G0AZS joins SOTA MT

Old Reflector
21

In reply to G8ADD:

In reply to F6ENO:

I imagine a higher prominence would be selected to keep the

number of summits in the area down to a manageable size, but the
morphology of the area has to be taken into account.

73

Brian G8ADD

I don’t understand your comment above Brian. Why would the AMs wish to deliberately exclude valid SOTA summits of minimum P100 by opting for a higher prominence than P100? I would have thought that most, if not all associations, are more concerned about the imminent loss of many summits and not worrying about having too many! Surely that’s what the debate is all about.

Mike GW0DSP

22

I interpreted Brian’s comment to be suggesting a possible reason why AMs might choose a higher prominence value, not suggesting that they should.

In some particularly mountainous areas of the world, P100 or even P150 could be nonsense. But then Alain makes an excellent point that a higher prominence value in mountainous areas could exclude the fellwalker and resrve participation for the mountaineer.

The local knowledge is the most important thing, hence why local AMs are free to propose their preferred prominence parameters for their associations, equal to or above the programme minimum of P100.

Tom M1EYP

23

In reply to DF9TS:
Hi Gerd

Thanks for your encouragement. I will certainly be trying to add as much value to the SOTA programme as I can. It is amazing what you can confirm with the right tools.

Regarding your mention of the “Schneekoppe”, I’m not sure if it’s the right one but I took a look at one on the border of Poland and the Czech Republic (although the actual summit is on the Czech side) and currently listed in SOTA as OK/KR-001 and SP/KA-001.

It does indeed have an maximum elevation of 1602m but the one I am looking at is a peak with a prominence of around 1000m.

Note that although it stands above the nearest saddle by just 200m (still better than P150), because it is higher than the neighbouring peaks, the prominence figure is actually just over 1000m.

An interesting peak indeed… but maybe this is not the one you meant.

73 Marc G0AZS

24

In reply to M1EYP:

But then Alain makes an excellent point that a
higher prominence value in mountainous areas could exclude the
fellwalker and resrve participation for the mountaineer.

Tom M1EYP

Precisely, that’s the main point, surely?

SOTA should encourage as much participation and activity as humanly possible, by all levels of ability, fitness and age etc, that’s why Brian’s comment confuses me, if a higher prominence than P100 was to be adopted, it has to not only reduce the amount of qualifying summits available, but would also limit the amount of participants able to take part in SOTA.

Mike GW0DSP

25

Hi All,

Some very interesting points are being raised in this discussion, despite it having veered away from the original thread. Just one point I would like to pick up on is a comment made by Gerd:

The consequences of applying P100 to DL/BE are just amazing if not to
say depressing. As an example for how P100 as single criteria is wrong
in lower mountain areas look at Schneekoppe which has only P60 but
with a dominance of 1,6km and is for that rightly regarded by locals
as an independant mountain - but not so by SOTA.

I appreciate that it is of little comfort, but this is surely true of all areas, both low lands and mountainous areas. Just looking at the G/CE area, I can name several summits that would not even qualify if P100 were to be applied, yet are regarded locally as significant hills. The situation is just the same when looking at an area such as Snowdonia - embarassingly I had to admit that I did not know a summit named by a friend that regularly walks in Snowdonia… it took several attempts for him to name a nearby SOTA summit to give me a guide as to where it was located. Obviously his mental map of the area was not restricted by the prominence of a summit and he just named the peaks close to that which we were discussing.

73, Gerald

26

SOTA should encourage as much participation and activity as humanly possible, by all levels of ability, fitness and age…

The stats show that UK SOTA activity has increased every year since the launch, so things seem to be healthy in that respect.

The choice of the Marilyns list (P150) for UK SOTA has done much to stimulate participation, offering a real diversity and spread in the summits available. Remember, I did a great many uniques with a 9 year old and a 5 year old in the party in 2002/2003.

Like Brian, I like the idea of classic “rounds” in the mountainous areas, with more SOTA summits that P100 would bring. Then again, there’s nothing at all stopping people doing these routes now! I passionately dislike the totally out-of-bounds summits (I think there’s one with an electticity substation or something on it near Cheltenham for instance), the non-descript “non-hills” (big flat moors with roads over the top in Derbyshire and Staffordshire) and drive-to summits.

I’m not saying that there aren’t instances of this already in P150 UK SOTA, but P100 brings a significant lot more of them. I hear more people saying that it’s the portable radio operating they are interested in, not the walking, these days. That’s fine, but there’s a long-established award for people with a liking for that sort of thing - WABEMA, which is basically the activator award in the Worked All Britain programme.

I know Brian thinks P100 would promote some better quality walking without bombing between summit parking spots in cars. P100, and the significant number of drive-tos it brings, would stimulate a lot more driving around and less walking I reckon.

Of course, local knowledge is the important thing, and why individual associations nominate their own association prominence. Pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages, but I happen to think that P150 is still absolutely spot on for England.

Tom M1EYP

27

In reply to M1EYP:

but I happen to think that P150 is still absolutely spot on for England.

I thought this was on the back burner until June 2009 :wink:

73, Gerald

28

In reply to M1EYP:

SOTA should encourage as much participation and activity as
humanly possible, by all levels of ability, fitness and age…

The stats show that UK SOTA activity has increased every year since
the launch, so things seem to be healthy in that respect.

Tom M1EYP

You have lost me Tom, sorry. What has the SOTA growth in the UK got to do with this debate?

I was under the impression we were discussing P100 in EU associations as per the comments to and from Gerd, Alain and Brian.

As Gerald rightly said P100 is on the backburner in the UK so why mention it?

Mike

29

It’s an illustrative example. The stats show even greater growth in EU associations. The examples described for G could apply in EU associations too - or not. It’s up to the AM to decide and recommend.

Tom

30

In reply to M1EYP:

It’s obvious that SOTA growth will happen, it’s the nature of the beast, especially as more associations join the scheme, but growth is not the issue here, the real issue is the effect of adopting P100, P150, P500 or whatever and the effect that has on the individual association’s summit lists and to some extent, the way in which the prominence chosen might affect some potential activators, ie fitness, age etc.

As you rightly say the prominence issue, with minimum of P100, is 100% in the hands of the AMs. Although that is the obvious way to go, the AMs surely knowing their areas better than anyone else, in my humble opinion, I think that absolute open debate on selecting the prominence setting for each area should be by absolute open debate between the AM and his participants to get an open showing of opinion, rather than by a secret ballot by email to decide the relevent prominence for each association.

Mike

31

In a perfect world, you would be right Mike. But some people are not as confident and will not contribute to a meaty debate such as this on a public forum, let alone declare their “vote”. I have been told by some prominent activators at the Blackpool rally in March that they will not participate in this discussion publicly. That must not mean that their opinion and/or vote should not count. It also must not mean that the integrity of the process is called into question.

In any case, I don’t want to second guess James. His words were that he would look at it again, not that he would hold a “consultation” or a “vote”, although he may well incorporate such methods.

Tom M1EYP

32

In reply to M1EYP:

I make it very clear that I personally most certainly don’t question the integrity of the system, or in fact that of James.

Unfortunately Tom, we don’t live in a perfect world and there are many who have and always will question private “votes”.

My suggestion of open debate would put any doubts beyond question. I’ll never understand why people can talk to you openly about the issue in Blackpool, but not on the reflector. Sometimes it’s the silent ones who can cause more problems than they can imagine. Still, that’s there choice and I respect it.

Mike GW0DSP

33

Dear All

To try and draw some kind of line under this thread that seems to have strayed a little…

The points are as follows:

We have a minimum acceptable prominence already agreed i.e P100

It is up to the AM to propose what actual prominence is reasonable/realistic for their association (within the rules) - based on whatever factors they wish to consider, (topography, etc) and whatever input they wish to receive (via whatever channel they wish to use).

We are developing better methods and tools to initiate, review,and implement summit lists. This is to the benefit of us all.

So please let’s leave it there for now and I really look forward to being part of the process.

73 Marc G0AZS

34

In reply to G0AZS:

Fair comment Marc, I always enjoy debate and some very good points have been made in the thread.

73
Mike GW0DSP

35

In reply to GW0DSP:

In reply to G8ADD:

I don’t understand your comment above Brian. Why would the AMs wish to
deliberately exclude valid SOTA summits of minimum P100 by opting for
a higher prominence than P100? I would have thought that most, if not
all associations, are more concerned about the imminent loss of many
summits and not worrying about having too many! Surely that’s what the
debate is all about.

Mike GW0DSP

Hi, Mike, why is it that so often an interesting debate bursts back into life on a day when I’m out testing concrete?

My point was not that the AM’s should wish to exclude valid SOTA summits, but that it is their task to decide which summits should be valid for their association within the parameters set by the program. I can enviseage the possibility that an association in an area where the morphology runs to very large numbers of summits would choose to limit the number of summits by increasing the minimum prominence, which is not to say it is likely to happen though it might be a hot topic in, say, the karst mountains in parts of China. Then again, as in the case of the G association, there might be debates about whether to change from P150 to P100, but that isn’t a debate about whether to adopt summits that are valid, it is about whether to validate potential summits.

I cannot see why you should think that many if not all associations are concerned about the imminent loss of summits. Surely this is overstated? Many associations are stable and concerned with increasing accuracy. As better data and software is becoming available associations might indeed lose some summits that had either been inadequately mapped or included due to human error, but the initial indications are that new valid summits may also be discovered. What I personally find really difficult to comprehend is why anyone would wish to retain summits once they have been shown to be invalid!

73

Brian G8ADD

36

In reply to G8ADD:

Yes Brian, you have missed the debate which has been very interesting with many good points made all around. You and your concrete, hi!

Just one point though, I have not heard a single comment, complaint or otherwise about potential new summits, all the complaints and there have been many, refer to summits which will be lost in January 2009 or other dates.

I think we must now respect Marc’s wishes and leave this topic for now.

73
Mike GW0DSP