I do agree with Stephan, DM1LE
Please, turn thinking ON
73's Kuba
I came close to using my position as Moderator to delete this post, Kuba. I make allowance for English not being your milk language, but the comment reads as an insult.
Managing SOTA erodes your spare time, the MT spend a lot of time running SOTA, thinking about SOTA and debating SOTA with each other. Our thinking has never been OFF, to use your idiom. You see the facilities SOTA provides and the activities that it supports, but you do not see the sheer hard work that goes into running SOTA. Your suggestion that the MT has not thought about this issue is wide of the mark. It has been well debated, the alternatives have been examined, and the most practical alternative has been selected.
I agree with this. Solution 1 will in particular avoid confusion if, say, an OE summit were activated by a German operator, or a Welsh one by an English operator, even though SOTA associations may have no political significance whatsoever, and thus we might not strictly need two or more references for one summit. Still, we need to take into account that summits worldwide have been used as reference points for defining borders of regions or countries, and in some places there may be rules restricting the crossing of said borders. However, I also understand that implementing this change may require some extra programming work.
However, I believe if the summit itself is clearly located within one country or region, and not a border point, then it should only count for this one association, even if the activation zone formally extends into the territory of a neighbouring association. In such a case, activations should only count from the territory in which the summit is located, and the part of the activation zone in the other be disregarded.
It is an interesting point I havenāt had a chance to take a note on. When double-thinking on this, I am not sure how current rules would treat this - I assume that the AZ term allows even now to activate a summit which peak is only in XX association, by staying on another side - provided it is within the AZ and meeting all other criteria - then using a mother callsign instead of XX/call/p. If the answer to this is āyesā, then I assume there will be not any difference here after the changes the MT is heading us to.
This is impractical, usually the border is not clearly marked on the ground, and if it is a segment rather than a straight-across division then it would take surveying equipment to define the zone to be disregarded. Much more importantly, what would you do if it is desirable to set up in the disregarded segment to get shelter from the wind? No, the AZ should be complete as defined by the SOTA criteria, and as defined by rule and customary usage.
Yes. Several people have said this: you do not need to be in the same country as the summit, provided that you are in the AZ. You use the callsign which is correct for your actual location. It sometimes confuses chasers who think youāve got it wrong, but thatās their problem.
Letās concentrate on fundamentals here: the only thing that the proposal changes is that it removes the ability to get double or more points for a single activation.
You can still activate from whichever side of the border you like. You can still cross the border and make more contacts with a different callsign. The only difference is that you will give the same summit reference both times, and of course only score once.
Itās a huge simplification and Iām all for it.
One of my local summits G/SB-004 Peel Fell has a very large activation area. The route up follows the border between England and Scotland and zig zags across it. The summit is clearly in England by a several metres. I have activated it on the English side of the border with my call sign G0CQK and on a separate occasion from the Scottish side with the call sign GM0CQK. But it is one summit with one set of points to be gained each calendar year.
Jim
I suggest that it is time we moved on and left the MT to get on with the task. It seems to be generally agreed that (provided that relevant rule changes are worded carefully) nothing changes for Activators except the rather dubious opportunity to obtain double points for a single activation. The AZ remains unchanged.
Some chasers will be confused; nothing new there - and I speak as a chaser myself
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the MT for all the work they and their associates have put in to the SOTA scheme. Viki, M6BWA, and I have had a huge amount of fun visiting summits we would never otherwise have found and revisiting others for the points. Our recent visit to the Lakes being a good mix of both.
What do we have maps for? Without them, and the level of detail they provide, SOTA would not work the way it does, anyway. As for the weather, if it is not conductive to an activation, well, youāll have to wait. If the terrain is very difficult, we might have to exclude the summit from the SOTA programme for reasons of safety anyway.
No matter if the SOTA guidelines/rules allow it or not, I find it inappropriate to activate a summit from a country or region it is not located in, even if part of the AZ may be in the other region. Should I ever find the time to go to the mountains and activate a summit or two, Iāll make sure to be on the proper side of any border - if I cannot access the area, I wonāt activate the place.
No objections to that, of course. Makes perfect sense. I believe that, in order to accommodate regional sensitivities, linking references of true border summits (i.e. peak on the border itself) seems to me the best way to do this.
[quote=āDL2LFH, post:49, topic:9677ā]linking references of true border summits (i.e. peak on the border itself) seems to me the best way to do this.[/quote]Weāre going round in circles. It has already been stated more than once above that adding this kind of link to the system is not a practical option.
Doing this, and getting it right, would almost certainly require some major changes to the database schema and some very tricky SQL. It would be a horrible job.
SOTA does not work that way. Summits are listed only based on meeting the prominence definition. Judgements about safety can only be left to the individual activator.
Itās just that the SOTA programme encourages humans to enjoy their inborn tendency of hunting and gathering, no matter whether multiple ref border summits, absurdly overvalued summits, etc. etc. etc.
All efforts to clarify and harmonize the rules are greatly appreciated (also from a sportsmanship point of view).
The General Rules tell you what can and what cannot be done within the award scheme. Anybody is welcome to impose additional limitations upon themselves if they so wish, as long as their personal limits do not contravene the rules. The MT have no intention of modifying their holistic view of summits to accommodate political boundaries. The AZ is defined only by topology.
No summits will be excluded on the grounds of safety. Bearing in mind the capabilities of rock and ice climbers, one manās ādangerousā might be another manās stroll in the park!
After reading carefully all the posts, I want to put my piece of true, with the only aim to be useful. Iām absolutely convinced that I will not write anything new, and that the MT has taken it all in their discussions.
So, here go the facts:
This is a hobby that all of us enjoy. Nobody comes here to make money or fortune.
All of us love radio and mountains, even some who canāt/donāt like hiking.
All of us are proud of our homelands and beautiful mountains.
These ones are the general and big ones, now, letās go with the reality:
For each mountain there is only one summit (you know what I meanā¦) It could have more than one name or reference, but there is only one. (i.e., we live in a country full of small valleys and almost in each of them, the surrounding mountains have different names. I could give you curious examples of more than 6 names for the same summit.)
The existance of more than one reference is an āhistoricalā matter that would have to be solved.
All activators want the most points for their activations. It implies that:
activating two references on a day can give them more points, or also the fact that
sometimes the same summit can give you more or less points depending on which association is located and/or is activated.
All of us want THAT particular summit to be in OUR association, not in the other one!
So all this carries us to:
The actual situation ought to be normalized.
This will certainly imply some kind of discussing, agreements, upsetting but, do you really think that 2,3,4 or more names of each summit might be written on the maps?
If that is made with good spirit from all the parts, it has not to be painful, hasnāt it?
Well,ā¦ we shall do it, but, at the endā¦ which reference will have MY BELOVED SUMMIT?
Here (at last) my proposal, (from more to less significancy):
1.- Agreement between AMās. (I can let you this summit if that other remains here or comes to us).
2.- Number of summits of each of the associations. The less favoured might mantain its reference.
3.- Number of activators/activations of each association. The bigger number of both would give the result.
4.- The reference which gives more points to the activator would be maintained.
5.- If all of these fail, Salomonic decision of the MT.
Here itās said: āIt never rains for everyoneās pleasureā, but we can do it and keep on enjoying SOTA,
Howās this for a radical idea: climb the hill for the sheer joy of movement, with the added bonus of talking with your friends on the radio. So, do away with the points system altogether. Problem solved.
