: Existing SOTA-references will disappear from current associations lists.
I think the solution can be simpler if looking at it, just to update the GR first - a couple of minutes of work, and then communication rollout byt the Association Managers, plus some time margin for the participants acknowledging it.
Shall this be understood that the decision has already been made and any contributory feedback provided has very little chance to be considered, if at all?
The current rules say you can activate a summit with multiple references once per reference per year for points.
So for Naafkopf (HB/GR-338, HB0/LI-002, OE/VB-123) you can climb it once and get 3 sets of points.
-
If we change the rules so that you can only operate the summit once per year for points no matter how many references it has you get 1 set of points. The number of summits stays the same. The number of references stays the same.
-
If we delete 2 sets of references for Naafkopf you can only operate it once per year for points as there is only one reference. The number of summits stays the same. The number of references drops by 2.
With either case 1 or case 2 the activator gets the same points each year. Case 1 is difficult to implement in the database scoring code, not impossible though. Case 2 is simple, we delete some references. The number of summits is the same regardless.
Case 2 is the obvious choice as we have limited resources and we are reviewing every summit anyway to ensure the same rules are applied to all associations and that heights and locations are correct.
One country review showed that about 40 summits listed were invalid. So that’s 40 to be deleted. The same review showed there were 75 valid summits that were not yet listed. So that association will gain 75 new summits and will end up with 35 more than now when the invalid ones go. I’m not naming the association because I don’t have the accurate figures to hand, the net gain in summits is about 35.
Where a border summit has different names and loses a reference then the name will be updated to show both names. If you know it by name you will be able to search for either name and find it even if you didn’t know it was on a border and had a different name.
If only life was so simple! In fact I have spent many hours spread over months in revising the GR, going through past correspondence, posts etc finding out what parts of the GR have caused problems and how to change the wording to make the exact meaning clear. This particular problem is just one minor facet of the work.
Brian
I do agree with Stephan, DM1LE
Please, turn thinking ON
73’s Kuba